The Radio 3 Boards Forum from myforum365.com
13:25:19, 02-12-2008 *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: Whilst we happily welcome all genuine applications to our forum, there may be times when we need to suspend registration temporarily, for example when suffering attacks of spam.
 If you want to join us but find that the temporary suspension has been activated, please try again later.
 
   Home   Help Search Login Register  

The Radio 3 Boards > Collectors Resource > Audio and Hi-Fi Equipment > Recording Freeview Radio
Pages: 1 [2]
« previous next »
  Print  
Author Topic: Recording Freeview Radio  (Read 813 times)
richard barrett
*****
Posts: 3123
« Reply #15 on: 12:40:36, 24-04-2008 »
Quite so, Bryn. To my ears, the increased bit-depth is more crucial, particularly at lower dynamic levels where quantisation noise is often detectable in 16-bit recordings (although less so in 24-bit recordings which have been dithered to 16-bit to get them onto CD). The first time I heard a 96k/24-bit recording (albeit on the highest of high-end equipment) I experienced it as enhanced imaging rather than frequency range. Any kind of post-recording processing will benefit from being done at higher sampling rate/bit depth.
Logged
Ron Dough
Admin/Moderator Group
*****
Posts: 5133



WWW
« Reply #16 on: 13:03:10, 24-04-2008 »
It's mainly for reasons of economy and space (plus ease of forwarding to others) that I've standardised on 16/44.1 for most of my radio recording, be it FM or DAB ( the latter converted to analogue through a good DAC before recording), although right from the start I was convinced that the CD standard had been set too low. As with digital photography, for the important stuff I'll capture at the highest standards possible, even if it's to be downrated when published: 24/96 just 'flows' so much better.

The magazine will have long since gone, but I remember reading that tests done in the 1980s suggested that although older people may not be able to hear the higher frequencies as such, they can detect a difference when they're subtracted from material which contains them.
Logged
ariosto
*
Gender: Male
Posts: 33
« Reply #17 on: 13:22:48, 24-04-2008 »
All those who have contributed so far, Bryn, Ron, Richard etc., very interesting and mature stuff. I agree about the 24 bit 96Khz thing - it goes deeper than high frequency hearing ability at people's various ages. Certainly standard CD at 44.1 and 16 bit can be wonderful if well recorded, but now we have the tools we can record masters at 24 bit + and 96Khz plus - so why not! There is an improvement, maybe something indefinable, so why not use it. A friend who makes professional recordings as producer/engineer has made wonderful CD's - and now the masters are at 24bit (not sure about the sampling rate - must ask him) - but then the downsampling to 16bit 44.1 Kh on CD are wonderful.
Logged
Ariosto
Ron Dough
Admin/Moderator Group
*****
Posts: 5133



WWW
« Reply #18 on: 13:36:30, 24-04-2008 »
Digital recording and transcription has come a long way since the early days of CD: who would ever have foreseen that it would be possible for millions of domestic users to have recording and editing systems way beyond the highest professional standards then available? Or indeed that those of us who thought the standards were just on the edge of acceptability would see a time when sound yet far more compromised and compressed would become the de facto norm?
Logged
ariosto
*
Gender: Male
Posts: 33
« Reply #19 on: 14:35:38, 24-04-2008 »
Ron, yes it is amazing that I can have a computer with editing facilities equal to, or better than the professionals had in the 1980's and 1990's. This goes for both sound and video editing.

But you are right, it seems that people aren't bothered by lower quality, at least in the sound world, and are happy with mp3 and even worse, incuding the sort of awful quality we get with Listen Again over the Internet. It's amazing too that the BBC (the once bastion of high quality sound) can broadcast at such appalling quality with DAB radio, when it could be so much better.

There was a time when the BBC would not broadcast low fidelity material, both sound and pictures. Now anything goes. The BBC once would never have allowed interviews to be recorded with high background noise from traffic etc., or shaky camerwork on TV.

At one time in their sound studios only the best mics and equipment was used, but I wonder now if this still holds, not having been in a BBC studio for some time. I even hear out of tune pianos being used on some R3 broadcasts.
Logged
Ariosto
Ron Dough
Admin/Moderator Group
*****
Posts: 5133



WWW
« Reply #20 on: 16:33:54, 24-04-2008 »
I'm very much of the same opinion, yet the last two concerts I've attended which were broadcast were actually quite well done: it's a shock to go back to material from the 70s and 80s, though, and discover that it's even better.
Logged
Pages: 1 [2]
  Print  
« previous next »
 
Jump to: