That's why I said "expensive."<g> But, 18/20/24 bit converters - even
a crappy midiman Flying Cow, are for the most part superior to a
crappy 16 bit converter. At my day job, I regularly brutalize 16 bit
recordings to make them into "realy loud" 14-15 bit recordings. About
10% of the masters I handle are mixed to a resolution greater than 16
bit - I can almost always make these sound better than their 16 bit
counterparts. The reason - "the most misunderstood of all bits" - #17.
This guy lets us turn a 17-18 bit recording into a "really loud" 16
bit recording. Also, even on on a cheap "24 bit" converter, there is
some "good" signal at and under the noise floor, just as there is with
analog tape.
That said, you're right - it's probably not worth the expense/effort.
Lest I take us even further off topic (MOTM - right?), my real
interest in all of this is in efficient, cheap and high definition
exchange of information between the analog and digital worlds,
particularly control signals. At this point, we're kind of stuck with
midi or convoluted "ghost electronics." I'd like to have digital
processing/generation under analog control and analog processing/
generation under digital control. How's about a MOTM or Encore "ghost
electronics" translation module? It's kind of a natural extension of
(or off shoot from) the midi<->cv thing and I bet it would sell at
least as good as a triple reversible attenuator (or maybe not). <g>
Barry
--- In motm@y..., "Tony Karavidas" <tony@e...> wrote:
> 24 bit 192kHz is a real misnomer. I can't think of any affordable 24bit A/D
> that goes anywhere near that speed. "Real" converters that can put out a
> real 24bits are only good for a few kHz (the last time I looked)
>
> Audio "type" converters have a 24bit output word, but typically about 5 of
> those bits are marketing bits. Look at the SNR and DR of the ADC for the
> real story.
>
> I don't think you'll have any luck VCing (by varying the clock) a
> delta-sigma converter anyway. They almost all have internal PLLs that
> wouldn't like a radically changing clock and many of them have async timing
> inside that is very dependant on specific external frequencies. They figure
> out what the external freq is and make timing adjustments.
>
> If you want to use variable clocks, you're better off doing it the old
> fashioned way (think Deltalab gear)
>
> Tony
>
>
>
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: paulhaneberg [mailto:phaneber@o...]
> > Sent: Tuesday, February 26, 2002 6:42 PM
> > To: motm@y...
> > Subject: [motm] Re: Delay Module
> >
> >
> > 24 bit would certainly have improved sonic quality over 16 bit, but I
> > think you could probably get a bigger variation in clock speeds with a
> > 16 bit. If the converter is less complex the actual conversion would
> > be quicker assuming a succesive-approximation type converter. I don't
> > know what the highest number of bits available in a flash converter
> > is, but presumably this could be clocked at higher speeds (up into the
> > MHz range) There are 24 bit converters available that can convert at
> > 192 kHz, but cost is an issue. Another possibility is to use a
> > one-bit converter at even higher clock speeds.
> > I would definitely use a filter at a low fixed frequency like 20kHz.
> > One of the pitfalls of this module ideas is that in order to be truly
> > musically useful the voltage to frequency conversion for the clock
> > must be very accurate over a wide range. I'm not sure how possible
> > that is in the MHz region.
> > Multiple taps are easily implemented. A range of delay times from
> > very short to reasonably long could be available. This is simply a
> > function of the amount of RAM.
> > Even 12 bits would probably be an improvement over an analog delay.
> > I think a module of this sort would be very useful and popular as long
> > as the cost was not too high.
> > At some point I will probably try to build this thing and find out.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
> >
> >