ADC's and DAC's for audio

[Abstract Dissonance]

How come its so hard to find ADC's with more than 16-20 bits of resolution
with high conversion rate?(200kSPS+)

Ultimately I would like an ADC and DAC with ~32-bits at 360kSps for use in
an audio project... although I could deal with the minimum of 24bit at
192khz. I have found a DAC that does the min but no corresponding ADC.

Where should I look for converters like this? and is it possible to get
32-bits? (I've not seen one that does about 24-bits on the major
manufactures sites)

Thanks,
Jon

 

[Eeyore]

How come its so hard to find ADC's with more than 16-20 bits of resolution
with high conversion rate?(200kSPS+)

Because 192k is the highest conversion rate in regular audio use.

Ultimately I would like an ADC and DAC with ~32-bits at 360kSps for use in
an audio project... although I could deal with the minimum of 24bit at
192khz. I have found a DAC that does the min but no corresponding ADC.

If you were seriously interested in addressing the issue you could have
'parallel' converters driven off a bi-phase clock so as to construct a virtual
384kSps stream.

Where should I look for converters like this? and is it possible to get
32-bits? (I've not seen one that does about 24-bits on the major
manufactures sites)

Even the so-called 24 bit converters only usefully resolve about 20 bits. It's a
war against s/n ratio. The higher bit converters have the advantage though that
those low order bits are more accurate though.

Graham

 

[Phil Allison]

"Absolute Dysentery"

How come its so hard to find ADC's with more than 16-20 bits of resolution
with high conversion rate?(200kSPS+)

Ultimately I would like an ADC and DAC with ~32-bits at 360kSps for use in
an audio project...

** 32 bits = 192 dB dynamic range = 10 volts compared with 2.5 nV.

2.5 nV = noise of a 20 milliohm resistor in the audio band.

Total madness.





......... Phil

 

[Ban]

How come its so hard to find ADC's with more than 16-20 bits of
resolution with high conversion rate?(200kSPS+)

Maybe because they were waiting just for you to invent something better.

Ultimately I would like an ADC and DAC with ~32-bits at 360kSps for
use in an audio project...

Ah, you want to record bats, right?

although I could deal with the minimum of
24bit at 192khz. I have found a DAC that does the min but no
corresponding ADC.

look harder

Where should I look for converters like this? and is it possible to
get 32-bits? (I've not seen one that does about 24-bits on the major
manufactures sites)

Do you know what LSB means? Calculate it and than think about it.

 

[David L. Jones]

How come its so hard to find ADC's with more than 16-20 bits of resolution
with high conversion rate?(200kSPS+)

Ultimately I would like an ADC and DAC with ~32-bits at 360kSps for use in
an audio project... although I could deal with the minimum of 24bit at
192khz. I have found a DAC that does the min but no corresponding ADC.

Where should I look for converters like this? and is it possible to get
32-bits? (I've not seen one that does about 24-bits on the major
manufactures sites)

You can't get 32bits, see Phils post for the reason why. But if you
didn't know this already then your wizz-bang audio project might be in
trouble :->

Cirrus Logic make some of the best 24bit ADCs/DACs around:
http://www.cirrus.com/en/products/pro/techs/T1.html

The highest performance 24 bit ADCs and DACs on the market are designed
for geophysical use and only have a bandwidth of a KHz or two.

Dave

 

[martin griffith]

How come its so hard to find ADC's with more than 16-20 bits of resolution
with high conversion rate?(200kSPS+)

Ultimately I would like an ADC and DAC with ~32-bits at 360kSps for use in
an audio project... although I could deal with the minimum of 24bit at
192khz. I have found a DAC that does the min but no corresponding ADC.

Where should I look for converters like this? and is it possible to get
32-bits? (I've not seen one that does about 24-bits on the major
manufactures sites)

Thanks,
Jon

What microphones require such a high sample rate?


martin

 

[Abstract Dissonance]

You can't get 32bits, see Phils post for the reason why. But if you
didn't know this already then your wizz-bang audio project might be in
trouble :->

Even if you use superconductors?

BTW, it doesn't take much hardware knowledge to write a digital filter
routine... (I want to make an EQ first... thats very simple and you don't
even have to know anything about anything... most of the stuff needed can be
found online. )

Cirrus Logic make some of the best 24bit ADCs/DACs around:
http://www.cirrus.com/en/products/pro/techs/T1.html

The highest performance 24 bit ADCs and DACs on the market are designed
for geophysical use and only have a bandwidth of a KHz or two.

By high performance, do you mean high quality? 1kSps isn't much and I
wouldn't call that high performance.

Though that site seems to have the best ADC's I've seen(for audio).

Thanks,
Jon

 

[Gareth]

How come its so hard to find ADC's with more than 16-20 bits of resolution
with high conversion rate?(200kSPS+)

Analog Devices have high speed 24 bit ADCs, see:

http://www.analog.com/IST/SelectionTable/?selection_table_id=207


There are even some 24 bit ADCs capable of > 1MSPS, see:

http://www.analog.com/IST/SelectionTable/?selection_table_id=398

Ultimately I would like an ADC and DAC with ~32-bits at 360kSps for use in
an audio project... although I could deal with the minimum of 24bit at
192khz. I have found a DAC that does the min but no corresponding ADC.

Why do you need such high resolution and sampling rate? Do you know how
difficult it will be to build analogue electronics with enough dynamic
range to make good use of 24 bits, never mind 32?

You say this is for an audio project. I assume you are aware that human
hearing does not extend above 20 KHz for most healthy young people.
Note the upper frequency drops with age so most adults cannot hear
sounds above 16 KHz.

Where should I look for converters like this? and is it possible to get
32-bits? (I've not seen one that does about 24-bits on the major
manufactures sites)

Thanks,
Jon

--

 

[Mochuelo]

How come its so hard to find ADC's with more than 16-20 bits of resolution
with high conversion rate?(200kSPS+)

Ultimately I would like an ADC and DAC with ~32-bits at 360kSps for use in
an audio project... although I could deal with the minimum of 24bit at
192khz. I have found a DAC that does the min but no corresponding ADC.

Where should I look for converters like this? and is it possible to get
32-bits? (I've not seen one that does about 24-bits on the major
manufactures sites)

Thanks,
Jon

Why settle for 32 bits??

 

[David L. Jones]

Even if you use superconductors?

BTW, it doesn't take much hardware knowledge to write a digital filter
routine... (I want to make an EQ first... thats very simple and you don't
even have to know anything about anything... most of the stuff needed can be
found online. )


By high performance, do you mean high quality? 1kSps isn't much and I
wouldn't call that high performance.

Yes, "high quality" in THD and Dynamic Range specs for starters. They
are a lot better than the devices designed for audio, they have to be.
Performance is not just about speed, it can be any other spec that is
important to you.
The geophysical market does not need high bandwidth, it needs the
absolute best signal quality possible, and ultra low power consumption
too. The specs on the datasheets are conservative too, if you know how
to implement them correctly.

Generally speaking, the higher the bandwidth ADC, the poorer the specs
get. That's why the audio ones can't get near the specs of the
geophysical parts.

Dave

 

[Abstract Dissonance]

Analog Devices have high speed 24 bit ADCs, see:

http://www.analog.com/IST/SelectionTable/?selection_table_id=207


There are even some 24 bit ADCs capable of > 1MSPS, see:

http://www.analog.com/IST/SelectionTable/?selection_table_id=398


Why do you need such high resolution and sampling rate? Do you know how
difficult it will be to build analogue electronics with enough dynamic
range to make good use of 24 bits, never mind 32?

24-bit is standard in pro audio. So I'm not sure how much harder it would
be to add 32 but I figure that if its not much harder to create an ADC that
does it then it can't hurt. i.e., you just get extra bits that might be
"dirty" but its no worse then not having the bit at all. i.e., 32-bits might
be overkill because the of the noise floor, but it cannot be any worse then
24-bits if it didn't cost any extra to have(but it does ofcourse).

Most of it is hype I suppose. If you can offer a pro audio solution that is
32-bits rather then 24 then most people will eat it up. (even though 8 of
those bits might be relatively useless). There is definately a difference
in 16 and 24-bits though so I figure that there could be a difference in 24
to 32.

The main issues I am worried about is that in many signal chains there tends
to be a series of ADC then DAC conversions. If the quality is not good then
there is an overall loss of signal integrity. Having a higher sample rate
and resolution helps eliminate this(assuming the converters are good
enough).

You say this is for an audio project. I assume you are aware that human
hearing does not extend above 20 KHz for most healthy young people.
Note the upper frequency drops with age so most adults cannot hear
sounds above 16 KHz.

Yes, but when doing digital processing one usually wants a higher sample
rate because it allows you to interpolate much more accurately. The current
standard is pro audio is 24bit at 96khz. Soon it will be 192khz. There are
a myrad of reasons for this... some of it is just nonsense but some of it is
for practical reasons.

 

[xray]

If you can offer a pro audio solution that is
32-bits rather then 24 then most people will eat it up.

Then you must have meant to say, "rather than."

Sorry, but nobody seems to see any difference between then and than
anymore. I fire one of these nit-picks off randomly from time to time.
Doesn't help, but makes me feel better.

Yes, but when doing digital processing one usually wants a higher sample
rate because it allows you to interpolate much more accurately. The current
standard is pro audio is 24bit at 96khz. Soon it will be 192khz. There are
a myrad of reasons for this... some of it is just nonsense but some of it is
for practical reasons.

What are the practical reasons?

 

[Eeyore]

Even if you use superconductors?

BTW, it doesn't take much hardware knowledge to write a digital filter
routine... (I want to make an EQ first... thats very simple and you don't
even have to know anything about anything... most of the stuff needed can be
found online. )


By high performance, do you mean high quality? 1kSps isn't much and I
wouldn't call that high performance.

Though that site seems to have the best ADC's I've seen(for audio).

Cirrus now includes the very nice converters formerly known as Crystal..

Also check out the Burr-Brown parts from TI and AKM's offerings.

Graham

 

[Abstract Dissonance]

Maybe because they were waiting just for you to invent something better.


Ah, you want to record bats, right?


look harder

Do you know what LSB means? Calculate it and than think about it.

And what was the point of your post? Did you think you were adding anything
more than what has already been said or do you need to be the asshole who
has to repeat everything?

 

[Gareth]

24-bit is standard in pro audio. So I'm not sure how much harder it
would be to add 32 but I figure that if its not much harder to create
an ADC that does it then it can't hurt. i.e., you just get extra
bits that might be "dirty" but its no worse then not having the bit
at all. i.e., 32-bits might be overkill because the of the noise
floor, but it cannot be any worse then 24-bits if it didn't cost any
extra to have(but it does ofcourse).

Most of it is hype I suppose. If you can offer a pro audio solution
that is 32-bits rather then 24 then most people will eat it up.

I'm not so sure. I would expect this to work for a product being
marketed to teenagers, who have to have more bits than all their mates,
but surely professionals would know better?

The main issues I am worried about is that in many signal chains
there tends to be a series of ADC then DAC conversions. If the
quality is not good then there is an overall loss of signal
integrity. Having a higher sample rate and resolution helps
eliminate this(assuming the converters are good enough).

Only if it is the resolution and sampling rate that limit performance.
If the digital resolution and sampling rate is already good enough then
the additional samples and bits do not add any information about the
signal. In other words, if the performance is limited by thermal noise
and analogue bandwidth then 32, 64 or even 128 bits won't make any
difference.

It's a bit like working something out on your calculator and writing
down all 12 digits of the answer when the values you entered were only
approximate.

Yes, but when doing digital processing one usually wants a higher
sample rate because it allows you to interpolate much more
accurately.

Actually, if you have sampled at greater than the Nyquist frequency, you
have all the information and you can interpolate however you like.
Increasing the sampling rate well beyond the Nyquist frequency provides
no additional information about the signal.

The current standard is pro audio is 24bit at 96khz. Soon it will be
192khz. There are a myrad of reasons for this... some of it is just
nonsense but some of it is for practical reasons.

--

 

[Gareth]

Then you must have meant to say, "rather than."

Sorry, but nobody seems to see any difference between then and than
anymore. I fire one of these nit-picks off randomly from time to time.
Doesn't help, but makes me feel better.



What are the practical reasons?

One practical reason is to make the analogue anti-alias filtering easier.

--

 

[Phil Allison]

[email protected]...

24-bit is standard in pro audio.

** ROTFLMAO

What fuckwit crapolgy !!!!!!

The psycho & essentially criminal world of "pro audio" has NOT caught up
with the potential audio quality offered by 16 bit resolution and is not
about to *any time soon*.

Absolute Dysentery is just another posturing, fabricating.,lying pile of
autistic shit.


For CHRIST's sake STOP feeding the blood sucking CRETIN !!!







......... Phil

 

[John Larkin]

"Absolute Dysentery"



** 32 bits = 192 dB dynamic range = 10 volts compared with 2.5 nV.

2.5 nV = noise of a 20 milliohm resistor in the audio band.

Total madness.

Yeah, he should quit dinking around and buy a proper 64 bit dac.

John

 

[Eeyore]

Yeah, he should quit dinking around and buy a proper 64 bit dac.

What's 'dinking around' ? The same as dicking around ? ;~)

Graham

 

[Fred Bloggs]

Why do you need such high resolution and sampling rate? Do you know how
difficult it will be to build analogue electronics with enough dynamic
range to make good use of 24 bits, never mind 32?

That is exactly the purpose of the instrumentation 24-bit jobs: to
eliminate the front end while maintaining a large "effective" input
dynamic range. Last time I looked, the 24-bit things had an ENOB of 18
at 10Hz