In trying to understand how foobar implements its digital volume control, I prepared some measurement data using the 16/44.1 1kHz 0dbFS test tone (sourced from RME's extreme pure sine (0.001% THD+N) file 0_16.zip). Table (at 16 bit resolution) and associated graph show signal amplitudes at different volume levels. Note for each -6db reduction, signal approximately halves. Only top half of sine waves shown.
Using a volume setting of below -24db and above -50db (for most of my listening), its interesting to see the limited signal amplitude range. At -24dbFS, peak 16 bit signal value is 2068 which translates to an effective 12 bits. The equivalent in 24 bit resolution would be 20 bits.
A perfect digital volume control would produce signal values using double precision as in above table. Decimal value would be lost when translating to actual (16 or 24 bit) samples. This would be its rounding error which at 16 bits gives:
- 0.3db error at -90dbFS
- 0.002db error at -24dbFS
Error at 24 bit resolution (ie. upsample 16/44.1 to 24/96) is negligable:
- 0.009db error at -90dbFS
- 0.000006db error at -24dbFS
Some questions:
- Would such digital volume control be superior to analogue variants?
- How does foobar implement VC?
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Topic - Digital Volume Control - a different perspective - cics 13:18:08 01/23/08 (30)
- RE: Digital Volume Control - a different perspective - Bobb 05:11:45 01/26/08 (6)
- RE: Digital Volume Control - a different perspective - soundchekk 06:28:34 01/26/08 (5)
- RE: Digital Volume Control - a different perspective - Bobb 07:51:17 01/26/08 (4)
- Analogue VC is a necessary evil when DACs can't process its lower order bits - cics 09:19:43 01/27/08 (3)
- RE: Analogue VC is a necessary evil when DACs can't process its lower order bits - Adal 11:47:49 01/27/08 (2)
- RE: Analogue VC is a necessary evil when DACs can't process its lower order bits - cics 21:51:31 01/28/08 (1)
- RE: Analogue VC is a necessary evil when DACs can't process its lower order bits - soundchekk 02:09:47 01/30/08 (0)
- RE: Digital Volume Control - a different perspective - soundchekk 01:30:50 01/26/08 (2)
- Foobar VC vs dCS Scarlatti VC - cics 03:01:50 01/26/08 (1)
- RE: Foobar VC vs dCS Scarlatti VC - Dawnrazor 23:33:23 01/29/08 (0)
- RE: Digital Volume Control - a different perspective - JimOfOakCreek 19:45:49 01/24/08 (0)
- In theory..... - ....Theory and practice are the same.... 01:18:48 01/24/08 (5)
- RE: In theory..... - cics 05:42:41 01/24/08 (1)
- RE: In theory..... - Dawnrazor 11:23:33 01/24/08 (0)
- RE: In theory..... - adal 03:06:54 01/24/08 (2)
- That's a good test - cics 06:15:12 01/24/08 (1)
- RE: That's a good test - Adal 06:29:27 01/24/08 (0)
- RE: Digital Volume Control - a different perspective - JimOfOakCreek 19:44:04 01/23/08 (4)
- RE: Digital Volume Control - a different perspective - cics 04:35:55 01/24/08 (3)
- RE: Digital Volume Control - a different perspective - JimOfOakCreek 17:32:15 01/24/08 (0)
- RE: Digital Volume Control - a different perspective - Adal 05:05:02 01/24/08 (1)
- RE: Digital Volume Control - a different perspective - cics 12:36:41 01/25/08 (0)
- RE: Digital Volume Control - a different perspective - adal 17:07:45 01/23/08 (5)
- RE: Digital Volume Control - a different perspective - drrd 13:10:52 01/24/08 (0)
- RE: Digital Volume Control - a different perspective - cics 01:53:58 01/24/08 (3)
- RE: Digital Volume Control - a different perspective - Adal 06:03:19 01/24/08 (2)
- RE: Digital Volume Control - a different perspective - cics 11:46:12 01/25/08 (1)
- RE: Digital Volume Control - a different perspective - Adal 17:09:27 01/25/08 (0)
- Very Interesting - But I Prefer My Pre-Amp - Dynaudio_Rules 16:50:28 01/23/08 (1)
- RE: Very Interesting - But I Prefer My Pre-Amp - Dawnrazor 22:53:30 01/23/08 (0)