How many bits, how fast, just how much resolution is enough?

[semente]

Your remark about interpolation using more points implied it.

In the post you quoted the image on the right has the same sample rate but more "amplitude" values.

The increased resolution is obvious.

 

R

[mansr]

In the post you quoted the image on the right has the same sample rate but more "amplitude" values.

The increased resolution is obvious.

 

R

That image makes little sense alongside your words.

[semente]

That image makes little sense alongside your words.

Care to explain?

[plissken]

Don't get confused by the stair step of the wave form. Too many audiophiles think it's distortion rather then sampling points. Even Nelson Pass has incorrectly referenced this. Lollipop plot would be a bit better representative.

 

Either way here a tutorial that shows actual reconstructed signal on an analog scope.

 

 

This is one of the reasons I don't placate or cater to audiophiles that don't understand D/A theory.

 

Once the analog signal is accurately recreated I don't care the PCM or DSD encoding before that.

[audiventory]

Where did I mention sample rate?

 

Sample rate and bit-depth is linked values. If bit-depth is constant, but sample rate increased 2 times, then noise floor decreased 2 times.

[audiventory]

Don't get confused by the stair step of the wave form.

 

Analog filter would be ideal interpolator, if it will have "brick-wall" amplitude and linear phase responses.

 

But there our abilities are very limited.

[esldude]

In the post you quoted the image on the right has the same sample rate but more "amplitude" values.

The increased resolution is obvious.

 

R

 

Usually when someone is explaining digital to you and use the staircase waveform, STOP. Stop listening to anything else they have to say.

 

The higher sample rate allows more bandwidth. You can as the video demonstrates with purely analog gear at each end fully reconstruct a waveform up to the limited bandwidth with only two samples per wave. The "extra" samples of a higher sample rate aren't constructing a more resolved or more accurate waveform. Or looked at another way, a high sample rate 1 khz tone is not more accurately reconstructed than a redbook 1 khz tone even though it has more sample points per wave. You couldn't tell the difference between the two. The staircase idea would mislead you into thinking the high rate 1 khz tone is more accurately reconstructed.

[Kimo]

Usually when someone is explaining digital to you and use the staircase waveform, STOP. Stop listening to anything else they have to say.

 

The higher sample rate allows more bandwidth. You can as the video demonstrates with purely analog gear at each end fully reconstruct a waveform up to the limited bandwidth with only two samples per wave. The "extra" samples of a higher sample rate aren't constructing a more resolved or more accurate waveform. Or looked at another way, a high sample rate 1 khz tone is not more accurately reconstructed than a redbook 1 khz tone even though it has more sample points per wave. You couldn't tell the difference between the two. The staircase idea would mislead you into thinking the high rate 1 khz tone is more accurately reconstructed.

 

So, 16 bits are enough to accurately capture the wave, but often not enough to capture the whole wave?

[mansr]

So, 16 bits are enough to accurately capture the wave, but often not enough to capture the whole wave?

 

Nobody is talking about bits except that one figure semente posted.

[Ralf11]

several reasons to (maybe) buy a higher bit rate/depth recording:

 

#1 by far is that, just maybe, they took greater care with the recording mastering etc. process before it got to the consumer level - you'd have to check to be sure

 

#2 filtering may be easier/less intrusive as I alluded to above - this is mentioned in that article by "monty" tho I downrate things without a Methods section, or by some dude on the internet - to be taken seriously, your name and affiliation will appear at the top of your peer-reviewed article

 

#3 - um... ah... I thought I had a 3rd one last night...

[plissken]

#2 filtering may be easier/less intrusive as I alluded to above - this is mentioned in that article by "monty" tho I downrate things without a Methods section, or by some dude on the internet

 

Then it is easily refuted. But yet no refutation has taken place.

[mansr]

several reasons to (maybe) buy a higher bit rate/depth recording:

 

#1 by far is that, just maybe, they took greater care with the recording mastering etc. process before it got to the consumer level - you'd have to check to be sure

 

#2 filtering may be easier/less intrusive as I alluded to above - this is mentioned in that article by "monty" tho I downrate things without a Methods section, or by some dude on the internet - to be taken seriously, your name and affiliation will appear at the top of your peer-reviewed article

 

#3 - um... ah... I thought I had a 3rd one last night...

 

1. Some labels release a high-res "studio master" version. This is as good as it gets. Other formats may have been subjected to additional mastering (aka mangling). When such a studio master version is available, it's the one I get unless it is hideously priced. In some other cases the high-res versions are merely upconverted from CD and a complete waste of money. As you say, check to be sure.

 

2. I know Monty. He's the real deal.

[esldude]

 

#2 filtering may be easier/less intrusive as I alluded to above - this is mentioned in that article by "monty" tho I downrate things without a Methods section, or by some dude on the internet - to be taken seriously, your name and affiliation will appear at the top of your peer-reviewed article

 

#3 - um... ah... I thought I had a 3rd one last night...

 

I don't think his video was meant as a peer review thing. If you look at the website it is hosted from then you know his affiliation. Among other things he is partly responsible for the Ogg Vorbis format. His methods were clear to me in the video. There is or was a comments area on the host site. If you have a question not answered you probably could ask. He shows a good quality analog source feeding a good quality analog analyzer. Then puts a low budget AD/DA in the middle. Is there something about this you question or doubt or wonder about?

[semente]

Usually when someone is explaining digital to you and use the staircase waveform, STOP. Stop listening to anything else they have to say.

 

The higher sample rate allows more bandwidth. You can as the video demonstrates with purely analog gear at each end fully reconstruct a waveform up to the limited bandwidth with only two samples per wave. The "extra" samples of a higher sample rate aren't constructing a more resolved or more accurate waveform. Or looked at another way, a high sample rate 1 khz tone is not more accurately reconstructed than a redbook 1 khz tone even though it has more sample points per wave. You couldn't tell the difference between the two. The staircase idea would mislead you into thinking the high rate 1 khz tone is more accurately reconstructed.

 

I didn't use a staircase waveform, there's no waveform in this example only, as far as I know, quantisation error:

 

 

And I don't know why people started talking about sample rate when I was referring to bit depth...

 

R

[semente]

Sample rate and bit-depth is linked values. If bit-depth is constant, but sample rate increased 2 times, then noise floor decreased 2 times.

 

Since I never spoke of sample rate, let's consider 16/44.1 vs. 24/44.1.

 

Doesn't higher bit depth lower the noise-floor?

And if the noise-floor is lower, don't we get increased resolution?

 

I still don't understand why everyone keeps talking about sample rate...

 

R

[esldude]

So, 16 bits are enough to accurately capture the wave, but often not enough to capture the whole wave?

 

Not sure I understand your question. Could you elaborate? Bit depth and sample rate are separate things. The bit depth won't alter how often samples are taken.

[mansr]

Since I never spoke of sample rate, let's consider 16/44.1 vs. 24/44.1.

 

Doesn't higher bit depth lower the noise-floor?

And if the noise-floor is lower, don't we get increased resolution?

 

I still don't understand why everyone keeps talking about sample rate...

 

R

 

Yes, higher bit depth reduces the quantisation error. With dither, the error is mainly wideband noise, possibly shaped. Without dither, it becomes harmonic distortion. Either way, more bits gives less error.

[esldude]

I didn't use a staircase waveform, there's no waveform in this example only, as far as I know, quantisation error:

 

 

 

And I don't know why people started talking about sample rate when I was referring to bit depth...

 

R

 

 

Well in my case because I took my own advice, and stopped paying attention when I saw the stair case looking graph. Also because you mentioned the more points you have taken the more accurate. That describes a higher vs lower sample rate.

 

Bit depth relates to quantisation error which creates quantisation distortion. Using 24 bits lowers the error and distortion vs 16 bits. Good dithering also mitigates quantisation error to the point with 16 bit it lies below the noise floor of most analog electronics. You can look at tests by Stereophile of DACs. They will show the spectrum for 16 bit signals and 24 bit signals. If the analog part of the gear is good switching to 24 bit lowers the noise floor. Maybe 20 db in the better gear. Maybe not much at all in some gear. So yes 24 bit depth can be more accurate than 16 bit. The difference is likely too small to notice, but it is there. Not to mention finding microphones and recording venues with noise floors lower than dithered 16 bit levels.

 

MSB Technology Analog DAC D/A converter and Analog Power Base power supply Measurements | Stereophile.com

 

Here you can see how the switch between 16 and 24 bit results in a noise floor drop of 28 db in this excellent MSB DAC. Look at figure 5. Even at dithered 16 bit nothing sticks up above -130 db besides the 1 khz tone.

 

Here look at figure 4 for a much less expensive and similarly good DAC. The noise floor drops about 30 db with 24 bit.

Benchmark DAC2 HGC D/A processor/headphone amplifier Measurements | Stereophile.com

 

OOPS, mansr answered in between and gave a much shorter answer.

[Kimo]

Not sure I understand your question. Could you elaborate? Bit depth and sample rate are separate things. The bit depth won't alter how often samples are taken.

 

Let us say I have a 24 bit master and way down around 101 db, there is a very faint conversation caught on the recording. Everything else captured has a maximum dynamic range of 30 db.

 

If I down sample this to redbook, I will no longer hear the conversation, but the wave form that remains should be identical?

[mansr]

Let us say I have a 24 bit master and way down around 101 db, there is a very faint conversation caught on the recording. Everything else captured has a maximum dynamic range of 30 db.

 

If I down sample this to redbook, I will no longer hear the conversation, but the wave form that remains should be identical?

You wouldn't hear that conversation in either format.

[Kimo]

You wouldn't hear that conversation in either format.

 

Okay, how about at 90 db?

[esldude]

Okay, how about at 90 db?

 

http://www.computeraudiophile.com/f8-general-forum/how-audible-noise-your-system-30596/

 

Try these signals with embedded noise and see where it disappears for you.

 

I agree in either case you aren't going to hear that conversation. Also, dithered 16 bit would capture much of the conversation even at -101 db. Not as cleanly as 24 bit if the other electronics are very, very quiet.

[esldude]

https://dl.orangedox.com/uY0pgsmWy5cGHg8L9g

 

Here you can download a pair of 30 second clips of the John Mayall clip. They are in a single zip file of 2.8 mb.

 

I reduced it to peaks of -101 db. RMS level is -115 db. One version was saved as 24 bit and another as 16 bit. Both dithered. I then applied 70 db of digital gain. So you can hear what is left. The 24 bit is pretty clean, the 16 bit is noisy, yet you can hear the music is still there encoded in the file. Also you could never do this in the analog world as cleanly as the 24 bit because analog electronics have far more noise. Still it will give you the idea how low a signal is still encoded in dithered 16 bit.

[Ralf11]

Then it is easily refuted. But yet no refutation has taken place.

 

then let's see it

 

 

as for monty being the real deal, what are his qualifications? I'm not saying he is wrong; I am just used to seeing things justified by citations to previous work or by the Results section, which is obtained by following the procedures in the Methods section - that is Science 101

[Kimo]

https://dl.orangedox.com/uY0pgsmWy5cGHg8L9g

 

Here you can download a pair of 30 second clips of the John Mayall clip. They are in a single zip file of 2.8 mb.

 

I reduced it to peaks of -101 db. RMS level is -115 db. One version was saved as 24 bit and another as 16 bit. Both dithered. I then applied 70 db of digital gain. So you can hear what is left. The 24 bit is pretty clean, the 16 bit is noisy, yet you can hear the music is still there encoded in the file. Also you could never do this in the analog world as cleanly as the 24 bit because analog electronics have far more noise. Still it will give you the idea how low a signal is still encoded in dithered 16 bit.

 

This was an interesting listen. The music is indeed still there, under all the noise.

 

24 bit makes things a lot easier though, no?