naturerecordists
[Top] [All Lists]

5. Re: Choosing the right sampling rate and sample size

Subject: 5. Re: Choosing the right sampling rate and sample size
From: "Jeremiah Moore" jeremiahmoore99
Date: Wed May 19, 2010 10:09 am ((PDT))
Do a test.  Record some audio with very low levels at 16bit and again at
Message: 24bit.  
Subject: Let's say, peaking at <=3D -50dB.  After recording, import both int=
o
your Daw and add 50dB gain.

If your recorder has the option to dither from 24 to 16 on record (as the S=
D
7XX recorders do) try it with and without dither.

A worthy exercise.

In film, 24-bit dialog recording has been a wonderful thing, providing the
dialog editor with access to low level material that would've previously
been difficult or impossible to use.

-jeremiah



On Wed, May 19, 2010 at 9:01 AM, umashankar <> wrote:

>
>
> i disagree. the real advantage of 24 bit is in capture. the extra dynamic
> range  - there is some, only not 144 db of it - really makes it possible =
to
> do very good field recordings. think of setting up so the loudest sound w=
ill
> not overload and be sure even of the quietest ambience is captureed above
> noise level. changing to 24 bit later on provides nothing. and if some
> processing requires a larger number of bits (as  in some kinds of filteri=
ng)
> software these days scales the samples automatically to create the headro=
om.
> most software mixes can be set to be done in 32 bit, for  instance
>
> umashankar
>
>  i have published my poems. you can read (or buy) at
> http://stores.lulu.com/umashankar
>
> ________________________________
> From: Scott Fraser <<scott_fraser%40earthlink.n=
et>
> >
> To:  <naturerecordists%40yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Wed, May 19, 2010 8:22:33 PM
> Subject: [Nature Recordists] Re: Choosing the right sampling rate and
> sample size
>
>
> <<There is definitely advantage to post-processing in 24bit, but not
> always an advantage to capturing in 24bit. It's easy enough to change
> a file 16bit -> 24bit in most editors and get the same advantages.>>
>
> While it's true there are very few circumstances in the real world
> which provide even a full 16 bit dynamic range I'm not sure adding 8
> extra empty bits at the bottom of the word for greater post processing
> resolution actually accomplishes anything. Current DAWs do their
> internal math at 32 bit floating point (or 48 bit fixed point in
> ProTools) so the extra empty bits are already being added within the
> DAW. When there is actual audio contained in the lowest 8 bits there
> will be an advantage when the numbers are rounded during any internal
> DAW processing, but I don't see how simply adding zeroes provides that
> same resolution benefit. Even though physics limits the maximum signal
> to noise ratio possible within any analog circuit preceding or
> following the AD-DA conversion to about the equivalent of 21 bits, I
> think I'd rather have the least significant 8 bits contain noise,
> since the ear/brain is capable of hearing coherent audio at a lower
> level than the uncorrelated noise.
>
> Scott Fraser
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
>
> "While a picture is worth a thousand words, a
> sound is worth a thousand pictures." R. Murray Schafer via Bernie Krause
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>



--
-----------------------------------------------------------
jeremiah moore | SOUND | 
http://www.jeremiahmoore.com/









<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>
Admin

The University of NSW School of Computer and Engineering takes no responsibility for the contents of this archive. It is purely a compilation of material sent by many people to the naturerecordists mailing list. It has not been checked for accuracy nor its content verified in any way. If you wish to get material removed from the archive or have other queries about the archive e-mail Andrew Taylor at this address: andrewt@cse.unsw.EDU.AU