|
|
|
|
16 bit vs 24 bit, 44.1khz vs 48 khz <-- please explain
In article writes:
So, what answer is correct? Whiteswan, Rick Powell, and Jay have given
three answers that sound good but are mutually exclusive. I've been at
this a few years and I still don't know what is right. Does 24 bit give
greater resolution than 16 bit or does it merely give a larger dynamic
range without a finer resolution?
All of the above. Dynamic range and resolution are inseparable, even
in the analog world. In the digital world it's easier to see both.
With more bits, the actual value recorded for each sample is
potentially more accurate, hence better resolution. The greater the
resolution, the more likely that you'll be able to tell that two
adjacent samples along a time-varying waveform actually have different
values. I say "potentially" since as has been pointed out already,
once you get much beyond 20 bits, the amplitude of the noise in the
input or output parts of the system (the A/D or D/A converters) is
greater than one bit's worth of change, so the last couple of bits
really don't contribute anything to accuracy. They only allow you to
record the low level system noise with reasonable accuracy. So that's
your limit to dynamic range.
The reason why it's important to allow for longer word lengths in
signal processing (including mixing) is that those are purely
mathematical, and theoretically noise-free processes. Since you aren't
adding noise, you can take advantage of the resolution of the longer
word length so that when you ultimately shorten it to accommodate the
output circuitry or final delivery medium, all the numbers to the
resolution of that final word length will be accurate.
--
I'm really Mike Rivers - )
However, until the spam goes away or Hell freezes over,
lots of IP addresses are blocked from this system. If
you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring
and reach me he double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo
|