Resolution of sound decreases by pulling down faders .....is there any such concept ?

several folks said:
each bit represents 6dB

So I know the bitwise math on that: adding one bit doubles the range of numbers you can represent (e.g. 4 bits is 0-15, 5 bits is 0-31)

I'm still a little lost on the 6 dB thing. A "bel" is defined as a perceived doubling in volume, so a decibel is 1/10th of that. But 6 dB is a doubling of the signal strength on the line then? 3 dB is supposed to be double the air coming out of the speaker or something too, isn't it?
 
"I'm still a little lost on the 6 dB thing. A "bel" is defined as a perceived doubling in volume, so a decibel is 1/10th of that. But 6 dB is a doubling of the signal strength on the line then? 3 dB is supposed to be double the air coming out of the speaker or something too, isn't it? "

"Six dB" in this context referrers to a signal voltage (decoded output) "Three" dB is a doubling of power or intensity (10 log.ratio instead of 20log)

We perceive sound loudness as sound pressure and that is analogous (Boom! Boom!) to voltage.

Dave.
 
A Bel is the unit of measurement that Bell Labs created to measure changes in sound pressure. It's named Bel as a tribute to Alexander Graham Bell. Basically all they did was lose one of the "l's" but kept the capital "B" intact to indicate a proper noun.

They found it too big to be convenient to use so they created the decibel, or dB as one tenth of a Bel. (Imagine measuring the diameter of guitar strings in kilometers) On its own it's simply a logarithmic ratio of change. It means more when you apply it to a specific scale - dBu, dB SPL, dBfs etc.
 
The real truth is that rounding errors do affect all of our signals, not just the quietest ones. The following is not exactly how it works, but close enough if you squint.

Assume our signal swings between -1 and 1. Assume our chose bit depth allows us 5 decimal places of precision - about like 16bit. The largest signal we can represent short of all the way on is going to be 0.99999. Turn that down 20db, and we have 0.09999. Turn it back up 20db, and you've got 0.99990. That's a rounding error. You really have decreased the the dynamic range of the signal by 20db. You might not really hear that noise on louder signals because it's small compared to everything else going on, but it's there, and at -80db, it's starting to be noticeable.

But a 32 bit floating point mix engine gives us 19 decimal places! In order to "reduce the resolution" back to the "16 bits" we had above, we have to turn it down by 260db and then turn it back up. In some of my noise work, I do stupid shit like that, but in the real world you'll never notice it.

To the OP - the gain plugin (or whatever gain control is available in your DAW) does exactly the same thing as the fader, so adjust it where it makes sense to you. There are good reasons to shoot for keeping your faders around 0, but loss of resolution is not one of them.
 
So I know the bitwise math on that: adding one bit doubles the range of numbers you can represent (e.g. 4 bits is 0-15, 5 bits is 0-31)

I'm still a little lost on the 6 dB thing. A "bel" is defined as a perceived doubling in volume, so a decibel is 1/10th of that. But 6 dB is a doubling of the signal strength on the line then? 3 dB is supposed to be double the air coming out of the speaker or something too, isn't it?

A 2:1 power ratio is 3dB. A 2:1 voltage ratio is 6dB. It's tied up with voltage/current/power relationships.
 
ashcat_lt said:
But a 32 bit floating point mix engine gives us 19 decimal places! In order to "reduce the resolution" back to the "16 bits" we had above, we have to turn it down by 260db and then turn it back up. In some of my noise work, I do stupid shit like that, but in the real world you'll never notice it.

Until you write the output file back to fixed point. That's where dither is handy.
 
Home recording is surrounded and infiltrated by myths that become legends.
Knowledge of maths helps with understanding but in the end those without the maths need to rely on experience and/or someone they trust.
At least the OP had somewhere to ask the Q though it wasn't pressing enough a matter to return to quickly.
I see Garww was off the leash long enough to do what he does best - make no sense whatsoever.
 
I've haven't see ANY link to where this fader thing came from, so I'll stick with peak to peak. I would enjoy Mr. Tutorial's explanation about the gain plug, though
 
Agreed. Again, keeping the faders at zero for "resolution concerns" sounds like a myth.

Got me switches on my board to mute each wanted channel. :D Those not used i always mute with that switch, leaving the fader were it is to plug in quickly next time.
 
When in doubt just mute everything.

All this stuff doesn't have to be that complicated. If you're concerned about resolution, print 24 bit tracks for processing. Use dither. Good gain staging habits across the board is probably the single most useful thing to make things just work easily.

As far as the faders thing goes, I wouldn't mind having a look at DevD's tutorial to get an idea of the context.
 
There's truth to the concept of fader resolution. With analog mixers the dB per millimeter of travel decreases as you move down from 0. It's hard to make precise adjustments when the fader is around the -20 mark. But that's an entirely different thing from audio resolution.
 
From now on...I'm going to push all my faders up to +6...and leave them there...to increase the resolution.

Then I'll add gain plugs to each channel and mix with them.

:laughings:

:facepalm:
 
That's not true. Faders are technically made 'parabolic'. They loose quality if you put them too low, but above a minor setting they alway's work great.
I should look up technical specifications, but i roughly guess that if you have you're fader above 1 or 1,5 (2 for sure) it works as good as is does on 8 or 9 (10 mostly never is to be advised). If only 0.5 or 1 then it gets losses indeed, but who puts it so low?

Are you sure you don't mean logarithmic rather than parabolic?

In any case, as others have said, audio quality doesn't degrade if you turn your fader very low--but the ability to control things accurately does because the gaps between levels get progressively smaller.
 
Are you sure you don't mean logarithmic rather than parabolic?

Yep. Your right. At least you know what i mean and confirm it. Thanks. ;)

In any case, as others have said, audio quality doesn't degrade if you turn your fader very low--but the ability to control things accurately does because the gaps between levels get progressively smaller.

Ask any electronic man. He wil confirm that using faders will go wrong if you put them to low or to high. Has to do with how there technically build and implemented. Specifications. So it is to be recommended to use them between (estimated, not looked up) 1 and 9 to use them in full.
 
Ask any electronic man. He wil confirm that using faders will go wrong if you put them to low or to high. Has to do with how there technically build and implemented. Specifications. So it is to be recommended to use them between (estimated, not looked up) 1 and 9 to use them in full.

You just don't get it, and I don't expect you will any time soon.
 
Back
Top