On 19/05/2010, at 1:15 PM, Dan Dugan wrote:
> Even with a noisy recorder, a 24-bit master has more room for processing =
later, no harm in turning it up in post.
There is definitely advantage to post-processing in 24bit, but not always a=
n advantage to capturing in 24bit. It's easy enough to change a file 16bit =
-> 24bit in most editors and get the same advantages.
I agree its a dirty secret - even the SD recorders are effectively 18bit or=
19bit if you prefer a-weighted noise levels. Even so an additional 12-18d=
B headroom is very worthwhile, and a nice safeguard against an overflying C=
ockatoo.
I personally record at both 24/48 and 24/88.1 and find there is always a n=
oticeable loss of depth and detail when resampling and reducing bit rate fr=
om 24/88.2 to 16/44.1 I'm not sure if this is down to Wave Editors Izotop=
e SRC and dither or simply a attribute of 16/44.1 recordings. As an aside, =
I have an acquaintance who is a very well respected conductor. He has done =
extensive listening tests at various sample rates and bit depths using his =
own recording sessions and he swears that 24/192 comes closest to what he i=
s hearing when he conducts the original session. None of this constitutes =
a scientific proof that high sample rates give better sound quality, so for=
now I'll trust my ears.
cheers
Paul
|