I think as a rule of thumb people should be taught to set
0dbfs=1 and always use 1.0 (0dB) as max amplitude. Then it
does not matter what you think it should be, because
it will always work on whatever precision your soundcard
or file is using.

Victor
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Richard Boulanger" 
To: 
Sent: Sunday, December 21, 2008 4:35 PM
Subject: [Csnd] Re: dynamic range


> Hello John,
>
> I think that it does really matter - especially when you use the ampdb 
> value converter and wonder
> why you get samples out of range at what you thought were acceptable - dB 
> values (based on
> what  you were taught and what you have read.)
>
> I am very very happy to know this information related to amplitude -  that 
> we loose a bit of
> resolution for the - + sign.
>
> Hopefully we can add something to the manual about this!  And I can't 
> wait to share this with my
> students next semester and from now on.
>
> -dr. B.
>
>
> On Dec 21, 2008, at 8:36 AM, jpff@cs.bath.ac.uk wrote:
>
>>> ...so why in many books is wrote that the dynamic range
>>> of 16 bit systems is 96dB and not 90 dB?
>>> see curtis roads and many others.
>>> fv
>>>
>>
>> I cannot speak for Cutis Roads, but 16bits translates to a ratio of 
>> 96dB.
>> That is true but misleading.  In audio we hace to handle + and -
>> displacement from a norm, and so what we call 16bits is really 15  bits 
>> and
>> a sign.  Hence the dynamic range of "16bit" audio is 90dB.
>>
>> Does it really matter?
>>
>> ==John ff
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Send bugs reports to this list.
>> To unsubscribe, send email sympa@lists.bath.ac.uk with body  "unsubscribe 
>> csound"
>
>
>
> Send bugs reports to this list.
> To unsubscribe, send email sympa@lists.bath.ac.uk with body "unsubscribe 
> csound"