James,
I've been down the rabbit hole before with 24- vs 16-bit, and with music it=
's an imperceptible difference. I suppose when recording quiet nature sound=
s that it could make a difference, so I'll at least give it a try. The M10 =
will go up to 96kHz/24-bit PCM. Looks like I'm gonna need that extra memory=
card after all. ;)
I'm a member of the Apple Consultants Network, so I was able to get Logic P=
ro X for a very good price. I started playing around with it and gave up on=
Audacity very quickly. It's an impressive piece of software!
- Charles
(Pardon my terseness or typos, this was sent from my iPhone.)
> On May 31, 2015, at 8:02 AM, James Shatto [naturerec=
ordists] <> wrote:
>
> The files are 16 bit, I hope that's not what you're recording at for the =
originals. Using 24 bit is soo much better for things that are quiet. The=
re's also a bit of natural dynamic range compression with 24 bit (when conv=
erted to 16 bit). Assuming that your recording device supports it.
>
> Sounds are complex and while most of the sound is in the audible range, t=
here are harmonics that make up the character of the sound. At low samplin=
g rates like 44.1kHz which maxes out at a theoretical 22,050 Hz you miss ou=
t on a lot of the soundscape. And since it's sound "samples", there are hi=
gher frequency sounds that get sampled at half their frequency at lower sam=
ple rates which makes things sound muddier. Most mics are tested for 20Hz =
to 20kHz (assumed averages of human hearing), but they pick up sounds a lot=
higher than 20kHz.
>
> Editing can reveal certain things. Notch filter at the dominant 5kHz fre=
quency and the cricket sound basically vanishes. Which seems to be differe=
nt frequencies between the 44.1kHz and 96kHz samples. And you can do lowpa=
ss and highpass filters to make the sound fall within the capabilities of y=
our speakers for even less mud. Which at 96kHz will include a lot of stuff=
not audible to most humans anyway. Audacity has these types of filters bu=
ilt into the application. As will most audio applications designed for edi=
ting. Mixing any edits with the original can help soften the harshness of =
the edits.
>
> I always try to record at 24 bit and 96Khz since it keeps the editing opt=
ions open. Although I don't really notice much difference when using low e=
nd gear. And any deliverables I produce are rarely better than 16 bit and =
Message: 48kHz.
Subject: I had studio monitors at one time and they did reveal some not very=
audible things, like the low end rumble of handling noise and even a radio=
station transmitter that influenced the recording gear. It was very educa=
tional, but not something that I would use on a regular basis so I sold the=
m. Plus they made me sad when hearing how badly produced some of my favori=
te tunes had been.
>
> - James
>
>
>
>
> On Sunday, May 31, 2015 1:53 AM, "BinauralBrisbane =
.com [naturerecordists]" <> wrote:
>
>
>
> Hi, in my experience the difference is similar to taking a high-megapixel=
RAW photograph or a high-megapixel JPEG- to look at the pictures they both=
appear the same and basically they are. It's when it comes to editing that=
you really appreciate the difference.
> A high resolution recording has a lot more information and affords more l=
eeway if you want to quieten unwanted background noise or play around with =
low frequencies etc- to me that's the most important difference.
> If I'm just going to record and not edit I use 44.1kHz or even a high res=
mp3- to my ears they sound the same.
>
> Kind Regards,
> Tony (Binaural Brisbane)
>
>
>> On 31 May 2015, at 14:51, crystal [naturerecordists] =
<> wrote:
>>
>>
>> Yes, i did some test a few years ago and everyone whom i asked could tel=
l a difference with bird sounds and insects. I was surprised. This wa=
s playing it back on a good system.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> I got a couple recordings of a creek today using my PCM-M10 and the buil=
t-in mics (using a Rode Dead Kitten for a windscreen). I took one at 44.1 k=
Hz, and another at 96 kHz just to see if I could detect any difference (exp=
ecting the answer to likely be no). To my surprise, not only could I defini=
tely hear a difference, but I can also see a very obvious difference in the=
spectrogram generated by Izotope RX 4. Here=92s what I=92m seeing (and hea=
ring):
>>
>> .....
>>
>> Note that the recordings are directly from the M10 without any editing.
>>
>> Firstly, I see in the 44.1 kHz recording that the cricket sounds are cre=
ating a very visible band at around 5 kHz with a secondary band at about 5.=
8 kHz. In the 96 kHz recording, the same crickets are now two less distinct=
bands at 10 kHz and 15 kHz. Can someone explain to me what=92s causing the=
apparent compression? My expectation was just that I simply would lose the=
higher frequencies with the lower sampling rate, but that doesn=92t appear=
to be the case.
>>
>> Based on this result, my impulse is to start recording everything at 96 =
kHz, file size be damned.
>>
>>
>> --
>> http://www.gardenofsensualdelight.com
>> https://soundcloud.com/crystalawareness/tracks
>>
>
>
>
>
|