At 8:48 AM -0700 5/14/09, Scott Fraser wrote:
><<Another issue that is often overlooked is that the 24 bit format
>option on most recorders provides only a relatively small increase of
>dynamic range compared to 16 bit.>>
>
>That is due to the molecular noise inherent in the analog portion of
>the A to D converter electronics imposing an unavoidable & absolute
>limit. The greatest signal to noise ratio attainable, above absolute
>zero, is approximately equivalent to a 21bit word length. Longer word
>lengths simply contain extra bits of noise, so although we have 24bit
>words in out data stream we can never truly attain 24bits of dynamic
>range.
>Nevertheless, digital storage is so cheap there is no compelling
>reason not to record at 24bits, especially when post production signal
>processing will be applied.
>
>Scott Fraser
>
Hi Scott-
I used to record everything at 24bit/48Hz because it made me feel
more on top of my practice, but money, time, materials, and
CPU-demand are all significant reasons to record to 16 bits. The
additional 5? bits are useful at the stock races and when a
thunderstorm rolls up, but in the natural spaces I record in, its
very rare for anything to top 80 dB. I feel there's little purpose in
making standard practice out of any option that rarely provides
advantage. I'm with you on mastering to 24 bit files, though. Rob D.
--
|