Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site drune.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxt!houxm!mtuxo!drutx!drune!mohler From: mohler@drune.UUCP (MohlerDS) Newsgroups: net.audio Subject: Re: David Mohler is completely correct Message-ID: <24@drune.UUCP> Date: Thu, 22-Aug-85 22:52:22 EDT Article-I.D.: drune.24 Posted: Thu Aug 22 22:52:22 1985 Date-Received: Sun, 25-Aug-85 04:04:28 EDT References: <19@drune.UUCP> <4162@alice.UUCP>, <10068@ucbvax.ARPA> Organization: AT&T Information Systems Laboratories, Denver Lines: 44 Steve, Thanks for the pleasant and accurate reply, it is refreshing that not everyone uses flames to clarify or dispute an article. I must appologize for the haste in which my initial points were made, they suffered seriously as a result. I agree that a 16 bit quantizer improves S/N by 12db and that 4x oversampling only yields a 6db improvement over a simple 14 bit quantizer. My point was that you are close to 16 bit performance, but it is far more accurate, as you say, to state clearly that you have 15 bit performance with respect to noise! If however, you use noise shaping ( per the philips scheme ) where the 28 bit output of the transversal filter is rounded off to 14 bit data, then the 14 LSB's are delayed by one sampling period, reversed in sign, and summed with the next sample the result is a 7db improvement in the average quantization error and noise for low frequency signals (below 22.05KHZ). The philips scheme also uses a 3rd order low pass bessel filter that is 3db down at 30khz. All of this means that from DC to 22.05 KHZ you have a 1db better S/N with the philips 14 bit system than a non-oversampled 16 bit system. This I contend is virtually the same as 16 bit performance with respect to signal, noise and linear amplitude, and was my original point! I also agree that the noise performance is not based on the filter type (analog or digital), but instead the size ( number of bits ) of the quantizer, the oversampling ( if any ), and the noise shaping ( again, if any ). My other point was since this lets you use a filter that is easier to implement in the consumer electronics price range and since it allows you to use an ADC that is cheaper (in some cases) than a 16 bit ADC that it seems to me, the better approach. The cost of a 24th order filter (The theoretical 96th order transversal filter, altered by the fact that since data only arrives at the sampling rate which means that 3 out of 4 of the numbers multiplied in the filter would be zero, therefore the filter can be simplified to 24 elements.) done digitally, both in terms of power and dollars will be less expensive than an analog filter. Thanks again for the comments! David S. Mohler AT&T - ISL @ Denver drune!mohler or druxu!mohler