Why You Don't Need to Record in 32 Bit Float.... 

I feel like for some RU-vidrs clipping the mic is a stylistic choice

_I can't tell you how many times I've done a sound check only to find out after the performance that the levels were significantly higher then when I tested and the signal got clipped._ That's because you set your levels too high. You didn't follow the -20db headroom rule. Couple things I need to clear up for you. Giving yourself -20db headroom means you've been 100x MORE signal to go beyond. That's not just 100x more signal than the average... that's 100x more signal than the LOUDEST thing you expect. So a -20db headroom might have have 40db or more headroom for average levels... that's 10,000 times acoustic power. Plenty to work with. You mention boundary floor mics. That's pretty straight forward to set - with a -20db headroom there's virtually no way to clip naturally (unless they're kicking the mics - in that case, who cares if they clip at that point - even 32bit fp won't save you if you overload the mic circuitry). If you can't sound check with performers, just do your own sound check... walk in from and start clapping or making noise. Then dial yourself down and go a little extra conservatively. Now taking signal from a board... that's a bit different. Much easier to overload with electronics - but again the solution is simple - play conservatively. You HAVE to check the signal at SOME POINT (how would you even know it was outputting signal at all?) - aim low so that you're playing in the -30 to -20db range. It will literally take 3 seconds - you can even do this at the start of the show. You're used to see the bars fill up meter - you have to train yourself out of that - the bars should never go higher than -20db (most recorders put that about half way up the scale). 32 bit FP is fine if you have it. It won't be a detriment to use it... but you could do ALL of it with zero downside, if you record 24bit lower than what you think you have to.

You are correct about 32 bit float! In regards to how no ADC is capable of the range of 24 bit... That's why they use TWO ADCs for 32 bit float :D

Thank you! Added my error to the description

@@FilmmakerIQ The timing of this error is unfortunate because it's so close to the beginning of the video. It distracted me for a while (a depressing side effect of having a computer science degree). The thing is that your message in the rest of the video is really important---emphasizing stuff like mic placement and testing. I mean, you wouldn't point your camera at the ground and expect it to shoot anything but the ground...

That's not how it works. That's like saying you don't need to look through the viewfinder or monitor... One less technical thing to worry about... Being creative is about mastering the technical. It isn't one less thing to worry about because I don't worry about it.

@@FilmmakerIQ "That's like saying you don't need to look through the viewfinder or monitor" Nope, because the latter is a creative action (you determinine the framing, lighting, etc). Whereas fiddling to find a suitable audio level because the recorder will clip is just a technical chore because of hardware limitation. Not something creative. By not looking through the viewfinder or monitor means you lose the choice of framing. Whereas by not fiddling with input levels and using 32bit you don't lose anything. "Being creative is about mastering the technical." No, being creative requires mastering the essential technical. The rest is what is called in engineering "accidental complexity" (useless work) as opposed to essential complexity that is required for the task. When something is not required anymore (because technology can do it as good) it stops being essential complexity, and becomes busywork. Note that this is not the same as setting e.g. focus manually, because that's an artistic choice (and you can't undo bad or unwanted autofocus results). Whereas not fiddling with audio levels and using 32bit you don't lose any artistic choice - just the busy work. So, given the availability of 32 FP setting manual levels is more like having to pull a lever to be able to take a new picture - something that made sense in the analog film camera where it rolled the film to the next position, but is useless now.

Viewfinder isn't just a creative action. You're also checking exposure beyond just creatively adjusting the lighting. Monitoring audio also isn't JUST a technical chore - you're also listening for mic placement and making sure everything is sounding like it should. And in the process, you just set the levels. It takes 10 seconds. Quite literally the easiest thing you do when recording audio. If you consider essential diligence in the job of capturing video and audio "busy work" - then you really don't have enough mastery to be creative. Then I get it - 32 bit FP is for people who don't know what they're doing.

@@FilmmakerIQ I totally hear what you're saying, we would like everyone to be considerate of the technical components so that they can use those techniques in pursuit of quality or creativity, not only moving their own art forward, but pushing the limits of mastery within the community. The main argument of the video is also strong, that no one needs to feel pressured to spend this money if they only need to make small adjustments to their technique. I think we can all agree that we shouldn't be gatekeeping "creativity" with "mastery of technical knowledge." Obviously we don't need to be masters of any skillset to be creative, and the act of creativity itself lends itself the the growth of diverse skillsets. I know you're not trying to gatekeep, just reminding you to be sensitive to that as a leader within our artistic community. Mastery is subjective anyway. Another thing we can all agree on, 32-bit floating point is a tiny level of abstraction in the progression of audio technology and sound art. We can consider it to be one more tool to make sound art more ACCESSIBLE. Technically speaking, no one NEEDS things like non-linear editting (NLE) or DAWs to be creative, everyone is free to go back to reel-to-reel if that's fun for them. As a matter of fact, no one NEEDS recorded media at all. We can perform acoustically, and that's fantastic. Conversely, we agree, no one NEEDS to know how to perform acoustically, or how to do reel-to-reel to excel with NLE and DAWs. Would it be helpful to know those skills? Absolutely. Necessary for creativity? Obviously not. Just to quickly point out, small optimizations can make a considerable impact in cost, resources, and/or time in the big picture. 32-bit floating point can be considered one such small optimization. On a personal level, the more optimized a process becomes, the more time we have within our lifetimes to create ART. We have barely a concept of the future of technology, for all we know, some new technology may come out in the future that practically eliminates gain knobs, noise floors. When new tech is cheap and plentiful, all of our tutorials, all of our textbooks, they'll all be antiquated.

And also quick reminder for everyone, we DO in fact have existing technologies making camera monitoring (viewfinders) more optimized: Motion tracking (Ronin 4d), auto-focus, high dynamic range, 360º cameras, depth detection, and light field cameras (Lytros) are all examples of such tools that visual artists can choose to use. We can also be creative without using a viewfinder at all. One could pursue "the art of photography without using a viewfinder" as their chosen field, if that's fun for them. The statement "being creative is about mastering the technical," I don't think we really mean that. Being creative involves technique, but ultimately only relies on the act of creation.

Well with 32bit float, they make it harder to set levels. On the F6 the dials stop working and you have to go into the menus to adjust things!!

Blessed be those who feed the RU-vid Algorithm.

@@FilmmakerIQ your videos got me through university, I passed them on to lecturers to show in class and used screen grabs in my academic journals. Now that I’ve graduated, satiating the algorithmic overlords feels like the least I can do in return.

You really should watch the video... 32 bit isn't more clear than 24 bit. It's actually 24bit with overhead protection. Which is overkill anyways

​@@FilmmakerIQ , look at it this way: by setting your gain in expectation of very high possible signal, you're borrowing from your signal's resolution; you're sacrificing decibels from full dynamic range of your 24 bit recording to safeguard yourself against clipping, but at expense of dynamic range given to quieter sounds. Or, taking your test with loud and quiet sounds in a same take... Suppose you have a scream, which is, say, 110dB - and then you have a whisper which is, suppose, 20dB, you're recording in 24 bits and you're setting your gain so that your scream would be just shy of clipping. All good and well, and your 110dB scream will map onto 16777216 possible levels. But then, you record a whisper, which, by amplitude, is 90dB quieter, and the maximum amplitude of your whisper's curve will be mapped to sample with value of 16777216 / 31622 = 530. So, you have values 0 through 530 to represent your whole whisper - or, put differently, you're effectively recording your whisper as 9-bit audio (which, if you'll think of amplifying your whisper later, will give you the expected 9-bit quality and quantization noise floor). Granted, 32-bit float isn't a silver bullet, miracles don't exist, and - not even mentioning that it's harder to technically implement - it won't let you record loud and quiet sounds *simultaneously*, can't take recording of whisper overlapped by a kettle's whistling, then filter out the kettle and get your perfect whisper; won't work like that, 32-bit float is a way to represent bigger numbers, but not any more precise numbers compared to 24-bit - so, whisper on top of a huge sine wave will still be represented by the precious few trailing bits of mantissa. But if you record loud and quiet sound one after another, it pretty much lets you record them with same bit resolution, and it's a pretty neat trick in my book - not for all applications, but, say, for voiceover work, for audiobook narration when you could use a high quality whisper right after nice loud scream (without resorting to fake "quiet screaming", which never really feels natural).

@@user-eo5gi1qe2r It's a mistake to think of sampling depth as "resolution". It doesn't work that way because audio is transformed from digital BACK into analog when you listen to it. So whether you dedicate one bit or 10 bits to describing a sine wave, the analog result is identical. Also a scream is not 110dB.

@@FilmmakerIQ , I'll agree that scream isn't probably 110dB, but that's beside the point, the numbers were taken just to illustrate the fact that by expecting very loud spikes of signal (and reserving your dynamic range for them) you inevitably sacrifice the amount of bits you use to represent quiet signals. About the resolution part, however, I'll have to disagree. ^^ When you transform audio from digital to analog, your conversion is subject to quantization error, which in essence defines your signal to quantization noise ratio (which is 20*log10(sqr(1.5)*2^b)). You may be thinking of 1-bit ADCs and audio streams, but don't let those fool you, those are entirely different things and convert sampling frequency into increased bit depth during conversion, so, speaking roughly, a PWM signal where amplitude is encoded into fill rate and not extra levels of digital signal. If 8-bit audio was able to produce signals identical to 16-bit (with phase correctness), we would've lived in an entirely different world today. ^^ Quantization noise is not something depending on conversion back to analog signal; quantization noise is created in the process of converting analog to digital representation, once you digitized the signal at given resolution, you're stuck with that SNR limit from that point on.

40dB is pretty significant drop but even then you still have about 80dB till you get to the true bit depth noise floor. In my video experiments with the buzz saw I only went up 30dB get the whisper audible. You're suggesting baking peaks 10x softer than my whisper. But you're going to be swimming in ambient noise long before you get to quantization noise. I doubt your experiment would be able to distinguish that... Still the point I make stands, set your gain lower than you think with peaks around -20dB

@@FilmmakerIQ I ran the test again with 4 different recodings : Just below 0 dBFS, -10 dBFS, -20 and -30. 0 dB file : -71.1 dB RMS Noise floor -10 dB file : -70.6 dB RMS Noise floor -20 dB file : -69.9 dB RMS Noise floor -30 dB file : -67.4 dB RMS Noise floor This may not seem like a huge diffrence, but it is a very audible change. You can mosly hear the difference in the -20 and -30 dB files. Here's a link so you can listen : drive.google.com/drive/folders/1lDZluzcZgseekxGj2GYqH_NcOjXl8AK0?usp=sharing This test was done with a Presonus Quantum 2626. Results may vary depending on your audio interface/recorder. I might run the test again when I receive the Zoom F6 and compare 24 bit with 32 bit float.

I don't see or hear any audible difference in your files - between -67.4dB and -71.1dB - less than 4dB difference of already nothingness? Plus - there's no way of verifying your precision in measurements. Those minor changes could be anything...

@@FilmmakerIQ There is a very clear and audible difference. If you can't hear it, this might be where your flawed opinion stems from. I could repeat the test multiple times, the results would be the same, as long as the room tone, mic position and level of the sound source doesn't change. In this test I made sure the only changing parameter was the gain setting. This added noise is pretty easy to deal with in post for spoken word but is still not ideal. Where it is the most detremental I think, is for field recording : A de-noiser will attenuate the noise induced by the recoding device, but will also reduce the ambiant noise (that you actually want to keep). This is why 32 Bit float can be useful. It is true that in most cases it doesn't offer a clear benefit. But there are times where it really does.

Okay it took me a while get where you're going with this. But you're numbers aren't lying. 3dB down at the -67dB after you've already gain boosted it 30 dB... That's close to rounding errors. And my recommendation of 20dB leaves you calculation at 1 dB loss... Nah that's not credible. I don't hear a difference and given sound's proclivity to bias, I'm better you really could tell if I blinded you and recorded my version of the test. I think you've made more a case for how strong 24 bit already is.

PS. In video, extra bit-depth comes at a pretty steep file size cost, so there needs to be a pretty damn good reason to burn through the extra storage 12-bit or 16-bit would require over 10-bit. For audio, though, the file size difference between a 16-bit and 32-bit float recording is not really meaningful. Which is to say, there's not really much reason to NOT capture 32-bit float if your recorder offers it.

I clearly don't see it as "freeing" at all. I don't see how turning a knob slightly takes attention away from placing a mic -it's all part of the same package of doing the job. That you would suggest that it does feels like you're advocating laziness. It's not just mediocre, it's you don't care. But the merchants will gladly take your credit card number to tell you otherwise.

@@FilmmakerIQ Sure I care about getting good audio, but I also have to get a good image and most importantly I have to get a good performance. I rely on a tripod to keep my camera steady...is that lazy? If a 32-bit recorder allows me to devote even 0.5% more of my brainpower on the day to an actor instead of a piece of gear, then that's a win.

False assumptions and analogies. IF your recorder allows it - I'm not saying you shouldn't use it - said so in the video. But I don't see it deriving any benefit or freeing at all and I certainly don't see it as justification to spend the money if you don't have to. But really, 0.5% more brainpower to turn a knob? I'm sorry but that's not a win, that's just making up bullshit excuses.

@@FilmmakerIQ You say "I'm not saying people shouldn't use it", but then you're implying they are lazy if they take advantage of it. You seem to be drawing a false equivalency between not caring about managing gain, and not caring about final audio quality. Those two things are only connected because of a technical limitation in a previous generation of equipment. I used to have to care about how film was processed in order to care about color. Now I don't. Does that mean I don't care a lot about the color of my films?

Never said it's a bad thing... However I don't see it as a huge benefit if you are already in the practice of using limiters in a sparing way. The limiters already provide the insurance against clipping which is hard to do if your average peaks are -20dBFS I think the problem is people set their audio levels far too high.

@@FilmmakerIQ I agree with you, that you could just lower your gain and thus have plenty of headroom for just about anything in 24-bit. However what about target loudness for audio delivery? R128 -23 LUFS or RU-vids -16 LUFS, where you need the average dialogue in the audio files to be at a certain level dBFS? Further down the pipeline after the production sound recording, if the audio files are recorded at a much lower gain to secure a solid headroom while minimizing the utilization of input limiters, the editors etc. would have to either gain the audio files in the editing software or raise the calibrated listening level of their sound system, to properly hear the dialogue. The latter creating a false sense of audible loudness range compared to the average consumer playback setting. In 32-bit floating it seems you could record -23 or -16 LUFS "hot" without slamming the limiter or clipping, while still letting the editors avoid any riding of a volume fader? Maybe short of the limiter in the 16/24-bit DAC

You normalize audio to the target loudness for delivery - it's that simple. This is regardless of what bit depth you record in. LUFs is not your concern when recording - no audio recorder even displays it. You're way way overthinking - 32bit float doesn't negate the need to normalize the audio in post - in fact, it essentially FORCES you to fix it in post because you're much more limited in setting your levels. As for 24bit with the headroom - yes, you will gain it up in post, no false sense of audible loudness needed. And the noise floor of 24 bit is so incredibly low that you can do a lot with it - you'll run into ambient noise long before you hit noise from the system itself. What 32 bit float solves is people NOT following the technique of recording with proper headroom.... which can be negated if you follow the technique.... of recording with proper headroom...

No technology prevents user error.

@@FilmmakerIQ That makes absolutely no sense. 32 bit float would have prevented this users error (in this case they didnt set gain correctly during filming) The post production limiters wouldnt have even needed to be used. So yes, technology can prevent user error.

​@@SliceoflifeVR there would just be another user error waiting to happen. Why are you so naive when it comes to technology?

@@FilmmakerIQ The idea is to prevent the error from being recorded forever. Once it is recorded and clipped, there is no recovery from that error with 24 bit. With 32 bit, you can indeed recover from the initial error, as the information is still there. It is clearly superior to record in 32 bit float, as it prevents this error. As a "Run and gun" producer myself, 32 bit float is an invaluable asset to have in the field. In order to capture genuine interactions with people as they happen, you require the ability to hit record once, and not have to set the gain high or low on the fly depending on how loud the next random person is going to speak. Maybe one day when you are a more experienced filmmaker you will understand the importance of each of the tools technology provides us. Including the importance of 32 bit float.

a new "Ultra-RAW" image format isn't required. Even with today's RAW format you can ignore exposure settings and still get the same results in post. Two prerequisites though: as long as you expose within the dynamic range of the image sensor and if you have the imagesensor characteristics data (obtaining that information is not so straight forward) So in real life it's just easier to set exposure correctly and tweak the RAW-files in post.

@@ginglyst I was trying to make this point: With 32 bit floating point recording they replaced a work step you do before you record with a work step you do in post production. You gain the security that your recording doesn't clip but it would not clip in 99.99% of all cases if you do your first work step corectly.

"ignore exposure settings and still get the same results in post" That's just flat out wrong and you explained why in your next sentence :P

@@FilmmakerIQ oooh flat out wrong, you calling me out on that one?

You called yourself out on it :P

Okay, I'll byte. How much more?

I agree. Marketing something as "idiot proof" only breeds more idiots.

an sm58 probably would

💯 like you said, it’s risk reduction. And if reducing risk means that you have one less thing to worry which will improve your performance of capture, then use it. Using 24 but instead of 32bit float doesn’t make you the better audio recordist, it just inflates your ego. 32 Bit files also don’t destroy your CPU, require a server room of hard drives, and crazy hardware to process. There’s no better time to let go of one more thing in the solo capture process. 32 bit has proven we don’t need to go any high in bit depth now unless some weird 4D sound capture that would exponentially benefit us greatly were to present itself. Maybe In the future? Until then, there’s no need for 48 bit float after what is being discussed here.

Ask any experienced engineer and I GUARANTEE they have NEVER clipped due to the technical limits of 24 bit. It's not that the human voice has a predictable range, it's that 24 bit has a range that a substantial portion of what's even physically possible. But the real proof is 32 bit float feature wasn't introduced on the top of the line audio devices first and trickled down to the cheaper devices. It was introduced on the lower end first. Because if you have experience, it solves no problem. And it doesn't reduce risk at all if you actually do some basic things.

@@FilmmakerIQ And if you don’t have experience you should feel bad about using 32 bit? There are a lot of beginners out there who wished they had a Time Machine that could get that burnt take back while they were practicing. The fact that you could still burn a take sucks so eliminating that possibility helps. Sure it may be easy to most for setting levels, but for those that are starting out, 32bit is a great way to hone in while you get a safety net.

Point me where in the video I said you should feel bad. Once you learn the simple basic technics, 32 bit float offers no benefit.

@@FilmmakerIQ Let me guess, if you have to rely on 32 bit, you shouldn't be doing any audio recording right? "Ask any experienced engineer and I GUARANTEE they have NEVER clipped due to the technical limits of 24 bit." Good for them. I hope they feel better about themselves and can now slap the "pro" moniker on their participation trophy. 32 bit offers a safety net. A welcome one for more people who are starting out to get into this and/or just aren't as interested in audio but know that they have to capture it, knowing the chances of getting a burnt take are pretty much nil. We've finally hit the limit when it comes to audio capture. This is a good thing. Let it happen.

24 bit's quantization noise floor is extremely low - you won't notice it at all if you follow the approach I laid out. Ambient noise floor is a function mic placement - no recorder will fix that.

Yes you can save clipped audio but 32 bit float doesn't handle over processing better than 24 bit ( it's used in the processing step and then bumped back down to 24/16). It's not like RAW photo editing, the analogy doesn't hold up because digital audio goes through digital to analog conversion before it hits your ears. But if you're going to torture the analogy, 24 bit is already shooting RAW, 32 bit is just 24 bit but with the ability to capture a crazy range. Other than the never clipping bit, you will never be able to tell the difference between 24 bit and 32 bit recordings

After reading up more and more on it - it's 32bit float is just 24 bit float with an exponent to add a ton range. Because of the nature of audio, the larger skips in distance between steps at the extreme loud end don't really matter anyway. I would wager these recorders aren't any better than 120db dynamic range - IF that. They just use a recording format where the allocation of that dynamic range just doesn't matter.

Be careful as SPL can increase or decrease depending on distance to the source. So even if 32bit float can cover the range of sound, your physical microphone may not be able to capture the sound of exhaust if it's right up by the tailpipe.

@@FilmmakerIQ Thanks I have the mic inside the helmet to capture what I am saying and luckily ( unlucky for the public ) the harley is noisy enough for it to add a subtle flavour of hydrocarbon burning neanderthal undertone to the idiocy I am spewing onto the internet. Testing it this weekend with different gain values. It's one of those instamic things which wedding people use. Hoping it solves a few other issues with lav mics in helmets. Im also going to test it behind me out of the wind for b-roll audio ... b -audio.

Just FYI, if the mic is inside your helmet, 24bit is plenty enough to handle road noise - so long as you follow the -20dB rule for peaks ;) But 32 bit will be fine if your don't want to mess with that.

@@FilmmakerIQ I'll try that as well. the instamic does 24 bit stereo. but 32 bit mono which is ok but to my earholes I like proper stereo. Biggest issue is wind noise got a deadcat coming to fit but want to play now ! 👍

Are you running two mics? If just one mic then mono is all you're going to get.

You won't have any issues with 24 bit and a choir if you set your levels the way I described. I've done it many times

@@FilmmakerIQ Oh I don’t doubt you one bit! The examples you gave and points you brought leave me with nothing to say besides “you’re right”. I’m honestly just personally acknowledging both the ignorance tax and ADHD tax I pay to avoid stressing myself into the aether, lol To the first point: when I first decided to record my choir concerts, I just didn’t know the things you taught me in this video. I was learning about 32-bit recording as I was making the decision about which recorder I wanted to buy. If I’d have known what showed here there’s s chance I would have made a better decision, or at least made the same one in a more informed way. That said, the reason I ended up going with 32-bit recorders was actually just to avoid stress. I knew I’d have to set up my equipment on my one time, on the day of my performance, in between whatever dress rehearsals or call times I had. I might not even get time to properly set anything up. With my ADHD diagnoses last year, and my previous experiences with high stress, fast-paced environments, I’m not sure I would have been able to commit to learning how to record location sound with a field recorder without the massively overengineered safety buffer of 32-bit recording. I was essentially about to learn to do it on my own without any mentors or guidance. The decision of which recorder to buy was, itself, a stressful experience because my brain was already running ahead to how I would feel if I failed to capture the moments I wanted to capture because I was just going through the learning process. Now that I know what you’ve taught me, I’ll be better informed if I need to make another purchase in the future, but I also know I have to pay the ADHD tax somewhere. Either I medicate (been working with a psychiatrist, and it’s been going well!) Or, I force my ADHD brain to slow down, which leads to me taking a much longer time to do something normal people do to avoid missing things normal people wouldn’t miss. Or, I just avoid the problem altogether with 32-bit recording. It doesn’t matter what I do, how much I learn, or how well I prepare, I almost always mess up something moderately important up, no natter how many times I’ve prepared and practiced. While I know now I never needed 32-bit, I paid the price for the piece of mind that there is nothing I can do to mess up the most important part of what I want to record. Thank you so much for putting out such amazing content! EDIT: fixed a typo

No. You should review my video on audio recording. 32 bit float is a recording format, that's all. I don't think anything in your audio chain does 32 bit float

General rule of thumb… you can’t make a bad signal “better” but you can make a great signal worse

I think your question is a little misleading. The microphone signal is analog, in essence the microphone has infinitely variable "pressure levels". The infinitely variable signal is quantized and sampled using a digital system. Now at the same time there's also noise in the system and noise in the form of quantization noise which is the error that's made when converting the infinitely variable analog signal into a discrete digital form. That noise is why you lose a few bits and they say a 24 bit file only has about 20 useful bits. Which is still a lot of room to work with.

You live and learn. I've done it too.

Okay, I'll buy that argument. 32 bit float is for idiots :P

When switched to 32bit float, these devices essentially lock you out from controlling the gain. It's preset. You can still overload it though.

@@FilmmakerIQ I see, makes a lot of sense. So the dynamic range of the preamp is way smaller then the digital 32bit float range and will always be the bottleneck as I assumed. Thanks for enlightening me!

I believe they actually link up two preamps to expand the dynamics range but even then it still doesn't come close to filling out the total available dynamic range of 32 bit float.

Nope. ;) Recording -20dB would also record the microphone's "self noise" down -20 dB. Anything coming from the mic will be completely unaffected in terms of noise. The recorder's own self noise would be the only thing at stake here. But even old beaten up recorders have EXTREMELY low noise especially if they are capable of recording 24 bit. If you purchase a recorder capable of 32 bit, it's going to be even lower than that. From a practical stand point, not worth thinking about. So you'd get practically zero benefit on the noise front recording 24 vs 32 bit front. All you're getting is clipping protection. 32bit just pushes the gain staging process to post instead of at the time of recording. You're going to have to turn down the signal when you see it clip with 32 instead of raising the signal with 24 bit and recording at -20dB. The ratio between recorded signal to noise stays the same in both scenarios.

Thanks for reply. You're right about self noise. I have Zoom H1N and I have to test it with less gain (as you said it) and no limiter instead. I found the limiter introducing noticeable noise. BTW, I discovered I have as well a device which records 32 bit FIXED Point - It is a GoPro9. I haven't yet tested how much self noise it has.

I can't find any evidence that GoPro 9 shoots 32bit fixed. How did you find that out?

@@FilmmakerIQ Subject: "GoPro 9 shoots 32bit fixed" First, about setting from GoPro Hero-9 Black, user manual, p. 143: "Tech Specs: Protune / RAW AUDIO This setting creates a separate .wav file for your video, in addition to the standard .mp4 audio track. You can select the level of processing to apply to the RAW audio track. RAW Setting -> Off (default) No separate .wav file is created. RAW Setting -> Low: Applies minimal processing. Ideal if you want to apply audio processing in post-production." When I open the file in Audition, I can see: - Source Format: Waveform Audio 32-bit integer / That should be 32-bit fixed - Bit depth: 32 (float) / I suppose this is the processing format chosen by Audition to open and process the file, once it was accepted and recognized.

Kind of annoying that the manual doesn't say... But I guess it makes sense to record 32bit on something that practially has no audio gain control - 32 bit float would be overkill (and require another ADC)

Weird - are you doing some kind of auto leveling in post. The way I've heard it described - 32 bit doesn't negate setting levels - it just pushes it into post.

@@FilmmakerIQ nope. I believe it might be just specific to F2 really.

The question is what is your noise source? My experience is that the H4 is pretty decent from internal noise. Are you picking up environmental noise? Is the mic introducing noise itself? Is the cable solid?

The preams on the h5 are pretty decent, in my experience setting the gain to 6 is pretty much the limit before the noise of the recorder starts to become noticeable. The problem comes with mics that need a lot of gain, such as the xy mics included with the h5, in those cases you'll have to push the recorder above 6. Of course this isn't a problem if you're recording loud environments. If you want to buy something new, I'd say you get a MixPre 3/6 or a Zoom F4/F8, the step up in preams quality is notorious with those, unlike a H4 and an H6 for example.

finally someone says it

oh hey! 👋

@@TheREAPERBlog Well, fancy meeting you here!

I agree with the sentiment but the issue with that argument is recording levels are not tied to real world sound pressure levels. Also 32 bit float is actually very computationally efficient (it's from 1985 after all) and the space needed isn't really that much in the grand scheme of things. But you are right that 24bit already exceeds pretty much every other part of the audio equation. So much so that in order to derive benefit from 32 bit they have to link TWO digital to analog converters!! :D

Problem with that analogy is 24-bit is already your umbrella, you just need to know how to use your umbrella and you won't get wet. 32 bit is like walking around with a bubble suit on to avoid getting wet in the rain.

In 2019 a few of these devices dropped and now people are telling me it's game changing.

I hate that example because it doesn't actually reflect any real world use case. It's literally a talking point for those that don't know better. If you were intentionally recording raindrops why would you want a sudden extremely loud thunderclap in your recording? It would be absolutely shocking to the listener to hear that extreme dynamic range change (don't know if you've been close to lighting... That stuff can get extremely loud to the point of pain which is 140dB SPL... Rain might be around 40 SPL). Even if you recorded at 32bit float you still have to contend with the extreme dynamic range change. If your mic survived the close up lightning strike (most are only rated for 120dB SPL), when you go to lower the volume in post, your raindrops will drop down to nothing... And if you're original intention was raindrops, well they're gone... Either way you pick one or the other. Now if you're asking about distant thunder... That's easy. Plenty of recordings exist of rain and distant thunder and been done on equipment that didn't even have 16bit of dynamic range. With 32bit float... Okay you can capture thunder up till your microphone maxes out... But you're still going to have to chose which one you finally set the volume for.. the rain or the thunder, not both.

Sure... but that represents a tiny tiny tiny fraction of audio recording.

@@FilmmakerIQ dude thank you for the video. Sooo helpful and well explained. I'm a newbie and I was thinking about that above mentioned nature recording. So there is an advantage right? If I want to capture ambient sounds...

Nope never used it. Seems like an older device no longer on sale.

Yes there is but they're not as well implemented

@@FilmmakerIQ thanks for answering

Well -6dB isn't the same cushion as -20dB but if it works for what you're doing, keep doing it.

@@FilmmakerIQ Agreed. That -6db is for the safety track, while I target my peaks on my main track for -12db. So that gives me almost a -20db pad but makes for a little less editing in post as the main levels are closer to what I'll actually be using them at.

Used to do it... But not so much anymore. The previous video talked about sample rate. 96khz gives lots for filtering out ultrasonic noise, but 48 khz is plenty fine for most recordings.

Ugh - I got some confusion there with volts.... 20db is 100x POWER - it is 10x the amplitude. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decibel

@@FilmmakerIQ, well, that’s interesting! I got out of EE school back in 1983 and have been a Computer Nerd ever since. So, I looking at that Wiki, I’m either remembering wrong, or there are different definitions of dB going around (beyond just what the definition takes as the reference amplitude or power level). I think it’s more likely the latter. I found a Quora chat “Why is a decibel always in the form of ‘20log()’?” (RU-vid doesn’t seem to let me post the link, sorry.) Anyway, what I remember from EE school, 38 years ago, was that it was defined in terms of *amplitude* ratios. The gain of an amplifier is the output *voltage* over the input *voltage* . So, if its gain is 10, then the base-10 log of 10 is 1, meaning one Bel of gain, or 10dB. However, what’s most interesting is the *power* increase, and since p = v^2 * R, the *power* gain is double that, 2B or 20dB. So, I guess it gets back to there being several definitions of decibels going around! Yeehah…

Either way though, great topic and great video! Thanks!

Yeah I remember this trap from way back when I was first researching this! Tricky because I went to marketing school :P

Someone else pointed that out. Added the error in the description

Gah! Too many smart people!! 😉👍

@@endokrin7897 nah, just educated in the subject matter.

It's only useful in situations where you CAN'T - being a veteran run and gun solo filmmaker for years - gain staging isn't something that's hard to do.

Adagio you dont get it. Take 1 minute on the set to set the levels, and its done. OR... do what? let the 32 bit uh... be whatever level it is... then spend hours later in poast listening to everything to normalize it??? What? Its like saying "the camera record raw, so I dont need to do anything on set! Just point and do it later!!!" you are srupid. John is right. By the way i own a few 32 bit recorders, made by sound devices. I never ise the 32 bit it would be a waste.

One of the worst audio levels experience I've ever had recently was live streaming a school board meeting where each school submitted a video progress report. To say the levels were all over the place would be an insult to something that was all over the place. I mean half these people didn't even believe in second takes... Luckily I offloaded the audio job to my friend who was helping me haha It is what it was.

Okay, I legitimately get that. Still think a -20dB headroom can still save the day in those situations.

@@FilmmakerIQ Sure, and then there are the situations where there's a quiet signal and giving an additional -20dB headroom is just adding additional unnecessary noise when you can just record 32-bit...In a perfect world, someone who is able to monitor the audio would have no problem with 24-bit but a 32-bit recorder is a small price to pay for basically having an assistant.

Oh, my sound bar has a blue light. Am I doing it wrong?🤨

That is such an edge use case that it's ludicrous to consider. You are talking about soft rain with an incredibly close lightning strike... Close enough to physically hurt you... For scientific analysis maybe (even then these recorders may not pass scientific muster), but not for anything with an aesthetic purpose. Those extremely rare edge cases are really not worth discussing. If you need it, then you know why you need it. But for the 99.9% of users, you accomplish the same thing with proper gain staging.

@@FilmmakerIQ Nonetheless this is one of the abilities of 32bit float recording as opposed to processing. I mentioned SFX recording and in brackets 'perhaps' scientific recording, which in truth is not my area. You don't need to be dangerously close to lightning for it to exceed the DR of 24bit - what is 'ludicrous' is to imply I was suggesting that. Your claim, in the title of your video, is 'You don't need 32 Float..." without qualification, such as, 'for indie fiction filmmaking', and having been a professional location sound recordist and dubbing mixer in film and TV, I'm saying you are not right, in all cases and I know of professional sound designers and SFX recordists, who are using 32bit float to record SFX for filmmaking, for the case reasons I exampled. Similarly, for example, there could be many unpredictable wide DR news, documentary and broadcast scenarios where 32bit float could be very useful and the ability to bring sound out afterwards that might be lost otherwise - not everybody is shooting controlled fiction, even indies. Already I would think this exceeds 0.1% use for 32bit float recording you suggest. You could say you don't need 24bit.... too, for your definition, which I could easily make a case for on your terms also, 16bit is fine - then we can dismiss any new innovations as unnecessary gimmicks because we don't own them. 32bit float is not just about not having to set levels because you are too lazy or don't know how. It's like saying you don't need to shoot in raw, you can shoot in Prores and expose properly, like professionals have done for years, which is equally true - new technology offers greater flexibility for both the amateur and professional - In the interests of full disclosure and due diligent research, I would of mentioned, if only in passing, that in your explanation, unless you have a clickbait reason for such a dogmatic position and title, then I understand.

You still miss the point in that 24 is ALREADY the insurance against clipping in uncontroled situation. 24bit IS the RAW high dynamic range. As for the lightning strike, yes you do need to be dangerously close. Thunder in close proximity is 120dB, 24bit is capable of 144dB. But that also depends on how you gain the signal. My whole problem with the rain and thunder scenario (which others keep bringing up), is it's not realistic. You either want to record the rain or you record the thunder in close proximity. There's no real practical use where you want both in there full and original volumes. BTW you never shoot LOG in news or broadcast, because you don't have time for grading in turn around. So you'd stay in a broadcast color standard with limited DR. Anyhow, as for SFX guys, I'm sure that case use and situations where they ACTUALLY see benefit is probably less than 0.1% of the TOTAL use among all people of these recorders. As I said, if you really need it, you'll know why. Otherwise, you don't need it. That's not just click bait, that's from experience and understanding how this stuff works. 32 but float isn't innovation, it's marketing. I already own F8N and the 32bit float in the latest version would add nothing beyond what I'm doing with 24 bit. And I've only used it once in a controlled setting, every other use was a set and forget scenario capturing whatever people in front of the mics decide to do. Anyhow, I'm just repeating everything I said in the video, so if you want a better understanding of my position, watch the video with less bias, really listen to try to understand the argument.

Thanks for that, but I don't think that was easier...

Already added in the description.

@@FilmmakerIQ my bad. Thanks.

So... just record lower gain... What I find annoying is the constant barrage of "it's a game changer" when it's not. Nice to have? Fine. But does it justify replacing gear you already have? absolutely not.

I think that's a technique issue. Even with 32 bit float you also run into the possibility of blowing out the microphone capability: the gun is after all a creating a shockwave. You can also overload the internal electronics of these recorders even if 32 bit float is indistructible The NT2 I demoed the saw on is only rated to 132dB SPL... The best bet is to probably go multiple passes, get some distance for the blast and another up close for the chambering of the round and all those noises... Marry them in the mix...

@@FilmmakerIQ That's an important point: The digital file format has nothing to do with the what the initial analog sound capture is capable of.

Yeah - that's the only way all these recorders work. Why buy one when you can buy two!

I don't know if it will become universal because it seems to require additional hardware (a second ADC).