adamdea wrote:
> Arny I don't think the delta sigma thing is relevant if we are
> discussing 16 bit quantisation.
>
Please explain why I should believe this, as opposed to standard auio
engineering texts, formal classes and lab tests.
>
> The ADCs will produce a single or multibit stream at
arnyk wrote:
> Modern audio ADCs (of sigma-delta design) generally noise shape the
> quantization error, in effect turning it into dither without adding any
> additional noise:
>
> http://www.ti.com/lit/an/slyt423/slyt423.pdf page 16:
>
> "Multi-order modulators shape the quantization noise to
adamdea wrote:
> Noise level, Julf.
Thanks for the clarification. I am familiar with the theory, but wasn't
sure about what your "just-noticeable increase in volume level" was
referring to.
"To try to judge the real from the false will always be hard. In this
fast-growing art of 'high
adamdea wrote:
> Noise level, Julf. Provided that the half lsb is spectrally flat by
> dithering of otherwise the only effect of quantisation is to add an
> error equivalent to spectrally-flat noise. This is quantisation 101.
>
Modern audio ADCs (of sigma-delta design) generally noise shape
Julf wrote:
> Not quite sure what you are saying here. Are you talking about a
> just-noticeable increase in noise level, or a just-noticeable change in
> signal amplitude? The former might relate to the needed number of bits,
> the latter less so.
Noise level, Julf. Provided that the half lsb
docbob wrote:
> Ill let Arny decide how I should respond.
If you have something that is correct and relevant to say, bring it on.
arnyk's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=64365
View this
Julf wrote:
> The first sentence is probably a statement of fact. The second sentence
> is a personal attack / slur. Can we try to avoid the latter kind?
Saying that certain posters make copious errors of fact when that is
what they do is also a statement of fact.
Both of them also seem to
arnyk wrote:
> Some people here confuse criticisms of incorrect thinking and beliefs
> with personal attacks. The most erroneous of them here lately seem to
> affect aliases that start out "Dr".
The first sentence is probably a statement of fact. The second sentence
is a personal attack / slur.
Julf wrote:
> Point taken.
Some people here confuse criticisms of incorrect thinking and beliefs
with personal attacks. The most erroneous of them here lately seem to
affect aliases that start out "Dr".
arnyk's Profile:
Julf wrote:
> I love (and sorely miss) good old Wireless World!
Unfortunately the project amp is said by the author to be capable of 500
watts into a 20 ohm load which falls well short of the 20 KW
requirement.
Many modern high powered amps are designed to drive very low impedance
loads and
adamdea wrote:
> You're just being silly, go back and think about it again. Quantisation
> will (unless undithered) always add noise.
>
I'm happy to see that you are finally seeing the light, and finally
admit that quantization noise/distortion is not added separately but is
inherent in
adamdea wrote:
> merely establishing the incontrovertible point-that it is clear that
> only once one has established the just-noticeable increase in volume
> level can one be clear about the bit depth required to produce
> transparent quantisation of a given signal.
>
Not quite sure what you
arnyk wrote:
> Attack me as a person as you will. It still won't make the myths you
> seem to believe in, and your utter misunderstanding of the topic at
> hand, relevant or true.
>
> I never said: "That the level of quantisation noise is equal to that of
> the recording in order to capture
docbob wrote:
> If you would call on all members uniformly to attack myths, wrong
> beliefs or fallacies, rather than the holders thereof, this would be a
> better place.
Julf wrote:
> Point taken.
:-) I just realized that I offered to give my path (high road vs. low
road) to someone else:
Yup
drmatt's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=59498
View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=105717
___
audiophiles mailing
docbob wrote:
> If you would call on all members uniformly to attack myths, wrong
> beliefs or fallacies, rather than the holders thereof, this would be a
> better place.
Point taken.
"To try to judge the real from the false will always be hard. In this
fast-growing art of 'high fidelity'
Julf wrote:
> Could we please keep the discussion factual instead of descending into
> silly ad hominems?
First, ad hominems -can be- factual.
But I get your point that you want the thread to focus on the facts of
the topic, not fact or fiction about members. Your request would be so
much more
17 matches
Mail list logo
