For example, what would it say about a CD player that has 100db S/N ratio compared to one that has 115 S/Ndb?
Also, some specs say "unweighted" while others say "A weighted" What's the difference?
Thanks in advance.
S/N (signal to noise) is a measure of a device's dynamic range. It is the residual noise level at some given reference output level. If the max output is +4db for example, with a 100db S/N that means the quietest possible signal before it is overwhelmed by noise - the noise floor - is 100db less than that. In general, higher S/N numbers indicates higher quality gear.
Weighting factors are filters applied to the output when the measurements are taken. Unweighted means the numbers are over the entire listed pass band of the device, and A-weighting means a broadband filter is applied at approx. 2500Hz that rolls off both the low end and the high end, meaning the measurement is based on simulating the primary sensitivity range of the average human ear. Beware that A-weighting is also often used by lower-end gear to mask issues, especially things like switching noise at the high end.
Joined: Dec 2008 Gender: Male Posts: 813 Location: Alhambra,California
Re: Signal to Noise ratio « Reply #2 on Nov 7, 2009, 11:44pm »
For more fun reading, check out this on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Signal_to_noise. Also just for you acronym fans out there, here are a few. DIN-A, DIN-B, DIN-C, DIN-D, CCIR-601.
Also for you tape recorder fans out there, you get first hand of that S/N especially cassettes and reel to reels that would float around the 50 something db range. Often measured at +3db reference at often 3% distortion. I believe my Tascam 52 a 2 track 1/4 inch tape running at 15ips was about 63 or 65db I forget. Of course thing that is more tolerable than high wow and flutter. JIS,NAB,CCIR,WRMS,DIN,DIN peak, etc. Geez Acronym abuse. Feels like I am Xerox all over again worrying about MSH, OGM, and PSTDs,MSOs. Arrggh.
For example, what would it say about a CD player that has 100db S/N ratio compared to one that has 115 S/Ndb?
Also, some specs say "unweighted" while others say "A weighted" What's the difference?
Thanks in advance.
S/N (signal to noise) is a measure of a device's dynamic range. It is the residual noise level at some given reference output level. If the max output is +4db for example, with a 100db S/N that means the quietest possible signal before it is overwhelmed by noise - the noise floor - is 100db less than that. In general, higher S/N numbers indicates higher quality gear.
Weighting factors are filters applied to the output when the measurements are taken. Unweighted means the numbers are over the entire listed pass band of the device, and A-weighting means a broadband filter is applied at approx. 2500Hz that rolls off both the low end and the high end, meaning the measurement is based on simulating the primary sensitivity range of the average human ear. Beware that A-weighting is also often used by lower-end gear to mask issues, especially things like switching noise at the high end.
awesome, thanks for that. So,a CDP player with the S/N ration of 115db unweighted is . . what? good? very good? excellent?
What could one expect, if anything, from a CD player with such a spec? Or is this really an irrelevant question because by itself it means nothing?
Re: Signal to Noise ratio « Reply #5 on Nov 8, 2009, 8:24am »
At 115db, any noise, hiss etc., you hear won't be introduced by the cd player itself. You may get hiss from a poor recording but not from the actual player.
Also remember that the s/n ratio of your system will only be as good as the lowest s/n ratio of any component in the system. For example, if the preamp/receiver or amplifier has a s/n ratio of 95db, the best you will get from your system is 95db.
Also remember that the s/n ratio of your system will only be as good as the lowest s/n ratio of any component in the system. For example, if the preamp/receiver or amplifier has a s/n ratio of 95db, the best you will get from your system is 95db.
awesome, thanks for that. So,a CDP player with the S/N ration of 115db unweighted is . . what? good? very good? excellent?
What could one expect, if anything, from a CD player with such a spec? Or is this really an irrelevant question because by itself it means nothing?
thanks again.
115db S/N is world class for any device and means the signal path is very clean. But don't get too focussed on that number. Anything greater than 75db S/N is considered excellent, and a human would likely never be able to tell any differences between two devices playing the same signal, one with 90db S/N and the other with 115db S/N.
does anyone know what the S/N ration is for the UMC-1? I could not immeidately find it on the Emotiva website.
I haven't seen that spec quoted anywhere yet. Digital and analog inputs can have different S/N numbers in a processor, so you have to take that into account.
The "noise floor" is the level below which any signal will be masked by background noise, and above which any signal will be louder than the background noise. A high S/N ratio usually indicates a lower noise floor (although not necessarily, since gain is also part of the measurement), meaning that more low-level sounds are audible.
In general, if you're comparing two components, the one with the higher signal to noise ratio will usually be able to let you hear more quiet little stuff in the recording.
That's not just the sound of the singer breathing or other little random details, it's also harmonics and overtones and reverberations. They're important to making the sound "real", natural, and complete.
Higher S/N ratio also should indicate the ability to display greater contrasts between quiet and loud sounds (dynamics). The difference between a whisper and a scream is, on a good recording played back well, startling. Lower S/N, less contrast, less impact.
As with most specs in audio, this one means very little in isolation.
Also those specs are less any noise reduction devices like Dbx,Dolby,Hi-Com,ARNS,Super ANRS etc. Hiss is banished from my sources thank you very much.
My education in the meaning of SN ratio happened in the mid 1970's when I was shopping around for my first tape deck. I ended up buying a Teac open real deck then. I added a Teac AN-180 external Dolby Noise reduction unit to it and that increased the SN by 10 db..... to over 70db. That was quiet...no hiss at all.
I also owned a DBX noise reduction unit along with a selection of DBX encoded vinyl record albums. That was a huge improvement in the SN ration of those recordings. Actually..I still have that DBX unit although I haven't used it in over 20 years.
Also those specs are less any noise reduction devices like Dbx,Dolby,Hi-Com,ARNS,Super ANRS etc. Hiss is banished from my sources thank you very much.
My education in the meaning of SN ratio happened in the mid 1970's when I was shopping around for my first tape deck. I ended up buying a Teac open real deck then. I added a Teac AN-180 external Dolby Noise reduction unit to it and that increased the SN by 10 db..... to over 70db. That was quiet...no hiss at all.
I also owned a DBX noise reduction unit along with a selection of DBX encoded vinyl record albums. That was a huge improvement in the SN ration of those recordings. Actually..I still have that DBX unit although I haven't used it in over 20 years.
I used to own a dbx unit and I thought it worked better than Dolby, actually. At least back in those days (late 70's I think). The dbx cut out the hiss whereas the Dolby also cut off the high end on the music, not just the hiss. I always wondered why dbx wasn't more successful.
My education in the meaning of SN ratio happened in the mid 1970's when I was shopping around for my first tape deck. I ended up buying a Teac open real deck then. I added a Teac AN-180 external Dolby Noise reduction unit to it and that increased the SN by 10 db..... to over 70db. That was quiet...no hiss at all.
I also owned a DBX noise reduction unit along with a selection of DBX encoded vinyl record albums. That was a huge improvement in the SN ration of those recordings. Actually..I still have that DBX unit although I haven't used it in over 20 years.
I used to own a dbx unit and I thought it worked better than Dolby, actually. At least back in those days (late 70's I think). The dbx cut out the hiss whereas the Dolby also cut off the high end on the music, not just the hiss. I always wondered why dbx wasn't more successful.
I wondered myself why it never grew in popularity. I would use my DBX 3BX III Dynamic Range Expander when listening to my old non Dolby tapes and it still helped the hiss situation quite a bit. I know that's not it's intended use but it worked quite well.
Joined: Nov 2007 Gender: Male Posts: 2,301 Location: douglas,wyoming
Re: Signal to Noise ratio « Reply #15 on Nov 9, 2009, 9:35am »
Well one of the reasons why dbx wasn`t more successful may have to do with them not honoring there warranty at least for me they didn`t , I bought a dbx CDP and it was only 3 weeks old and it just stopped working I sent it to an authorized repair shop and they could not fix it and dbx did not replace it or refund my money they just sent it back to me with no explanation except that it was not repairable , I sent many letters to them and they just ignored me so I filed a complaint with the BBB witch they did not get any results from them ether so I through the CDP in the trash and was out $400 , I will never buy anything from them again ,that was back in the early 80`s
I also owned a DBX noise reduction unit along with a selection of DBX encoded vinyl record albums. That was a huge improvement in the SN ration of those recordings. Actually..I still have that DBX unit although I haven't used it in over 20 years.
I've also got one of those which I saved because I've got some reel-to-reel tapes I recorded with it. Also have a dbx 3bx dynamic range expander with wired remote that I still occasionally use for badly worn vinyl.
Joined: Feb 2009 Gender: Male Posts: 1,010 Location: Temple City, CA
Re: Signal to Noise ratio « Reply #18 on Nov 9, 2009, 11:01am »
That's a shame about dbx. The unit I had (I don't remember the model number) worked really well. It cut out all the hiss yet left the music intact. On the other hand, I used to hate using the switch to turn on Dolby with my tape recordings (admittedly this was not real expensive stuff - no Nakamichi decks or things like that, but it was decent quality) because it took all the high end out, not just the hiss.
That's a shame about dbx. The unit I had (I don't remember the model number) worked really well. It cut out all the hiss yet left the music intact. On the other hand, I used to hate using the switch to turn on Dolby with my tape recordings (admittedly this was not real expensive stuff - no Nakamichi decks or things like that, but it was decent quality) because it took all the high end out, not just the hiss.
Agreed. To me this was one of the greatest thing about the introduction of compact disc: more convenient than tape and without the need for FR limiting noise reduction schemes.
![[Home]](http://s1.images.proboards.com/menu/home.gif)
![[Help]](http://s1.images.proboards.com/menu/help.gif)
![[Search]](http://s1.images.proboards.com/menu/search.gif)
![[Login]](http://s1.images.proboards.com/menu/login.gif)
![[Register]](http://s1.images.proboards.com/menu/register.gif)
![[Search This Thread]](http://s1.images.proboards.com/search2.gif)
![[Send Topic To Friend]](http://s1.images.proboards.com/buttons/sendtopic.gif)
![[Print]](http://s1.images.proboards.com/buttons/print.gif)
Author
![[avatar]](http://bestanimations.com/Sci-Fi/Aliens/Alien-02-june.gif)
Logged
![[avatar]](http://www.marchithermal.com/html/heckle-jeckle-master.gif)
![[avatar]](http://i612.photobucket.com/albums/tt210/vincedog3/vc.jpg)
![[avatar]](http://i238.photobucket.com/albums/ff76/audiobucket/Emotiva%20Lounge/Soul_On_Ten.jpg)
![[avatar]](http://www.miyakevision.com/images/yojimboavatar.jpg){kind=avatar}
![[homepage]](http://s1.images.proboards.com/buttons/www_sm.gif)
![[avatar]](http://i252.photobucket.com/albums/hh17/flamingeye/recovered5229880.jpg)
![[avatar]](http://idisk.mac.com/jimbailey//Public/leonardo.gif)
