| Home |
| Search |
| Today's Posts |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Bit-resolution and Clipping?
Can a wave file with stronger bit-resolution handle more decibels
w/out clipping than a wave file with weaker bit-resolution? |
|
#2
|
|||
|
|||
|
Bit-resolution and Clipping?
Can a wave file with stronger bit-resolution handle more decibels
w/out clipping than a wave file with weaker bit-resolution? Yes. The dynamic range is proportional to the number of bits, assuming that you're talking about linear PCM. The dynamic range is approximately 6 dB per bit. So, with more bits, you can handle larger signals at the "loud" end (without clipping) or smaller details at the "quiet end" (without losing them below the quantization-noise floor), or both. It all depends what signal levels you choose to treat as "full scale" and "least significant bit". -- Dave Platt AE6EO Hosting the Jade Warrior home page: http://www.radagast.org/jade-warrior I do _not_ wish to receive unsolicited commercial email, and I will boycott any company which has the gall to send me such ads! |
|
#3
|
|||
|
|||
|
Bit-resolution and Clipping?
Can a wave file with stronger bit-resolution handle more decibels
w/out clipping than a wave file with weaker bit-resolution? Yes. The dynamic range is proportional to the number of bits, assuming that you're talking about linear PCM. The dynamic range is approximately 6 dB per bit. So, with more bits, you can handle larger signals at the "loud" end (without clipping) or smaller details at the "quiet end" (without losing them below the quantization-noise floor), or both. It all depends what signal levels you choose to treat as "full scale" and "least significant bit". -- Dave Platt AE6EO Hosting the Jade Warrior home page: http://www.radagast.org/jade-warrior I do _not_ wish to receive unsolicited commercial email, and I will boycott any company which has the gall to send me such ads! |
|
#4
|
|||
|
|||
|
Bit-resolution and Clipping?
Can a wave file with stronger bit-resolution handle more decibels
w/out clipping than a wave file with weaker bit-resolution? Yes. The dynamic range is proportional to the number of bits, assuming that you're talking about linear PCM. The dynamic range is approximately 6 dB per bit. So, with more bits, you can handle larger signals at the "loud" end (without clipping) or smaller details at the "quiet end" (without losing them below the quantization-noise floor), or both. It all depends what signal levels you choose to treat as "full scale" and "least significant bit". -- Dave Platt AE6EO Hosting the Jade Warrior home page: http://www.radagast.org/jade-warrior I do _not_ wish to receive unsolicited commercial email, and I will boycott any company which has the gall to send me such ads! |
|
#8
|
|||
|
|||
|
Bit-resolution and Clipping?
The dynamic range is
approximately 6 dB per bit. So a digital audio device with a bit-resolution of 100-bit can handle up to 600 dB w/out clipping. Right? In theory, yes, in the absence of noise and other dynamic range limits. In practice, it's useless to try. Even 32 bits is more than you can usefully expect to represent within reasonable physical limits. I think I recall reading an analysis a few years ago (JJ's, perhaps?) which pointed out that if you try to use a 32-bit linear PCM system, and set the least significant bit down to somewhat below the human ear's ability to hear any sound in a perfectly quiet room, then a full-scale 32-bit CD-quality signal would release so much energy that it would vaporize the listening equipment (and probably the listener, too). Doesn't make for a relaxing evening... a log in the fireplace, a nice glass of wine, and a pleasant CD on the BWOOM! -- Dave Platt AE6EO Hosting the Jade Warrior home page: http://www.radagast.org/jade-warrior I do _not_ wish to receive unsolicited commercial email, and I will boycott any company which has the gall to send me such ads! |
|
#9
|
|||
|
|||
|
Bit-resolution and Clipping?
The dynamic range is
approximately 6 dB per bit. So a digital audio device with a bit-resolution of 100-bit can handle up to 600 dB w/out clipping. Right? In theory, yes, in the absence of noise and other dynamic range limits. In practice, it's useless to try. Even 32 bits is more than you can usefully expect to represent within reasonable physical limits. I think I recall reading an analysis a few years ago (JJ's, perhaps?) which pointed out that if you try to use a 32-bit linear PCM system, and set the least significant bit down to somewhat below the human ear's ability to hear any sound in a perfectly quiet room, then a full-scale 32-bit CD-quality signal would release so much energy that it would vaporize the listening equipment (and probably the listener, too). Doesn't make for a relaxing evening... a log in the fireplace, a nice glass of wine, and a pleasant CD on the BWOOM! -- Dave Platt AE6EO Hosting the Jade Warrior home page: http://www.radagast.org/jade-warrior I do _not_ wish to receive unsolicited commercial email, and I will boycott any company which has the gall to send me such ads! |
|
#10
|
|||
|
|||
|
Bit-resolution and Clipping?
The dynamic range is
approximately 6 dB per bit. So a digital audio device with a bit-resolution of 100-bit can handle up to 600 dB w/out clipping. Right? In theory, yes, in the absence of noise and other dynamic range limits. In practice, it's useless to try. Even 32 bits is more than you can usefully expect to represent within reasonable physical limits. I think I recall reading an analysis a few years ago (JJ's, perhaps?) which pointed out that if you try to use a 32-bit linear PCM system, and set the least significant bit down to somewhat below the human ear's ability to hear any sound in a perfectly quiet room, then a full-scale 32-bit CD-quality signal would release so much energy that it would vaporize the listening equipment (and probably the listener, too). Doesn't make for a relaxing evening... a log in the fireplace, a nice glass of wine, and a pleasant CD on the BWOOM! -- Dave Platt AE6EO Hosting the Jade Warrior home page: http://www.radagast.org/jade-warrior I do _not_ wish to receive unsolicited commercial email, and I will boycott any company which has the gall to send me such ads! |
|
#11
|
|||
|
|||
|
Bit-resolution and Clipping?
Radium wrote: Can a wave file with stronger bit-resolution handle more decibels w/out clipping than a wave file with weaker bit-resolution? Not if the two converters are relative to the same voltage reference. Higher resolution usually means the ability to represent smaller, not larger signals. Bob -- "Things should be described as simply as possible, but no simpler." A. Einstein |
|
#12
|
|||
|
|||
|
Bit-resolution and Clipping?
Radium wrote: Can a wave file with stronger bit-resolution handle more decibels w/out clipping than a wave file with weaker bit-resolution? Not if the two converters are relative to the same voltage reference. Higher resolution usually means the ability to represent smaller, not larger signals. Bob -- "Things should be described as simply as possible, but no simpler." A. Einstein |
|
#13
|
|||
|
|||
|
Bit-resolution and Clipping?
Radium wrote: Can a wave file with stronger bit-resolution handle more decibels w/out clipping than a wave file with weaker bit-resolution? Not if the two converters are relative to the same voltage reference. Higher resolution usually means the ability to represent smaller, not larger signals. Bob -- "Things should be described as simply as possible, but no simpler." A. Einstein |
|
#14
|
|||
|
|||
|
Bit-resolution and Clipping?
|
|
#16
|
|||
|
|||
|
Bit-resolution and Clipping?
|
|
#17
|
|||
|
|||
|
Bit-resolution and Clipping?
On Sun, 21 Dec 2003 21:06:06 -0800, Bob Cain
wrote: Radium wrote: Can a wave file with stronger bit-resolution handle more decibels w/out clipping than a wave file with weaker bit-resolution? Not if the two converters are relative to the same voltage reference. Higher resolution usually means the ability to represent smaller, not larger signals. It's the same thing - dynamic range. It applies to both ends of the scale. It all comes down to the analogue parts of the chain anyway, from the self-noise of the mics to the max SPL of the speakers. -- Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering |
|
#18
|
|||
|
|||
|
Bit-resolution and Clipping?
On Sun, 21 Dec 2003 21:06:06 -0800, Bob Cain
wrote: Radium wrote: Can a wave file with stronger bit-resolution handle more decibels w/out clipping than a wave file with weaker bit-resolution? Not if the two converters are relative to the same voltage reference. Higher resolution usually means the ability to represent smaller, not larger signals. It's the same thing - dynamic range. It applies to both ends of the scale. It all comes down to the analogue parts of the chain anyway, from the self-noise of the mics to the max SPL of the speakers. -- Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering |
|
#19
|
|||
|
|||
|
Bit-resolution and Clipping?
On Sun, 21 Dec 2003 21:06:06 -0800, Bob Cain
wrote: Radium wrote: Can a wave file with stronger bit-resolution handle more decibels w/out clipping than a wave file with weaker bit-resolution? Not if the two converters are relative to the same voltage reference. Higher resolution usually means the ability to represent smaller, not larger signals. It's the same thing - dynamic range. It applies to both ends of the scale. It all comes down to the analogue parts of the chain anyway, from the self-noise of the mics to the max SPL of the speakers. -- Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering |
|
#20
|
|||
|
|||
|
Bit-resolution and Clipping?
OOOOOOOOOPS!!!!!
I forgot to add that this theoretical digital audio device also contain a 100-bit DAC. Sorry. (Radium) wrote in message . com... So a digital audio device with a bit-resolution of 100-bit can handle up to 600 dB w/out clipping. Right? |
|
#21
|
|||
|
|||
|
Bit-resolution and Clipping?
OOOOOOOOOPS!!!!!
I forgot to add that this theoretical digital audio device also contain a 100-bit DAC. Sorry. (Radium) wrote in message . com... So a digital audio device with a bit-resolution of 100-bit can handle up to 600 dB w/out clipping. Right? |
|
#22
|
|||
|
|||
|
Bit-resolution and Clipping?
OOOOOOOOOPS!!!!!
I forgot to add that this theoretical digital audio device also contain a 100-bit DAC. Sorry. (Radium) wrote in message . com... So a digital audio device with a bit-resolution of 100-bit can handle up to 600 dB w/out clipping. Right? |
|
#23
|
|||
|
|||
|
Bit-resolution and Clipping?
|
|
#24
|
|||
|
|||
|
Bit-resolution and Clipping?
|
|
#26
|
|||
|
|||
|
Bit-resolution and Clipping?
|
|
#27
|
|||
|
|||
|
Bit-resolution and Clipping?
|
|
#28
|
|||
|
|||
|
Bit-resolution and Clipping?
|
|
#29
|
|||
|
|||
|
Bit-resolution and Clipping?
|
|
#31
|
|||
|
|||
|
Bit-resolution and Clipping?
|
|
#35
|
|||
|
|||
|
Bit-resolution and Clipping?
Which will of course have an output dynamic range of less than 22
bits, as with all available '24 bit' DACs................... Why? Several reasons. Noise is one. All electronics generate noise. One type, known as "thermal" noise, occurs any time you have a resistance - the amount of noise depends on the resistance and the temperature. If you set the maximum output voltage of your DAC to a useful standard level (e.g. 2 volts peak-to-peak, as is fairly usual for CD players and other line-level outputs), you'll find that the thermal noise generated by the resistances in the DAC circuitry will be down in the 24-bit region. If you try to resolve signals smaller than that, they'll be buried in the noise. You can try cooling the DAC down with liquid nitrogen, and maybe that'll get you another bit or two in noise performance, but it's going to be expensive in the long run. Linearity is also an issue. In order to reproduce very-low-level signals with a DAC, the DAC's internal electronics must be very, very, VERY accurate... and at some point, the necessary accuracy moves past the "expensive" point, to "beyond the state of the manufacturing art" Twilight Zone. -- Dave Platt AE6EO Hosting the Jade Warrior home page: http://www.radagast.org/jade-warrior I do _not_ wish to receive unsolicited commercial email, and I will boycott any company which has the gall to send me such ads! |
|
#36
|
|||
|
|||
|
Bit-resolution and Clipping?
Which will of course have an output dynamic range of less than 22
bits, as with all available '24 bit' DACs................... Why? Several reasons. Noise is one. All electronics generate noise. One type, known as "thermal" noise, occurs any time you have a resistance - the amount of noise depends on the resistance and the temperature. If you set the maximum output voltage of your DAC to a useful standard level (e.g. 2 volts peak-to-peak, as is fairly usual for CD players and other line-level outputs), you'll find that the thermal noise generated by the resistances in the DAC circuitry will be down in the 24-bit region. If you try to resolve signals smaller than that, they'll be buried in the noise. You can try cooling the DAC down with liquid nitrogen, and maybe that'll get you another bit or two in noise performance, but it's going to be expensive in the long run. Linearity is also an issue. In order to reproduce very-low-level signals with a DAC, the DAC's internal electronics must be very, very, VERY accurate... and at some point, the necessary accuracy moves past the "expensive" point, to "beyond the state of the manufacturing art" Twilight Zone. -- Dave Platt AE6EO Hosting the Jade Warrior home page: http://www.radagast.org/jade-warrior I do _not_ wish to receive unsolicited commercial email, and I will boycott any company which has the gall to send me such ads! |
|
#37
|
|||
|
|||
|
Bit-resolution and Clipping?
Which will of course have an output dynamic range of less than 22
bits, as with all available '24 bit' DACs................... Why? Several reasons. Noise is one. All electronics generate noise. One type, known as "thermal" noise, occurs any time you have a resistance - the amount of noise depends on the resistance and the temperature. If you set the maximum output voltage of your DAC to a useful standard level (e.g. 2 volts peak-to-peak, as is fairly usual for CD players and other line-level outputs), you'll find that the thermal noise generated by the resistances in the DAC circuitry will be down in the 24-bit region. If you try to resolve signals smaller than that, they'll be buried in the noise. You can try cooling the DAC down with liquid nitrogen, and maybe that'll get you another bit or two in noise performance, but it's going to be expensive in the long run. Linearity is also an issue. In order to reproduce very-low-level signals with a DAC, the DAC's internal electronics must be very, very, VERY accurate... and at some point, the necessary accuracy moves past the "expensive" point, to "beyond the state of the manufacturing art" Twilight Zone. -- Dave Platt AE6EO Hosting the Jade Warrior home page: http://www.radagast.org/jade-warrior I do _not_ wish to receive unsolicited commercial email, and I will boycott any company which has the gall to send me such ads! |
|
#39
|
|||
|
|||
|
Bit-resolution and Clipping?
(Radium) wrote in message . com...
(Stewart Pinkerton) wrote in message ... Which will of course have an output dynamic range of less than 22 bits, as with all available '24 bit' DACs................... Why? Well, now, think about it. What do YOU think 600 dB means? Well, if you haven't gotten there, 600 dB means there is a factor of 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 between the amplitudes of the smallest and largest representable signals. That's 10^30 power. Fine, so figure out what THAT means. Okay, didn't bother to go there yet? Fine. Let's look at hooking up a h-fi system to this rather silly device. Let's assume that you have adjusted the volume control so that the very smallest signal this device can put out generates a sound that is 1/100 as loud as the faintest signal you can hear, that is, at a sound pressure level of -20 dB re 10^12 watt/m^2 (that's a trillionth of a watt per square meter). Fine. How loud can it play? Well, according to you, 600 dB -20 dB or 580 dB SPL. Great, what does THAT mean? Well, if it's 580 dB above 1 trillionth of a watt, that's 10^27 watts per square meter of acoustical power. Let's just, for the sake of simplicity, assume the entire acoustical radiation is confined to that 1 square meter The amount of acoustic power you want to put into that small area is something like 1,000,000,000,000,000 times greater then the entire amount of electrical power consumed by the entire United States for all conceivable and inconceivable reasons. And let's assume that your speakers are pretty efficienct, say 10%. That means you are going to have to find yourself an amplifier capable of putting out somewhere in the range of 10,000,000,000,000,000 watts. Assume such an amplifier is running at about 40% efficiency. How much power would you need? Well, the entire output energy output of the sun is probably insufficient to the task. Got it? |
|
#40
|
|||
|
|||
|
Bit-resolution and Clipping?
(Radium) wrote in message . com...
(Stewart Pinkerton) wrote in message ... Which will of course have an output dynamic range of less than 22 bits, as with all available '24 bit' DACs................... Why? Well, now, think about it. What do YOU think 600 dB means? Well, if you haven't gotten there, 600 dB means there is a factor of 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 between the amplitudes of the smallest and largest representable signals. That's 10^30 power. Fine, so figure out what THAT means. Okay, didn't bother to go there yet? Fine. Let's look at hooking up a h-fi system to this rather silly device. Let's assume that you have adjusted the volume control so that the very smallest signal this device can put out generates a sound that is 1/100 as loud as the faintest signal you can hear, that is, at a sound pressure level of -20 dB re 10^12 watt/m^2 (that's a trillionth of a watt per square meter). Fine. How loud can it play? Well, according to you, 600 dB -20 dB or 580 dB SPL. Great, what does THAT mean? Well, if it's 580 dB above 1 trillionth of a watt, that's 10^27 watts per square meter of acoustical power. Let's just, for the sake of simplicity, assume the entire acoustical radiation is confined to that 1 square meter The amount of acoustic power you want to put into that small area is something like 1,000,000,000,000,000 times greater then the entire amount of electrical power consumed by the entire United States for all conceivable and inconceivable reasons. And let's assume that your speakers are pretty efficienct, say 10%. That means you are going to have to find yourself an amplifier capable of putting out somewhere in the range of 10,000,000,000,000,000 watts. Assume such an amplifier is running at about 40% efficiency. How much power would you need? Well, the entire output energy output of the sun is probably insufficient to the task. Got it? |
| Reply |
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Forum | |||
| Louder IS Better (With Lossy) | Pro Audio | |||
Linear Mode
