Subject: | Re: 16 bit vs 24 bit Information Theory Hypothesis |
---|---|
From: | "Tim Nielsen" supernielsen |
Date: | Sat May 26, 2007 6:47 pm ((PDT)) |
Hate to break it to you, but recording a quiet -40 dB level signal in nature is no different than recording a -40 dB in a music studio. The program material itself has no relevance to the discussion at hand. We're talking level of sound and bit-depth and resulting noise and imaging and they're completely independent of program material. On May 26, 2007, at 3:37 PM, Walter Knapp wrote: > That's what a lot of us have been saying. In the perspective of the > overall sound quality in Nature Recording it approaches a tempest in a > teapot. Note carefully, I said Nature Recording, recording in a studio > or concert hall of music and such like is a different set of > techniques > and goals and applying what music recordists do to what Nature > Recording > should do, or even claiming that being expert in music recording makes > you more knowledgeable in Nature Recording is very questionable. |
Previous by Date: | Re: 16 bit vs 24 bit Information Theory Hypothesis, Tim Nielsen |
---|---|
Next by Date: | Re: 16 bit vs 24 bit Information Theory Hypothesis, Lou Judson |
Previous by Thread: | Re: 16 bit vs 24 bit Information Theory Hypothesis, Tim Nielsen |
Next by Thread: | Re: 16 bit vs 24 bit Information Theory Hypothesis, Lou Judson |
Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |
The University of NSW School of Computer and Engineering takes no responsibility for the contents of this archive. It is purely a compilation of material sent by many people to the naturerecordists mailing list. It has not been checked for accuracy nor its content verified in any way. If you wish to get material removed from the archive or have other queries about the archive e-mail Andrew Taylor at this address: andrewt@cse.unsw.EDU.AU