On Tuesday 07 February 2006 04:26, David Cournapeau wrote: [...] > >Also, both frequency range and bit width have influence on maximum >SNR: bitwidth change is obvious; in the case of frequency range, you >can think as a way to "spread" the "floor noise" on higher bandwith, >effectively decreasing the level on the hearing range. In ideal >conditions which never happen in the reality, one bit more is 6 dB, and >a doubling of frequency bandwith is 3 dB. > I've taken the liberty of a spelling correct above s/on/one to make it correct. >Nyquist is an *exact* theorem. Mathematically, any function without >any frequency above fr/2 can be *exactly* characterized by its sampled >coefficient. Now, it assumes a perfect filter (infinite slope, no >modification below the frequency cut) which does not exist. > >David My thoughts on this run toward a 1 bit sample at 256khz (or more since we could do it at many megahertz today) driving both the output data stream, and a 24 to 32 bit counter whose input is the same clock, and the direction bit is this 1 bit a/d's output. The catch here is that the 1 bitter is comparing the output from a d/a driven by this counter with the next sample to make its data bit that then slews the counter one way or the other by this one bit. Such a device would be slew rate limited at the higher frequencies, but should not generate any aliasing products whose magnitudes would be greater than the bit ratio allows, and its input anti-aliasing filter could be very simple. Its output would already be pretty well compressed, particularly as the slew rate approaches the limit, and further digital processing of the 32 bit range down to 24 bit might offer a considerable amount of additional compression (you cand read that as noise reduction) to be done. It would of course assume a counter driving the d/a that did not overflow in either direction, and some sort of circuitry to attempt to ac couple the signal by doing a very slow slew toward the 50% point exerted over a t=rc of about .2 seconds, which should be ignored for the most part by the reproduction system. Such a devices nyquist limitations and the subsequent aliasing would be a long way below the human ears range of being able to detect them under any conditions I can imagine, even by those who can hear an acoustic doppler burglar alarm. That said, its also an old idea/technique, waiting only for sufficiently well behaved electronics which we've had for what, 2 decades or more now? Or has this quietly occured in the utilitarian devices we buy today without being an important enough detail to make it to the propaganda on the box? Are these then considered to be implementation details that are considered proprietary/trade secrets & best not mentioned, yadda yadda? I don't know, so you all tell me please. -- Cheers, Gene People having trouble with vz bouncing email to me should add the word 'online' between the 'verizon', and the dot which bypasses vz's stupid bounce rules. I do use spamassassin too. :-) Yahoo.com and AOL/TW attorneys please note, additions to the above message by Gene Heskett are: Copyright 2006 by Maurice Eugene Heskett, all rights reserved.
