The dynamic range of 16 bits - Page 24 - diyAudio
Go Back   Home > Forums > Source & Line > Digital Source

Digital Source Digital Players and Recorders: CD , SACD , Tape, Memory Card, etc.

Please consider donating to help us continue to serve you.

Ads on/off / Custom Title / More PMs / More album space / Advanced printing & mass image saving
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 21st June 2003, 07:03 PM   #231
diyAudio Retiree
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Spain or the pueblo of Los Angeles
Default Maybe if we sing with Bing............

You've got to accentuate the positive
Eliminate the negative
Latch on to the affirmative
Don't mess with Mister In-Between


http://www.mathematik.uni-ulm.de/pau.../accent~1.html
Attached Images
File Type: jpg 96point3dbwave.jpg (37.5 KB, 231 views)
  Reply With Quote
Old 21st June 2003, 07:18 PM   #232
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Sweden
Default Re: HAVING A FIELDDAY?

Quote:
Originally posted by fdegrove
Hi,

Cheers,
That the latest amp of yours, Frank? I can see valves on the
top.
  Reply With Quote
Old 21st June 2003, 07:36 PM   #233
diyAudio Senior Member
 
fdegrove's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Belgium
Hi,

Quote:
That the latest amp of yours, Frank? I can see valves on the top
Nope, a German "Kofferradio".

Let me assure you every bit is as important as the next in that one.

Cheers,
__________________
Frank
  Reply With Quote
Old 21st June 2003, 07:40 PM   #234
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Sweden
Quote:
Originally posted by fdegrove
Hi,



Nope, a German "Kofferradio".

Let me assure you every bit is as important as the next in that one.

Cheers,
I believe you and it seems to be four bits, counting the number
of valves. Maybe you can cascade four of them to 16 bits?
  Reply With Quote
Old 21st June 2003, 07:45 PM   #235
diyAudio Senior Member
 
fdegrove's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Belgium
Hi,

Quote:
Maybe you can cascade four of them to 16 bits?
Only in theory....

Cheers.
__________________
Frank
  Reply With Quote
Old 22nd June 2003, 07:23 PM   #236
jcx is offline jcx  United States
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: ..
"Philosophers have argued for centuries about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin, but materialists have always known it depends on whether they are jitterbugging or dancing cheek to cheek"

"But 'glory' doesn't mean 'a nice knock-down argument,'" Alice objected.
"When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said, in a rather scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean – neither more nor less."

Today Humpty would write software; hardware engineers have always known the digital word zero doesn’t necessarily represent the analog voltage zero in any real ADC or DAC. But people do find it handy to use 2’s-complement and ignore the ½ lsb offset that comes along with dividing a symmetrical range into 2^^n-1 intervals. In fact “zero” in digital audio is often special cased in software and hardware allowing the distinction between a 0 level signal and “digital black” between valid data blocks.

If you choose to require that the digital code 0 to represent analog 0V and ask what is the smallest symmetric waveform amplitude then you get the 90 dB number that is causing so much consternation here

If you recognize that the most efficient use of your bits results in analog 0 volts being midway between 2 digital codes, the common 96 dB answer is about right for AC and consistent with the DC case where 96 dB is just right (for AC ½ lsb amplitude signal the amplitude of the fundamental of a square wave is ~ 2 dB higher than the square wave amplitude – this difference could be attributed to the correlation of the quantization noise which is causing further confusion and real distortion in the ½ lsb “sine” wave signal)

http://www.soundslogical.com/support...tml#P403_35603

Which is Right? – I vote neither

If you want to move beyond pinheaded angel counting and address practical audible resolution and 16 bit word length issues you quickly discover that digital domain manipulation must be done at high bit resolution and dithering used to create the final 16 bit representation. Using dither and noise shaping, audible resolution in 16/44 CD digital audio can easily exceed 96 dB – with the greater advantages of sub-lsb linearity and decorrelation of quantization noise – only people shipwrecked on desert islands, working with bamboo and coconuts have any excuse to be limited to undithered or 16 bit resolution editing for even 16/44 mastering

(see next page in first link)

http://www.digido.com/ditheressay.html
  Reply With Quote
Old 23rd June 2003, 12:06 AM   #237
mbroker is offline mbroker  United States
diyAudio Member
 
mbroker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Fox Valley area in WI
Quote:
Originally posted by Rob M
I also think everyone would agree that one could create a .wav file with only two sample values, giving an amplitude of -96dB with some DC offset. Yes? It's not especially easy to do that with cooledit, but all that tells us is that cooledit doesn't handle DC offsets very well.
Riiiiiight.....

Open Cool Edit. Create a new file, 44.1k, 16bit. Turn off dithering. Create a new wave with 50% DC offset, -6dBFS. Amplify it by -96dB. Zoom in, and you see a nice, but not perfectly symmetric, square wave with amplitude 1/2 LSB with a 1/2LSB DC offset.

I'd post the screengrabs, but it is really far too tedius.

Regards,

Mark Broker
  Reply With Quote
Old 23rd June 2003, 12:56 AM   #238
Pedja is offline Pedja  Serbia
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Belgrade
Quote:
Originally posted by mbroker
...square wave with amplitude 1/2 LSB with a 1/2LSB DC offset.
You will never, never get signal, offset or anything written as 1/2LSB. I have never tried CoolEdit, but from the screenshots already posted here it is obvious it oversamples – why and how, by default or not, I do not have a clue and it is not important for now, but screenshots showed bigger resolution than those original files had. It is not hard to understand this way it can easily and happily move something up or down for the level that matches to the 16bit’s 1/2LSB. The point is that you’ll never, never save anything of it into the 16 bit file.

I have some wav files considering this… if I do not post it in the next hour it means I went to sleep, but will post them tomorrow.

Pedja
  Reply With Quote
Old 23rd June 2003, 01:05 AM   #239
Rob M is offline Rob M  United States
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: San Diego, CA
Quote:
Originally posted by mbroker


Riiiiiight.....

Okay, let me revise that.

It's not especially easy for me to do that with cooledit, but all that tells us is that I don't handle DC offsets very well.

  Reply With Quote
Old 23rd June 2003, 02:08 AM   #240
diyAudio Member
 
Da5id4Vz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: lost in america...
Send a message via AIM to Da5id4Vz
Quote:
address practical audible resolution and 16 bit word length issues you quickly discover that digital domain manipulation must be done at high bit resolution and dithering used to create the final 16 bit representation. Using dither and noise shaping, audible resolution in 16/44 CD digital audio can easily exceed 96 dB – with the greater advantages of sub-lsb linearity and decorrelation of quantization noise
JCX,
Well Said!
Who was that masked man?

There has been a lot of talk here about PCM coding but no specific reference to a standard (AES, ISO, EBU, SMPTE, Sony, Phillips…) that identifies that specific binary values against specific specific voltage levels.

Digression:
[Back in the steam driven days of Digital audio processing I became perhaps a little too familiar withy a DAW built by some bright guys up in Boston. It had a 16 bit I/O but all the mix, DSP and other editing was performed on a 56 bit buss. The DSP had no less than 16 Motorola DSP 5600 chips on two VME cards.]
Attached Images
File Type: jpg opus.jpg (41.9 KB, 132 views)
  Reply With Quote

Reply


Hide this!Advertise here!
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Dynamic Range...? Lyra Digital Source 40 2nd October 2007 11:44 PM
Dynamic range vs Jitter ? ash_dac Digital Source 6 3rd March 2007 10:58 PM
SNR/Dynamic range worsens in low frequency range. percy Digital Source 3 1st June 2006 12:41 PM


New To Site? Need Help?

All times are GMT. The time now is 09:11 PM.


vBulletin Optimisation provided by vB Optimise (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2014 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
Copyright ©1999-2014 diyAudio

Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.3.2