ADC's and DAC's for audio

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

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.

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

"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.

........ Phil

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.

--
ciao Ban
Apricale, Italy

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:

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 :)

What microphones require such a high sample rate?

martin

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).

Thanks, Jon

Analog Devices have high speed 24 bit ADCs, see:

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

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.

--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
To reply to me directly:

Replace privacy.net with: totalise DOT co DOT uk and replace me with
gareth.harris

Why settle for 32 bits??

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 :)

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).

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.

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?

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

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?

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?

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.

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.

--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
To reply to me directly:

Replace privacy.net with: totalise DOT co DOT uk and replace me with
gareth.harris

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

--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
To reply to me directly:

Replace privacy.net with: totalise DOT co DOT uk and replace me with
gareth.harris

** ROTFLMAO

What f****it 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

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

John

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

Graham

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:-)