Re: Digital Audio Khz vs. Bits

On 30 Jul., 03:35, Robert Sharman <sharmanf...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Can this be simplified by saying....?

Bit depth (resolution) relates somewhat to MP on a digital camera? If
you take a picture with a 12MP camera, you can clip and zoom and play
with the image more and still keep the quality of the original
picture. If you use a 6MP you cannot do as much work to it without
significant loss of quality. A 24 bit audio track maintains greater
integrity and is less prone to noise as it is sent through the post
process?

Not quite. This is not very comparable. In the image side of things
you have the physical resolution (pixels) plus the colour-depth (bits
per pixes for colour-coding) both are important for the quality of a
picture (plus the quality of the lens of course). On the other hand
high mega-pixel sensors produve more noise. Therefor more pixels do
not necessarily mean better picture quality.

Attributes like "integrity" are very fuzzy terms to descripe sound
specs.

Technically speaking more bits mean less quatization noise therefor
higher possible dynamic range. Period. Because the techical noisefloor
is lower you can leave greater headroom when recording without the
risk of losing very soft signals in the noise-floor or your media.


Regarding sample rate, it's like a film camera running at 240fps for a
slow motion shot. You can slow it down 10 times and maintain the
integrity of film shot at 24fps. More information is gathered per
second. If you shoot at 48fps and slow it down 10 times
unconventionally, the quality will suffer. 48k gathers more audio
samples per second than 44.1k, therefore maintaining greater quality
in post.

Is this accurate?

Not really. Again a rather fuzzy comparison because you are comparing
apples with oranges.
48k (theoretically) enables a higher frequency bandwidth. In digital
audio no matter how high or low your Fs is it will be retained
thoughout the digital chain. With this argument 48k isn´t better than
44.1. Higher samplerates are better because they enable you to capture
higher frequencies than with lower Fs. Period. This isn´t only true
for post but for ANYTHING you record.
96kHz isn´t necessarily better because it sounds better when pitched
down. In the first place with 96kHz you are able to capture higher
frequencies. No more no less. All other advanteges are "side effects"
of this feature.

hope this helps.

frank.


.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Is Contrast Ratio THE spec that makes the biggest difference?
    ... picture from spec sheets among various sets and manufacturers (LCD set size ... not wanting to spend another $500 just to eke out a little more in quality. ... comparison for picture quality. ... Resolution is source based - the immediate perception, ...
    (alt.tv.tech.hdtv)
  • Re: FPS video rate question
    ... The intermediate speeds shown offer a trade off between picture quality ... the video would be microscopic in size on my home computer and if I ... For a given sensor array and data transfer setup, which is what a camera basically is, the picture quality has to go down as the frame rate goes up. ...
    (rec.video.desktop)
  • Re: Calculating Resolution based on Bit Rate (CBR)
    ... calculate the bit rate or the resolution when encoding WMV files. ... If the background of the picture is static, and only 1 or two persons ... you would reach near DVD quality. ...
    (microsoft.public.windowsmedia.encoder)
  • Re: Camera Recommendations Requested
    ... a new camera and thought I'd ask for some recommendations. ... Our current Fuji F10 uses XD cards. ... FASTEST picture taking/saving. ... features, just good quality photos. ...
    (rec.photo.digital)
  • Re: Teleconverter/ Macro Lens
    ... >> But neither Cannon or Nikon are poor quality. ... Part is actually taking the picture. ... That is where the camera comes in. ... Both Canon and Nikon are good enough quality such that for 99% of people ...
    (alt.photography)
Loading