Re: NAMM & the new Plex

[Robert van der Kamp <robnet@wxs.nl>]

"Dennis W. Leas" wrote:

> >Ouch. 16 bit AD/DA is..., well, dated. Soundwise, I mean.
>
> I have a different viewpoint.  16 bit AD/DA dated, well, yeah, I 
>suppose.  If
> the 'plex was designed today it would probably be 24-bit.  However, I 
>doubt that
> 24-bits would make any audible difference.  16 bit linear coding is still
> "cd-quality", afterall.  24-bit resolution would be important if the 
>'plex did
> any signal twisting, but the 'plex is basically just "bits in and bits 
>out".
> The higher resolution is important when you're processing the signal, 
>like doing
> math on it (filters, phasors, compressors, etc), and you compute a value 
>larger
> than 16 bits.  With the 'plex, the only signal processing is when you 
>overdub
> you're doing an addition.

I don't agree with you here, Dennis.
16 bit AD/DA is fine for processed and compressed sound. The stuff that is 
the result
of a master mix in a sound studio. Most of the sound is at the high volume 
levels, where
, say, 12 to 16 bits are used to encode the samples.

What we are doing is quite different. We are toying with mostly 
uncompressed and
more suttle sounds in a much wider range, including many low level sounds. 
(Think
of decayng audio!). These suttle low-level sounds only use a few bits (say 
4 or 5)
to encode the sample. Ever heared an old 8-bit sampler? Well, this is 
worse.
Try it. Take a  continous sound, feed it through the plex at a very low 
level, crank
up the volume and enjoy the low bit rate noise.

A 24-bit AD would give much more bits to low-level sounds, reducing the 
low bit rate
noise.

>
> The biggest advantage for a 24-bit 'plex would probably be greater 
>dynamic range
> rather than greater clarity.

See above.

>
>
> >New software? Okay, a stereo plex in one unit. :-)
> >Or would that mean new hardware? Hmm.
>
> But I'm all for a hardware update!
>

Yes!!! We still agree, then. ;-)

Robert

>
> Dennis Leas
> -----------------------------
> dennis@mdbs.com