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
Julf wrote:
> And to reproduce that mythical 129 dB peak level mentioned with my 86
> dB/1W sensitivity speakers, I would need 20 kW out of my amps...
Here you go - http://sound.westhost.com/dynamic-range.htm
A camel is a racehorse designed by a committee.
arnyk wrote:
> I don't think that there is a living person who has gathered that kind
> of evidence about *-all-* of the recordings that are being released in
> 24 bit versions.
>
> Furthermore there is a possibility that the standard and high resolution
> versions of any recording may have
arnyk wrote:
> It has been repeated and explained on this and other threads in many
> ways that finding a live performance whose dynamic range exceeds the
> capabilities of the CD format is difficult.
And, it wouldn't hurt to note (again) that many of the "we desperately
need high-res -- CD
arnyk wrote:
> You're not the first, but the other point seems to be one of your
> personal goals.
>
> This begs the question of why do you Dr Matt bother with this place,
> given your apparent disrespect for their company, and their products.
>
> In contrast to you, I admire Logitech, and
Julf wrote:
> There is not necessarily any compression going on. All I can tell is
> that all the 24-bit recordings I have looked at would easily have fit
> into 16 bits, and I think archimago came to similar conclusions.
FWIW, I have made similar investigations, and obtained similar results.
drmatt wrote:
> If only I'd been the first, or worst, I'd agree with you on that.
You're not the first, but the other point seems to be one of your
personal goals.
But really, it's a media streamer from a company that makes mice and
keyboards. It's hardly an important part of the HiFi
drmatt wrote:
> I think just flipping back through this thread is proof enough, let
> alone searching the rest of the internet.
>
What this thread shows is a lot of accurate relevant comments, and some
comments that are just paraphrases of common audiophile myths.
I know from decades of
Julf wrote:
> Could we please keep the discussion factual instead of descending into
> silly ad hominems?
If only I'd been the first, or worst, I'd agree with you on that.
But really, it's a media streamer from a company that makes mice and
keyboards. It's hardly an important part of the HiFi
ralphpnj wrote:
> Perhaps a better way to phrase this issue is:
>
> Do the 16 bit versions of all the recordings currently being released in
> a 24 bit versions have the -*actual*- dynamic range of the music
> compressed to fit into the 16 bit container? And do the 24 bit versions
> offer
drmatt wrote:
> I think just flipping back through this thread is proof enough, let
> alone searching the rest of the internet.
>
> What are you even doing here anyway? Why do you even care what people on
> the squeezebox forum think? Seems like a bit of a comedown to me given
> your view of
arnyk wrote:
> Prove it.
I think just flipping back through this thread is proof enough, let
alone searching the rest of the internet.
What are you even doing here anyway? Why do you even care what people on
the squeezebox forum think? Seems like a bit of a comedown to me given
your apparent
ralphpnj wrote:
> Perhaps a better way to phrase this issue is:
>
> Do the 16 bit versions of all the recordings currently being released in
> a 24 bit versions have the -*actual*- dynamic range of the music
> compressed to fit into the 16 bit container? And do the 24 bit versions
> offer
mlsstl wrote:
> Anyone who thinks a loud rock concert has a lot of "dynamic range" has
> been inhaling way too much smoke at the event. It is simply loud. There
> is nothing at the other end.
It turns out that the test data about peak SPLs from Fielder's 1985
paper
Julf wrote:
> I have looked at quite a few, and so far I haven't come across one with
> more than 16 bits of actual dynamic range. Anything beyond 12 bits or so
> is very rare.
Perhaps a better way to phrase this issue is:
Do the 16 bit versions of all the recordings currently being released
adamdea wrote:
> WE still keep ploughing with this (slight) fallacy. It is not enough to
> say that the level of quantisation noise (shut up Arnie) is equal to
> that of the recording in order to capture it.
>
Attack me as a person as you will. It still won't make the myths you
seem to
Julf wrote:
> I have looked at quite a few, and so far I haven't come across one with
> more than 16 bits of actual dynamic range. Anything beyond 12 bits or so
> is very rare.
arnyk's Profile:
drmatt wrote:
> "A simple internet search will reveal"
Prove it.
arnyk's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=64365
View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=105717
arnyk wrote:
> If I had a nickel for every concert with "Electronic Augmentation" where
> hum and noise from guitar amplifiers and hastily erected portable PA
> systems are clearly audible throughout the concert
That menacing hum and hiss before the gig starts is an integral part of
any
arnyk wrote:
> This number was apparently observed at musical performances that
> included "Electronic Augmentation"...
>
> The fallacy of these observations is that as many of us who have been
> subjected to loud concerts with "Electronic Augmentation" IOW electric
> guitars and PA systems
TerryS wrote:
> It may be like the 'chicken and egg' thing. The recording engineers may
> be slow to try to achieve extraordinary dynamic range in the recordings
> until more people have shown the desire to purchase the higher
> resolution products. Again, a guess on my part.
The irony is
ralphpnj wrote:
> Thanks for answering my question.
>
> Now onto your points about opinions. All of these points have more to do
> with the process used to initially record the music and are useful in
> that context. What I'm trying to get are there any recordings where the
> 24 bit version
adamdea wrote:
> WE still keep ploughing with this (slight) fallacy. It is not enough to
> say that the level of quantisation noise (shut up Arnie) is equal to
> that of the recording in order to capture it. It surely has to be
> necessary that the additional noise from quantisation will not
>
ralphpnj wrote:
> Now onto your points about opinions. All of these points have more to do
> with the process used to initially record the music and are useful in
> that context. What I'm trying to get are there any recordings where the
> 24 bit version being sold the the consumer has an actual
TerryS wrote:
> It gets hard to separate facts from opinion. Some things are easy... If
> you assume a certain dynamic range for the recording (like the 65 dB we
> started the discussion with), then the resolution required is just
> straight math and in this case 11 bits is sufficient.
TerryS wrote:
> It gets hard to separate facts from opinion. Some things are easy... If
> you assume a certain dynamic range for the recording (like the 65 dB we
> started the discussion with), then the resolution required is just
> straight math and in this case 11 bits is sufficient.
arnyk wrote:
> How would you know?
>
"A simple internet search will reveal"
drmatt's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=59498
View this thread:
Julf wrote:
> And to reproduce that mythical 129 dB peak level mentioned with my 86
> dB/1W sensitivity speakers, I would need 20 kW out of my amps...
The 129 dB peak number that I am familiar with comes from a number of
related papers by Fielder and Cohen such as :
docbob wrote:
> Gracious acceptance of your own fallibility is not your strong suit on
> any forum, is it?
>
How would you know?
>
> I always respond with "oops, thanks for pointing that out", not a
> childish attack rant with the admission embedded deep within. FYI, there
> is no "oops"
arnyk wrote:
> When we discuss subjective dynamic range, we need to remember that audio
> data well below the LSB is audible on properly dithered digital system.
> Characterizing 16 bits as having 96 dB dynamic range does not include
> this fact.
>
> If you include this effect, then the
pablolie wrote:
> this forum's ability to religiously and passionately recall each other's
> audiophile and mensa license over a dispute about 4 bits of headroom
> -that 99.% of the world's population doesn't give a hoot about-
> never ceases to entertain me. :-D
Agreed. But it's not this
this forum's ability to religiously and passionately recall each other's
audiophile and mensa license over a dispute about 4 bits of headroom
-that 99.% of the world's population doesn't give a hoot about-
never ceases to entertain me. :-D
...pablo
Server: Virtual Machine (on VMware
arnyk wrote:
> Trying to make a big show out of correcting someone doesn't buy you
> much if they already admitted their mistake which of course I did some
> hours ago. Do try to keep up!
Gracious acceptance of your own fallibility is not your strong suit on
any forum, is it?
I always respond
drmatt wrote:
> Sarcasm doesn't make you right.
Trying to make a big show out of correcting someone doesn't buy you
much if they already admitted their mistake which of course I did some
hours ago. Do try to keep up!
arnyk wrote:
> Incorrect. You might want to get up to speed with a thread (especially
> one this short) before making mistakes like that. Please see post 8.
Sarcasm doesn't make you right.
drmatt's Profile:
Julf wrote:
> If you assume the totally over-the-top 129 dB peak level, 16 bits still
> gives you a range of 33-129 dB. Your listening room probably has a
> background noise level above 33 dB, so 16 bits is still more than
> enough.
When we discuss subjective dynamic range, we need to remember
Mike Sargent wrote:
> Right now I'm listening to Joss Stone (sounds great) and my SPL meter
> says I'm only listening at around 75 dB. So that 96 dB (or 110 or
> whatever) dynamic range of CD (ripped to FLAC in this case) is
> unimportant because I'm never going to listen to it loud enough that
Apesbrain wrote:
> Then there is the AES study to which TerryS linked which finds "that the
> reproduction of music performances at natural levels requires the
> ability to produce very loud sounds in the range of 120-129 dB." That
> would lend credence to those who say 16 bits are not enough.
It gets hard to separate facts from opinion. Some things are easy... If
you assume a certain dynamic range for the recording (like the 65 dB we
started the discussion with), then the resolution required is just
straight math and in this case 11 bits is sufficient. 20*log(2^11)= 66
dB.
And you
Apesbrain wrote:
> This thread has gotten a bit out there but I want to circle back to the
> beginning because I'm a bit confused. Ralphpnj describes a live
> orchestral concert recording scenario where he has 65dB of music on top
> of 30dB of room noise and asks why any more than 16 bits are
This thread has gotten a bit out there but I want to circle back to the
beginning because I'm a bit confused. Ralphpnj describes a live
orchestral concert recording scenario where he has 65dB of music on top
of 30dB of room noise and asks why anything more than 16-bits is needed
to render that
So with all this back and forth I see that my original "question" (in
quotes because I never actually phrased it as a question) of whether or
not increasing the bit depth from 16 bit to 24 bit for a recording with
only 85db of dynamic range (as in the difference between the quietest
and the
docbob wrote:
> Without discussing audibility at all, one can say about 24/96: it is a
> standard format,
>
There are now so many so-called standard formats that being a standard
format conveys very little benefit.
However, 44/16 has been THE standard format for over 30 years and and
48/16
arnyk wrote:
> I sense a misunderstanding of quantization (the correct term - not
> quantification) noise. Quantization noise is not added in, rather it is
> an inherent component of the digitized signal. Strictly speaking calling
> it a noise is a questionable use of the word noise, as noise is
To refresh your memory...
docbob wrote:
> Uh, 44100Hz * 2 bytes * 32 channels * 3600 sec / 10^9 = 10.16 GB per
> hour. You are off by a factor of 8. Did we forget the difference between
> bits and bytes? That's okay though, we're all human, we all make
> mistakes.
Where's the error?
arnyk wrote:
> Incorrect. You might want to get up to speed with a thread (especially
> one this short) before making mistakes like that. Please see post 8.
I saw post 8 and answered in post 9 with my calculation for 1 hour
(=10.16 GB). Where's the error?
drmatt wrote:
> Yes this is correct. Uncompressed.
Incorrect. You might want to get up to speed with a thread (especially
one this short) before making mistakes like that. Please see post 8.
arnyk's Profile:
docbob wrote:
> 81 GB is the size of what file? 32 channels for 8 hours? Is that
> realistic?
Incorrect. You might want to get up to speed with a thread (especially
one this short) before making mistakes like that. Please see post 8.
drmatt wrote:
> Yes this is correct. Uncompressed.
I meant: is 8 hours a realistic recording time to worry about file
manipulations (copying, etc)? I don't file size as a compelling reason
to avoid hi-res.
docbob's
drmatt wrote:
> I can't deny that talented folks don't need any help to get things
> sounding good, but the talented folks who actually provide the music I
> listen to have thus far provided a mixed bag of quality and poor 16/44
> recordings. Perhaps some of them could have been better with a
docbob wrote:
> 81 GB is the size of what file? 32 channels for 8 hours? Is that
> realistic?
Yes this is correct. Uncompressed.
drmatt's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=59498
View this thread:
They'd definitely tell me it was off topic in a /video/ forum...
Anyway, yes I know how long it takes to copy 81 or 162 GB files around,
it's pretty tedious. Still a hell of a lot quicker than duplication of
master tapes I would imagine and getting quicker year on year.
You have real world
arnyk wrote:
> 81 GB is the size of the file if it were 16/44.81 GB is the size of what
> file? 32 channels for 8 hours? Is that
realistic?
docbob's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=64780
View
drmatt wrote:
> I didn't say 24/96 just 24 for the extra latitude. 81GB for a master
> file from a recording studio doesn't really sound very scary to me. I
> have more capacity than that in my pocket.
>
81 GB is the size of the file if it were 16/44. If it was 24/96 it would
be 3 times
adamdea wrote:
> Just one comment on this- I'm not sure it's quite right to assume that
> adding quantification noise at the same level as the noise floor of the
> recording will have no effect. Surely it will double the noise floor.
>
I sense a misunderstanding of quantization (the correct
I didn't say 24/96 just 24 for the extra latitude. 81GB for a master
file from a recording studio doesn't really sound very scary to me. I
have more capacity than that in my pocket.
Are we defining a defacto standard here or discussing possibilities?
I can't deny that talented folks don't need
arnyk wrote:
> Most DSP processing and editing uses 32 bits and up, so the noise it
> adds to a 16 bit context is negligible.
Let's say you have a 16 bit recording and decide to perform some DSP on
it at 32 bit accuracy. So far so good. Now you need to store the
results, so you presumably
Just one comment on this- I'm not sure it's quite right to assume that
adding quantification noise at the same level as the noise floor of the
recording will have no effect. Surely it will double the noise floor.
Presumably the logical specification is that the added quantisation
noise should not
arnyk wrote:
> This article
> http://www.avsforum.com/forum/91-audio-theory-setup-chat/2370801-test-your-ability-hear-high-res-audio.html
> shows tests you can do yourself to verify this:
I had downloaded those files and discovered that it just doesn't matter.
I don't *ever* listen at the sorts
arnyk wrote:
> To make the absurdity of this suggestion more clear, why not master at
> 48 bits?
Without discussing audibility at all, one can say about 24/96: it is a
standard format, audio software deals with it, and as drmatt points out
humans can sometimes make mistakes. If your amp is
drmatt wrote:
> All fair points about capability of humans. But the capability of the
> machines is much higher, so in my view why not master at 24 bit anyway?
>
To make the absurdity of this suggestion more clear, why not master at
48 bits? Unlike 24 bit mastering that triples the file size
All fair points about capability of humans. But the capability of the
machines is much higher, so in my view why not master at 24 bit anyway?
The "massive" increase in data storage is utterly trivial actually and
if it helps one engineer avoid clipping or pull a badly levelled track
out of
the rational consensus i have read is that while a very few people have
hearing range that goes beyond 16/44, no human being can possibly
resolve beyond 20/44. 44 gives you the best possible range of human
hearing as established in innumerable tests, and provided to you by
Nyquist. 20bits covers
cliveb wrote:
> At the recording stage, yes. I don't think anyone would argue against
> recording at 24 bits.
>
Think again. As I pointed out with simple math in a recent post, 24/96
adds about 200% wasted space to a 16/44 recording. If you are recording
stereo, this is manageable even
TerryS wrote:
> The other thing to keep in mind is that you would need to leave some
> headroom at the high end unless you knew in advance what the highest
> peak level of the performance was going to be. If you guess too low,
> you will clip on the peak. If you guess too high, you will be
In the example you picked, your point is correct. Since you stated that
the dynamic range of the original performance was 65 dB, then digitizing
it to more than 65 dB is a waste.
If a symphony was limited to 65 dB dynamic range, then 11 bits would be
enough.
But is 65 dB a realistic number for a
Disclaimer: I may be over simplifying things a bit for the sake of
clarity
Yes I know an odd title but here's the issue that I'm trying to
resolve:
An orchestra is recorded while playing a symphony and the dynamic range
of the performance is a maximum of 65 db above the noise floor - so if
the
83 matches
Mail list logo
