David Satz wrote:
Lars, maybe that wasn't exactly what I meant to say, but what you
wrote
is still correct.

Many people seem to think of digital samples as integer values. I
tend
to think of them as binary fractions, and find that scheme more apt.
So
when I talk about "adding more steps" I really mean the same thing as
"adding more decimal places" to a fractional number such as
3.14159...
-- the magnitude won't change significantly, but precision is
improved
to the extent that the additional digits represent valid, actual
data.

Certainly one can work in the other direction and imagine an integer
range which is extended, such that the noise floor (not quantization
noise, please--proper dither is an absolute requirement!) becomes
less
and less when compared to the largest possible sample value. Either
way, as you say, more bits simply equals the capability for a wider
dynamic range.

--best regards

Its actally quantization distortion that gets removed by dithering and
replaced with random noise.

Without dithering, there would be crunchiness, but since the dither
that is added before the A/D is larger than the smallest step, the
crunchiness is smoothed over and averaged out. So any intermediate
value between the digital steps is still conveyed by the duty cycle
changes that results from the dither. A crude anlagy is to look at a
scene through your spread fingers. Parts are missing. But is you wave
your hand back and forth, the missing parts are averaged in. The price
for this is added noise but with 16 bits it is still 94 dB down. So
dither makes a 16 bit digital system sound just like an anlog system
with a 94 dB noise floor. If you have more bits, you need less dither
to smooth out the steps so you have less noise. More bits buys you
less noise but as long as you have dither you don't get quantization
distortion.

Mark