At 8:10 AM +0000 5/12/09, Raimund Specht wrote:
>Hi Steve,
>
>I would also claim that recording at 24 bit or 96 kHz does not have
>a significant advantage for typical nature sound recording.
...
>It can also be seen (and heard) that the dynamic range of most
>nature recordings (certainly soundscapes) is usually very limited.
>The dynamic range that is present in those environments (except
>perhaps thunder) can be easily covered by a 16 bit recording system.
This is an important factor. I know that people who work in the rain
forests or around high animal densities or use dishes have different
experiences, but here in the Midwest US, almost all of the natural
content from night presence to the loudest daylight calls for ambient
recording will fall within a 30dB range. 16 bits should be adequate
for this. I also found that when I adjusted my record gain low enough
to use 24bits to accommodate the rare, not so important events, some
of them still over-modulated and the resulting saturation of the
recordings was so low that I had to crank up my monitors or put the
files in an editing app just to run through them. This can be a lot
of extra time to spot check material or extra time spent amp/speaker
calibrating.
There's another, humorous if not practical argument for 16bit/high
gain recording I've stumbled onto. (I run my record gain 60-75dB.)
When I'm editing "soft" material and there's an unexpected gust of
wind or a squirrel who puts on a close-mic performance, the file is
_clipped_. I have my monitoring level set so my speakers only jump a
couple of inches off the stands at 16 bits opposed to higher
elevations at 24. :-) Rob D.
--
|