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/
|