16 bit / 24 bit
- Thread starter Red Dot
- Start date
doggin coyotes
Well-known member
I don't know either. And I'll betcha two bits, all else being equal, that it don't make one bit of difference to a coyote or other predator. I just wonder how many *bits* the JS cassettes were or are recorded at? I wonder if cassette tapes will really call critters? I wonder how many bits a mouth call is? A lip squeak? I wonder if sometimes I wonder to much.
A digital representation of an analog sound wave holds two pieces of information. It describes the frequency and the amplitude. To do a decent job on the frequency, the description of the frequency needs at least two points per cycle, one on the positive and one on the negative. Bits describe the amplitude, and by having more of them, you get a more precise description of the wave. 24 bit sound is like having 24 volume presets instead of 16. It isn't louder, but it's more exact.
It's almost analogous to buying a digital camera and getting more megapixels. The picture isn't bigger, but it looks better, if your eyes are good enough to see it.
Good wildlife sounds require you to know how to hold a microphone AND how to tickle a rabbit. Neither is easy.
It's almost analogous to buying a digital camera and getting more megapixels. The picture isn't bigger, but it looks better, if your eyes are good enough to see it.
Good wildlife sounds require you to know how to hold a microphone AND how to tickle a rabbit. Neither is easy.
Last edited:
DougK
New member
Quote:
Thanks Mojave Bob,
Do I understand correctly:
I. 1. 24 bit is more exact, which I take to be clearer.
2. 16 bit stereo is sufficient up about to 20-21 khz.
Does this mean that I will have much clearer sounds if I upgrade to the FX5 configuration.
Thanks, Jerry
Firstly, me thinks Mojave Bob has done more than spend his life in the great outdoors... /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smirk.gif
Secondly, Jerry your output device is only as good as the quality of the recording (based on input and storage medium). So here is the deal if you buy a FX5 that is 24 bit but your sounds are not studio quality and the codex to convert the original analog sound to digital is not at least 24 bit the FX5 does you no good. If your sounds are older the odds are the FX5 will not enhance the sound quality. When you buy the FX5 plan on buying all new sounds to fully utilize the capability of the FX5.
Doug
Thanks Mojave Bob,
Do I understand correctly:
I. 1. 24 bit is more exact, which I take to be clearer.
2. 16 bit stereo is sufficient up about to 20-21 khz.
Does this mean that I will have much clearer sounds if I upgrade to the FX5 configuration.
Thanks, Jerry
Firstly, me thinks Mojave Bob has done more than spend his life in the great outdoors... /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smirk.gif
Secondly, Jerry your output device is only as good as the quality of the recording (based on input and storage medium). So here is the deal if you buy a FX5 that is 24 bit but your sounds are not studio quality and the codex to convert the original analog sound to digital is not at least 24 bit the FX5 does you no good. If your sounds are older the odds are the FX5 will not enhance the sound quality. When you buy the FX5 plan on buying all new sounds to fully utilize the capability of the FX5.
Doug
Mohave Bob mostly has it right.
All else being the same, 24-bit files will not have any advantage over 16-bit in low or high frequencies... but then, all else is not necessarily the same.
My short and sweet answer is that for our predator calling purposes, frequency range is far more important than sampling rates. (Well, YOU may not need to curious a bobcat with an ultrasonically-pitched mouse squeak to keep it hanging around for 15 minutes within 20 feet of you, in order to photograph it. But I do).
My more verbose response goes something like this:
16-bit, 44 KHz-sampled recordings from more than a few years ago tended to have "brick wall" filters that cut off all frequencies above 20kHz. My understanding of why this was necessary is that there was a form of digital sampling error which caused distortion (due to a mathematical progression and error that multiplied at specific intervals and splashed back into audible frequencies, during analog to digital conversion). This was a problem until higher studio sampling rates came into wide use. Hence the need for 96 KHz and even 192KHz sampling in high-end sound booths . End recordings will not likely benefit noticeably from more bits, and probably will not play nice with most current consumer playback devices, chips and circuits).
Where 24-bit and higher sampling rates have a true advantage over 16-bit is in editing. They can stand much more manipulation before a degradation will be noticeable.
Also--and this is the bigger deal as I see it--is that typically when someone bothers to capture an original recording in 24-bit or greater resolution, the Nyquist sampling frequency is usually going to be set at 48 KHz or better. (Divide by 2 to get a final recording with a 24KHz upper limit). While it's is also theoretically possible to frequency sample at 48 KHz and get end recordings to 24 KHz using 16-bit sampling, nobody much seemed to bother with it, as 44 KHz sampling long ago became the default 16-bit standard and was long considered "good enough".
As Doug mentioned, none of this will matter much unless the recording itself is up to snuff. For instance, digitally remastered analog reel-to-reel tape recordings will not contain native information in the frequencies above 16-18 KHz, though there may be some noise populating that region. That's not to say there aren't plenty of fine audio recordings from Johnny Stewart floating about yet, it's just to say that there aren't any with coaxer frequencies above this threshold.
Too, none of this will matter when you're using the powerhorn and not the cone speaker side on an FX5.
LionHo
All else being the same, 24-bit files will not have any advantage over 16-bit in low or high frequencies... but then, all else is not necessarily the same.
My short and sweet answer is that for our predator calling purposes, frequency range is far more important than sampling rates. (Well, YOU may not need to curious a bobcat with an ultrasonically-pitched mouse squeak to keep it hanging around for 15 minutes within 20 feet of you, in order to photograph it. But I do).
My more verbose response goes something like this:
16-bit, 44 KHz-sampled recordings from more than a few years ago tended to have "brick wall" filters that cut off all frequencies above 20kHz. My understanding of why this was necessary is that there was a form of digital sampling error which caused distortion (due to a mathematical progression and error that multiplied at specific intervals and splashed back into audible frequencies, during analog to digital conversion). This was a problem until higher studio sampling rates came into wide use. Hence the need for 96 KHz and even 192KHz sampling in high-end sound booths . End recordings will not likely benefit noticeably from more bits, and probably will not play nice with most current consumer playback devices, chips and circuits).
Where 24-bit and higher sampling rates have a true advantage over 16-bit is in editing. They can stand much more manipulation before a degradation will be noticeable.
Also--and this is the bigger deal as I see it--is that typically when someone bothers to capture an original recording in 24-bit or greater resolution, the Nyquist sampling frequency is usually going to be set at 48 KHz or better. (Divide by 2 to get a final recording with a 24KHz upper limit). While it's is also theoretically possible to frequency sample at 48 KHz and get end recordings to 24 KHz using 16-bit sampling, nobody much seemed to bother with it, as 44 KHz sampling long ago became the default 16-bit standard and was long considered "good enough".
As Doug mentioned, none of this will matter much unless the recording itself is up to snuff. For instance, digitally remastered analog reel-to-reel tape recordings will not contain native information in the frequencies above 16-18 KHz, though there may be some noise populating that region. That's not to say there aren't plenty of fine audio recordings from Johnny Stewart floating about yet, it's just to say that there aren't any with coaxer frequencies above this threshold.
Too, none of this will matter when you're using the powerhorn and not the cone speaker side on an FX5.
LionHo
Jerry,
1. 24-bit may make it a tiny bit clearer, provided the other parts of the system are equally good.
2. It's the 44Khz sampling rates that make the data sufficient to describe 20-21Khz sound. That's the sound of the drumstick hitting a snare drum before you hear the drum itself. Not really too useful calling game.
But it's nice to know both the companies advertising and selling callers here are trying to bring better products to market. They're taking advantage of the new digital recording gear and trying to pass it along.
Doug, I like to hunt and try to pull a trigger every day, regardless of past lives.
1. 24-bit may make it a tiny bit clearer, provided the other parts of the system are equally good.
2. It's the 44Khz sampling rates that make the data sufficient to describe 20-21Khz sound. That's the sound of the drumstick hitting a snare drum before you hear the drum itself. Not really too useful calling game.
But it's nice to know both the companies advertising and selling callers here are trying to bring better products to market. They're taking advantage of the new digital recording gear and trying to pass it along.
Doug, I like to hunt and try to pull a trigger every day, regardless of past lives.
FoxproSteve
New member
Red Dot,
The FX5 is 16 bit 44.1 kHz.
We are recording in 24 bit resolution. Doing this gives a number of advantages even though the final sound will be in 16 Bit 44.1 kHz in the FX-Series callers.
Lion Ho touched on one important advantage to recording at a higher bit depth. The additional headroom allows for better editing and manipulation. The manipulation can be as simple as normilizing the signal to 0db on the digital scale.
Even more important then the recording standard (analog, 16 Bit, or 24 Bit) is the recording techniques that are used. Having the best recording equipment that money can buy is useless if you don't know how to use the equipment properly and even more important then this is what is actually being recorded both in the spectral and the emotional content of the sound. I belive the emotional content is far more important.
Here is the release of the Mark II Sound Library. We did not post this release yet but I think it will answer alot of questions about where we stand on sounds and what the new library is all about:
FOXPRO is pleased to announce the addition of a brand new library of sounds called the “Mark II Sound Library”. The new “Mark II Sounds” are all real animals recorded with some of the best professional equipment that money can buy. If you expect quality, these sounds are for you.
What makes any recording “high quality”? When referring to wildlife calling sounds there are two main schools of thought. The first school focuses on the emotional content and not so much on the spectral content of the sound. Sounds in the emotional group don’t necessarily need to be free from all recording defects or anomalies. It is however paramount that sounds in this group tell a great story luring lots of critters. These sounds are not likely to call fewer animals just because they are not “technically” perfect.
The other school of thought focuses more on the technical aspect of the recording whereby the recording reflects the purest representation, having all harmonic and octal content associated with the vocalization. These sounds must have minimal recording and environmental anomalies. Less importance is placed on the emotional aspect of the vocalization even though unparalleled effort is spent to ensure the recording is “technically” perfect. However, technically perfect non emotional recordings are still less desirable then very emotional recordings that cannot be described as “technically” perfect.
Sounds in the new Mark II Sound Library address both schools of thought. These new, exciting sounds undergo many rigorous screenings before they can reside in this special library. Sounds must possess great emotional and spectral content while at the same time exhaustive measures are taken to minimize extraneous noises (i.e. cars in the background, echo, microphone handling, proximity effect, wind noise, clipped peaks, and other unwanted artifacts). Combining individual sounds into a single sound will ONLY be performed upon special request. “Mixed” sounds will be labeled as such. It is not our intent to have an artificially inflated sound library by mixing up the sounds. The sounds that have multiple animals in them are not simply “Mixed” from other sounds in this library, they are all different recordings. With every sound going through these exhaustive measures you can be assured that sounds in this special library are at the pinnacle of quality.
Much has been said about the need for a sound library of this quality, albeit many say that technically perfect sound quality isn’t needed to call in animals. It has been shown over the years that animals are relatively easy to please even with non-technically perfect sounds. People however are a much tougher crowd! Even with the overwhelming data that supports the fact that animals can be called with less than technically perfect sounds, still many people have asked and demand this quality of sound. Feedback reveals that most of these individuals feel that this quality of sound will provide an elevated level of confidence to their prey as well as for themselves. Even those individuals who place less importance on the technical side of sound quality will still find the Mark II sounds very useful at calling animals.
The Mark II Sound Library will only be available for download in the FXP format. The non FXP based callers will need to be sent to FOXPRO to be reprogrammed with the sounds from the Mark II Sound Library. There will be no additional charge for service. As always the regular library will be available in all formats for download.
As part of FOXPRO’s unwavering commitment to bring you the best products on the market, you can count on both of our libraries growing in the future.
HTH,
Steve
The FX5 is 16 bit 44.1 kHz.
We are recording in 24 bit resolution. Doing this gives a number of advantages even though the final sound will be in 16 Bit 44.1 kHz in the FX-Series callers.
Lion Ho touched on one important advantage to recording at a higher bit depth. The additional headroom allows for better editing and manipulation. The manipulation can be as simple as normilizing the signal to 0db on the digital scale.
Even more important then the recording standard (analog, 16 Bit, or 24 Bit) is the recording techniques that are used. Having the best recording equipment that money can buy is useless if you don't know how to use the equipment properly and even more important then this is what is actually being recorded both in the spectral and the emotional content of the sound. I belive the emotional content is far more important.
Here is the release of the Mark II Sound Library. We did not post this release yet but I think it will answer alot of questions about where we stand on sounds and what the new library is all about:
FOXPRO is pleased to announce the addition of a brand new library of sounds called the “Mark II Sound Library”. The new “Mark II Sounds” are all real animals recorded with some of the best professional equipment that money can buy. If you expect quality, these sounds are for you.
What makes any recording “high quality”? When referring to wildlife calling sounds there are two main schools of thought. The first school focuses on the emotional content and not so much on the spectral content of the sound. Sounds in the emotional group don’t necessarily need to be free from all recording defects or anomalies. It is however paramount that sounds in this group tell a great story luring lots of critters. These sounds are not likely to call fewer animals just because they are not “technically” perfect.
The other school of thought focuses more on the technical aspect of the recording whereby the recording reflects the purest representation, having all harmonic and octal content associated with the vocalization. These sounds must have minimal recording and environmental anomalies. Less importance is placed on the emotional aspect of the vocalization even though unparalleled effort is spent to ensure the recording is “technically” perfect. However, technically perfect non emotional recordings are still less desirable then very emotional recordings that cannot be described as “technically” perfect.
Sounds in the new Mark II Sound Library address both schools of thought. These new, exciting sounds undergo many rigorous screenings before they can reside in this special library. Sounds must possess great emotional and spectral content while at the same time exhaustive measures are taken to minimize extraneous noises (i.e. cars in the background, echo, microphone handling, proximity effect, wind noise, clipped peaks, and other unwanted artifacts). Combining individual sounds into a single sound will ONLY be performed upon special request. “Mixed” sounds will be labeled as such. It is not our intent to have an artificially inflated sound library by mixing up the sounds. The sounds that have multiple animals in them are not simply “Mixed” from other sounds in this library, they are all different recordings. With every sound going through these exhaustive measures you can be assured that sounds in this special library are at the pinnacle of quality.
Much has been said about the need for a sound library of this quality, albeit many say that technically perfect sound quality isn’t needed to call in animals. It has been shown over the years that animals are relatively easy to please even with non-technically perfect sounds. People however are a much tougher crowd! Even with the overwhelming data that supports the fact that animals can be called with less than technically perfect sounds, still many people have asked and demand this quality of sound. Feedback reveals that most of these individuals feel that this quality of sound will provide an elevated level of confidence to their prey as well as for themselves. Even those individuals who place less importance on the technical side of sound quality will still find the Mark II sounds very useful at calling animals.
The Mark II Sound Library will only be available for download in the FXP format. The non FXP based callers will need to be sent to FOXPRO to be reprogrammed with the sounds from the Mark II Sound Library. There will be no additional charge for service. As always the regular library will be available in all formats for download.
As part of FOXPRO’s unwavering commitment to bring you the best products on the market, you can count on both of our libraries growing in the future.
HTH,
Steve