bit rate/kHz for ambient nature recording

T

troutbum

Member
I'll be recording ambient nature sounds on a Marantz PMD661, with a AT-BP4025. Will I be sacrificing any discernible audio quality if I record at the 16-bit, 48 kHz setting? (Options are 24-bit or 16, either at 96, 48 or 44 kHz. I chose it as a compromise of quality and card storage space (16GB). Don't think I'll do much in post to the track besides splicing, adding music, etc. Can anyone save me a bunch of time experimenting?

Also, anyone have an opinion on whether the Oade Bros. upgrade (better pre-amps) with that set-up would be worthwhile?

Thanks a lot.
 
24 bit makes more difference than sample rates (above 44.1). If your doing music (sounds like it) then you could save a bit of space going with 44.1, since that is what CD's are at. If your doing video then stick with 48.

You can try with your set up and maybe it's not noticeable if your putting music on top, but I can easily hear the difference between 16 bit and 24 bit.
 
troutbum said:
Also, anyone have an opinion on whether the Oade Bros. upgrade (better pre-amps) with that set-up would be worthwhile?

Thanks a lot.
Click to expand...

I don't believe they do after market upgrades so I think it's a moot point.
You will get a fairly wide variety of viewpoints but the pres on the 661 are supposed to be pretty decent so I doubt the difference would be great.
 
I think 16 bit 48k is fine for location recording 24 bit is better but I tend to just use that at the audio post stage to give me more bits when summing tracks.
 
Thanks, fellas. I think I'll start out with 16/48 and see how it sounds.
FWIW, Oade does after-market, but it's quite a bit more than if you buy the unit from them. Just as well, I still have to buy my mic (used BP4025's seem to be rarer than hen's teeth!)
 
with 16 bit everything will play between 000000000000000 and 111111111111111, with 24 bits you got 8 more bits which means you can come closer to the "wrong" voltage (AD convertion is a cerain "voltage value" that is converted to a digital equivalent). So if a certain voltage of a certain frequentie would be 0,247878979. Then with 16 bits there's a choise between 0,24 and 0,25. But with 24 bits there would be a choise between 0,245 and 0,248 which is closer to the "right" voltage.

It's explained very fast but I think this is it theoretically ?
 
Alan H. Chang said:
Go with 24/48.
Click to expand...

24/48 it shall be (and more SD cards)

dre83 said:
with 16 bit everything will play between 000000000000000 and 111111111111111, with 24 bits you got 8 more bits which means you can come closer to the "wrong" voltage (AD convertion is a cerain "voltage value" that is converted to a digital equivalent). So if a certain voltage of a certain frequentie would be 0,247878979. Then with 16 bits there's a choise between 0,24 and 0,25. But with 24 bits there would be a choise between 0,245 and 0,248 which is closer to the "right" voltage.?
Click to expand...

Over my head, but that's why I asked you guys. Thanks a bunch all, really appreciate it!
 
Yes theoretically.. and in a 'perfect world'.. 6.0dB more headroom per bit, 16 to 24.
If one tends to set record levels conservatively, and/or need lots of headroom, 24bit for sure. 48kHz for video, otherwise 44.1, 88.2 or 96 is a choice based on the project, storage and other personal preferences.
 
Last edited:
Not only are you preserving more details, but your sources could go much lower/quieter without having to start bricking near your self-noise. The higher the sample rate you record, the more definition and clarity you'll hear from your sources.
 
Alex H. said:
Here's the key thing with bit rate: 16-bit won't give you much on the softer sounds. With 24-bit, you can preserve more detail in audio that falls below -12dB.
Click to expand...

Alan H. Chang said:
Not only are you preserving more details, but your sources could go much lower/quieter without having to start bricking near your self-noise. The higher the sample rate you record, the more definition and clarity you'll hear from your sources.
Click to expand...

Thanks Alex and Alan-- understandable and helpful for the type of work I'll be doing.
 
16-bit audio has a theoretical noise floor of -96 dB, but in reality it works out to -80 dB or better for professional recorders.

24-bit audio has a theoretical noise floor of -144 dB, and in reality it works out to -120 dB or better for professional recorders.

I would be very surprised if your PMD661 has a noise floor requiring 24-bit audio recordings, as this low noise floor usually requires gear like Sound Devices or their peers to achieve.

A 48 Khz sampling resolution should be fine for nature work.
 
Noiz2 said:
I don't believe they do after market upgrades so I think it's a moot point.
Click to expand...

Yes, Oade will upgrade any recorder on their list. Buying a unit pre-modded from them is actually cheaper than sending your own unit in for a mod.

If you are recording VERY quiet VERY subtle sounds the Oade mod can make a difference.

I personally like recording at 24/96, but then I have a tendency to do a lot of processing to my sounds, and I seem to get fewer artifacts with the higher sample rate.
 
My experience...

I've done a bit of ambient audio recording of various kinds recently with my Sony PCM M-10 with the goal in mind to mix ambient backgrounds for an animated horror film I'm working on. Just last night I was out in the country at a friend's place getting ready to leave and drive back to town, and I noticed that it was a pristine winter evening, devoid of traffic or airplane sounds. There was a slight breeze. Fortunately I had my gear on me, so I did about 30 minutes of various recording.

I set the recorder for 96khz/24bit and got a few samples. One of them was a hoot owl, that was somewhat distant, but came through crystal clear. Messing with it in Audition, I was able to make it stand out from the ambiance a little more. It's gonna be perfect for the film. Recording with the high sample and bit rate might seem like overkill, but in this case I was really happy I had that extra data to work with. I'm also using a 16gb card. Unless you're terribly worried about filling your card up, I would use the higher resolution because then you have more to work with. If you're going to be covering it with music though, you may be able to get away with lower resolution just fine.

And as some others have said, it would depend on how you intend to release the finished product. I would absolutely love to put my film on BD when done (really expensive and I'll cross that bridge when I get there) and DVD is easy to do, but I'll have to convert my sound mix for each of those mediums to try and preserve the best of it.
 
When I record sound effects or backgrounds, I ALWAYS record at 96Khz/24bit. That's just me. Yes, most people will call that overkill, and a majority of the time I will downcovert the audio into a 48Khz/24bit pro tools session. However, there are times when I'm doing crazy sound design, and I want the higher sample rate and bit depth to give me less artifacts when I heavily manipulate audio, especially time expansion. In my opinion, it's better to have the higher fidelity source files and down convert than to have lower fidelity source files and be stuck with something that might not be usable for certain situations.
 
troutbum said:
I'll be recording ambient nature sounds on a Marantz PMD661, with a AT-BP4025. Will I be sacrificing any discernible audio quality if I record at the 16-bit, 48 kHz setting? (Options are 24-bit or 16, either at 96, 48 or 44 kHz. I chose it as a compromise of quality and card storage space (16GB). Don't think I'll do much in post to the track besides splicing, adding music, etc. Can anyone save me a bunch of time experimenting?

Also, anyone have an opinion on whether the Oade Bros. upgrade (better pre-amps) with that set-up would be worthwhile?

Thanks a lot.
Click to expand...

I would go 24-bit definitely - but 44.1 or 48kHz shold be OK.
 
Yep, even though you know many of the masses won't appreciate, notice or even hear it .. it's satisfying to know you've got it.

But check with post before you send in any 24/96 work. Many times they can handle it but today time and budgets are the killer. When it first became available a noted house here did a full doco narration at 24/96 and all h*ll broke loose.

Turned out it was cheaper to redo it, so 24/96 was like a full rehearsal .. some rewriting and we got a much better reading second time around.
Devil of a way to go about it .. I'd never do that again.

Cheers.
 
Last edited:
The difference in 44.1 to 48 is nothing compared to the difference between 16-bit and 24-bit as others have said. Nature has a lot of dynamic sounds in it. With 24-bit, you get a TON more dynamic range to work with. Suddenly something happens that is louder than the crickets you are recording and BAM now you have it and didn't clip out the 16-bit where you were trying to retain more detail.

I use the Sony PCM-D50 because the converters are SO quiet in it. That's the other thing I would listen to when you are recording. I had a Zoom H4 for 2 days before I took it back, when trying to record ambient nature, I could hear too much of the noise floor. Trying to bring it up a little and I heard quite a bit of noise. The SNR is a good measurement for this. There was a page with good examples of a lot of the recorders.

I've vacillated back and forth between 44.1 and 48 and honestly, I just target what the end result is. Music, 44.1, video 48. That said, There is one thing to be said about 96kHz, if you do sound effects where you need to stretch actual recorded sounds out longer to get new sounds, 96kHz gives you great resolution to 1/2 the speed. We've done this before and it does make a difference.

But back to the original point, go 24-bit.
 
24-bit, 48 kHz for video
24-bit, 44.1 kHz for audio.

Dogs may hear the difference if your monitors and amp will pass audio higher than 20khz , but we won't


Regards,

Ty Ford
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top