I am not sure what started this "hostility" towards gear and 24-bit
recording. We don't record in a studio, and we don't or shouldn't have
control over our subjects. In many cases this leads to wild, unexpected
variations in signal levels, which causes loss of signal quality and
clipping. This is what makes recording nature sounds the the most
challenging and difficult to record. No experience can somehow overcome the
unknown nature of recording nature sounds when recording a soundscape of
ambiance. No experience can predict if say a coyote will be 250 yards away
or 100 feet away in the dark. My experience has taught me to expect the
unexpected, just like the time the elk suddenly came walking towards me. As
luck would have it, I was recording low enough to capture that elk. Sure, a
stream sound, an even chorus, or something simple like that is easy to set
up, as it doesn't change much. You could record at low gains all the time in
16-bit and wonder later why the recordings come out laced with noise. Other
times, one can make good guesses, and I guess good most of the time, but I
would rather have the power of electronics perform it's advantages, when it
can, to record more quantity of quality files. That way I can concentrate on
better things like finding a better position, getting closer to subjects, to
further push the limits of equipment, then later in the studio figure out
which files sound the best. Good equipment can make a significant
difference. I have always pushed the limits of whatever I was using. For
many years I used Sennheiser elements inside custom PZM reflectors,
connected to my own preamps and used mini-disc recorders. I was able to get
some great files with those set ups, but now find that since I have a fancy,
dancy new fangled preamp and recorder that I could have been getting better
results much more easily. Technology, when properly applied, has always been
beneficial and can make a beginner better than someone not making use of it.
The whole argument of 24-bit recording will be lost in a couple of years as
no new equipment will record anything else but 24-bit on flash discs, and no
new mini-disc recorders will ever be made. Not to say all of those recorders
will actually obtain 24-bit performance though. I can only say embrace the
advantages and use them to record more quantity of quality. I am very happy
with my 24-bit recorder, with my rather modestly priced Rode NT1-A's, and
just grinning over my new preamp. I am now making much better recordings for
my customers to enjoy, and I am already getting feedback that they really do
notice a definite increase in quality even though my work was very good in
the past. If my customers enjoy it better, then it must all be worthwhile.
My three cents, this time ;-)
Bruce Rutkoski
www.natureguystudio.com
Re: 24 bit vs. 16 bit
Posted by: "Walter Knapp" waltknapp
Fri Jul 27, 2007 11:20 am (PST)
Posted by: "Bruce"
> Yes, I used to use a 20dB cut on one channel of a stereo recording when I
> had no idea where to set gain in conditions where I would be closer or at
> unknown distances from say owls and coyotes. That was when I was after
> singles and I didn't care if one channel got clipped a lot. Yes, I could
use
> two stereo recording setups set at different levels and that would be the
> best technique. But it is hard enough to lug around one stereo set-up,
keep
> the batteries charged, and would drive me a little crazy dealing with all
> the flash cards and backups. It would also be pretty expensive, so I will
> stick with recording 24-bits at lower levels for now.
Like with the solid state memory discussion, this problem of clipping
for experienced recordists is overblown, it's much more just a
beginner's problem. I record only in stereo, and with a portadisk (an
ancient recorder now by the group's standards). I have very little
problem with clipping. And I use highly sensitive MKH or Telinga mics.
And do use a carefully thought out pad.
Part of that is field experience. Part of that is also listening and
evaluating the site before recording (also applying experience in my
listening) And it's in knowing my subjects.
Walt
Re: Field Experience
Posted by: "Walter Knapp" waltknapp
Sun Jul 29, 2007 9:24 am (PST)
Posted by: "Scott Connop"
> I would like to echo Walter Knapp's comment to a certain degree. When the
thread on 24 bit vs. 16 bit got heated, I had the sense that what Walter was
trying to do was emphasize field knowledge and technique. In other words,
there was little sense arguing about minute (relatively speaking)
differences in sound quality when field recordists were not doing their
utmost to maintain sound integrity through technique in the field. One of
the greatest headaches I ever experienced in the field came from using my
gear in humid tropical environments. The number of things that can go wrong
while standing on a narrow path in the Amazon while a thunderstorm is
bearing down are vast and varied and one learns that the greatest leap in
sound quality starts with the original capture of the sound. After that, all
of us can get carried away with the wealth of ability we now possess to
duplicate and process those sounds.
You can't buy your way into experience, you have to earn it by being out
there doing. It does not matter if it's nature recording, photography,
or whatever. I see this all too often, people buy the pro equipment and
then wonder why they don't get the pro results instantly. So often they
then blame the equipment and begin a long string of buying trying to buy
results that can't be bought. The pro equipment is only part of the
equation. Even a pro will take some time with a piece of equipment to
get the best out of it.
Get out there and record. And pay attention to what you did right or wrong.
Walt
|