Talk:Quantization noise
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
"The noise is additive and independent of the signal when the number of bits Q is greater than 4, that is, more than 16 digitizing levels, L = 2Q."
- Why?
- Also, the letter L is used for both "load" and "number of levels" — Omegatron 14:07, August 30, 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Derivation
Trying to find a derivation for the quantization noise power equations and subsequent SNR per bit resolution values. I can't find the type of derivation I am thinking of online. Some scribbled, incoherent notes from class (I was probably asleep, and can't find the source I copied them from):
Signed magnitude | Two's complement | |
---|---|---|
Truncation | ||
Round-off |
LSB-1:
Mean squared error or quantization noise
with a note making sure I remember that it's not always Δ2/12. The external link I included shows a more thorough derivation of q2/12. — Omegatron 06:04, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
I keep forgetting that Google Print exists. [1]
[edit] Thesis
I have previously derived the SNR formulas in my thesis. Sorry for the unconventional symbols, i use Q for LSB (in volts) and N for the number of resolution bits and m=2^N for the number of levels. umax and umin are the max and min voltage corresponding to the quantized interval of Q*m
The noise power is assumed to be uniform:
where Q is the quantization step (often called LSB):
In the case of a uniformly distributed signal (ramped, triangle etc) the signal power is
where i use m=2^N for the number of levels (does not have to be a power of two!). And thus the SNR
SNRramp = m2 = 22N.
In decibels this is
Next case: A sine wave test tone. This one has more power than the ramped, namely:
And the SNR becomes
in decibels:
/ Johan Stigwall
- Wonderful. Thank you. — Omegatron 14:44, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Don't Merge
Quantisation error is not Quantisation noise - it's a complicated topic and worthy of several pages to make the distinctions needed, especially when weighting and dither are brought in. --Lindosland 16:18, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
- Well they're not even close to a page right now, so I figured the subjects were close enough to merge into one topic. — Omegatron 01:57, 13 March 2006 (UTC)