Patrick Dixon;343624 Wrote:
> Well those were your conclusions but not necessarily *the* conclusions.
They were everyone's conclusions but yours, Patrick.
> It should be clear even to you by now, that the lsb of a 24bit PCM
> signal is 144dB down on a full scale signal, but not on the actual
opaqueice;343341 Wrote:
> The conclusion of those discussions was that the issue of "resolution"
> in digital volume controls is a misunderstanding and basically a myth.
> When you lower the volume digitally you lose in signal/noise, because
> the noise stays fixed (at least roughly) while the s
Bear in mind that you will never hear the full benefits of a 24 bit
recording as thermal noise in components will decrease the resolution
to about 21 bits anyway. If you have digital in the 24 bit domain , you
will hear almost no ill effects by implementing digital attenuatiuon 1f
that attenuation
Precisely. "digital volume control" works pretty much perfectly on
24-bit.
--
Phil Leigh
You want to see the signal path BEFORE it gets onto a CD/vinyl...it
ain't what you'd call minimal...SB3+Stontronics PSU - Altmann
JISCO/UPCI - TACT RCS 2.2X + Good Vibrations S/W - MF
Triplethreat(Audiocom
bhaagensen;343331 Wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I know there's been a large number of threads on the volume control
> thing. *part* of the argument for, is that there is headroom for
> performing volume control in a 24bit system with 16bit recordings
> without loosing resolution, (not e.g. snr or dnr).
The
Hi,
I know there's been a large number of threads on the volume control
thing. *part* of the argument for, is that there is headroom for
performing volume control in a 24bit system with 16bit recordings
without loosing resolution, (not e.g. snr or dnr).
But how are things with 24bit recordings?
