Record in 44khz 16 bit 96khz 24 bit

waloshin

macrumors 68040
Original poster
Oct 9, 2008
3,171
66
If you were using an audio recorder such as a Sony Pcm m10 and were recording nature; what would you record in: record in 44khz 16 bit or 96khz 24 bit?

With the Sony Pcm m10 by it self no extra mics.

Or

With a Condenser microphone.
 

Nov 28, 2010
22,668
27
located
24 bit is better, as the resolution of the incoming signal (analog, though via 3.5 mm connection) is stored with a resolution 256 times better than the 16 bit audio, which might help with the fine nuances in nature recordings.
 

dj-anon

macrumors member
Mar 23, 2011
93
2
24 bit, besides what simsaladimbamba said, it also benefits you when editing and processing the audio.
 

ChrisA

macrumors G4
Jan 5, 2006
11,601
384
Redondo Beach, California
If you were using an audio recorder such as a Sony Pcm m10 and were recording nature; what would you record in: record in 44khz 16 bit or 96khz 24 bit?
24-bits and 96K is a good recording format. But later after editing and post production the "CD format" is 16-bits and 44.1K and this is good enough for playback
 

SchwartzSound

macrumors newbie
Apr 2, 2012
12
0
If you have the storage room on your recorder, I'd always recommend using the highest quality available. That way you'll always have the best possible master recording, you can always down-convert later on depending on your destination media.

24-bit resolution doesn't really get you more nuances per se, but it does increase your audio capture dynamic range. If you are recording quiet sounds, or sounds with dynamic (or unpredictable) levels, using 24-bit can benefit your recordings by significantly lowering the digital noise floor. In that sense, you will better be able to capture quiet sounds (and boost levels later on), which could be said to allow for more detailed nuances. For nature recordings, which are often unpredictable and quiet, this would be a good idea.

96 kHz doesn't necessarily help you as much in this case, unless you're trying to capture super sonic sounds (you'll need a microphone that can capture these frequencies as well) which can occur in nature, like sounds of bats. However if you plan to apply post-processing on the sounds, or perhaps slow them down or do some creative manipulation, 96 kHz will help you accomplish that with better quality results.

Using external condenser microphones is typically better than the built-ins in the case with all digital audio recorders (not saying the built-ins are bad). If you have access to external mics I would use those, and even do a sound test between them to see what sounds better to you and with your equipment.
 

jnpy!$4g3cwk

macrumors 65816
Feb 11, 2010
1,100
1,293
If you were using an audio recorder such as a Sony Pcm m10 and were recording nature; what would you record in: record in 44khz 16 bit or 96khz 24 bit?

With the Sony Pcm m10 by it self no extra mics.

Or

With a Condenser microphone.

96khz 24 bit will allow you to do repeated postprocessing without compromising the final quality.