Danny,
I trust that this is your honest opinion. It is indeed difficult to
evaluate these things objectively...
Just a few more thoughts:
As long as the inherent noise floor of the microphone exceeds the
quantization noise (or "truncation noise") of the 16 bit file format
by lets say 10 dB, I'm afraid the differences between a 24 bit and a
16 bit representation could even not be measured.
On the other hand, it is even possible to measure recorder artifacts
that are not audible. For instance, it is possible to detect digital
clock noise components in nearly all profesional recorders by using a
sufficiently long averaging interval (FFT size: 64K):
http://www.avisoft.com/test/noisefloors.pdf
Certainly the individual SD722 recorder that I initially tested
produced relatively strong noise peaks at multiples of 4.8 kHz.
Though, I was unable to hear them because the human hearing system
employs a much shorter averaging time than the applied FFT analysis.
I recently sent this SD722 unit to back to Sound Devices and they
generously returned a brand new one, which does not produce such
intensive artifacts. However, the artifacts are still there, but at a
much lower level. So, no reason to worry.
Raimund
Danny Meltzer wrote:
>
> Yeah Raimund,
>
> I can only say it is MY honest opinion. I could post files and people
> could debate. All I meant was that I truly believe and can clearly
> hear a big improvement in recording in 24 bit. You can take that
> however you wish.
>
> Danny
>
> --- In "Raimund Specht"
> <recordingbird@> 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
> > >
> > > --- In Scott Fraser
> > > <scott_fraser@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > <<Sorry if this adding to the confusion but no one has
> > > > mentioned 96kHz sampling rate?
> > > > Would this make 'more' of a difference than 24 bits
> > > > would perhaps to any recording?>>
> > > >
> > > > In my experience, & that of the golden-eared producers I often
> work
> > > > with, the difference between 16 & 24 bit is hugely more
> discernible
> > > > than the difference between 44.1k & any higher sampling rates.
> > > >
> > > > Scott Fraser
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
|