Record in 44khz 16 bit 96khz 24 bit

Discussion in 'Digital Audio' started by waloshin, Mar 13, 2012.

  1. waloshin macrumors 68040

    waloshin

    Joined:
    Oct 9, 2008
    #1
    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.
     
  2. simsaladimbamba

    Joined:
    Nov 28, 2010
    Location:
    located
    #2
    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.
     
  3. dj-anon macrumors member

    dj-anon

    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2011
    #3
    24 bit, besides what simsaladimbamba said, it also benefits you when editing and processing the audio.
     
  4. ChrisA macrumors G4

    Joined:
    Jan 5, 2006
    Location:
    Redondo Beach, California
    #4
    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
     
  5. SchwartzSound macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Apr 2, 2012
    #5
    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.
     
  6. jnpy!$4g3cwk macrumors 65816

    jnpy!$4g3cwk

    Joined:
    Feb 11, 2010
    #6

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

Share This Page