distortion/resolution spec on 16 tracks analog vs. digital

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

genericaudioperson@hotmail.com wrote:

> if you were mixing down 16 tracks of 24 bit 44.1 inside a
32bit
> floating point DAW, would the resolution/distortion specs
be better or
> worse mathematically than sending the tracks out to
something like an
> SSL console?

Presuming the DAW software was properly written, there is no
comparison - the DAW is by far the higher resolution tool.

24 bit audio all by itself has about 144 dB worth of dynamic
range, which significantly exceeds that of just about *any*
practical audio gear.

Given that your recordings will probably have no more than
75 dB dynamic range, even the approximately 96 dB dynamic
range of 16 bit audio is overkill.

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

<genericaudioperson@hotmail.com> wrote:
>if you were mixing down 16 tracks of 24 bit 44.1 inside a 32bit
>floating point DAW, would the resolution/distortion specs be better or
>worse mathematically than sending the tracks out to something like an
>SSL console?

Depends on how bad the DAW is.

There is no NO reason for a simple DAW system that only changes levels
and sums to have any distortion other than tiny amounts due to numerical
precision issues.

Now, the truth is that _some_ DAWs do a lot of unncessary processing, and
the stuff going in isn't the same as the stuff coming out.

Also, realize that there are a lot of people out there who never use
a channel without EQ and dynamics processing on it, and the numbers
are very different between the console and the DAW in that regard.

>i'm wondering in terms of mathematical numbers rather than subjective
>sound qualities.

The numbers on an SSL and on a typical DAW are not as good as they should
be, but there's no reason for either one of them to be significant in an
optimal world.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

genericaudioperson@hotmail.com wrote:


>
> is dynamic range the right spec for "resolution"?

I don't think so. If so, modern recordings sure don't have much
resolution. On second thought...

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Joe Sensor wrote:
> genericaudioperson@hotmail.com wrote:
>
>
>>
>> is dynamic range the right spec for "resolution"?
>
> I don't think so.

Interesting Joe how you actually know the right answer
(below) despite giving the wrong answer (above).

> If so, modern recordings sure don't have much resolution.

If you're talking about overcompressed, clipped, etc, then
you're right on.

>On second thought...

....You got it right!

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Joe Sensor wrote:

> How so? Are we talking about volume resolution? Are we talking about
> frequency resolution? What?
>

"Resolution" as part of ther spec. of an A-D converter has a quite
specific meaning: the smallest difference in input voltage that can be
resolved, i.e. that results in different digital codes output.

This correctly relates to dynamic range which is the ratio of the
largest possible signal (corresponding to max number output) to smallest
possible signal (corresponding to single step of number output).

....all of which has nothing to do with frequencies. As a generic English
word, of course "resolution" has lots of other uses.

Anahata

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

that's fascinating, Anahata.

so would this be true?:

if you have a converter with a very high real-world dynamic range, then
it means it can capture subtle gradations better than a narrow-range
converter.

meaning the high-range converter could have something a signal like
87.3435db, and the lesser one would only understand it as 88.34 or
something like that.

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Chris Hornbeck wrote:
> On 1 Jun 2005 19:40:47 -0700, genericaudioperson@hotmail.com wrote:
>
>
>>so would this be true?:
>>
>>if you have a converter with a very high real-world dynamic range, then
>>it means it can capture subtle gradations better than a narrow-range
>>converter.
>>
>>meaning the high-range converter could have something a signal like
>>87.3435db, and the lesser one would only understand it as 88.34 or
>>something like that.
>
>
> Perhaps a better way to say it is, as Bob Cain puts it, translated,
> an ideal A/D/A translation would include bandwidth limiting and an
> additional noise floor caused by the dithering.

Gee, I hope I said that but I can't remember doing so. :-)

Sounds more like an Arnyism to me.

>
> The dithering itself, idealized, generates only a Gaussian noise
> floor. The literal original went something very much like "a perfect
> copy (after bandwidth limiting) plus a noise background."

If the quantization error is random, which it would be
ideally, wouldn't it be white rather than Gaussian? Just
like the noise from a resistor (and audibly indistinguishable.)


Bob
--

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

A. Einstein

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Joe Sensor wrote:
> Arny Krueger wrote:
>> genericaudioperson@hotmail.com wrote:
>>
>>> thanks Arny,
>>>
>>> is dynamic range the right spec for "resolution"?]
>>
>>
>> Yes.
>>
>
> Yes?
>
> How so?

Technology that has been established for at least 50 years.
The relationship between resolution and dynamic range was
established in a paper by Shanon, which was published in the
1940s, offhand.

>Are we talking about volume resolution?

Yes, resolution is only of interest in the amplitude domain.

> Are we talking about frequency resolution? What?

As a rule both analog and digital circuits have so much
resolution in the frequency domain compared to the limits of
human perception, that characterising it is not of much
practical interest. IOW if you feed 100.0001 Hz into just
about any amp, preamp, or convtertor, the output will also
be 100.0001 Hz.

> What if the dynamic range was 140 db, but the frequency
response is
> flat to 8k? Is this high resolution?

You seem to be confusing lack of frequency response
extension with a lack of resolution in the frequency domain.
Two different things.

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

<genericaudioperson@hotmail.com> wrote:
>that's fascinating, Anahata.
>
>so would this be true?:
>
>if you have a converter with a very high real-world dynamic range, then
>it means it can capture subtle gradations better than a narrow-range
>converter.
>
>meaning the high-range converter could have a signal like 87.3435db,
>and the lesser one would only understand it as 88.34 or something like
>that.

No, it just means you have more dynamic range. There is a discussion of
common misconceptions about digital conversion in the FAQ, written by Gabe
Weiner.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

On Wed, 01 Jun 2005 23:52:59 -0700, Bob Cain
<arcane@arcanemethods.com> wrote:

>Gee, I hope I said that but I can't remember doing so. :-)

OK, you made me look it up; here's the original in all
its glory:

"> So, louder components are also represented better in a 24 bit
system.
> Are THESE aforementioned things something we can ALL agree on?

Yes. What must be remembered, however, is how the
inaccuracy is perceived. Many think that the increased
resolution results in less perception of some kind of
stairstep effect. That is not the case. The preceived
situation with an N bit converter done properly and going
through the A/D and then the D/A process is _exactly_ the
same as an infinite resolution conversion at both stages
with a digital adder in between just adding in a noise
signal comprised of a random variable with values of 0 or
2^-N at each sample time. What is heard is additive noise
and only that iff the conversion is done without correlation
between the value of that bit and the value of the sample.
This is practically achievable."

>Sounds more like an Arnyism to me.

Guess my translations are being influenced by the folks
on this newsgroup; could be worse.

Thanks,

Chris Hornbeck

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Bob Cain <arcane@arcanemethods.com> wrote in
news7nmf209g9@enews1.newsguy.com:

> Would the spectrum of a flat amplitude distribution be the
> same as that of a Gaussian amplitude distribution?
> (Statistics is an inexcusable hole in my knowledge.)
> Thanks,
> Bob


Statistics isn't the only inexcusable hole in your knowledge. It's just
the only one that you are prepared to acknowledge at this time.

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

<jwilliams3@audioupgrades.com> wrote:

> Which is why many have given up on the ITB mixing and have returned to
> analog mixing, it must have something to do with the results, not the
> math.

It's the music. "Can you hum me the math, dear??"

--
ha