Is the dynamic range of CD sufficient?

Phelonious Ponk said:

Jack, I must be missing something important, because that read like an elaborate version of the old sampling fallacy that sees digital as a series of stairsteps, with lost information between them, and, therefore, the faster the sampling, the lower the loss, the closer to real...

But I know you know that represents a fundamental misunderstanding of sampling and that if it were true, the faster the sampling, the better the output would be. 192 would have to be better than 88. Yeah, I'm confused...

Tim

Click to expand...

microstrip said:

Tim,

I fail to see any fallacy in what you write - digital is really a series of steps, with lost information between them. If this information is relevant is what people debate. BTW, the output of a DAC, however it is not a series of stairsteps . And theoretically 192 should be be better than 88 - if it is not, it is surely due to the implementation, not the sampling rate. It is why we find interesting debating this preference for 88/96, that has been expressed by several people.

Click to expand...

Phelonious Ponk said:

Jack, I must be missing something important, because that read like an elaborate version of the old sampling fallacy that sees digital as a series of stairsteps, with lost information between them, and, therefore, the faster the sampling, the lower the loss, the closer to real...

But I know you know that represents a fundamental misunderstanding of sampling and that if it were true, the faster the sampling, the better the output would be. 192 would have to be better than 88. Yeah, I'm confused...

Tim

Click to expand...

JackD201 said:

Hi Tim,

Lots of people get confused about that stair step. I know I did. What it is is just a visual representation and should not be taken literally. What I am talking about is bit depth and how increasing bit depth increases the number of voltages that can be represented between the maximum signal and the minimum signal. It has nothing to do with the sampling rate in a sense because the sampling process happens before the quantization process. Time is converted from continuous to discreet then in quantization the continuous amplitude is converted to discreet. For example a 2bit signal with a max of 1 and a minimum of -1 would yield 4 voltage representations separated by .5 each. Add bits and that .5 shrinks mighty quickly. The sampling frequency determines the frequency range. So 2bits at 4 values can have a high of ~22kHz at 44.1 and double that at 88.2, both will still have intervals of .5 between highest and lowest when it comes too amplitude regardless of frequency.

Click to expand...

Phelonious Ponk said:

Thanks, Jack. With that, I think I'll let this go before it devolves into another D v A thread.

Tim

Click to expand...

JackD201 said:

You can hear the difference in overtones even in compressed form (like the film watched on TV example). Imagine what that might sound like if we were there.

Click to expand...

GaryProtein said:

After reading all the posts, I am still wondering, is there not enough dynamic range to capture the loudest sounds we need in a recording or not enough dynamic range to capture the softest sounds in a recording?

I have a birth fetish and would like to record the sound of a tubercle bacillus dividing in the lung of a jackhammer operator in a construction site.

Click to expand...

Al M. said:

Again, this video explains why the stair step idea with 'lost information' is a fallacy:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cIQ9IXSUzuM

Click to expand...

Al M. said:

Hi Microstrip,

I could not express it any clearer than the video vividly demonstrates, and it would take me more time to come up with a written explanation -- which would still be less powerful than the video -- than it would take you time to actually watch the video. If you have no interest to watch, there is nothing to debate, I am afraid.

Click to expand...

Al M. said:

Again, explained in the video (shrug).

By the way, you would only need to watch the first 10 minutes or so.

Click to expand...

microstrip said:

To find what?

Click to expand...

esldude said:

To find out thinking in stairsteps is wrong and that nothing is lost between samples even compared to all generation and monitoring with quality instruments in analog. You also will find out what Shannon Nyquist really means.

Click to expand...

microstrip said:

To find what?

Click to expand...

microstrip said:

Esldude,

Any digital process has steps and the process of removing these steps is not innocuous. Also something is lost between samples, weather these losses are relevant to digital sound reproduction is IMHO what is being debated. And I can assure you I know what Shannon Nyquist means since long ... Unfortunately when time and amplitude get mixed things are not so easy. The debates on the Trinity DAC were a clear proof of that.

Click to expand...

esldude said:

Yeah, just watch the video. Please. You can argue all you want. The only thing missed between sample points will be something too high in frequency to hear. If low enough in frequency to hear it will be picked up and reconstructed properly both in amplitude and time. When you can generate clean analog signals, monitor the result of an DA to AD conversion with good analog spectrum analyzers and scopes seeing you lost nothing then what is the problem? If you view the video, and do understand Shannon-Nyquist then the only debate left in regard to digital sound reproduction is bandwidth.

In the time you have been mucking about regarding what is in the video you could have watched it two or more times already.

Click to expand...