I know this thread is becoming annoying to Martyn, Walt and several
others here who yearn for a more idilic earlier version of the Nature
Recordists group, but it seems to me absolutely on-topic for a group
with such a name. Threads like this are among the main reasons I'm
here. But it's your list, Martyn. You're perfectly free to purge me or
anyone else who you feel has ruined it for you.
Now regarding 16 bit vs 24 bit, I've debated the pros and cons of this
for many years, especially since much of the source material for my
paying work still comes to me on DAT tape (that needs to change soon)
and goes out the door on audio CD, destined to be data compressed at
several radio networks before being broadcast on FM radio at best. For
mostly voice-based projects with that kind of work flow and destiny, I
keep it 16 bit. The final product is excellent. If ProTools supported
mixed bit depths in the same session, I'd possibly re-consider. But for
now it's a matter of economics. So far Raimund's and Walt's claims are
in perfect sync with my own experience. (Studio albums and
music-for-media projects, which I still occasionally do, are different
and usually justify 24 bit.)
However, now that I have a 24-bit capable field recorder (and yes, I
realize these systems don't actually deliver full 24-bit resolution), I
started this thread to seek some help in weighing the trade-offs
between media and battery consumption in the field vs sound quality.
During the last two weeks, besides reading all the facts, opinions and
ruffled feathers here, I've done some of my own A/B listening tests,
carefully comparing 16-bit recordings with 24-bit recordings made under
the exact same conditions. Up-converted and down-converted. Truncated
and dithered.
Here are my general impressions, if anyone is interested (and remember,
I came to this slightly reluctant to pay the price to go 24 bit)...
* I can hear a subtle improvement in detail and clarity in my 24-bit
test recordings, compared to the 16-bit recordings made under the exact
same conditions. I say subtle, but it's just noticeable enough to tilt
me toward 24 bit whenever possible. Noise-level differences are not as
big an issue as I expected. The tilting point for me is the slight
improvement in clarity and detail. (BTW, this improvement does not seem
to totally disappear when the original files are properly
down-converted to 16 bit.)
* When 24-bit files are are down-converted to 16 bit, with and without
dither, dithering wins. In this case it's about subtle differences in
low-level noise. Bottom line: sound doctrine is sound doctrine. Always
apply dither when reducing word length.
I'm not going to post my test files. You do your own... or not.
Curt Olson
Raimund Specht wrote:
> Danny, can you provide an example for such a "much richer sounding" 24
> bit recrding in contrast to 16 bit?
>
> As an electrical engineer with plenty experience in designing digital
> signal processing systems, I must admit that I cannot understand why
> there should be such a big difference at least for recording the soft
> sounds of nature.
>
> It is my impression that this kind of audiopile tech talk is nothing
> else than unproven speculation or wishful thinking that is of course
> suppported by the marketing propaganda of the gear manufacturers...
>
> Raimund
>
> Danny Meltzer wrote:
>
>> I wholeheartedly agree.
>>
>> 24 bit is much richer sounding than 16 bit.
>>
>> 96khz is only a bit more defined than 48khz.
>>
>> Of course...IMHO.
>>
>> Danny
|