IPB

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

Comment on how Quantization is covered in Textbooks
KMD
post Mar 12 2012, 17:50
Post #1





Group: Members
Posts: 74
Joined: 21-January 09
From: UK
Member No.: 65825



The way digital audio quantization is covered in textbooks is flawed. A waveform derived from an undithered digital recording at 16 bits is treated as if were the same as an analogue signal with signal to noise ratio of 96 dB. This is actually wrong and leads to false conclusions. Adding 1 millivolt of noise when making an analogue recording would not make all details below 1 millivolt in height inaudable, using a quantization level of 1 millivolt when making an undithered digital recording would.
Put simply the signal to noise ratio of 16 bit audio is not 96dB in the conventional meaning of noise unless it is dithered. As for false conlusions well for example using more than 16 bits should not be dismissed by using a signal to noise ratio argument based simply on the number of bits.

This post has been edited by KMD: Mar 12 2012, 17:57
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
 
Start new topic
Replies
saratoga
post Mar 12 2012, 18:16
Post #2





Group: Members
Posts: 4715
Joined: 2-September 02
Member No.: 3264



QUOTE (KMD @ Mar 12 2012, 11:50) *
The way digital audio quantization is covered in textbooks is flawed. A waveform derived from an undithered digital recording at 16 bits is treated as if were the same as an analogue signal with signal to noise ratio of 96 dB. This is actually wrong and leads to false conclusions.


Every textbook derivation I've seen has made clear that this is only true under the assumption that the quantization error is uncorrelated with the signal (e.g. that the signal is dithered). Which text are you using?
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post

Posts in this topic


Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 



RSS Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 18th April 2014 - 19:31