12 Sep
2008
12 Sep
'08
5:49 p.m.
On Fri, Sep 12, 2008 at 12:33 PM, Jens M Andreasen
<jens.andreasen(a)comhem.se> wrote:
On Fri, 2008-09-12 at 12:14 -0700, Justin Smith
wrote:
I am not sure if I understand what you aare saying herer at all.
What I imagined was this: instead of sending one floating point
output, you send two, out of phase with one nother, except ot perfetly
out of phase, so tht you retin the potential of the full bit depth (if
each signal were just the inverse of the other, you are wasting half
of the bits you send). Now that I think about it more, this woul be
most useful if the full signal chain used this format, and to really
double your bit depth sending -29 on one side and +1 on the other
would have to be different from sending -30 on one side, and 0 on the
other. I think I was just confused, and maybe you had something in
mind other than my erronious speculation.
If you just did a simple phase inversion, you
would lose half of the
information you could be sending to the dac, you could easily use an
algorithm that sets things up so you have full bit resolution (ie.
double the rated resolution of a single channel).
So what it is the magic number then for improved resolution? At first I
thought intuitively: -3dB!
But now I am not so sure. I can't explain to an audiemce why -3 is a
better number than any other.
_______________________________________________
Linux-audio-dev mailing list
Linux-audio-dev(a)lists.linuxaudio.org
http://lists.linuxaudio.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-audio-dev