Claiming that 16 bits provides 96 dB of dynamic range ignores the fact that the distortion rises as the number of bits decreases. For an analog system, it is OK to define the dynamic range as the ratio of the loudest signal that can be produced to the quietest (or the noise floor). But I have a problem when they apply that same definition to a sampled system. Sure 16 bits implies 96 dB: 20*log(2^16) = 96dB). But that means you are willing to accept absurd amounts of distortion (100%) as a reasonable "signal". The distortion (due to quantization error) increases as the number of bits decreases. With 16 bits, the distortion is very small (0.0015%), but each bit that is removed doubles the distortion. So a signal sampled at 6dB lower than the peak level will have double the distortion. How much distortion are you willing to accept? If you draw the line at 1% distortion (pretty high in my opinion), then that requires 7 bits. That means the dynamic range of a 16 bit sampled system is only 54 dB: 20*log(2^(16-7))= 54dB if you limit the distortion allowed to less than 1%. About as good an old cassette deck. Not my definition of "Hi-Fi". 16 bits was a compromise based on the available technology of the day. Many people still claim it is good enough. Many others don't agree.
Terry -- TerryS ------------------------------------------------------------------------ TerryS's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=40835 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=85879 _______________________________________________ discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/discuss
