Become a Site Supporter and Never see Ads again!

Author Topic: Edirol R09 - ADC not good enough for 24bit, right?  (Read 16020 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline poorlyconditioned

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Taperssection All-Star
  • ****
  • Posts: 1958
  • I'm a tapir!
Edirol R09 - ADC not good enough for 24bit, right?
« on: February 08, 2007, 03:29:28 AM »
I just got my Edirol R09 and did some tests.

Following Guysonic, I put a 1k resistor on the inputs, and recorded "silence" to see what the noise floor was.

I was suprised to learn the lowest floor is something like -90 to -92dB.  For example, both mic (lo sens) and line give this value for gains between #1 and #20.  Noise goes up to about -85dB at #30 gain.

The ideal noise floor for 16bits is -96dB, and for 24bits is -144dB (each bit is 6dB).  So, this is about 4-6dB *worse* than 16bits.  So, there is no point in recording anything in 24bit, because those extra 8 bits will be useless.

What I was hoping was for something like 17 or 18bits and the rest noise.  Ie., one or two bits better than 16bit.  But the current rig is comparabe to minidisc.  Approaching but not quite 16bits.

  Richard
Mics: Sennheiser MKE2002 (dummy head), Studio Projects C4, AT825 (unmodded), AT822 franken mic (x2), AT853(hc,c,sc,o), Senn. MKE2, Senn MKE40, Shure MX183/5, CA Cards, homebrew Panasonic and Transsound capsules.
Pre/ADC: Presonus Firepod & Firebox, DMIC20(x2), UA5(poorly-modded, AD8620+AD8512opamps), VX440
Recorders: Edirol R4, R09, IBM X24 laptop, NJB3(x2), HiMD(x2), MD(1).
** This individual has moved to user "illconditioned" **

Offline BayTaynt3d

  • Trade Count: (4)
  • Taperssection All-Star
  • ****
  • Posts: 1816
  • Gender: Male
  • Live from San Francisco
    • BayTaper.com
Re: Edirol R09 - ADC not good enough for 24bit, right?
« Reply #1 on: February 08, 2007, 03:40:40 AM »
Quote
So, there is no point in recording anything in 24bit

Not sure, but I think there are more reasons than just that point. For one, no matter what the theoretical dynamic range could be, having 24 bits means more resolution with the sound you do have, and if you do any editing at all, having that resolution helps make quantization noise a non-issue, but not so at 16-bit. I'm sure there's more though, anyone?
BayTaper.com | One Man’s Multimedia Journey Through the San Francisco Jazz & Creative Music Scene

Offline Nick's Picks

  • Trade Count: (33)
  • Needs to get out more...
  • *****
  • Posts: 10260
  • Gender: Male
  • I thought I heard.......
Re: Edirol R09 - ADC not good enough for 24bit, right?
« Reply #2 on: February 08, 2007, 07:26:29 AM »
I think it sounds great.  dont care how many bits its using.
my ears like it.

Offline poorlyconditioned

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Taperssection All-Star
  • ****
  • Posts: 1958
  • I'm a tapir!
Re: Edirol R09 - ADC not good enough for 24bit, right?
« Reply #3 on: February 10, 2007, 04:42:31 PM »
OK, I tried the R09 out last week.  Franken-AT822 > batt box > R09 (mic/lo-sens level#25).

The sound on this thing is excellent!  The interface is great too.  So, it is a keeper.  I don't think recording at 24 bit has any gain, and certainly means less storage on a Flash card.  So, I'm going to stick to 16 bit.  But for that, it is a great unit.

  Richard
Mics: Sennheiser MKE2002 (dummy head), Studio Projects C4, AT825 (unmodded), AT822 franken mic (x2), AT853(hc,c,sc,o), Senn. MKE2, Senn MKE40, Shure MX183/5, CA Cards, homebrew Panasonic and Transsound capsules.
Pre/ADC: Presonus Firepod & Firebox, DMIC20(x2), UA5(poorly-modded, AD8620+AD8512opamps), VX440
Recorders: Edirol R4, R09, IBM X24 laptop, NJB3(x2), HiMD(x2), MD(1).
** This individual has moved to user "illconditioned" **

Offline spyder9

  • Trade Count: (82)
  • Needs to get out more...
  • *****
  • Posts: 13198
  • Gender: Male
  • "Are you Zman?"
    • My Archived shows
Re: Edirol R09 - ADC not good enough for 24bit, right?
« Reply #4 on: February 10, 2007, 04:49:56 PM »
The only thing I noticed when recording 24 bit:  Bass recorded seems thinner than it was at the show.  Noticed it in all 3 recorders when doing 24 bit: Tascam HD-P2, Edirol R09, and Zoom H4.  Anybody else?  Besides that, 24 bit is vundabar!   

Offline nihilistic0

  • Trade Count: (4)
  • Taperssection Regular
  • **
  • Posts: 224
  • wat
Re: Edirol R09 - ADC not good enough for 24bit, right?
« Reply #5 on: February 21, 2007, 11:01:07 AM »
There may be more factors here


96dB for 16bit isn't 'ideal', it's the max.  I record 16bit into my JB3, but God knows I'm not seeing anything close to a 96dB noise floor, but that's due more to the lack of pre-amp than anything
SP-CMC-4 (AT853) > SP-SPSB-1 (no rolloff) > Tascam DR-05

Offline Sebastian

  • Trade Count: (4)
  • Taperssection All-Star
  • ****
  • Posts: 1594
  • Gender: Male
Re: Edirol R09 - ADC not good enough for 24bit, right?
« Reply #6 on: February 21, 2007, 04:51:56 PM »
Bass recorded seems thinner than it was at the show.  Noticed it in all 3 recorders [...]

Then it *must* be the ATs ;)
(*ducks and hides*)

Offline Church-Audio

  • Trade Count: (44)
  • Needs to get out more...
  • *****
  • Posts: 7571
  • Gender: Male
Re: Edirol R09 - ADC not good enough for 24bit, right?
« Reply #7 on: February 21, 2007, 05:03:06 PM »
Quote
So, there is no point in recording anything in 24bit

Not sure, but I think there are more reasons than just that point. For one, no matter what the theoretical dynamic range could be, having 24 bits means more resolution with the sound you do have, and if you do any editing at all, having that resolution helps make quantization noise a non-issue, but not so at 16-bit. I'm sure there's more though, anyone?

I think your 100% correct. Its about quantization and the bit path if this increases then the sampling information increase and you capture more of the wave form. Richard, the noise floor your talking about -148 or so is the "official" spec of 24 bit but very few 24 bit machines reach that because, you have to have a analog front end if you have a mic preamp. And your not going to get any analog front end that will do that unless you want to spend $1000's So I think your getting a huge advantage with 24 bit and I would stay where you are the edirol it is a great recorder imo. Its miles better then the microtracker for having less noise when we are talking about the front end of both units. 

for warranty returns email me at
EMAIL Sales@church-audio.com

Offline nihilistic0

  • Trade Count: (4)
  • Taperssection Regular
  • **
  • Posts: 224
  • wat
Re: Edirol R09 - ADC not good enough for 24bit, right?
« Reply #8 on: February 21, 2007, 10:35:39 PM »
nothing does -144db noisefloor

I think the best we can hope for is 110-120
SP-CMC-4 (AT853) > SP-SPSB-1 (no rolloff) > Tascam DR-05

Offline Church-Audio

  • Trade Count: (44)
  • Needs to get out more...
  • *****
  • Posts: 7571
  • Gender: Male
Re: Edirol R09 - ADC not good enough for 24bit, right?
« Reply #9 on: February 21, 2007, 10:51:14 PM »
nothing does -144db noisefloor

I think the best we can hope for is 110-120

Yep that's true.. I think -120 is pretty dam good. I mean if your recording a whisper its not great but for rock and roll you will never hear the difference between -120 and -140.. With a hot signal on your machine.
for warranty returns email me at
EMAIL Sales@church-audio.com

Offline poorlyconditioned

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Taperssection All-Star
  • ****
  • Posts: 1958
  • I'm a tapir!
Re: Edirol R09 - ADC not good enough for 24bit, right?
« Reply #10 on: February 22, 2007, 12:39:43 AM »
nothing does -144db noisefloor

I think the best we can hope for is 110-120

Yep that's true.. I think -120 is pretty dam good. I mean if your recording a whisper its not great but for rock and roll you will never hear the difference between -120 and -140.. With a hot signal on your machine.


That is right, you can hope for something lower then -96, even -108 would be better, like two bits more than 16, or 12dB better.  But, alas, the *minimum* noise floor is -90 on the Edirol, so I don't see the point in grabbing 24 bits.

Anyway, as I said earlier, it sounds good, so I'll just take it as a 16 bit recorder.  It is also interesting that the Burr Brown spec sheet for the chip does not say 24 bit anywhere.

  Richard
Mics: Sennheiser MKE2002 (dummy head), Studio Projects C4, AT825 (unmodded), AT822 franken mic (x2), AT853(hc,c,sc,o), Senn. MKE2, Senn MKE40, Shure MX183/5, CA Cards, homebrew Panasonic and Transsound capsules.
Pre/ADC: Presonus Firepod & Firebox, DMIC20(x2), UA5(poorly-modded, AD8620+AD8512opamps), VX440
Recorders: Edirol R4, R09, IBM X24 laptop, NJB3(x2), HiMD(x2), MD(1).
** This individual has moved to user "illconditioned" **

Offline Carrera2

  • Trade Count: (5)
  • Taperssection Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 423
Re: Edirol R09 - ADC not good enough for 24bit, right?
« Reply #11 on: February 22, 2007, 09:48:00 AM »

<snip>

I was suprised to learn the lowest floor is something like -90 to -92dB.  For example, both mic (lo sens) and line give this value for gains between #1 and #20.  Noise goes up to about -85dB at #30 gain.

The ideal noise floor for 16bits is -96dB, and for 24bits is -144dB (each bit is 6dB).  So, this is about 4-6dB *worse* than 16bits.  So, there is no point in recording anything in 24bit, because those extra 8 bits will be useless.

<snip>

  Richard



Does anyone know how this would compare to a stock UA-5?  This is a function of the AD conversion, yes?


Offline Church-Audio

  • Trade Count: (44)
  • Needs to get out more...
  • *****
  • Posts: 7571
  • Gender: Male
Re: Edirol R09 - ADC not good enough for 24bit, right?
« Reply #12 on: February 22, 2007, 09:52:30 AM »

<snip>

I was suprised to learn the lowest floor is something like -90 to -92dB.  For example, both mic (lo sens) and line give this value for gains between #1 and #20.  Noise goes up to about -85dB at #30 gain.

The ideal noise floor for 16bits is -96dB, and for 24bits is -144dB (each bit is 6dB).  So, this is about 4-6dB *worse* than 16bits.  So, there is no point in recording anything in 24bit, because those extra 8 bits will be useless.

<snip>

  Richard



Does anyone know how this would compare to a stock UA-5?  This is a function of the AD conversion, yes?



Its a basic function of the A/D but it starts at the front end if the noise floor on the front end of the preamp is -120 then no mater what converter is after it the noise floor is still -120. So it begins and ends with the analog mic preamp in the product your using. This is what really determines noise floor because no amount of bit rate or sample rate after that is going to change shit. It will just do a better job of chopping up the wave form and recreating it when it gets put back out into analog.


Chris Church
for warranty returns email me at
EMAIL Sales@church-audio.com

Offline Javier Cinakowski

  • !! Downhill From Here !!
  • Trade Count: (11)
  • Needs to get out more...
  • *****
  • Posts: 4325
  • Gender: Male
Re: Edirol R09 - ADC not good enough for 24bit, right?
« Reply #13 on: February 22, 2007, 10:30:12 AM »
For me, 24bit makes no sense.  It takes up more HD space, it takes longer to process, convert and transfer. Also, the quietest thing I record is still fairly loud.  Also my UA5 (or ST9100) does not have specs that warrant 24bit.  I also do no editing in post, except for an occasional normalize.  Also, I distribute and listen to my recordings in 16bit.
Neumann KM185mp OR DPA ST2015-> Grace Design Lunatec V2-> Tascam DR-100mkIII

Offline Church-Audio

  • Trade Count: (44)
  • Needs to get out more...
  • *****
  • Posts: 7571
  • Gender: Male
Re: Edirol R09 - ADC not good enough for 24bit, right?
« Reply #14 on: February 22, 2007, 10:38:37 AM »
For me, 24bit makes no sense.  It takes up more HD space, it takes longer to process, convert and transfer. Also, the quietest thing I record is still fairly loud.  Also my UA5 (or ST9100) does not have specs that warrant 24bit.  I also do no editing in post, except for an occasional normalize.  Also, I distribute and listen to my recordings in 16bit.

16 bit has been around for a long time I use 24 with my sound analyzer program only because I am looking at waveforms but for playback so much of the things around the house are still 16 bit I don't really find the need for it in every day life of listening to music maybe if I was some kind of audiophile I would.
« Last Edit: February 23, 2007, 04:31:48 AM by Church-Audio »
for warranty returns email me at
EMAIL Sales@church-audio.com

Offline Brian Skalinder

  • Complaint Dept.
  • Trade Count: (28)
  • Needs to get out more...
  • *****
  • Posts: 18868
  • Gender: Male
Re: Edirol R09 - ADC not good enough for 24bit, right?
« Reply #15 on: February 22, 2007, 03:07:47 PM »
I see a lot of people suggesting that it's not worth running 24-bit because the dynamic range of their source / environment / recording gear is lower than the dynamic range achievable with 24-bit (or even 16-bit).  But is there not more to the value of 24-bit than dynamic range, i.e. greater precision through an increase in the number of vertical axis samples used to describe the waveform?  And this extra precision more closely approximates the analog waveform independently of the noise floor.

For some reason, I find this easier to follow using sample rate as an example:  the sample rate is analagous to bit-depth and the frequency range is analagous to dynamic range.  (I know this is not a perfect analogy, but it illustrates - I hope - the value of increased samples.)  A sample rate of 24 kHz provides a frequency range of 0 - 12 kHz.  A 48 kHz sample rate provides a frequency range of 0 - 24 kHz.  But even if our audio source only produces a frequency range of 0 - 12 kHz, at 48 kHz we're still using more samples (twice as many in this case) to define the waveform, i.e. we've achieved greater precision.  And the greater precision produces sonic improvements beyond merely frequency range, like better time coherence and spatial cues.

So, going back to bit-depth, the increased precision produces sonic improvements (detail) beyond merely expanded dynamic range.

More discussion here:  http://taperssection.com/index.php/topic,77804.0.html
Milab VM-44 Links > Fostex FR-2LE or
Naiant IPA (tinybox format) >
Roland R-05

Offline Javier Cinakowski

  • !! Downhill From Here !!
  • Trade Count: (11)
  • Needs to get out more...
  • *****
  • Posts: 4325
  • Gender: Male
Re: Edirol R09 - ADC not good enough for 24bit, right?
« Reply #16 on: February 22, 2007, 03:46:04 PM »
That makes sense Brian, thanks.  I am still not sure it is worth it to me though.....  Now, if I get a DVD-A player for my home theater and car, then I will get a 24bit recorder....
Neumann KM185mp OR DPA ST2015-> Grace Design Lunatec V2-> Tascam DR-100mkIII

Offline BayTaynt3d

  • Trade Count: (4)
  • Taperssection All-Star
  • ****
  • Posts: 1816
  • Gender: Male
  • Live from San Francisco
    • BayTaper.com
Re: Edirol R09 - ADC not good enough for 24bit, right?
« Reply #17 on: February 22, 2007, 04:00:55 PM »
And that precision becomes even more important as you add digital gain (aka normalizing/compressing) doesn't it? Because you are effectively digitally zooming in on the waveform.
BayTaper.com | One Man’s Multimedia Journey Through the San Francisco Jazz & Creative Music Scene

Offline Gutbucket

  • record > listen > revise technique
  • Trade Count: (16)
  • Needs to get out more...
  • *****
  • Posts: 15748
  • Gender: Male
  • "Better to love music than respect it" ~Stravinsky
Re: Edirol R09 - ADC not good enough for 24bit, right?
« Reply #18 on: February 22, 2007, 04:04:50 PM »
FWIW, I 'think' my 24bit recordings with the R-09 sound better than the handfull of 16 bit ones I tried when I first got a hold of it.  I could be fooling myself though because I haven't done serious critical listening comparisons.  Keep in mind that I'm talking about recording acoustic music or more intimate scale electric stuff up close (stage lip or nearly so) DPA4060>MMA6K>R09 and using computer based play back where various bit depth files aren't a problem.  For me the peace of mind knowing that I can set levels to peak at -6db and not have to worry about overs and that I may be capturing some extra resolution that my current playback system may not resolve anyway is worth the slightly larger file size. [shrug]

edit-
I honestly am not as convinced it would make as much difference with more racous stuff where most of the sound is filtered through a club's PA and the dynamic range of the music isn't so large.  I tape that stuff too but that's not where my rig really shines or where my recordist soul soars.. Gets my butt groovin' though. ;D
« Last Edit: February 22, 2007, 04:10:53 PM by Gutbucket »
musical volition > vibrations > voltages > numeric values > voltages > vibrations> virtual teleportation time-machine experience
Better recording made easy - >>Improved PAS table<< | Made excellent- >>click here to download the Oddball Microphone Technique illustrated PDF booklet<< (note: This is a 1st draft, now several years old and in need of revision!  Stay tuned)

Offline poorlyconditioned

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Taperssection All-Star
  • ****
  • Posts: 1958
  • I'm a tapir!
Re: Edirol R09 - ADC not good enough for 24bit, right?
« Reply #19 on: February 22, 2007, 04:14:32 PM »
FWIW, I 'think' my 24bit recordings with the R-09 sound better than the handfull of 16 bit ones I tried when I first got a hold of it.  I could be fooling myself though because I haven't done serious critical listening comparisons.  Keep in mind that I'm talking about recording acoustic music or more intimate scale electric stuff up close (stage lip or nearly so) DPA4060>MMA6K>R09 and using computer based play back where various bit depth files aren't a problem.  For me the peace of mind knowing that I can set levels to peak at -6db and not have to worry about overs and that I may be capturing some extra resolution that my current playback system may not resolve anyway is worth the slightly larger file size. [shrug]

I run at -6dB or so too.  That is just good sense.

The problem with going 24 bit, though, is the last nine bits are so are all noise!  I put a 1k resistor on the input, set to record line-in, at the lowest gain, and I still get a -90dB noise floor!  The noise floor starts to increase a bit on mic in (low sens), but only after about #25/30 or so.  Anything before that and you're still getting 90dB of SNR.

OK, 16 bits is -96dB noise floor.  So why grab another eight bits of noise floor running 24bit?  Maybe there is some signal in there, but it is pretty much buried in the noise if you ask me.

Anyway, like I said, this thing sounds good at 16bit, and the interface is awesome.  So it is definitely recommended.

  Richard
Mics: Sennheiser MKE2002 (dummy head), Studio Projects C4, AT825 (unmodded), AT822 franken mic (x2), AT853(hc,c,sc,o), Senn. MKE2, Senn MKE40, Shure MX183/5, CA Cards, homebrew Panasonic and Transsound capsules.
Pre/ADC: Presonus Firepod & Firebox, DMIC20(x2), UA5(poorly-modded, AD8620+AD8512opamps), VX440
Recorders: Edirol R4, R09, IBM X24 laptop, NJB3(x2), HiMD(x2), MD(1).
** This individual has moved to user "illconditioned" **

Offline Gutbucket

  • record > listen > revise technique
  • Trade Count: (16)
  • Needs to get out more...
  • *****
  • Posts: 15748
  • Gender: Male
  • "Better to love music than respect it" ~Stravinsky
Re: Edirol R09 - ADC not good enough for 24bit, right?
« Reply #20 on: February 22, 2007, 04:26:18 PM »
I run at -6dB or so too.  That is just good sense.
...OK, 16 bits is -96dB noise floor.  So why grab another eight bits of noise floor running 24bit?  Maybe there is some signal in there, but it is pretty much buried in the noise if you ask me...

Call it a healthier than normal dose of dither if you like  :).  I'm quite happy with the results too, and that's what counts most.. until I get a chance to to a serious listening comparison on material where I think it may make a difference I err on the side of caution.

That's the pragmatist in me talking, elbowing out the theorist for now.

edit-
The pragmatist would like me to add that sometimes I end up closer to -12db than -6db depending on the situation.  The meters are pretty compressed up there and sometimes I don't care to look at them anyway ;).
« Last Edit: February 22, 2007, 04:28:48 PM by Gutbucket »
musical volition > vibrations > voltages > numeric values > voltages > vibrations> virtual teleportation time-machine experience
Better recording made easy - >>Improved PAS table<< | Made excellent- >>click here to download the Oddball Microphone Technique illustrated PDF booklet<< (note: This is a 1st draft, now several years old and in need of revision!  Stay tuned)

Offline it-goes-to-eleven

  • Trade Count: (58)
  • Needs to get out more...
  • *****
  • Posts: 6696
Re: Edirol R09 - ADC not good enough for 24bit, right?
« Reply #21 on: February 22, 2007, 04:28:41 PM »
I agree with Brian on 24 bit being more about the detail and less about the increased dynamic range. Sort of like coloring with 8 shades for every color vs. 128 shades of every color..

One of the sound devices guys once said measuring with a resistor is bad because you're just measuring the tolerance of the resistor.  I'm not sure if that is true..

Offline Church-Audio

  • Trade Count: (44)
  • Needs to get out more...
  • *****
  • Posts: 7571
  • Gender: Male
Re: Edirol R09 - ADC not good enough for 24bit, right?
« Reply #22 on: February 22, 2007, 04:30:35 PM »
FWIW, I 'think' my 24bit recordings with the R-09 sound better than the handfull of 16 bit ones I tried when I first got a hold of it.  I could be fooling myself though because I haven't done serious critical listening comparisons.  Keep in mind that I'm talking about recording acoustic music or more intimate scale electric stuff up close (stage lip or nearly so) DPA4060>MMA6K>R09 and using computer based play back where various bit depth files aren't a problem.  For me the peace of mind knowing that I can set levels to peak at -6db and not have to worry about overs and that I may be capturing some extra resolution that my current playback system may not resolve anyway is worth the slightly larger file size. [shrug]

I run at -6dB or so too.  That is just good sense.

The problem with going 24 bit, though, is the last nine bits are so are all noise!  I put a 1k resistor on the input, set to record line-in, at the lowest gain, and I still get a -90dB noise floor!  The noise floor starts to increase a bit on mic in (low sens), but only after about #25/30 or so.  Anything before that and you're still getting 90dB of SNR.

OK, 16 bits is -96dB noise floor.  So why grab another eight bits of noise floor running 24bit?  Maybe there is some signal in there, but it is pretty much buried in the noise if you ask me.

Anyway, like I said, this thing sounds good at 16bit, and the interface is awesome.  So it is definitely recommended.

  Richard


Just got a software update from German company that makes my sound analysis software its the shit.. Check this out.. It has an auto test feature now that will do a bunch of tests for me automatically. This is my sound card running at 96k sampling rate at 24 bit they are working on a 192k 24 bit version they are going to give me soon here is the results of my M-Audio Audiophile 192k sound card.
There is a new Asio Loopback update I am waiting for so we can compare the digital end with the analog that is represented here in this graph then you can see what I was talking about with the real problem being the front end of all these devices.. I am stoked..

http://h1.ripway.com/churchaudio/SweepReport.htm


« Last Edit: February 22, 2007, 04:37:14 PM by Church-Audio »
for warranty returns email me at
EMAIL Sales@church-audio.com

Offline poorlyconditioned

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Taperssection All-Star
  • ****
  • Posts: 1958
  • I'm a tapir!
Re: Edirol R09 - ADC not good enough for 24bit, right?
« Reply #23 on: February 22, 2007, 05:45:58 PM »
FWIW, I 'think' my 24bit recordings with the R-09 sound better than the handfull of 16 bit ones I tried when I first got a hold of it.  I could be fooling myself though because I haven't done serious critical listening comparisons.  Keep in mind that I'm talking about recording acoustic music or more intimate scale electric stuff up close (stage lip or nearly so) DPA4060>MMA6K>R09 and using computer based play back where various bit depth files aren't a problem.  For me the peace of mind knowing that I can set levels to peak at -6db and not have to worry about overs and that I may be capturing some extra resolution that my current playback system may not resolve anyway is worth the slightly larger file size. [shrug]

I run at -6dB or so too.  That is just good sense.

The problem with going 24 bit, though, is the last nine bits are so are all noise!  I put a 1k resistor on the input, set to record line-in, at the lowest gain, and I still get a -90dB noise floor!  The noise floor starts to increase a bit on mic in (low sens), but only after about #25/30 or so.  Anything before that and you're still getting 90dB of SNR.

OK, 16 bits is -96dB noise floor.  So why grab another eight bits of noise floor running 24bit?  Maybe there is some signal in there, but it is pretty much buried in the noise if you ask me.

Anyway, like I said, this thing sounds good at 16bit, and the interface is awesome.  So it is definitely recommended.

  Richard


Just got a software update from German company that makes my sound analysis software its the shit.. Check this out.. It has an auto test feature now that will do a bunch of tests for me automatically. This is my sound card running at 96k sampling rate at 24 bit they are working on a 192k 24 bit version they are going to give me soon here is the results of my M-Audio Audiophile 192k sound card.
There is a new Asio Loopback update I am waiting for so we can compare the digital end with the analog that is represented here in this graph then you can see what I was talking about with the real problem being the front end of all these devices.. I am stoked..

http://h1.ripway.com/churchaudio/SweepReport.htm


Can you give a URL to that software?  Some of us here might try it out...

  Richard
Mics: Sennheiser MKE2002 (dummy head), Studio Projects C4, AT825 (unmodded), AT822 franken mic (x2), AT853(hc,c,sc,o), Senn. MKE2, Senn MKE40, Shure MX183/5, CA Cards, homebrew Panasonic and Transsound capsules.
Pre/ADC: Presonus Firepod & Firebox, DMIC20(x2), UA5(poorly-modded, AD8620+AD8512opamps), VX440
Recorders: Edirol R4, R09, IBM X24 laptop, NJB3(x2), HiMD(x2), MD(1).
** This individual has moved to user "illconditioned" **

Offline Church-Audio

  • Trade Count: (44)
  • Needs to get out more...
  • *****
  • Posts: 7571
  • Gender: Male
Re: Edirol R09 - ADC not good enough for 24bit, right?
« Reply #24 on: February 22, 2007, 06:01:16 PM »
FWIW, I 'think' my 24bit recordings with the R-09 sound better than the handfull of 16 bit ones I tried when I first got a hold of it.  I could be fooling myself though because I haven't done serious critical listening comparisons.  Keep in mind that I'm talking about recording acoustic music or more intimate scale electric stuff up close (stage lip or nearly so) DPA4060>MMA6K>R09 and using computer based play back where various bit depth files aren't a problem.  For me the peace of mind knowing that I can set levels to peak at -6db and not have to worry about overs and that I may be capturing some extra resolution that my current playback system may not resolve anyway is worth the slightly larger file size. [shrug]

I run at -6dB or so too.  That is just good sense.

The problem with going 24 bit, though, is the last nine bits are so are all noise!  I put a 1k resistor on the input, set to record line-in, at the lowest gain, and I still get a -90dB noise floor!  The noise floor starts to increase a bit on mic in (low sens), but only after about #25/30 or so.  Anything before that and you're still getting 90dB of SNR.

OK, 16 bits is -96dB noise floor.  So why grab another eight bits of noise floor running 24bit?  Maybe there is some signal in there, but it is pretty much buried in the noise if you ask me.

Anyway, like I said, this thing sounds good at 16bit, and the interface is awesome.  So it is definitely recommended.

  Richard


Just got a software update from German company that makes my sound analysis software its the shit.. Check this out.. It has an auto test feature now that will do a bunch of tests for me automatically. This is my sound card running at 96k sampling rate at 24 bit they are working on a 192k 24 bit version they are going to give me soon here is the results of my M-Audio Audiophile 192k sound card.
There is a new Asio Loopback update I am waiting for so we can compare the digital end with the analog that is represented here in this graph then you can see what I was talking about with the real problem being the front end of all these devices.. I am stoked..

http://h1.ripway.com/churchaudio/SweepReport.htm


Can you give a URL to that software?  Some of us here might try it out...

  Richard


Yes sorry here it is http://www.dr-jordan-design.de/Downloads.htm this is a download of the basic version I am running the Pro EX version with all the plugins.. Its pretty dam expensive for the whole thing but you can pick and chose what you want. Here is a screen shot of the program.
for warranty returns email me at
EMAIL Sales@church-audio.com

Offline Church-Audio

  • Trade Count: (44)
  • Needs to get out more...
  • *****
  • Posts: 7571
  • Gender: Male
Re: Edirol R09 - ADC not good enough for 24bit, right?
« Reply #25 on: February 23, 2007, 04:30:13 AM »
FWIW, I 'think' my 24bit recordings with the R-09 sound better than the handfull of 16 bit ones I tried when I first got a hold of it.  I could be fooling myself though because I haven't done serious critical listening comparisons.  Keep in mind that I'm talking about recording acoustic music or more intimate scale electric stuff up close (stage lip or nearly so) DPA4060>MMA6K>R09 and using computer based play back where various bit depth files aren't a problem.  For me the peace of mind knowing that I can set levels to peak at -6db and not have to worry about overs and that I may be capturing some extra resolution that my current playback system may not resolve anyway is worth the slightly larger file size. [shrug]

I run at -6dB or so too.  That is just good sense.

The problem with going 24 bit, though, is the last nine bits are so are all noise!  I put a 1k resistor on the input, set to record line-in, at the lowest gain, and I still get a -90dB noise floor!  The noise floor starts to increase a bit on mic in (low sens), but only after about #25/30 or so.  Anything before that and you're still getting 90dB of SNR.

OK, 16 bits is -96dB noise floor.  So why grab another eight bits of noise floor running 24bit?  Maybe there is some signal in there, but it is pretty much buried in the noise if you ask me.

Anyway, like I said, this thing sounds good at 16bit, and the interface is awesome.  So it is definitely recommended.

  Richard


Just got a software update from German company that makes my sound analysis software its the shit.. Check this out.. It has an auto test feature now that will do a bunch of tests for me automatically. This is my sound card running at 96k sampling rate at 24 bit they are working on a 192k 24 bit version they are going to give me soon here is the results of my M-Audio Audiophile 192k sound card.
There is a new Asio Loopback update I am waiting for so we can compare the digital end with the analog that is represented here in this graph then you can see what I was talking about with the real problem being the front end of all these devices.. I am stoked..

http://h1.ripway.com/churchaudio/SweepReport.htm


Can you give a URL to that software?  Some of us here might try it out...

  Richard


I was talking to Dr Jordan tonight and he sent me the 192k 1k notch filter update so now I can measure noise at 24bit 192khz here is what my test of my sound card looked like.. I thought you might be interested in this since we were talking about digital and how -120 seems to be ok.. I was wrong about nothing being able to have a -140 and be analog this is a simple loop back test of the analog input connected to its own output and it shows what 24 bit can really do at 192khz.

« Last Edit: February 23, 2007, 04:33:23 AM by Church-Audio »
for warranty returns email me at
EMAIL Sales@church-audio.com

Offline SparkE!

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Taperssection Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 773
Re: Edirol R09 - ADC not good enough for 24bit, right?
« Reply #26 on: February 23, 2007, 01:36:25 PM »
FWIW, I 'think' my 24bit recordings with the R-09 sound better than the handfull of 16 bit ones I tried when I first got a hold of it.  I could be fooling myself though because I haven't done serious critical listening comparisons.  Keep in mind that I'm talking about recording acoustic music or more intimate scale electric stuff up close (stage lip or nearly so) DPA4060>MMA6K>R09 and using computer based play back where various bit depth files aren't a problem.  For me the peace of mind knowing that I can set levels to peak at -6db and not have to worry about overs and that I may be capturing some extra resolution that my current playback system may not resolve anyway is worth the slightly larger file size. [shrug]

I run at -6dB or so too.  That is just good sense.

The problem with going 24 bit, though, is the last nine bits are so are all noise!  I put a 1k resistor on the input, set to record line-in, at the lowest gain, and I still get a -90dB noise floor!  The noise floor starts to increase a bit on mic in (low sens), but only after about #25/30 or so.  Anything before that and you're still getting 90dB of SNR.

OK, 16 bits is -96dB noise floor.  So why grab another eight bits of noise floor running 24bit?  Maybe there is some signal in there, but it is pretty much buried in the noise if you ask me.

Anyway, like I said, this thing sounds good at 16bit, and the interface is awesome.  So it is definitely recommended.

  Richard


Just got a software update from German company that makes my sound analysis software its the shit.. Check this out.. It has an auto test feature now that will do a bunch of tests for me automatically. This is my sound card running at 96k sampling rate at 24 bit they are working on a 192k 24 bit version they are going to give me soon here is the results of my M-Audio Audiophile 192k sound card.
There is a new Asio Loopback update I am waiting for so we can compare the digital end with the analog that is represented here in this graph then you can see what I was talking about with the real problem being the front end of all these devices.. I am stoked..

http://h1.ripway.com/churchaudio/SweepReport.htm


Can you give a URL to that software?  Some of us here might try it out...

  Richard


I was talking to Dr Jordan tonight and he sent me the 192k 1k notch filter update so now I can measure noise at 24bit 192khz here is what my test of my sound card looked like.. I thought you might be interested in this since we were talking about digital and how -120 seems to be ok.. I was wrong about nothing being able to have a -140 and be analog this is a simple loop back test of the analog input connected to its own output and it shows what 24 bit can really do at 192khz.



Careful, now... What you are showing there is spectral density.  You have to integrate over frequency to know what noise level that corresponds to and I'm betting you are looking at something more in the -110 to -115 range when you integrate across the spectrum you've shown.
How'm I supposed to read your lips when you're talkin' out your ass? - Lern Tilton

Ignorance in audio is exceeded only by our collective willingness to embrace and foster it. -  Srajan Ebaen

Offline Church-Audio

  • Trade Count: (44)
  • Needs to get out more...
  • *****
  • Posts: 7571
  • Gender: Male
Re: Edirol R09 - ADC not good enough for 24bit, right?
« Reply #27 on: February 23, 2007, 02:02:06 PM »
FWIW, I 'think' my 24bit recordings with the R-09 sound better than the handfull of 16 bit ones I tried when I first got a hold of it.  I could be fooling myself though because I haven't done serious critical listening comparisons.  Keep in mind that I'm talking about recording acoustic music or more intimate scale electric stuff up close (stage lip or nearly so) DPA4060>MMA6K>R09 and using computer based play back where various bit depth files aren't a problem.  For me the peace of mind knowing that I can set levels to peak at -6db and not have to worry about overs and that I may be capturing some extra resolution that my current playback system may not resolve anyway is worth the slightly larger file size. [shrug]

I run at -6dB or so too.  That is just good sense.

The problem with going 24 bit, though, is the last nine bits are so are all noise!  I put a 1k resistor on the input, set to record line-in, at the lowest gain, and I still get a -90dB noise floor!  The noise floor starts to increase a bit on mic in (low sens), but only after about #25/30 or so.  Anything before that and you're still getting 90dB of SNR.

OK, 16 bits is -96dB noise floor.  So why grab another eight bits of noise floor running 24bit?  Maybe there is some signal in there, but it is pretty much buried in the noise if you ask me.

Anyway, like I said, this thing sounds good at 16bit, and the interface is awesome.  So it is definitely recommended.

  Richard


Just got a software update from German company that makes my sound analysis software its the shit.. Check this out.. It has an auto test feature now that will do a bunch of tests for me automatically. This is my sound card running at 96k sampling rate at 24 bit they are working on a 192k 24 bit version they are going to give me soon here is the results of my M-Audio Audiophile 192k sound card.
There is a new Asio Loopback update I am waiting for so we can compare the digital end with the analog that is represented here in this graph then you can see what I was talking about with the real problem being the front end of all these devices.. I am stoked..

http://h1.ripway.com/churchaudio/SweepReport.htm


Can you give a URL to that software?  Some of us here might try it out...

  Richard


I was talking to Dr Jordan tonight and he sent me the 192k 1k notch filter update so now I can measure noise at 24bit 192khz here is what my test of my sound card looked like.. I thought you might be interested in this since we were talking about digital and how -120 seems to be ok.. I was wrong about nothing being able to have a -140 and be analog this is a simple loop back test of the analog input connected to its own output and it shows what 24 bit can really do at 192khz.



Careful, now... What you are showing there is spectral density.  You have to integrate over frequency to know what noise level that corresponds to and I'm betting you are looking at something more in the -110 to -115 range when you integrate across the spectrum you've shown.

Oops... I knew it looked too good. You are correct sorry about that. The figure is -108 you were very close. I was WAY OFF.. There is still a huge learning curve with this program I just got the noise plugin a few days ago.
for warranty returns email me at
EMAIL Sales@church-audio.com

Offline Gutbucket

  • record > listen > revise technique
  • Trade Count: (16)
  • Needs to get out more...
  • *****
  • Posts: 15748
  • Gender: Male
  • "Better to love music than respect it" ~Stravinsky
Re: Edirol R09 - ADC not good enough for 24bit, right?
« Reply #28 on: February 23, 2007, 05:40:04 PM »
One of my concerns is that I don't understand the stuff enough in depth to really know what I'm measuring, if I'm measuring the right thing, what is relevent data & what is not and the true implications of all the various measurment options.  Not to mention what the measurement really means.

Powerful tools indeed, but tricky to wield with insight & understanding.

At least I can take comfort in Socrates (filtered through Plato), "The wize man is he who admits he does not know."  So I consider it a healthy concern.
musical volition > vibrations > voltages > numeric values > voltages > vibrations> virtual teleportation time-machine experience
Better recording made easy - >>Improved PAS table<< | Made excellent- >>click here to download the Oddball Microphone Technique illustrated PDF booklet<< (note: This is a 1st draft, now several years old and in need of revision!  Stay tuned)

Offline Church-Audio

  • Trade Count: (44)
  • Needs to get out more...
  • *****
  • Posts: 7571
  • Gender: Male
Re: Edirol R09 - ADC not good enough for 24bit, right?
« Reply #29 on: February 23, 2007, 05:45:32 PM »
One of my concerns is that I don't understand the stuff enough in depth to really know what I'm measuring, if I'm measuring the right thing, what is relevent data & what is not and the true implications of all the various measurment options.  Not to mention what the measurement really means.

Powerful tools indeed, but tricky to wield with insight & understanding.

At least I can take comfort in Socrates (filtered through Plato), "The wize man is he who admits he does not know."  So I consider it a healthy concern.

That is so true I made a mistake that Sparke pointed out! and I own the dam program lol... Its a learning curve but its a very important tool. And if used properly it can tell you lots of things. But in the end there is no tool more powerful then your ears.

Chris Church
for warranty returns email me at
EMAIL Sales@church-audio.com

Offline ghellquist

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Taperssection Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 477
  • Gender: Male
Re: Edirol R09 - ADC not good enough for 24bit, right?
« Reply #30 on: February 23, 2007, 07:13:07 PM »
Just to put things in a bit of perspective.

Good 16bit at 44.1kHz sounds plenty good enough. CD-s use exactly that spec, and when well done they are far superior to the listening equipment used by mere mortals. No taped rock concert will ever be close in taxing the raw perfomance of a good chain of this 16/44.1 as the room + audience noise is high and the music covers a rather small dynamic range. So, if you can find a good 16bit/44.1 recorder use that.

So surely 24 bit has to be better every time? Well, that is what the marketing part is trying to make us believe. No self-respecting recorder today could be sold with only "measly" 16 bit performance. So the marketing people makes the engineers twist. They have to put  a 24 bit AD converter in there, but they cannot afford to feed it properly as the boxes are made to target price. Well, to be truthful even the chip manufacturers are treated by marketing -- there is no chip converter you can buy at any price that really gives you "true" 24 bit definition although all of them goes through all the motions to make all the 24 bits. At least two bits are eaten by the noise level, generally several more. And then the engineers have to starve the circuits in front of the AD as well, not giving them enough energy (saving battery) and also saving money on the components. It is like sitting in a Ferrari in the morning rush hours, the horsepower may be there but the car in front of you sets the pace. In this case the analog parts in front of the AD lowers the "true" range downto to about 16 bits for the R09.

In effect what we have here is that there is not much idea in using more than 16 bits when recording. First the room where you record is noisy, and then the analog circuits are noisy, so the extra bits above 16 will contain about nothing more than noise.

Well, then, when can it be useful to go above 16 bits? First, the chain including room noise, analog circuits and AD has to be up to it. The R9 (or even worse, the R1) is not up to it. A Sound Devices 722 is bit better, a large rig with, say, Millenium HV3D preamps and Lavry Blue converters is up to it even more. Not stealthable though, and would make very little difference in a stadium recording PA amplified music. In recording classical music it may be a good idea as the dynamic range (ie difference between loud and weak sounds) is larger. Or in one more circumstance, using the extra headroom as a safety factor or insurance against laziness -- simply put up some low level on the mic pres and record whatever comes, no need to be too careful about levels as they can always be raised in post production.

In post processing it is generally a good idea to go above 16bits. Storage space is cheap and computers today have no trouble handling the data. I will not dwelve into this, but about all software programs today use at least 32bit floating point for internal processing. Nothin you have to care about when catching the sound though, but import once you start modifying it at home.

All theory though falls flat on its face when you listen, the only thing that counts then is what you hear. Listening is a difficult art though, takes practice, and is also extremely influenced by the exact sound level. So if you want to compare, be extremely careful in normalizing levels -- practical experiments show that listeners always preferr a little louder when comparing two recordings. Now, even that may go too far as witnessed by the squashed stuff we get on some radio stations. And, somehow, in the end it is about taste and some like the Vindaloo spiced curry and others want it milder.

Gunnar

Offline Gutbucket

  • record > listen > revise technique
  • Trade Count: (16)
  • Needs to get out more...
  • *****
  • Posts: 15748
  • Gender: Male
  • "Better to love music than respect it" ~Stravinsky
Re: Edirol R09 - ADC not good enough for 24bit, right?
« Reply #31 on: February 23, 2007, 07:57:14 PM »
Eloquently stated, Gunnar.

This part is enough for me:
... Or in one more circumstance, using the extra headroom as a safety factor or insurance against laziness -- simply put up some low level on the mic pres and record whatever comes, no need to be too careful about levels as they can always be raised in post production.

That alone lets me let down my guard a bit, forget about recording somewhat and just enjoy the music.

Make mine 4 out of 5 on the spicy scale.  :)
..and don't get me started about 'radio' or 'TV' sound.  >:(
musical volition > vibrations > voltages > numeric values > voltages > vibrations> virtual teleportation time-machine experience
Better recording made easy - >>Improved PAS table<< | Made excellent- >>click here to download the Oddball Microphone Technique illustrated PDF booklet<< (note: This is a 1st draft, now several years old and in need of revision!  Stay tuned)

Offline Church-Audio

  • Trade Count: (44)
  • Needs to get out more...
  • *****
  • Posts: 7571
  • Gender: Male
Re: Edirol R09 - ADC not good enough for 24bit, right?
« Reply #32 on: February 23, 2007, 08:20:25 PM »
Just to put things in a bit of perspective.

Good 16bit at 44.1kHz sounds plenty good enough. CD-s use exactly that spec, and when well done they are far superior to the listening equipment used by mere mortals. No taped rock concert will ever be close in taxing the raw perfomance of a good chain of this 16/44.1 as the room + audience noise is high and the music covers a rather small dynamic range. So, if you can find a good 16bit/44.1 recorder use that.

So surely 24 bit has to be better every time? Well, that is what the marketing part is trying to make us believe. No self-respecting recorder today could be sold with only "measly" 16 bit performance. So the marketing people makes the engineers twist. They have to put  a 24 bit AD converter in there, but they cannot afford to feed it properly as the boxes are made to target price. Well, to be truthful even the chip manufacturers are treated by marketing -- there is no chip converter you can buy at any price that really gives you "true" 24 bit definition although all of them goes through all the motions to make all the 24 bits. At least two bits are eaten by the noise level, generally several more. And then the engineers have to starve the circuits in front of the AD as well, not giving them enough energy (saving battery) and also saving money on the components. It is like sitting in a Ferrari in the morning rush hours, the horsepower may be there but the car in front of you sets the pace. In this case the analog parts in front of the AD lowers the "true" range downto to about 16 bits for the R09.

In effect what we have here is that there is not much idea in using more than 16 bits when recording. First the room where you record is noisy, and then the analog circuits are noisy, so the extra bits above 16 will contain about nothing more than noise.

Well, then, when can it be useful to go above 16 bits? First, the chain including room noise, analog circuits and AD has to be up to it. The R9 (or even worse, the R1) is not up to it. A Sound Devices 722 is bit better, a large rig with, say, Millenium HV3D preamps and Lavry Blue converters is up to it even more. Not stealthable though, and would make very little difference in a stadium recording PA amplified music. In recording classical music it may be a good idea as the dynamic range (ie difference between loud and weak sounds) is larger. Or in one more circumstance, using the extra headroom as a safety factor or insurance against laziness -- simply put up some low level on the mic pres and record whatever comes, no need to be too careful about levels as they can always be raised in post production.

In post processing it is generally a good idea to go above 16bits. Storage space is cheap and computers today have no trouble handling the data. I will not dwelve into this, but about all software programs today use at least 32bit floating point for internal processing. Nothin you have to care about when catching the sound though, but import once you start modifying it at home.

All theory though falls flat on its face when you listen, the only thing that counts then is what you hear. Listening is a difficult art though, takes practice, and is also extremely influenced by the exact sound level. So if you want to compare, be extremely careful in normalizing levels -- practical experiments show that listeners always preferr a little louder when comparing two recordings. Now, even that may go too far as witnessed by the squashed stuff we get on some radio stations. And, somehow, in the end it is about taste and some like the Vindaloo spiced curry and others want it milder.

Gunnar


Well said.. Great post. +T

for warranty returns email me at
EMAIL Sales@church-audio.com

Offline SparkE!

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Taperssection Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 773
Re: Edirol R09 - ADC not good enough for 24bit, right?
« Reply #33 on: February 24, 2007, 09:18:55 AM »
Just to put things in a bit of perspective.

<A whole series of basic truths>

Gunnar


Well said.. Great post. +T


Yup.  +T for sure.  Thanks for taking the time to write such a well-conceived post on this topic.  Most people have such a hard time sorting fact from fiction when it comes to issues that are affected by resolution, accuracy and noise.
How'm I supposed to read your lips when you're talkin' out your ass? - Lern Tilton

Ignorance in audio is exceeded only by our collective willingness to embrace and foster it. -  Srajan Ebaen

Offline Javier Cinakowski

  • !! Downhill From Here !!
  • Trade Count: (11)
  • Needs to get out more...
  • *****
  • Posts: 4325
  • Gender: Male
Re: Edirol R09 - ADC not good enough for 24bit, right?
« Reply #34 on: February 24, 2007, 10:54:56 AM »
Gunnar, I would like to subscribe to your newsletter.

T+
Neumann KM185mp OR DPA ST2015-> Grace Design Lunatec V2-> Tascam DR-100mkIII

Offline spyder9

  • Trade Count: (82)
  • Needs to get out more...
  • *****
  • Posts: 13198
  • Gender: Male
  • "Are you Zman?"
    • My Archived shows
Re: Edirol R09 - ADC not good enough for 24bit, right?
« Reply #35 on: February 25, 2007, 09:57:22 AM »
Just to put things in a bit of perspective.

Good 16bit at 44.1kHz sounds plenty good enough.


+T Gunnar.  Great post.

Offline Brian Skalinder

  • Complaint Dept.
  • Trade Count: (28)
  • Needs to get out more...
  • *****
  • Posts: 18868
  • Gender: Male
Re: Edirol R09 - ADC not good enough for 24bit, right?
« Reply #36 on: February 25, 2007, 07:11:09 PM »
Good 16bit at 44.1kHz sounds plenty good enough. CD-s use exactly that spec, and when well done they are far superior to the listening equipment used by mere mortals. No taped rock concert will ever be close in taxing the raw perfomance of a good chain of this 16/44.1 as the room + audience noise is high and the music covers a rather small dynamic range. So, if you can find a good 16bit/44.1 recorder use that.

< snip >

In effect what we have here is that there is not much idea in using more than 16 bits when recording. First the room where you record is noisy, and then the analog circuits are noisy, so the extra bits above 16 will contain about nothing more than noise.

Well, then, when can it be useful to go above 16 bits? First, the chain including room noise, analog circuits and AD has to be up to it. The R9 (or even worse, the R1) is not up to it. A Sound Devices 722 is bit better, a large rig with, say, Millenium HV3D preamps and Lavry Blue converters is up to it even more. Not stealthable though, and would make very little difference in a stadium recording PA amplified music.

Nice feedback, Gunnar.  Curious about your take on my previous post (and the one to which I link in the post):

http://taperssection.com/index.php/topic,79375.msg1066030.html#msg1066030

Summary:  as I understand it, there's more at issue here than dynamic range - i.e. more samples in the vertical axis (4x at 24-bit v. 16-bit) used to describe the waveform so it more closely approximates the analog waveform - and so there are benefits to 24-bit recording regardless of whether one has the analog gear and / or recording environment to take advantage of the broader dynamic range.

Milab VM-44 Links > Fostex FR-2LE or
Naiant IPA (tinybox format) >
Roland R-05

Offline ghellquist

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Taperssection Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 477
  • Gender: Male
Re: Edirol R09 - ADC not good enough for 24bit, right?
« Reply #37 on: February 26, 2007, 03:53:06 PM »
Hi Brian,
       this is definitely not simple matters. I am not sure I really understand it and definitely certain that I cannot really explain it. I´ll do my best though. The matter is not quite intuitive. Some parts of it seems to be quite against common sense.

First, let us assume that we are measuring a sound source going between -1 and +1. It could be Volts, the units is not the important thing here.

At every moment in time we want to measure it as exactly as possible. Depending on the number of bits we have in the AD the resolution we have is (figures are rounded):
   16 bit :  0.00003
   20 bit :  0.000002
   24 bit :  0.0000001

What this means is that we cannot "see" a difference smaller than that.

Now, add noise into the figure. If we measure a Sm (measured signal) it is actually composed of S + N (the true Signal + Noise). The noise is a (more or less) random figure, it could be either plus or minus. Let us assume that the N part goes between +0.0001 and -0.0001. What this tells us is that, in general, the smallest bits we are measuring are totally swamped by noise. Regardless if we use 16 or 24 bits in that example, the last few bits are still only noise.

Let us go back to the figure S/N or signal to noise ratio. We have to do a mathematical operation here to go from number of bits to an S/N value. But as large mathematicians has already done that we can rely on them. It turns out that one bit represents about 6 dB. So if we have 16 bits we can have a maximum of 6 x 16 = 96dB of S / N. In effect this is a different way to say that the smallest measurement we can make is 0.00003.

As the noise is composed of many parts, we might want to look at them. First there is noise in the room -- a very quiet room may have 30 to 40 dB of noise. And if the maximum sound volume we want to have is, say 120 dB, then the room has something like 80dB S/N or about 13 bits. (And it is not quite as simple).

Next comes the mic. Smaller mics generally has more noise than larger (this is partly due the laws of nature, maybe to be talked about at a later time). Good small diameter condensers turn in at about 20dB equivalent noise level, really small electret mics may have much more. Add to that mic pre amps that can only amplify and add noise, never remove it.

The problem with noise signals is that they add together (adding dB is not a simple adding operation though in this case, as we are adding different noises). In the end we might find out that the 40dB Noise of the room has gone up to, say 50dB, but we still have a maximum of 120dB. So we are now down to 70dB of S/N, ie around 12 bits.

Now, nothing is as simple as the above examples. The ear will actually hear things a bit below the noise floor as expressed in bits. We will probably waste one or two bits at the top as we keep signal levels conservative to insure that we never clip the signal (which sounds horrible). But all in all, for typical amplified music, 16 bits is definitely OK if we are sure that our chain gives us that.

For classical music, we want a little more. 20 bits is about enough for most all classical music, an about what we can get from top-level stuff today.

Personally I preferr 20 bits (well, ok then, my machine calls it 24 bits, but 20 is about what I get). The simple reason is that I want to be safe and lazy. Safe against going up into the red territory where things start clipping. Lazy enough to simply set a recording level and then let it run. I generally aim at -12dB for the peaks, they tend to go a little over that from some reason. This will "eat" about 3 bits, but there is still 17 left to go, plenty really.

Could there be other reasons to record with more than 16 bits? Probably, for ease of postprocessing or perhaps simply because the box we record might sound different at different bit depth.

Sorry, not quite clear presentation, done my best though.

Gunnar

Offline poorlyconditioned

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Taperssection All-Star
  • ****
  • Posts: 1958
  • I'm a tapir!
Re: Edirol R09 - ADC not good enough for 24bit, right?
« Reply #38 on: February 26, 2007, 07:28:22 PM »
Hi Brian,
       this is definitely not simple matters. I am not sure I really understand it and definitely certain that I cannot really explain it. I´ll do my best though. The matter is not quite intuitive. Some parts of it seems to be quite against common sense.

First, let us assume that we are measuring a sound source going between -1 and +1. It could be Volts, the units is not the important thing here.

At every moment in time we want to measure it as exactly as possible. Depending on the number of bits we have in the AD the resolution we have is (figures are rounded):
   16 bit :  0.00003
   20 bit :  0.000002
   24 bit :  0.0000001

What this means is that we cannot "see" a difference smaller than that.

Now, add noise into the figure. If we measure a Sm (measured signal) it is actually composed of S + N (the true Signal + Noise). The noise is a (more or less) random figure, it could be either plus or minus. Let us assume that the N part goes between +0.0001 and -0.0001. What this tells us is that, in general, the smallest bits we are measuring are totally swamped by noise. Regardless if we use 16 or 24 bits in that example, the last few bits are still only noise.

Let us go back to the figure S/N or signal to noise ratio. We have to do a mathematical operation here to go from number of bits to an S/N value. But as large mathematicians has already done that we can rely on them. It turns out that one bit represents about 6 dB. So if we have 16 bits we can have a maximum of 6 x 16 = 96dB of S / N. In effect this is a different way to say that the smallest measurement we can make is 0.00003.

As the noise is composed of many parts, we might want to look at them. First there is noise in the room -- a very quiet room may have 30 to 40 dB of noise. And if the maximum sound volume we want to have is, say 120 dB, then the room has something like 80dB S/N or about 13 bits. (And it is not quite as simple).

Next comes the mic. Smaller mics generally has more noise than larger (this is partly due the laws of nature, maybe to be talked about at a later time). Good small diameter condensers turn in at about 20dB equivalent noise level, really small electret mics may have much more. Add to that mic pre amps that can only amplify and add noise, never remove it.

The problem with noise signals is that they add together (adding dB is not a simple adding operation though in this case, as we are adding different noises). In the end we might find out that the 40dB Noise of the room has gone up to, say 50dB, but we still have a maximum of 120dB. So we are now down to 70dB of S/N, ie around 12 bits.

Now, nothing is as simple as the above examples. The ear will actually hear things a bit below the noise floor as expressed in bits. We will probably waste one or two bits at the top as we keep signal levels conservative to insure that we never clip the signal (which sounds horrible). But all in all, for typical amplified music, 16 bits is definitely OK if we are sure that our chain gives us that.

For classical music, we want a little more. 20 bits is about enough for most all classical music, an about what we can get from top-level stuff today.

Personally I preferr 20 bits (well, ok then, my machine calls it 24 bits, but 20 is about what I get). The simple reason is that I want to be safe and lazy. Safe against going up into the red territory where things start clipping. Lazy enough to simply set a recording level and then let it run. I generally aim at -12dB for the peaks, they tend to go a little over that from some reason. This will "eat" about 3 bits, but there is still 17 left to go, plenty really.

Could there be other reasons to record with more than 16 bits? Probably, for ease of postprocessing or perhaps simply because the box we record might sound different at different bit depth.

Sorry, not quite clear presentation, done my best though.

Gunnar

Yep, I agree with this.  If the noise floor is -90dB, or about 15bits, which I have measured, any signal below that is going to be buried in the noise.  I suppose you might get some gain by averaging out the noise with bunch of samples measured at 24bits, but I don't expect much improvement.  Certainly not worth all the hassle (and fake marketing as a 24 bit recorder!).  As I said, Burr-Brown does not even call this a 24 bit chip!

  Richard
Mics: Sennheiser MKE2002 (dummy head), Studio Projects C4, AT825 (unmodded), AT822 franken mic (x2), AT853(hc,c,sc,o), Senn. MKE2, Senn MKE40, Shure MX183/5, CA Cards, homebrew Panasonic and Transsound capsules.
Pre/ADC: Presonus Firepod & Firebox, DMIC20(x2), UA5(poorly-modded, AD8620+AD8512opamps), VX440
Recorders: Edirol R4, R09, IBM X24 laptop, NJB3(x2), HiMD(x2), MD(1).
** This individual has moved to user "illconditioned" **

Offline trajhip2000

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Taperssection Regular
  • **
  • Posts: 126
Re: Edirol R09 - ADC not good enough for 24bit, right?
« Reply #39 on: February 27, 2007, 12:42:07 PM »

Summary:  as I understand it, there's more at issue here than dynamic range - i.e. more samples in the vertical axis (4x at 24-bit v. 16-bit) used to describe the waveform so it more closely approximates the analog waveform - and so there are benefits to 24-bit recording regardless of whether one has the analog gear and / or recording environment to take advantage of the broader dynamic range.


I don't think this is how linear quantization works - it's 1 bit per 6 dB of dynamic range, and that's fixed. So by going to 24-bit you're not dividing the same dynamic range into more bits, you're adding more dynamic range by (theoretically, anyways) decreasing the noise floor of the A/D chip. At least, that's how I understand it...

Steve

Offline SparkE!

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Taperssection Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 773
Re: Edirol R09 - ADC not good enough for 24bit, right?
« Reply #40 on: February 27, 2007, 02:09:38 PM »

Summary:  as I understand it, there's more at issue here than dynamic range - i.e. more samples in the vertical axis (4x at 24-bit v. 16-bit) used to describe the waveform so it more closely approximates the analog waveform - and so there are benefits to 24-bit recording regardless of whether one has the analog gear and / or recording environment to take advantage of the broader dynamic range.


I don't think this is how linear quantization works - it's 1 bit per 6 dB of dynamic range, and that's fixed. So by going to 24-bit you're not dividing the same dynamic range into more bits, you're adding more dynamic range by (theoretically, anyways) decreasing the noise floor of the A/D chip. At least, that's how I understand it...

Steve
I think the point is that noise causes the lower 4 or 5 bits to be random 1's and 0's which effectively causes a 24 bit converter to act as a 20 or 19 bit converter.  If noise masks the least significant bits like that, you don't gain the benefit of the additional bits.  You might as well  call it a 73 bit converter and add an additional string of 49 randomly set bits on the end of each 24 bit sample.  The result is still the same.  You only get the benefit of the most significant 19 or 20 bits.
How'm I supposed to read your lips when you're talkin' out your ass? - Lern Tilton

Ignorance in audio is exceeded only by our collective willingness to embrace and foster it. -  Srajan Ebaen

Offline Brian Skalinder

  • Complaint Dept.
  • Trade Count: (28)
  • Needs to get out more...
  • *****
  • Posts: 18868
  • Gender: Male
Re: Edirol R09 - ADC not good enough for 24bit, right?
« Reply #41 on: February 27, 2007, 02:17:33 PM »
Thanks for the feedback Gunnar, Richard, Steve.  Since the sound source / environment of my concert recordings typically covers only ~50 dB of dynamic range (or ~8-bits) - meaning (assuming I understand you correctly) at 16-bit the least significant 8-bits capture only noise, and at 24-bit the least significant 16-bits (!) capture only noise (well, more like ~19-bit actual & least significant 11-bits of noise) - then I'm at a loss for explaining why my 16-bit recordings sound better than 8-bit recordings, and why 24-bit (~19-bit actual) recordings sound better than 16-bit.

???

Maybe I'll get my head around it one of these days...
Milab VM-44 Links > Fostex FR-2LE or
Naiant IPA (tinybox format) >
Roland R-05

Offline Nick's Picks

  • Trade Count: (33)
  • Needs to get out more...
  • *****
  • Posts: 10260
  • Gender: Male
  • I thought I heard.......
Re: Edirol R09 - ADC not good enough for 24bit, right?
« Reply #42 on: February 27, 2007, 02:48:32 PM »
DSD outs?
doesn't the tascam have a HDD in it ?  I thought it was offered in newer models, and as an upgrade for the older ones.

my plan was to record DSD on the MR-1, and then play it back on the Tascam (after transferring files to its internal HDD).  Unless i'm way off base...that was my goal.

Offline Nick's Picks

  • Trade Count: (33)
  • Needs to get out more...
  • *****
  • Posts: 10260
  • Gender: Male
  • I thought I heard.......
Re: Edirol R09 - ADC not good enough for 24bit, right?
« Reply #43 on: February 27, 2007, 02:49:52 PM »
another thing...

the "1bit" DSD thingy...which certainly trumps the PCM world...
where does the noise go ?

I believe the process involved here w/DSD is so unlike PCM, that my conventional pulse control brain waves just can't wrap around it.

Offline BayTaynt3d

  • Trade Count: (4)
  • Taperssection All-Star
  • ****
  • Posts: 1816
  • Gender: Male
  • Live from San Francisco
    • BayTaper.com
Re: Edirol R09 - ADC not good enough for 24bit, right?
« Reply #44 on: February 27, 2007, 03:01:56 PM »
I've said it before, and I'll say it again... I believe 24 bits is worth it for resolution alone for anyone who so much as touches their recordings in post. But one of my main contentions has been for a while now (with no one seeming to pile on to this point ever), is that if you are adding any digital gain in post via compression (plus make up gain) or normalization, than 24-bit recording is going to be your friend. Speaking of friends, our friends at Sound Devices seem to have created a nice example of JUST WHAT I'VE BEEN SAYING for a while now on this subject. They've got 16-bit and 24-bit examples, and then they have a set that was recorded a WHOPPING 40 db down from peaking, then they normalized them all. If running peaks 40 db down doesn't convince you of the headroom, then I'm not sure what will. So, take a listen for yourself here:

http://www.sounddevices.com/tech/24-bit.htm
BayTaper.com | One Man’s Multimedia Journey Through the San Francisco Jazz & Creative Music Scene

Offline BayTaynt3d

  • Trade Count: (4)
  • Taperssection All-Star
  • ****
  • Posts: 1816
  • Gender: Male
  • Live from San Francisco
    • BayTaper.com
Re: Edirol R09 - ADC not good enough for 24bit, right?
« Reply #45 on: February 27, 2007, 03:17:10 PM »
I don't think this is how linear quantization works - it's 1 bit per 6 dB of dynamic range, and that's fixed. So by going to 24-bit you're not dividing the same dynamic range into more bits, you're adding more dynamic range by (theoretically, anyways) decreasing the noise floor of the A/D chip. At least, that's how I understand it...

Nah. There IS MORE RESOLUTION as far as I understand this. How about some math...

So, can we at least agree on this to start? 16-bit has 96 db of dynamic range and 24-bit has 144 db of dynamic range?

If so, then here's how I do the math, but maybe I'm missing something here?

16 bit = 2^16 = 65,536 unique #s possible / 96 db of range = .0015 db per unit possible

24 bit = 2^24 = 16,777,216 unique #s possible / 144 db of range = .0001 db per unit possible

So, whether you're using the whole range or not, the fact is that there is 15 times the resolution happening at 24- vs. 16-bits, which is why when you normalize (aka zoom in) it holds up much better (see SD example above), which is also one of the reasons why there's not nearly as much need to run hot (cause at 24-bit, I can run 10 db under you running at 16-bit, then normalize it, and STILL end up having more resolution than you had if you ran your peaks perfectly hot up to 0db at 16-bit). This example of course is ignoring the quality of the ADC, but that's a different subject.

Am I understanding this correctly? I'm not trying to represent myself as someone who really knows this stuff, but I'm trying awfully hard, and I think I get it...

« Last Edit: February 27, 2007, 03:23:49 PM by BayTaynt3d »
BayTaper.com | One Man’s Multimedia Journey Through the San Francisco Jazz & Creative Music Scene

Offline trajhip2000

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Taperssection Regular
  • **
  • Posts: 126
Re: Edirol R09 - ADC not good enough for 24bit, right?
« Reply #46 on: February 27, 2007, 03:44:38 PM »
I'm gonna have to dig out my copy of Pohlman and get back to you...

Steve

Offline it-goes-to-eleven

  • Trade Count: (58)
  • Needs to get out more...
  • *****
  • Posts: 6696
Re: Edirol R09 - ADC not good enough for 24bit, right?
« Reply #47 on: February 27, 2007, 05:26:54 PM »
Am I understanding this correctly?

By my way of thinking, yes...

Offline SparkE!

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Taperssection Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 773
Re: Edirol R09 - ADC not good enough for 24bit, right?
« Reply #48 on: February 27, 2007, 09:42:28 PM »
I don't think this is how linear quantization works - it's 1 bit per 6 dB of dynamic range, and that's fixed. So by going to 24-bit you're not dividing the same dynamic range into more bits, you're adding more dynamic range by (theoretically, anyways) decreasing the noise floor of the A/D chip. At least, that's how I understand it...

Nah. There IS MORE RESOLUTION as far as I understand this. How about some math...

So, can we at least agree on this to start? 16-bit has 96 db of dynamic range and 24-bit has 144 db of dynamic range?

If so, then here's how I do the math, but maybe I'm missing something here?

16 bit = 2^16 = 65,536 unique #s possible / 96 db of range = .0015 db per unit possible

24 bit = 2^24 = 16,777,216 unique #s possible / 144 db of range = .0001 db per unit possible

So, whether you're using the whole range or not, the fact is that there is 15 times the resolution happening at 24- vs. 16-bits, which is why when you normalize (aka zoom in) it holds up much better (see SD example above), which is also one of the reasons why there's not nearly as much need to run hot (cause at 24-bit, I can run 10 db under you running at 16-bit, then normalize it, and STILL end up having more resolution than you had if you ran your peaks perfectly hot up to 0db at 16-bit). This example of course is ignoring the quality of the ADC, but that's a different subject.

Am I understanding this correctly? I'm not trying to represent myself as someone who really knows this stuff, but I'm trying awfully hard, and I think I get it...



We've been through this exercise before*** and it's meaningless to divide the number of dBs of dynamic range by the number of levels.  They both represent the same thing.  One of the numbers is on a linear scale and one of the numbers is on a logarithmic scale.  Each additional bit used in a binary number adds exactly 20 log 2 dB of dynamic range and it doubles the number of possible levels that can be expressed.  That's all there is to the math.  Try this:

Let's start out with 2, raise it to the 16th power, take it's log and multiply by 20.

20 log (2^16) = 20 log 65536 = 96.329598612473982468396446311838
               ^                 ^         ^
             bits              levels     dBs

That's all there is to the math and dividing dBs by bits or dividing bits by levels or dividing levels by dBs doesn't mean anything.  They all are ways of representing the same concept and that is what kind of resolution you get.  The more bits, the way more possible levels you get.  The more bits, the more dBs of dynamic range you get.  (In fact, you get approximately 6.0205999132796239042747778944899 dBs of dynamic range per additional bit, so just multiply the number of bits by 6.0205999132796239042747778944899 to get the possible dynamic range.  We usually round that off to 6 db per bit because it's easier to do the arithmetic.)

*** Look here for where this same topic was discussed previously:

http://taperssection.com/index.php/topic,77804.msg1037087.html#msg1037087

Nobody is arguing that 24 bit converters have the same resolution as an ideal 18, 19 or 20 bit converter. (Obviously a 24 bit converter has more resolution than any converter with a smaller number of bits in the encoded values that it produces.)  What we are arguing is that most 24 bit converters have no more accuracy than an ideal 18, 19 or 20 bit converter.  The reason they have nor more accuracy is that the lower 4, 5, or 6 bits are indistinguishable from the results you'd get by flipping a coin and calling heads a 1 and tails a 0.  It's as if noise is being added to the signal you are encoding and the amplitude of the noise occupies the lower 24, 30 or 36 dB of the dynamic range.

Bottom line: Resolution does not equal Accuracy and it is Accuracy that determines the S/N of the recordings we make and ultimately sets the achievable dynamic range in the recording.  Notice I'm talking about the dynamic range of the recording, not the dynamic range of the encoding scheme.  There's a difference and in the case of today's 24 bit A/D converters, its a big difference.
How'm I supposed to read your lips when you're talkin' out your ass? - Lern Tilton

Ignorance in audio is exceeded only by our collective willingness to embrace and foster it. -  Srajan Ebaen

Offline Keyser Soze

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Taperssection Regular
  • **
  • Posts: 97
Re: Edirol R09 - ADC not good enough for 24bit, right?
« Reply #49 on: February 28, 2007, 12:43:31 AM »
 :spin:  This thread makes my head hurt  :spin:

Offline Gutbucket

  • record > listen > revise technique
  • Trade Count: (16)
  • Needs to get out more...
  • *****
  • Posts: 15748
  • Gender: Male
  • "Better to love music than respect it" ~Stravinsky
Re: Edirol R09 - ADC not good enough for 24bit, right?
« Reply #50 on: February 28, 2007, 01:07:14 AM »
I think I get it. But here's a few questions to clear it up.

Question:  Is there a certain granularity of dynamic range within whatever total range is actually being encoded, be it 16, 18, 20 bits total or whatever that is a minimum describable level change?  Or, is there no step between those loudness levels and any infinitely small change of loudness value can be described, as long as that change in level lies within the noise floor and full scale?

Second part of the question:  If there is a certain minimum value for describing differences in loudness, is it the same for a 16 bit signal as a 20 bit one?  I'd think it would have to be if the only difference was that the total range was just that much larger for a 20bit signal.

Theoretical follow ups: If there is a certain loudness granularity and it doesn't vary with increasing bit depth, could that extra depth that is lost in the noise floor be used instead to increase the fineness of the individual loudness steps?  If they exist at all are they course enough to be audible?
musical volition > vibrations > voltages > numeric values > voltages > vibrations> virtual teleportation time-machine experience
Better recording made easy - >>Improved PAS table<< | Made excellent- >>click here to download the Oddball Microphone Technique illustrated PDF booklet<< (note: This is a 1st draft, now several years old and in need of revision!  Stay tuned)

Offline it-goes-to-eleven

  • Trade Count: (58)
  • Needs to get out more...
  • *****
  • Posts: 6696
Re: Edirol R09 - ADC not good enough for 24bit, right?
« Reply #51 on: February 28, 2007, 10:07:40 AM »
Second part of the question:  If there is a certain minimum value for describing differences in loudness, is it the same for a 16 bit signal as a 20 bit one?  I'd think it would have to be if the only difference was that the total range was just that much larger for a 20bit signal.

Good question... I think one wrinkle in the answer is that most A/Ds are 24 bit and must dither to give you 16 bit.  So I'd suppose those quantization errors might play a role in limiting the resolution of volume steps.


I think SparkE's explanation is very good and true..  24 bit provides way more digits than are significant given the accuracy of the system.  But you still need 24 bits to get the extra bits that DO matter, whether it is 18, 20 or whatever.

Offline poorlyconditioned

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Taperssection All-Star
  • ****
  • Posts: 1958
  • I'm a tapir!
Re: Edirol R09 - ADC not good enough for 24bit, right?
« Reply #52 on: February 28, 2007, 04:21:45 PM »
Second part of the question:  If there is a certain minimum value for describing differences in loudness, is it the same for a 16 bit signal as a 20 bit one?  I'd think it would have to be if the only difference was that the total range was just that much larger for a 20bit signal.

Good question... I think one wrinkle in the answer is that most A/Ds are 24 bit and must dither to give you 16 bit.  So I'd suppose those quantization errors might play a role in limiting the resolution of volume steps.


I think SparkE's explanation is very good and true..  24 bit provides way more digits than are significant given the accuracy of the system.  But you still need 24 bits to get the extra bits that DO matter, whether it is 18, 20 or whatever.


Yes, you need 24 bits to get anything more than 16 (18, 20 or whatever).

BUT the ADC in there is only good to about 15 bits, so there are not extra bits to grab.  It is all noise below the 15th bit.

I suppose from a dithering point of view, this is cool.  You can record in 16 bits knowing that your last bit is essentially random.  But, you are never going to get any more than 16 bits.  This is not a headroom or preamp issue.  It is the ADC itself.  So, putting a preamp is front is not going to get you more bits.  Better sound, maybe, but not more bits.

  Richard
Mics: Sennheiser MKE2002 (dummy head), Studio Projects C4, AT825 (unmodded), AT822 franken mic (x2), AT853(hc,c,sc,o), Senn. MKE2, Senn MKE40, Shure MX183/5, CA Cards, homebrew Panasonic and Transsound capsules.
Pre/ADC: Presonus Firepod & Firebox, DMIC20(x2), UA5(poorly-modded, AD8620+AD8512opamps), VX440
Recorders: Edirol R4, R09, IBM X24 laptop, NJB3(x2), HiMD(x2), MD(1).
** This individual has moved to user "illconditioned" **

Offline Gutbucket

  • record > listen > revise technique
  • Trade Count: (16)
  • Needs to get out more...
  • *****
  • Posts: 15748
  • Gender: Male
  • "Better to love music than respect it" ~Stravinsky
Re: Edirol R09 - ADC not good enough for 24bit, right?
« Reply #53 on: February 28, 2007, 05:31:11 PM »
Understood in this practical application.

I'm still curious if anyone knows what the actual quantization step size is between loudness levels. 
If it's one bit, then how can we store any loudness changes that are smaller than approx 6db?

In a similar vein, the actual quantization step size between frequencies is half the sampling rate is it not? Yet in that case, both the total range of values and the resolution within any particular sub range of the total frequency range increases with higher sampling rates.

I think that is the crux of the mental block.

I realize that those steps, both in the the vertical and horizontal axis of the waveform, are averaged out in the DAC when the signal is converted to analog.  But there must be a measurable value that is the minimum change in loudness value that can be stored.. Just as there is a minimum change in frequency that can be stored (or a minimum length event in the time domain).
musical volition > vibrations > voltages > numeric values > voltages > vibrations> virtual teleportation time-machine experience
Better recording made easy - >>Improved PAS table<< | Made excellent- >>click here to download the Oddball Microphone Technique illustrated PDF booklet<< (note: This is a 1st draft, now several years old and in need of revision!  Stay tuned)

Offline SparkE!

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Taperssection Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 773
Re: Edirol R09 - ADC not good enough for 24bit, right?
« Reply #54 on: February 28, 2007, 06:40:14 PM »
Understood in this practical application.

I'm still curious if anyone knows what the actual quantization step size is between loudness levels. 
If it's one bit, then how can we store any loudness changes that are smaller than approx 6db?

In a similar vein, the actual quantization step size between frequencies is half the sampling rate is it not? Yet in that case, both the total range of values and the resolution within any particular sub range of the total frequency range increases with higher sampling rates.

I think that is the crux of the mental block.

I realize that those steps, both in the the vertical and horizontal axis of the waveform, are averaged out in the DAC when the signal is converted to analog.  But there must be a measurable value that is the minimum change in loudness value that can be stored.. Just as there is a minimum change in frequency that can be stored (or a minimum length event in the time domain).

If you're talking about how much increase in dB's you get by increasing the volume by one level, it depends on whether you are increasing the amplitude from 1 to 2 (6 dB increase) or whether you are increasing the amplitude from 65535 to 65536 (0.00013 db increase).
How'm I supposed to read your lips when you're talkin' out your ass? - Lern Tilton

Ignorance in audio is exceeded only by our collective willingness to embrace and foster it. -  Srajan Ebaen

Offline Gutbucket

  • record > listen > revise technique
  • Trade Count: (16)
  • Needs to get out more...
  • *****
  • Posts: 15748
  • Gender: Male
  • "Better to love music than respect it" ~Stravinsky
Re: Edirol R09 - ADC not good enough for 24bit, right?
« Reply #55 on: February 28, 2007, 07:21:11 PM »
If you're talking about how much increase in dB's you get by increasing the volume by one level, it depends on whether you are increasing the amplitude from 1 to 2 (6 dB increase) or whether you are increasing the amplitude from 65535 to 65536 (0.00013 db increase).

That's the number I was looking for.  Vanishingly small.
musical volition > vibrations > voltages > numeric values > voltages > vibrations> virtual teleportation time-machine experience
Better recording made easy - >>Improved PAS table<< | Made excellent- >>click here to download the Oddball Microphone Technique illustrated PDF booklet<< (note: This is a 1st draft, now several years old and in need of revision!  Stay tuned)

 

RSS | Mobile
Page created in 0.224 seconds with 81 queries.
© 2002-2024 Taperssection.com
Powered by SMF