That was a big problem with the dynamic range of tape recorders, which
had to be solved with noise reduction circuits. Even good 16 bit ADCs
have a higher DR than the SNR of most instruments in quiet recording
studios. With the mixing of multiple dubs, the main problem is the
summed background noise, not that of the ADCs.
When doing the mix digitally, a DAW with higher bit depth is needed, to
conserve the DR: 16 tracks need another 4 bits. The downmix can then be
truncated to the final media bit depth (eventually with some dither
added, if not self-dithered due to noise).
The main problem with the old CD format wasn't actually the DR, the SR
was chosen too low.
One of the famous audiophile studios (Chesky Records) expressly avoids
overdubbing, and postprocessing, and puts accent on the microphone
placement. That's real art, unlike some "sound engineer" using heavy
processing, and turning up the compression control, for a "louder sound".
"Modern" AD/DA-Cs are mostly sigma-delta for technological, and cost
reasons. The better ones are also multi-bit...
On 5/7/2012 7:59 PM, li...@lazygranch.com wrote:
Nearly all modern recordings are "multiple mono". One microphone per instrument
if not more. Multiple overdubs. If high ticket artists are collaborating, they may be
recorded at different times. (Bruce Springsteen and Rosanne Cash duet for example.) They
want a high bit depth so the final product doesn't have a high background noise.
The classic back of the envelope calculation regarding clock jitter is based on
44.1KHz sampling and a 20KHz sine wave. Take the maximum slew rate of the sine
wave and the timing uncertainty (jitter), then compare to a LSB. It doesn't
take much jitter even at 16 bits to be significant.
Modern ADCs are MASH. I don't know the analog to the argument for that
technology.
-----Original Message-----
From: MailLists<li...@medesign.ro>
Sender: time-nuts-boun...@febo.com
Date: Mon, 07 May 2012 19:31:10
To: Discussion of precise time and frequency measurement<time-nuts@febo.com>
Reply-To: Discussion of precise time and frequency measurement
<time-nuts@febo.com>
Subject: Re: [time-nuts] Oh dear
If you take into consideration that the best currently available DACs,
also true for analog circuits, have a dynamic range about 120-126dB, the
last 3-4 bits are quite irrelevant (random noise mostly)... a good 20bit
DAC already pushes the limits.
The marketingdroids swarming for the newest "32" bitters is even more
ludicrous.
On the other side, the dynamic range of the ear (if you care the least
for the future of your hearing), and of the quietest available listening
spaces, hardly gets to 100dB...
Of course, for the DSPs involved in the signal chain, 32bits integer
math might not be enough, due to rounding errors.
On 5/7/2012 7:02 PM, Tom Knox wrote:
Actually the numbers are quite real, play with the math, a small amount of
jitter in a DAC (X) can
have a large difference (Y) when sampling a complex wave form especially
in the audiophile world where the sound of 24bit dac 16,777,216 discrete
levels is clearly superior to older 16 bit dac 65,536 possible levels in 44.1
KHz to 192 KHz formats.
Thomas Knox
Date: Mon, 7 May 2012 17:59:04 +0200
From: att...@kinali.ch
To: time-nuts@febo.com
Subject: Re: [time-nuts] Oh dear
On Mon, 07 May 2012 08:20:55 -0700
Dan Rae<dan...@verizon.net> wrote:
I see nothing odd about wanting to get the best possible source for the
Master Clock for your master recordings.
My son does run a small studio and for him I was able to make a version
of that unit, for a lot less money of course. If he says it improves
the sound of the recordings, and his customers agree, I am inclined to
believe him.
The thing is, that an Rb is good for one thing: Have a long term
stable and accurate frequency source that is better than 1 to some
billions for measurement or other stuff that take more than a few
hours or have to be repeated exactly in a couple of weeks.
For audio, you need a frequency source that is stable over a couple
of hours (probably a working day) and shows "low" jitter. Where as low
jitter is quite high in time-nuts terms and stable not stable at all.
A cycle-to-cylcle jitter of a couple of ns is not audioable at all,
but any Rb will have a much lower jitter. Or to have a different look at it,
you want to have very low phase noise, as this phase noise is mixed in
over the ADCs into your signal. But as we know, the phase noise of
an Rb is not defined by the Rb physics package, but by the OCXO they use.
(yes i know that the close in phase noise is defined by the reference
and not by the OCXO, but the "base level" is the OCXO, not the reference)
As for stability. You want the instruments to sound the same over an
recording. Ie the human ear has to preceive the recorded sound as the
same. The frequency resolution of the human ear is somewhere around 3Hz.
This makes for 150ppm (at 20kHz). Even a 32kHz tuning fork crystal
achieves an absolute accuracy that is better than this. Its stability is much
better than this....
Of course, you want to have enought headroom for other non ideal components.
So, lets say, go for a factor of 10, then we are at 15ppm. For absolute
accuracy, that's already a good XO. For stability, still most XO should
do that.
Or to say it differently: Using some good OCXO with low or very low
phase noise would be more than enough for even the most high end
audio equipment. You don't even have to discipline it, as a even
quite bad OCXO has variations much lower than 1ppm, which is definitly
not something anyone can hear.
IMHO getting a 20-50USD OCXO from ebay, some good, low noise power supply
(audio power supplies with low noise in the<40kHz region), some distribution
amplifier with low noise figure and you are set. All in all probably at
a cost of 200-300USD including rack mount. If you want to have "high fidelity"
you can use an GPSDO to get your OCXO within a couple mHz.
To summarize: Nobody here does want to insult anyone who does professional
audio recordings. But having the knowledge of what the stability and
accuracy numbers for an ordinary Rb mean, and being able to put that into
perspective with the not so good capabilties of the human sensory systems,
one wonders why people spend an awfull lot of money for something that has
no audiable effect over something a lot cheaper. Not to mention that other
things have a much higher impact on audio quality than the reference
oscillator: Like temperature and humidity during recording (do you control
them as well to the ppm level?), or the tuning of the instruments which
wanders quite a bit during use.
Attila Kinali
--
Why does it take years to find the answers to
the questions one should have asked long ago?
_______________________________________________
time-nuts mailing list -- time-nuts@febo.com
To unsubscribe, go to https://www.febo.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/time-nuts
and follow the instructions there.
_______________________________________________
time-nuts mailing list -- time-nuts@febo.com
To unsubscribe, go to https://www.febo.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/time-nuts
and follow the instructions there.
_______________________________________________
time-nuts mailing list -- time-nuts@febo.com
To unsubscribe, go to https://www.febo.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/time-nuts
and follow the instructions there.
_______________________________________________
time-nuts mailing list -- time-nuts@febo.com
To unsubscribe, go to https://www.febo.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/time-nuts
and follow the instructions there.
_______________________________________________
time-nuts mailing list -- time-nuts@febo.com
To unsubscribe, go to https://www.febo.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/time-nuts
and follow the instructions there.
