'Our purposes' is not entirely specific, even in our case. But
certainly some of the sounds of the natural world are a lot more
dynamic than guitar, drum, bass in a studio. If there is a place
where extra bit depth can show it's mettle it is certainly in nature
recording.
I'm not going to post any files because others have done this in much
more careful tests.
Here's one example where I was recording 16/48 and 24 would have been
better. I was recording a male lion roaring from 15 feet away. The
very beginning of the roar was so loud it clipped even though I had my
pots way down in anticipation. 24 bit would have given me more
headroom and would have soaked up the level much better.
Danny
--- In "Raimund Specht"
<> wrote:
>
> Scott Fraser wrote:
> >
> > <<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...>>
> >
> > No doubt in a number of cases this is true. It is also true that
in a
> > number of cases there is nothing speculative nor wishful in the
> > conclusions of highly trained experienced audio professionals who
> > have found one bit depth audibly superior to another.
> >
> > Scott Fraser
> >
>
> Of course, as mentioned before, I do not deny that there might be
> advantages under certain very special circumstances. What I would like
> to know is whether there are any advantages of 24 bit recording for
> OUR purposes. Please note that I'm just trying to understand and hear
> these differences on my own. I generelly do not trust any authorities
> in this regard. There are circulating just too many unscientific and
> esoteric opinions...
>
> Raimund
>
|