[DigitalSignal]

I wonder if there is a market for an audio A/D converter with very high
dynamic range, say 150dB. I thought it might be useful because it can
eliminate the needs for multiple-gain front end. Any comments?

[Carey Carlan]

"DigitalSignal" wrote in
oups.com:

I wonder if there is a market for an audio A/D converter with very high
dynamic range, say 150dB. I thought it might be useful because it can
eliminate the needs for multiple-gain front end. Any comments?

Broaden the question. Is there ANY electrical processor with 150 dB S/N?
Isn't that into the realm of supercooling to eliminate thermal noise?

150 dB is about 1,000,000,000,000,000:1 ratio from loudest to softest.

[hank alrich]

DigitalSignal wrote:

I wonder if there is a market for an audio A/D converter with very high
dynamic range, say 150dB.

Respectfully, I think you are unclear on the concept. We already have
ADC's with theoretical 144 dB dynamic range, which cannot be realized
due to the physical linmitations of the analog world in which these
devices must operate.

I thought it might be useful because it can
eliminate the needs for multiple-gain front end. Any comments?

Hunh?

--
ha

[Chevdo]

In article ,
says...

DigitalSignal wrote:

I wonder if there is a market for an audio A/D converter with very high
dynamic range, say 150dB.

Respectfully, I think you are unclear on the concept. We already have
ADC's with theoretical 144 dB dynamic range,

In other (actual question-answering) words, yes, there is a market.

[Eeyore]

hank alrich wrote:

DigitalSignal wrote:

I wonder if there is a market for an audio A/D converter with very high
dynamic range, say 150dB.

Respectfully, I think you are unclear on the concept. We already have
ADC's with theoretical 144 dB dynamic range, which cannot be realized
due to the physical linmitations of the analog world in which these
devices must operate.

I thought it might be useful because it can
eliminate the needs for multiple-gain front end. Any comments?

Hunh?

I think he's getting at the idea that you wouldn't need a mic pre. Of course
you'd lose all the fabulous colourations these can offer !

Graham

[Eeyore]

Chevdo wrote:

In article ,
says...

DigitalSignal wrote:

I wonder if there is a market for an audio A/D converter with very high
dynamic range, say 150dB.

Respectfully, I think you are unclear on the concept. We already have
ADC's with theoretical 144 dB dynamic range,

In other (actual question-answering) words, yes, there is a market.

There isn't yet a product though !

Graham

[Chevdo]

In article ,
says...



Chevdo wrote:

In article ,

says...

DigitalSignal wrote:

I wonder if there is a market for an audio A/D converter with very high
dynamic range, say 150dB.

Respectfully, I think you are unclear on the concept. We already have
ADC's with theoretical 144 dB dynamic range,

In other (actual question-answering) words, yes, there is a market.

There isn't yet a product though !


The 150dB figure was one the original poster arbitrarily mentioned
as an example of a 'very high dynamic range'. The statement "I wonder if there
is amarket for an audio A/D converter with a very high dynamic range, say
150dB" refers as much to a 144dB product as a 150dB product, due to
modification induced by the word 'say'. Therefore, the product he was asking
about DOES exist.


Graham

[Chris Hornbeck]

On Tue, 10 Oct 2006 02:24:28 GMT, (Chevdo) wrote:

The 150dB figure was one the original poster arbitrarily mentioned
as an example of a 'very high dynamic range'. The statement "I wonder if there
is amarket for an audio A/D converter with a very high dynamic range, say
150dB" refers as much to a 144dB product as a 150dB product, due to
modification induced by the word 'say'. Therefore, the product he was asking
about DOES exist.

At room temperature?

Chris Hornbeck

[Chevdo]

In article ,
says...

On Tue, 10 Oct 2006 02:24:28 GMT, (Chevdo) wrote:

The 150dB figure was one the original poster arbitrarily mentioned
as an example of a 'very high dynamic range'. The statement "I wonder if
there
is amarket for an audio A/D converter with a very high dynamic range, say
150dB" refers as much to a 144dB product as a 150dB product, due to
modification induced by the word 'say'. Therefore, the product he was asking
about DOES exist.

At room temperature?


yes, the product exists at room temperature.. it is a solid, not a gas. And
since hank already discussed the inability to realize 144dB dynamic range after
the signal comes out of the digital device, you are simply wasting my time,
right?

[Arny Krueger]

"DigitalSignal" wrote in
message
oups.com

I wonder if there is a market for an audio A/D converter
with very high dynamic range, say 150dB. I thought it
might be useful because it can eliminate the needs for
multiple-gain front end. Any comments?

Seems like a great idea if ears, mics, speakers and rooms could be found to
exploit it.

[Eeyore]

Chevdo wrote:

In article ,
says...

On Tue, 10 Oct 2006 02:24:28 GMT, (Chevdo) wrote:

The 150dB figure was one the original poster arbitrarily mentioned
as an example of a 'very high dynamic range'. The statement "I wonder if
there
is amarket for an audio A/D converter with a very high dynamic range, say
150dB" refers as much to a 144dB product as a 150dB product, due to
modification induced by the word 'say'. Therefore, the product he was asking
about DOES exist.

At room temperature?

yes, the product exists at room temperature.. it is a solid, not a gas. And
since hank already discussed the inability to realize 144dB dynamic range after
the signal comes out of the digital device, you are simply wasting my time,
right?

Actually, you're wasting *our* time since there is no source capable of a 150dB
dynamic range anyway !

120-130 dB would be very credible indeed.

And don't even get me started on threshold shift.

Graham

[Eeyore]

Arny Krueger wrote:

"DigitalSignal" wrote in
message

I wonder if there is a market for an audio A/D converter
with very high dynamic range, say 150dB. I thought it
might be useful because it can eliminate the needs for
multiple-gain front end. Any comments?

Seems like a great idea if ears, mics, speakers and rooms could be found to
exploit it.

Well, there you go !

I'd be very happy with 120 dB for sure.

Graham

[Chevdo]

In article ,
says...



Chevdo wrote:

In article ,
says...

On Tue, 10 Oct 2006 02:24:28 GMT, (Chevdo) wrote:

The 150dB figure was one the original poster arbitrarily mentioned
as an example of a 'very high dynamic range'. The statement "I wonder if
there
is amarket for an audio A/D converter with a very high dynamic range, say
150dB" refers as much to a 144dB product as a 150dB product, due to
modification induced by the word 'say'. Therefore, the product he was
asking
about DOES exist.

At room temperature?

yes, the product exists at room temperature.. it is a solid, not a gas.
And
since hank already discussed the inability to realize 144dB dynamic range
after
the signal comes out of the digital device, you are simply wasting my time,
right?

Actually, you're wasting *our* time since there is no source capable of a
150dB
dynamic range anyway !

No you are wasting my time even more than Chris did, since this is now the
THIRD time that has been mentioned when it only needed to be mentioned once.
Since nobody has contradicted it, you're doing nothing more than sloganeering.
And since it's a fact, there's no need for you to use what is probably your
usual method of argumentation - argument by repetition.

And don't even get me started on threshold shift.


I'd rather not get you started on anything that will waste more of my time.

[Eeyore]

Chevdo wrote:

In article ,
says...

And don't even get me started on threshold shift.

I'd rather not get you started on anything that will waste more of my time.

You seem to be impervious to education.

You'll go far I'm sure !

Graham

[darkAvenger]

On Oct 9, 8:27 pm, "DigitalSignal" wrote:
I wonder if there is a market for an audio A/D converter with very high
dynamic range, say 150dB. I thought it might be useful because it can
eliminate the needs for multiple-gain front end. Any comments?

There is a high noise problem caused by aimless posting.

[DigitalSignal]

Everybody,

I am sorry for the confusion I created. By 150dB dynamic range I mean
an A/D converter that can practically detect a large signal as high as
a few volts, and within the same time period it can detect a signal as
small as a few nano volts. To further clarify, when I say "within the
same time period", it does not necessarily mean at the exact same
sample points.

Say if we sample a frame of signal with 1024 points. The first a few
hundred points have magnitude as high as a few volts while the last a
few hundred points can go as low as a few nano-volts. This is how I
define the dynamic range. The question is: do you see a market for this
kind of A/D converter?

We do not talk about theoretical dynamic range. For a 24bit A/D
converter, the theretical dynamic range is 6.02 dB/bit * N bits =
144dB. This definition is not very useful. We all know a 24bit A/D
usually has only 110dB dynamic range due to various analog limitation.

I really appreciate your comments.

D.S.

[Chris Hornbeck]

On Tue, 10 Oct 2006 05:06:37 +0100, Eeyore
wrote:

You seem to be impervious to education.

You'll go far I'm sure !

Don't encourage them. The Combatative High Entropy
Verbal Discussion Obfuscator is an alpha release of
proto-military software into a civilian newsgroup,
which *just* skirts Geneva conventions.

It doesn't really learn but rather make learning
by others difficult. It's the newest terror weapon,
but still in alpha. Or maybe not...

Much thanks, as always,

Chris Hornbeck

[Paul Stamler]

"DigitalSignal" wrote in message
oups.com...

Say if we sample a frame of signal with 1024 points. The first a few
hundred points have magnitude as high as a few volts while the last a
few hundred points can go as low as a few nano-volts. This is how I
define the dynamic range. The question is: do you see a market for this
kind of A/D converter?

We do not talk about theoretical dynamic range. For a 24bit A/D
converter, the theretical dynamic range is 6.02 dB/bit * N bits =
144dB. This definition is not very useful. We all know a 24bit A/D
usually has only 110dB dynamic range due to various analog limitation.

The same issue applies to a putative 150dB converter. Let's say full-scale
is 1V; 150dB below that is, if my arithmetic is correct, about 31.6nV. In a
20kHz bandwidth, that is the thermal noise (at room temperature) of a 3 ohm
resistor. In practical audio, there aren't sources that low except, perhaps,
untransformed ribbon microphones. So a converter with those specs would be
way overdesigned for any real-world signal it would ever be likely to be
asked to convert.

Peace,
Paul

[Bob Cain]

DigitalSignal wrote:
I wonder if there is a market for an audio A/D converter with very high
dynamic range, say 150dB. I thought it might be useful because it can
eliminate the needs for multiple-gain front end. Any comments?

Sure would be if it could be done.

You would, however, lose the ability to match the mic with the "right"
preamp for it. :-)


Bob
--

"Things should be described as simply as possible, but no simpler."

A. Einstein

[ABacon]

Don't encourage them. The Combatative High Entropy
Verbal Discussion Obfuscator is an alpha release of
proto-military software into a civilian newsgroup

I'm going to keep that in the drawer for future use on other forums.
TIA for the ammo.

[Arny Krueger]

"Eeyore" wrote in
message
Arny Krueger wrote:

"DigitalSignal" wrote in
message

I wonder if there is a market for an audio A/D converter
with very high dynamic range, say 150dB. I thought it
might be useful because it can eliminate the needs for
multiple-gain front end. Any comments?

Seems like a great idea if ears, mics, speakers and
rooms could be found to exploit it.

Well, there you go !

I'd be very happy with 120 dB for sure.

I'm obviously a cheap date. 100 dB dynamic range above 20 dB below normal
background noise levels in the studio and listening room, would be fine with
me. It seems so achievable - now show me a commercial recording that
actually does it!

[Agent 86]

On Tue, 10 Oct 2006 02:03:06 +0000, Chevdo wrote:


In other (actual question-answering) words, yes, there is a market.


There's obviously a market for Monster cable and ART preamps, so in that
respect, why not?

Whether there's any practical application is another matter altogether.

[Agent 86]

On Tue, 10 Oct 2006 02:58:21 +0000, Chris Hornbeck wrote:

On Tue, 10 Oct 2006 02:24:28 GMT, (Chevdo) wrote:

The 150dB figure was one the original poster arbitrarily mentioned as an
example of a 'very high dynamic range'. The statement "I wonder if
there is amarket for an audio A/D converter with a very high dynamic
range, say 150dB" refers as much to a 144dB product as a 150dB product,
due to modification induced by the word 'say'. Therefore, the product
he was asking about DOES exist.

At room temperature?

Hell, a lot of manufacturers publish power ratings without bandwidth or
distortion numbers, frequency response without tolerance. Just don't
mention that the testing was done in the "icy cold of space."

[Scott Dorsey]

DigitalSignal wrote:
I wonder if there is a market for an audio A/D converter with very high
dynamic range, say 150dB. I thought it might be useful because it can
eliminate the needs for multiple-gain front end. Any comments?

Sure, if it sounds good.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Scott Dorsey]

Chris Hornbeck wrote:
On Tue, 10 Oct 2006 02:24:28 GMT, (Chevdo) wrote:
The 150dB figure was one the original poster arbitrarily mentioned
as an example of a 'very high dynamic range'. The statement "I wonder if there
is amarket for an audio A/D converter with a very high dynamic range, say
150dB" refers as much to a 144dB product as a 150dB product, due to
modification induced by the word 'say'. Therefore, the product he was asking
about DOES exist.

At room temperature?

The way to get that sort of dynamic range isn't to extend the _bottom_ of the range, but to
extend the _top_. A front end that can handle a kilovolt is easy.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Arny Krueger]

"Scott Dorsey" wrote in message


The way to get that sort of dynamic range isn't to extend
the _bottom_ of the range, but to extend the _top_. A
front end that can handle a kilovolt is easy. --scott

But, will it have really low noise? Don't high voltage devices tend to be
noisier?

[Scott Dorsey]

Arny Krueger wrote:


The way to get that sort of dynamic range isn't to extend
the _bottom_ of the range, but to extend the _top_. A
front end that can handle a kilovolt is easy. --scott

But, will it have really low noise? Don't high voltage devices tend to be
noisier?

It doesn't have to have low noise. It just needs to have 150 dB between the noise floor and the
clipping point. The noise floor could be a couple volts and you would still have 150 dB of dynamic
range. Of course, it would be useless for audio, but it would have great numbers on the data sheet.
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Arny Krueger]

"Scott Dorsey" wrote in message

Arny Krueger wrote:


The way to get that sort of dynamic range isn't to
extend the _bottom_ of the range, but to extend the
_top_. A front end that can handle a kilovolt is easy.
--scott

But, will it have really low noise? Don't high voltage
devices tend to be noisier?

It doesn't have to have low noise. It just needs to have
150 dB between the noise floor and the clipping point.

OK.

The noise floor could be a couple volts and you would
still have 150 dB of dynamic range.

Correct my off-top-of-head calculation if it is wrong, but wouldn't it take
like a million volts to get 120 dBV?

That would be about 60 million volts for 150 dB over 2 volts.

I've played a little with making high voltage, and I found that even a mere
100,000 volts is hard to make, clean.

[Scott Dorsey]

Arny Krueger wrote:
"Scott Dorsey" wrote in message

The noise floor could be a couple volts and you would
still have 150 dB of dynamic range.

Correct my off-top-of-head calculation if it is wrong, but wouldn't it take
like a million volts to get 120 dBV?

That would be about 60 million volts for 150 dB over 2 volts.

Right.

I've played a little with making high voltage, and I found that even a mere
100,000 volts is hard to make, clean.

The projection TV guys have it down reasonably well. But I am using this
as an extreme example, of course.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[hank alrich]

Chris Hornbeck wrote:

Chevdupe wrote:

The 150dB figure was one the original poster arbitrarily mentioned as an
example of a 'very high dynamic range'. The statement "I wonder if there
is amarket for an audio A/D converter with a very high dynamic range, say
150dB" refers as much to a 144dB product as a 150dB product, due to
modification induced by the word 'say'. Therefore, the product he was
asking about DOES exist.

At room temperature?

And hey, what's 6 dB anyway...

The product does not exist. Let Chevdupe run the math.

--
ha

[hank alrich]

Chris Hornbeck wrote:

Eeyore wrote:

You seem to be impervious to education.

You'll go far I'm sure !

Don't encourage them. The Combatative High Entropy
Verbal Discussion Obfuscator is an alpha release of
proto-military software into a civilian newsgroup,
which *just* skirts Geneva conventions.

It doesn't really learn but rather make learning
by others difficult. It's the newest terror weapon,
but still in alpha. Or maybe not...

Much thanks, as always,

Chris Hornbeck

LOL!, and so apt.

--
ha

[hank alrich]

Bob Cain wrote:

DigitalSignal wrote:
I wonder if there is a market for an audio A/D converter with very high
dynamic range, say 150dB. I thought it might be useful because it can
eliminate the needs for multiple-gain front end. Any comments?

Sure would be if it could be done.

You would, however, lose the ability to match the mic with the "right"
preamp for it. :-)


Bob

While y'all like to jest about that, I posit that were y'all pro
photographers you'd think nothing of selecting an aoppropraite filter
for a given shot _if you actually knew what the hell you were doing_. If
you hadn't the experience to select filters appropriately, you'd make
jokes about those who do have that insight.

--
ha

[Carey Carlan]

(Scott Dorsey) wrote in
:

Arny Krueger wrote:

That would be about 60 million volts for 150 dB over 2 volts.

Right.

So correct me. I understood that each 10 dB was 10x the power. So 150 dB
would be adding 15 zeroes behind the number. I'm off by 7 orders of
magnitude?

[hank alrich]

Carey Carlan wrote:

Scott Dorsey wrote:

Arny Krueger wrote:

That would be about 60 million volts for 150 dB over 2 volts.

Right.

So correct me. I understood that each 10 dB was 10x the power. So 150 dB
would be adding 15 zeroes behind the number. I'm off by 7 orders of
magnitude?

Don't you just hate it when that happens? Just be glad it's not at the
grocery checkout counter.

--
ha

[Arny Krueger]

"Carey Carlan" wrote in message

(Scott Dorsey) wrote in
:

Arny Krueger wrote:

That would be about 60 million volts for 150 dB over 2
volts.

Right.

So correct me. I understood that each 10 dB was 10x the
power.

Hmm, let me check my work. 20 dB is 10x the voltage.

I figured that 150 dB was 140 dB which is 10**7 the voltage + 10db which is
about 3.x times the voltage

2*6*10**7 = 60 x 10**6 volts = 60 million volts.

So 150 dB would be adding 15 zeroes behind the
number.

The number is volts, not watts(power). So, its like adding 7.5 zeros behind
the voltage number which was 2.0 ("a couple of volts"

I'm off by 7 orders of magnitude?

yup. You're thinking power(watts) not voltage(volts).

[Carey Carlan]

"Arny Krueger" wrote in
:

So correct me. I understood that each 10 dB was 10x the
power.

I figured that 150 dB was 140 dB which is 10**7 the voltage + 10db
which is about 3.x times the voltage

2*6*10**7 = 60 x 10**6 volts = 60 million volts.

The number is volts, not watts(power). So, its like adding 7.5 zeros
behind the voltage number which was 2.0 ("a couple of volts"

yup. You're thinking power(watts) not voltage(volts).

Right, I was. Still a helluva surge.

Assuming a 1000 ohm circuit
2 volts yield 2 x (2 / 1000) = 0.004 watts

Add 150 dB
60 million volts into 1000 ohms is 3.6 trillion watts (60,000 amps)

Where would you find a 60 million volt 60,000 amp circuit in real life?
The Large Hadron Collider?

[Carey Carlan]

(hank alrich) wrote in
:

So correct me. I understood that each 10 dB was 10x the power. So
150 dB would be adding 15 zeroes behind the number. I'm off by 7
orders of magnitude?

Don't you just hate it when that happens? Just be glad it's not at the
grocery checkout counter.

Unless it's in my favor...

[Chris Hornbeck]

On Tue, 10 Oct 2006 19:10:03 GMT, (hank alrich)
wrote:

While y'all like to jest about that, I posit that were y'all pro
photographers you'd think nothing of selecting an appropriate filter
for a given shot _if you actually knew what the hell you were doing_. If
you hadn't the experience to select filters appropriately, you'd make
jokes about those who do have that insight.

That's a particularly good analogy, because photography has
perzactly the same issues of dynamic range capture, and has
dealt with them in the same ways as sound recording, including
both compression (film gamma) and gain-staging (aperture/exposure
time).

Like sound recording, dynamic range was manipulable (cause it
*had* to be) since the earliest days. And like sound recording,
the "ideal" of verbatim reproduction of the original dynamic
range is forever (?) limited by intended playback conditions.



140 dB is the ratio between my commute to and from work, with
a couple sidetrips, and the distance to the Sun. We're just
not built right to really understand these big numbers. Prolly
a good thing, otherwise there'd never be a Defense budget.
And that's doing us so much good these days.

Much thanks, as always,

Chris Hornbeck

[Bob Cain]

hank alrich wrote:
Bob Cain wrote:

You would, however, lose the ability to match the mic with the "right"
preamp for it. :-)


Bob

While y'all like to jest about that, I posit that were y'all pro
photographers you'd think nothing of selecting an aoppropraite filter
for a given shot _if you actually knew what the hell you were doing_. If
you hadn't the experience to select filters appropriately, you'd make
jokes about those who do have that insight.

While the analogy may be apt in principle, I simply don't believe that
the subtlety of mic/amp interaction can withstand what Ethan showed us
with his measurements which I can personally corroborate. A
speaker/room induces such radical coloring in comparison (with such
great variations within and across situations) that it just isn't
believable that the mic/pre effect can be much more than placebo.

It's like expecting a photographic filter to be effective in a room
with various color light sources on a three foot overhead grid.

Blind pre shootouts have not borne out the great distinction among
them that is claimed.


Bob
--

"Things should be described as simply as possible, but no simpler."

A. Einstein

[Paul Stamler]

"Bob Cain" wrote in message

While the analogy may be apt in principle, I simply don't believe that
the subtlety of mic/amp interaction can withstand what Ethan showed us
with his measurements which I can personally corroborate. A
speaker/room induces such radical coloring in comparison (with such
great variations within and across situations) that it just isn't
believable that the mic/pre effect can be much more than placebo.

It's like expecting a photographic filter to be effective in a room
with various color light sources on a three foot overhead grid.

Bob, I don't think the one result (Ethan's) justifies the conclusion you
draw from it. The same argument would suggest that the huge variations in
room response from one spot to another would swamp the differences between a
Martin and a Kay guitar, or a good reed and a blown reed on an oboe. After
all, those room variations apply to real instruments as much as they do to
recorded sound.

Measurements like these (which aren't new, of course) are useful in the
context of demonstrating the effects of room treatment, but if you take them
*too* seriously, you'll walk away concluding not only that it's impossible
to record and reproduce music at all, but that it's impossible to listen to
it.

Peace,
Paul