AF-101 16 Bit Audio Recording ?

Jade Lane

Jade Lane

Active member
Looks like I'll be hanging onto my Zoom H4N,

Why haven't Panasonic included 24bit/96Khz audio recording with the AF-101 ?

Would it really have cost that much more to include ?

Didn't think 16Bit was being implemented anymore.

I'll still be getting one but thought I'd bring this up for discussion as it doesn't seem anyone's mentioned it yet (unless I'm blind?) . . . .
 
Honestly though think about it, the audio will be on par with the cameras in its price range. of course if your needs demand 24/96 than so be it, but if it's just a general concern about it being good audio, i'd not worry, it will be plenty better preamps than you're used to in the DSLRs
 
Yeah the sound will certainly be better than the 5DMK2 (which is not hard) but DSLR's weren't really designed for this purpose, it just makes no sense to me that they'd not include 24bit?

Would it have changed the production costs so much ?

'Sound is 70% of what you see' as they say.......
 
The technology is implemented in a cheap (£200) & small Zoom H4N with great results, why not with the AF-101 ? would it be so different ?
 
Surely everyone needs 24bit/96Khz ? Unless you're filming just for the internet.

I thought it industry standard these days.
 
plus 48/16 is the deliverable for most jobs I've seen, heck CD's are 44.1. I remember people thinking 48 had a lot over 44.1.
 
Jade Lane said:
Surely everyone needs 24bit/96Khz ? Unless you're filming just for the internet.

I thought it industry standard these days.
Click to expand...

You thought wrong..... Also you will never find an mp3, commercial cd recording past 16 bit/ 96k. Only place you will find that is in Dvds/Movies. Regardless though your thinking to much into the sample rate as there is a lot more to do with audio than that.
 
life4eva said:
You thought wrong..... Also you will never find an mp3, commercial cd recording past 16 bit/ 96k. Only place you will find that is in Dvds/Movies. Regardless though your thinking to much into the sample rate as there is a lot more to do with audio than that.
Click to expand...

Why is everyone so concerned with sample rates and bit rates, if they're not happy with the AF's codec it's its audio recording capabilities. I really wish people could give it a rest until the camera comes out.
 
Jade Lane said:
Looks like I'll be hanging onto my Zoom H4N,

Why haven't Panasonic included 24bit/96Khz audio recording with the AF-101 ?
Click to expand...
Might want to rethink that after you test it. I haven't tested it, but I wouldn't be surprised if the AF100's audio sounds better than the Zoom. Regardless of how many bits are used. As life4eva said, there's far more to it than just the number of bits.

45 megabits of h.264 on the DSLR can't compete with 21 megabits of h.264 on the AF100.

Proper pre-amps and processing circuitry could make 16-bit 48khz sound better than 24-bit 96khz from a $200 recorder. Not saying that it does, just saying that it could.

Didn't think 16Bit was being implemented anymore.
Click to expand...
Seriously? That's all that is being implemented. I think the HPX3100 is the first pro video camera that offers 24-bit. Everything in the "affordable" categories is 16-bit. (doesn't mean it's the best, it just means that it's the standard). 24-bit recording in a camcorder is pretty much nonexistent, at least in the under-$20,000 arena. Who has 24-bit? Canon doesn't in their newest releases (XF305); Sony's $15,000 PMW-320 doesn't have it, the EX1/EX3 don't have it...

So, no. The standard is 16-bit. 24-bit is not common in video cameras, at all.
 
Barry_Green said:
Might want to rethink that after you test it. I haven't tested it, but I wouldn't be surprised if the AF100's audio sounds better than the Zoom. Regardless of how many bits are used. As life4eva said, there's far more to it than just the number of bits.

45 megabits of h.264 on the DSLR can't compete with 21 megabits of h.264 on the AF100.

Proper pre-amps and processing circuitry could make 16-bit 48khz sound better than 24-bit 96khz from a $200 recorder. Not saying that it does, just saying that it could.


Seriously? That's all that is being implemented. I think the HPX3100 is the first pro video camera that offers 24-bit. Everything in the "affordable" categories is 16-bit. (doesn't mean it's the best, it just means that it's the standard). 24-bit recording in a camcorder is pretty much nonexistent, at least in the under-$20,000 arena. Who has 24-bit? Canon doesn't in their newest releases (XF305); Sony's $15,000 PMW-320 doesn't have it, the EX1/EX3 don't have it...

So, no. The standard is 16-bit. 24-bit is not common in video cameras, at all.
Click to expand...


/Thread


Now with that said when are you officially getting the camera Barry? I know many of us cannot wait for your official test results in a properly controlled situation!
 
24/96 is nice, but it takes 3 times as much space. What this means is that over 4Mbps of would be used by audio, instead of 1.5Mbps - this is huge difference, considering the AVCHD 24Mbps total bitrate. Not sure I'd like to trade 2.5Mbps of video bitrate for audio, especially considering the fact that 48kHz is absolutely fine for recording, if performed properly. It captures the range up to 24kHz and anything above 20kHz is beyond audible range anyway, unless you're making movies for bats. 96 is useful in post, as it allows to reduce aliasing introduced by digital processing, particularly the non-linear effects such as dynamics processors (compressors, limiters), saturators, tube emulations etc. It usually makes EQuing sounds more natural on highs as well. So, it makes sense to upsample the 48-recorded audio to 96 for post, even if your media is going to be 44.1/48.
24bit is different thing - the additional bits make the difference. Still, I can live with 16 and grab external recorder when I need it. I much prefer to 'spend' the bitrate on video.
 
That brings up an interesting question. Is it possible to disable the audio in the camera entirely and devote all 24Mbps to picture and get slightly better picture quality?
 
It's about what mic you use and where you locate it .. and how you handle your treasure in post and present it to your audience.

Cheers.
 
Thanks for the informative information Barry,

I come from a music background and haven't seen 16Bit in modern equipment for a while now, I'll hang on to my H4N and test the Audio side by side when my AF-101 arrives in Dec/Jan.

Anyway, always better to have more than one audio recording device.
 
To the OP.

Just as many cameras can "record" 1080p but can't "resolve" anywhere near 1080 lines of resolution the H4n can record 24bit audio but can barely resolve 16bits of dynamic range. In fact, Zoom/Samson doesn't publish any specs including signal to noise and THD, so one is really holding onto marketing claims and a lot of empty data (actually very quiet noise) when you record 24bit with an H4n.

I've heard people talk about tracking 24bit (with the H4n) to retain some kind of additional dynamic range in post, but all the audio post production is done with 32-bit, 48-bit or even 64-bit internal precision so it doesn't make one lick of difference.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top