24 bit is needed for recording, maybe not so for playback. with good microp=
hones and preamps any sound picked up will be within the dynamic range of a=
24 bit system, and that means twiddling with levels.
umashankar
=A0 From: "'J. Charles Holt' [naturerecordist=
s]" <>
To: "" <>=
Sent: Sunday, May 31, 2015 8:24 PM
Subject: Re: [Nature Recordists] Question about 44.1 vs 96 kHz
#yiv2810263474 #yiv2810263474 -- #yiv2810263474 .yiv2810263474ygrp-photo-ti=
tle{clear:both;font-size:smaller;height:15px;overflow:hidden;text-align:cen=
ter;width:75px;}#yiv2810263474 div.yiv2810263474ygrp-photo{background-posit=
ion:center;background-repeat:no-repeat;background-color:white;border:1px so=
lid black;height:62px;width:62px;}#yiv2810263474 div.yiv2810263474photo-tit=
le a, #yiv2810263474 div.yiv2810263474photo-title a:active, #yiv2810263474 =
div.yiv2810263474photo-title a:hover, #yiv2810263474 div.yiv2810263474photo=
-title a:visited {text-decoration:none;}#yiv2810263474 div.yiv2810263474att=
ach-table div.yiv2810263474attach-row {clear:both;}#yiv2810263474 div.yiv28=
10263474attach-table div.yiv2810263474attach-row div {float:left;}#yiv28102=
63474 p {clear:both;padding:15px 0 3px 0;overflow:hidden;}#yiv2810263474 di=
v.yiv2810263474ygrp-file {width:30px;}#yiv2810263474 div.yiv2810263474attac=
h-table div.yiv2810263474attach-row div div a {text-decoration:none;}#yiv28=
10263474 div.yiv2810263474attach-table div.yiv2810263474attach-row div div =
span {font-weight:normal;}#yiv2810263474 div.yiv2810263474ygrp-file-title {=
font-weight:bold;}#yiv2810263474 #yiv2810263474
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!=A0
- Charles
(Pardon my terseness or typos, this was sent from my iPhone.)=A0
On May 31, 2015, at 8:02 AM, James Shatto [naturerecor=
dists] <> wrote:
=A0 The files are 16 bit, I hope that's not what you're recording at for =
the originals.=A0 Using 24 bit is soo much better for things that are quiet=
.=A0 There's also a bit of natural dynamic range compression with 24 bit (w=
hen converted to 16 bit).=A0 Assuming that your recording device supports i=
t.
Sounds are complex and while most of the sound is in the audible range, the=
re are harmonics that make up the character of the sound.=A0 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.=A0 And since it's sound "samples", there are =
higher frequency sounds that get sampled at half their frequency at lower s=
ample rates which makes things sound muddier.=A0 Most mics are tested for 2=
0Hz to 20kHz (assumed averages of human hearing), but they pick up sounds a=
lot higher than 20kHz.
Editing can reveal certain things.=A0 Notch filter at the dominant 5kHz fre=
quency and the cricket sound basically vanishes.=A0 Which seems to be diffe=
rent frequencies between the 44.1kHz and 96kHz samples.=A0 And you can do l=
owpass and highpass filters to make the sound fall within the capabilities =
of your speakers for even less mud.=A0 Which at 96kHz will include a lot of=
stuff not audible to most humans anyway.=A0 Audacity has these types of fi=
lters built into the application.=A0 As will most audio applications design=
ed for editing.=A0 Mixing any edits with the original can help soften the h=
arshness of the edits.
I always try to record at 24 bit and 96Khz since it keeps the editing optio=
ns open.=A0 Although I don't really notice much difference when using low e=
nd gear.=A0 And any deliverables I produce are rarely better than 16 bit an=
d 48kHz.=A0 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 r=
adio station transmitter that influenced the recording gear.=A0 It was very=
educational, but not something that I would use on a regular basis so I so=
ld them.=A0 Plus they made me sad when hearing how badly produced some of m=
y favorite tunes had been.
- James
On Sunday, May 31, 2015 1:53 AM, "BinauralBrisbane =
ail.com [naturerecordists]" <> wrote:
=A0 Hi, in my experience the difference is similar to taking a high-mega=
pixel 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.=A0A high resolution recording h=
as a lot more information and affords more leeway if you want to quieten un=
wanted 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] <na=
> wrote:
=A0 Yes, i did some test a few years ago and everyone whom i asked could=
tell a difference with bird sounds and insects. I was surprised. This was =
playing it back on a good system.
I got a couple recordings of a creek today using my PCM-M10 and the built=
-in mics (using a Rode Dead Kitten for a windscreen). I took one at 44.1 kH=
z, and another at 96 kHz just to see if I could detect any difference (expe=
cting the answer to likely be no). To my surprise, not only could I definit=
ely 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 hear=
ing):
.....
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 crea=
ting 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 k=
Hz, file size be damned.=A0
--
http://www.gardenofsensualdelight.com
https://soundcloud.com/crystalawareness/tracks
|