TerryS;675015 Wrote: > If you carefully read the link that adamdea posted back on post #23, you > will see that this discussion of dithering, like all others I have seen > on the web, demonstrates how dithering works on a continuous signal > that is sampled many, many times in the presence of random noise. This > example uses 32,768 samples of the same 1kHz waveform, requiring 743 > milliSeconds. > The problem is that the music signal will not "sit still" for the 743 > milliSeconds required for the dithering to work its magic. The fewer > samples that can be made on a signal before it changes, the less > effective dithering is. If you have a signal that is constantly > changing, dithering has no effect whatsoever. > Dithering is very much like averaging. If you average a large number > of readings of a constant value in the presence of noise, you can > effectively increase the resolution of the reading. But if the value > is not constant for the entire time that is required to get the large > number of readings, It doesn't work. > That issue is not discussed in this or any other write up I have seen > of dithering. It does work well for signals that are not constantly > changing, but what about music signals that are always changing in > amplitude and frequency? > > Terry
You are right, the examples tend to use a steady tone. You say that dithering doesn't work for constantly changing signals. Why do you say that? Regards, Darren -- darrenyeats http://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/richpub/listmania/byauthor/A3H57URKQB8AQO/ref=cm_pdp_content_listmania/203-7606506-5721503. SB Touch ------------------------------------------------------------------------ darrenyeats's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=10799 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=89733 _______________________________________________ audiophiles mailing list [email protected] http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
