John Curl's Blowtorch preamplifier part II - Page 2694 - diyAudio
Go Back   Home > Forums > Member Areas > The Lounge

The Lounge A place to talk about almost anything but politics and religion.

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 25th August 2012, 01:27 AM   #26931
diyAudio Member
 
Chris Hornbeck's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Little Rock
Quote:
Originally Posted by bear View Post
My listening room is likely close to 16 bit depth on winter nights, with the heat off... it's at times scary quiet... assuming you work back from peak SPL, yep think it makes that for the noise floor.

Wish I had my ears minus 20 years or so...
Fair enough, but let me put my concerns another way. All storage systems are both bandwidth and dynamic range limited. Perhaps we can all agree that adding zeros beyond *some* point in unimportant.

For you (or least your younger self) more bandwidth than 22 KHz would help. For most adults, not so much.

A good seat in an unamplified orchestral setting gives peaks of 105 dB SPL, and this should be reproduced cleanly for "realism". 16 bits down is 10 dB SPL, and most folks have to hold their breath to get that quiet. (People are noisy machines in this context.) For typical peak-to-average ratios this (105 dB SPL peak) is an averaged flat 85 dB SPL, mastering level and, to me, very loud.

So for most adults, 16 bits is a comfortable margin.

Thanks,
Chris

Last edited by Chris Hornbeck; 25th August 2012 at 01:38 AM. Reason: clarification
  Reply With Quote
Old 25th August 2012, 01:29 AM   #26932
morinix is offline morinix  United States
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
A woman at 40yo 22khz more likely. I would have to see tests.
__________________
Robert
Lounge Audio
  Reply With Quote
Old 25th August 2012, 01:36 AM   #26933
diyAudio Member
 
Chris Hornbeck's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Little Rock
Quote:
Originally Posted by RNMarsh View Post
The lack of low level resolution is a big deal for digital. The specs for most DAC chips fudge on this with thd et al .... with weighting for noise and rating at full output. Only a few rate the performance at -60 level. The AD1955 is better at -60 than most and so i use that one and it is awfully good.... especially with direct master 24/96/192 downloads with wav file. Now things are starting to get interesting! Stilll need better mic (soundfield) technique. Anyway for audio, the low level resolution may be the last bastion for analog.
Most ADC and DAC conversions these days run at small bit depths and high oversampling rates, which are the same at all storage rates. Only the calculatin' is different, usually.

How is low level resolution different from one sampling rate or storage bit depth to another?

Thanks,
Chris
  Reply With Quote
Old 25th August 2012, 01:40 AM   #26934
fas42 is online now fas42  Australia
diyAudio Member
 
fas42's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: NSW, Australia
Blog Entries: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by RNMarsh View Post
The lack of low level resolution is a big deal for digital. The specs for most DAC chips fudge on this with thd et al .... with weighting for noise and rating at full output. Only a few rate the performance at -60 level. The AD1955 is better at -60 than most and so i use that one and it is awfully good.
Huuhh? I never get this thinking - all reproduction systems have increasing noise and distortion with falling level, there's no way to get around this. And you don't need to worry about it, because the distortion is always below audible levels, unless you run your system at PA sound levels. Vinyl is an example of a replay mechanism that has truly appalling levels of measured distortion, but a lot of people still reckon it's pretty nice to listen to ...

Frank
  Reply With Quote
Old 25th August 2012, 01:41 AM   #26935
RNMarsh is offline RNMarsh  United States
diyAudio Member
 
RNMarsh's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: 2457 Cascade Trail; Cool, CA. 95614
Quote:
Originally Posted by SY View Post
So in your world, "resolution" and "noise" have the same meaning? And analog recorders have better noise floors?

Deja vu....
?? In MY world ?!? You're painting with the wrong brush --

Now why would I/anyone hear them as the same meaning?! In analog, I can hear at low recorded levels details in music and the random/hiss background. And, i can hear no random noise but distorted music at low recorded levels in digital. No mystery to that.

Last edited by RNMarsh; 25th August 2012 at 01:55 AM.
  Reply With Quote
Old 25th August 2012, 01:52 AM   #26936
miklos is offline miklos  Canada
diyAudio Member
 
miklos's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: toronto
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris Hornbeck View Post
Who has even a 16 bit listening room? What adults can hear 22 KHz?

Thanks,
Chris
I'm up to 14kHz now and going strong.
__________________
miklos
  Reply With Quote
Old 25th August 2012, 01:56 AM   #26937
diyAudio Member
 
Chris Hornbeck's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Little Rock
Quote:
Originally Posted by RNMarsh View Post
In analog, I can hear at low levels details in music and the random/hiss background. And, i can hear no random noise and distorted music at low playback levels in digital. No mystery to that.
It's important for us to not give the impression that digital storage has an inherent low level distortion, "stair steps", or missing information below the smallest bit. It's surprising how common these ideas still are, so it's extra important for influential folks like you be "careful with your phaseology". There's no fundamental reason that digital storage, properly dithered, must have *any* low level artifacts, so you could say there's a practical mystery in the implementation.

Thanks,
Chris
  Reply With Quote
Old 25th August 2012, 01:57 AM   #26938
diyAudio Member
 
john curl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: berkeley ca
People here have many opinions. They are not MY opinions based on my experience in the audio field for such a long time. They are not my colleagues' opinions, either. I don't know how to address the situation.
Today, I got a phone call from Jim Borgornio (sp). He has been amazingly successful in making pretty darn good electronics recently.
The rest here, have a lot to learn, before you can teach me anything much.
  Reply With Quote
Old 25th August 2012, 02:14 AM   #26939
fas42 is online now fas42  Australia
diyAudio Member
 
fas42's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: NSW, Australia
Blog Entries: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris Hornbeck View Post
There's no fundamental reason that digital storage, properly dithered, must have *any* low level artifacts, so you could say there's a practical mystery in the implementation.

Thanks,
Chris
There are no audible artifacts with digital as a format, it's always the playback implementation that's the problem child. I've done this exercise over and over again, of listening to digital attentuated to ridiculously low levels and have always been impressed at the detail that is preserved.

But, I've heard plenty of poor digital playback, that sounds like it has been kneecapped, the detail below a certain level completely evaporates, disappears into thin air. This is faulty playback!!

Frank
  Reply With Quote
Old 25th August 2012, 02:16 AM   #26940
RNMarsh is offline RNMarsh  United States
diyAudio Member
 
RNMarsh's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: 2457 Cascade Trail; Cool, CA. 95614
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris Hornbeck View Post
It's important for us to not give the impression that digital storage has an inherent low level distortion, "stair steps", or missing information below the smallest bit. It's surprising how common these ideas still are, so it's extra important for influential folks like you be "careful with your phaseology". There's no fundamental reason that digital storage, properly dithered, must have *any* low level artifacts, so you could say there's a practical mystery in the implementation.

Thanks,
Chris
yes, you are quit correct and again I wasnt being technical in my listening mode description - (maybe I go in and out of right-left brain )
digital is getting better and better. In fact, I am going towards measuring harmonics of analog designs with a digital ADC/DAC system!

Never-the Less, when replayed back levels are very low and fine detail structure in music isnt resolved... CD 16/44.1 hasnt been good enough and sounded as described. I attribute that loss of detail in music at low recorded levels to the fewer bits being used at low levels in some of the popular playback technologies. Maybe it was elsewhere -- like a bad digital volume control. Then there is/was 1-bit technology and others. I am talking about playback - the AD1955 IS a DAC..... compare its -60 thd et al if you can get the info from others. Cleanness over a wide dynamic range is where analog had a good bit (sic) to offer. Ok so kill me. -RNM

Last edited by RNMarsh; 25th August 2012 at 02:23 AM.
  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



New To Site? Need Help?

All times are GMT. The time now is 12:56 AM.


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