Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#161
|
|||
|
|||
16 bit vs 24 bit, 44.1khz vs 48 khz <-- please explain
On Mon, 24 Nov 2003 12:44:44 -0500, "Arny Krueger"
wrote: "Jay - atldigi" wrote in message It can remove distortion but the error still exists as broadband noise. Well, we call it noise but in fact it's 100% deterministic given that we created the randomizing signal so we should know what it is. And to make the whole thing even soupier, dither can theoretically be removed after DAC, decorrelating quantization errors and leaving noise that's statistically independent of the signal. IMO, there's a lot of etymological weirdness in this area. Quantization error is often called quantization noise. Spectral shaping of quantization error is commonly called "noise shaping". Quantization error is noisy, but it's noisy in the sense that loud neighbors are *noisy*. It's not noise in the sense of random noise, because quantization error is 100% predictable. Definitely a "through the looking glass" world because we have to rely on words. Thanks for your comments, Chris Hornbeck "That is my Theory, and what it is too." Anne Elk |
#162
|
|||
|
|||
16 bit vs 24 bit, 44.1khz vs 48 khz <-- please explain
In article , "Arny Krueger"
wrote: I think Chris probably knew this but chose the wrong word. Could be. But the point needs to be clearly made. No argument there. Just trying to be polite while infomative. I believe that counts for something, though much of the internet seems to disagree. -- Jay Frigoletto Mastersuite Los Angeles promastering.com |
#163
|
|||
|
|||
16 bit vs 24 bit, 44.1khz vs 48 khz <-- please explain
In article , Chris Hornbeck
wrote: And to make the whole thing even soupier, dither can theoretically be removed after DAC If you're talking about subtractive dither, that's pretty impractical after the DAC because you need to know exactly what the dither signal was and reproduce it precisely, but inverted. Dither needs to be random (or pseudo-random) by it's very nature which makes the technique quite challenging under non-labratory conditions. How will the CD player at Joe Schmoe's house know what dither you used? If you were to include a key or "antidote" with the recording, the encoding of the dither "antidote" eat quite a bit of storage space (it would be continuous alongside the audio), and of course you'd need new hardware that supported the subtractive technique and could make use of that "antidote". We won't even get into the potential production problems when you start editing and processing. The technique is more practical if used in an ADC where the designer has control over it as a closed system, but even there I'm not aware of a practical example in widespread use in audio production. If that's not what you were referring to, then just think of this as an interesting (or not so interesting) aside... -- Jay Frigoletto Mastersuite Los Angeles promastering.com |
#164
|
|||
|
|||
16 bit vs 24 bit, 44.1khz vs 48 khz <-- please explain
"Chris Hornbeck" wrote in message
On Mon, 24 Nov 2003 12:44:44 -0500, "Arny Krueger" wrote: "Jay - atldigi" wrote in message It can remove distortion but the error still exists as broadband noise. Well, we call it noise but in fact it's 100% deterministic given that we created the randomizing signal so we should know what it is. And to make the whole thing even soupier, dither can theoretically be removed after DAC, decorrelating quantization errors and leaving noise that's statistically independent of the signal. Yes. Some of the Vanderkooy & Lip****z papers treat this. Apparently this possibility was exciting to some people for a while. IMO, there's a lot of etymological weirdness in this area. Quantization error is often called quantization noise. Spectral shaping of quantization error is commonly called "noise shaping". Quantization error is noisy, but it's noisy in the sense that loud neighbors are *noisy*. It's not noise in the sense of random noise, because quantization error is 100% predictable. Definitely a "through the looking glass" world because we have to rely on words. I suspect that some of these word choices made more sense at some time in the past. Thanks for your comments, back at ya! ;-) |
#165
|
|||
|
|||
16 bit vs 24 bit, 44.1khz vs 48 khz <-- please explain
"Jay - atldigi" wrote in message ... In article , "Arny Krueger" wrote: I think Chris probably knew this but chose the wrong word. Could be. But the point needs to be clearly made. No argument there. Just trying to be polite while infomative. I believe that counts for something, though much of the internet seems to disagree. -- Jay Frigoletto Mastersuite Los Angeles promastering.com But not everyone! |
#166
|
|||
|
|||
16 bit vs 24 bit, 44.1khz vs 48 khz <-- please explain
In article , "Tommi"
wrote: to be polite while infomative. I believe that counts for something, though much of the internet seems to disagree. But not everyone! As evidenced in this thread. There's hope yet! -- Jay Frigoletto Mastersuite Los Angeles promastering.com |
Reply |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
Explain me this | Audio Opinions | |||
TS/TRS balanced/unbalanced can someone explain | General | |||
Can you explain this 50Hz hum?? | Pro Audio | |||
Reverb & EQ and "damping" etc .. please explain .. | Pro Audio |