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

[RFR]

But what's you're problem man? Why you keep trying to make a fool out of me? Leave me alone. And that's a message for RFR too.

Hey! I never even addressed you. I was having a bit of fun with one of gawwr's posts. Never even paid much attention to what your were posting. And I certainly wasn't responding to any of your posts, much less making a fool out of you.
So back the fuck off.

 

[RFR]

Keep it civil, gentlemen

I only saw one gent crossing the line of civility.

 

[garww]

Yeah so what? I have gear with "stepped pots"

You're saying "hardwire 100 steps"

Good. Now how do you propose to control getting to the next step without a pot or fader? 100 switches?

I realise you said "in theory", but you didn't take it all the way through.

And ps. Why should I buy a piece of gear just to figure out what the hell you're talking about? wouldn't it be easier for you to just explain yourself?

No, I'm not exited to pretend I'm some Neve fellow decades ago. My first job out of high school was at switch factory in 1968.

Apogee is still excited, though;
The Secret Behind Mic Pre Technology - Apogee Electronics

I think it's fine to toss hardware in the discussion, though the poster clearly referred to gain plug.

 

[miroslav]

I think it's fine to toss hardware in the discussion, though the poster clearly referred to gain plug.

Yeah was thinking the same thing....the OP was talking about DAW virtual faders...and suddenly we're talking baout physical console faders...which is fine, but only confused the original.
I'm sure the novice DAW-only guys are scratching their heads wondering what kind of tolerances their DAW faders have!

 

[bouldersoundguy]

Hi , I have seen some tutorials in which they claim that , you should always keep the faders in the mixer at around 0 db and if you have to increase or decrease the volume of a track do it by putting a gain plugin on the track.... is it true that if we drop a fader much below 0 db.....the resolution of sound decreases ?
if it does what is this whole concept and what does that mean ? what do they mean by resolution ,what are they saying and why ?

Above is the original post. It's simple enough: the original poster was under the impression that fader settings too far below 0 caused a loss in audio resolution (see bold text). That is not true, but it is true that fader resolution (dB change per given amount of fader movement) decreases making it harder to make precise changes in level. That's all there is to it.

 

[RFR]

Above is the original post. It's simple enough: the original poster was under the impression that fader settings too far below 0 caused a loss in audio resolution (see bold text). That is not true, but it is true that fader resolution (dB change per given amount of fader movement) decreases making it harder to make precise changes in level. That's all there is to it.

And there you have it. Thread over.

 

[Farview]

BSG just answered (for at least the 5th time in the thread) the OP's question.

The OP is most certainly talking about daw faders, because he brings up gain plugins and I've never head of anyone taking about 'audio resolution' in the analog realm.

I know where this idea got started, and it comes from a misunderstanding of where and under what circumstances resolution would be lost by moving a fader.

This illustrates a common issue with DAW only engineers: They can accomplish quite a lot without understanding signal flow and all the separate processes going on in the box. for example, it's too easy to look at an interface as a single thing, instead of a set of mic preamps, ad converters, da converters, headphone amp, etc... let alone understand how all those internal parts interact with each other.

 

[garww]

I'd still like to see the OCD tutorial : ) That remains a source of pleasure for me watching people obsess

 

[miroslav]

This illustrates a common issue with DAW only engineers: They can accomplish quite a lot without understanding signal flow and all the separate processes going on in the box. for example, it's too easy to look at an interface as a single thing, instead of a set of mic preamps, ad converters, da converters, headphone amp, etc... let alone understand how all those internal parts interact with each other.

 

[ashcat_lt]

The real problem here being that there's a grain of truth to the "myth" that we've busted. It is technically, theoretically, and demonstrably true that attenuating (via fader or gain plug or whatever) necessarily must decrease the overall resolution of the system. the thing is, though, that there's already so much resolution in a modern DAW mix engine that it literally makes no difference unless you do something really (like absurdly and probably deliberately) stupid. You've heard the expression "throwing a hot dog down a hallway"? Yeah, that.

You just can't lose any resolution that's not already there to begin with. Your 24 bit ADC already has more dynamic range than any of your analog gear - even without "using all the bits". 32 bit floating point is actually a lot more than 8 bits more precision than 24 bit fixed, and most DAWs are running 64 bit floating nowadays. You can literally attenuate by hundreds of db before you start to lose any useful information. All those spots beyond the decimal place are zeroes anyway, so chopping them off means absolutely nothing. If you're actually going to attenuate your signals by 300db and then gain them back up to audible (or vice versa)...

Now, if your source is actually generated inside the DAW's floating point environment, then it can and probably will actually use all that absurd amount of resolution, and any attenuation after absolutely will reduce that. Attenuate 20db, gain back up 20db, and do a "null test" against the original. There will be a measurable difference. You'll have to gain it up by several hundred db before it even tries to pass your DAC, and somewhere close to another 100db before you'll actually be able to discern it from the rest of the noise in your system.

So, in general practice, it really doesn't make any damn difference at all. It technically could, but it won't unless you're a complete whackjob.

Things are much worse in analog BTW. Any passive, resistive attenuator must add some tiny amount of noise just because that's the way resistors work. It's almost none, but not actually none. What's worse is that following stages will always add noise of their own, and by attenuating a signal, you're pushing it further down into that noise floor. This is a real loss of resolution and will be measurable, audible, noticeable, and significant a lot faster than anything you could ever do in a modern DAW environment.

 

[42low]

Hey! I never even addressed you. I was having a bit of fun with one of gawwr's posts.

Not the first time that you back up miroslav laughing out loud making much more ridiculous as if you know all.
And sure, i didn't read most of your reactions cause on ignore for a wile now.

There's a difference between 20%, 10%, 5%, 1% tolerances...and you control the performance by what you use. You select the components that fit the design...and/or your budget.

Right. And who have a mixer with 1% tolerance faders? You think all those beringers and so have?
Most will be the regular 10% and if there lucky the more expensive 5%. Most over here don't have Allen & Heath or whatever, so my advice ain't that stupid at all.

What exactly do you base your perspectives on...since several people here have pointed out to you that you are wrong...?

By chance it's so that i did some years higher electronics school and had to calculate with it, including calculating the negative effects of the not to adjust tolerances do within the electronic design. Some time ago, but i have some knowledge about this subject.

So in main my advise ain't that bad at all. Not even starting about the extra wear the faders get when alway's on max or minus.

Yeah was thinking the same thing....the OP was talking about DAW virtual faders...and suddenly we're talking baout physical console faders...which is fine, but only confused the original.

Where does he say that? I only read 'fader' and 'mixer'. No where i read DAW.
You can't be more sure it's about daw faders than i could about physical faders. So what did i do wrong with reacting on physical faders?

Hi , I have seen some tutorials in which they claim that , you should always keep the faders in the mixer at around 0 db and if you have to increase or decrease the volume of a track do it by putting a gain plugin on the track.... is it true that if we drop a fader much below 0 db.....the resolution of sound decreases ?
if it does what is this whole concept and what does that mean ? what do they mean by resolution ,what are they saying and why ?

You're just rambling now....

So who doesn't know what he's talking about? Who's rambling? And who's bashing?
Again, what's your problem man??

Keep it civil, gentlemen

That's exactly what i'm asking for. Each time some can't stand to bash on me and insult me trying to make me look like a fool talking sh*t. But i won't accept it.
So now i will never ever make the mistake again to open an ignored reaction. I'm totally though with some.

 

[bouldersoundguy]

I don't call that resolution, I call that noise floor. It's still 6dB per bit until you get close to the noise floor where things do get iffy.

 

[RFR]

Not the first time that you back up miroslav laughing out loud making much more ridiculous as if you know all.
And sure, i didn't read most of your reactions cause on ignore for a wile now.

Wow! How egotistical of you.

Miro and I are in freindly terms and will joke back and forth at times 'with each other'

For you to assume it is about you is not only egotistical but stupid and misguided.

Rest assured, i don't even know and care anything about you. And your posts carry no importance in my life.

Without using my 'ignore' function, I can ignore you, simply because what you say doesn't matter.

So carry on. I will.

 

[ashcat_lt]

I don't call that resolution, I call that noise floor. It's still 6dB per bit until you get close to the noise floor where things do get iffy.

It's dynamic range, which is the only real meaningful definition of the term "audio resolution".

 

[garww]

It's dynamic range, which is the only real meaningful definition of the term "audio resolution".

Hence, peak to peak

 

[miroslav]

And who have a mixer with 1% tolerance faders? You think all those beringers and so have?

If you want to reduce this discussion down to the cheapest gear...and then argue that it has poor tolerances and/or cuases some audio degradation...THAT is a totally different discussion than arguing how faders lose resolution at lower/higher settings.
Your initial comments about faders never focused the discussion on Behringer or cheap gear or whatever...you were talking in general about faders...so now you are just back-stepping and trying to save face.

In previous threads you've gone on and on about how you recorded with pros in pro studios, trying to impress everyone here...blah, blah, blah...but now you want to talk about cheap gear, Behringer and non-pro recording. to cover your missteps.

AFA this thread being about DAWs...and not hardware consoles and faders...read the original post.
He was talking about gain-staging **plugins** instead of moving the faders and about "resolution" (which is a digital term). Everyone here knew that he was talking about DAWs...you're the one that went off and started talking about hardware.
Regardless, DAW faders or hardware...there is no audio degradation with fader movement. The 1%, 5% 10% fader tolerances doesn't imply audio degradation, it implies the accuracy of the fader output across its length.
IOW...with wider tolerance, a group of faders in a console might not all output perfectly the same when lined up equally.
It doesn't necessarily mean that the audio will degrade by 10% VS 5% VS 1%.

Oh...and for the record, I actually have a minor degree in Electronic Audio Technology...so I'm rarely lost and confused in these types of discussions, and the other guys here who are disagreeing with you know their shit quite well...so really, no one is making a fool out of you...you keep doing it to yourself with this fader discussion.
Just accept that you are wrong...or don't, and keep arguing foolishly.
Your choice.

 

[ashcat_lt]

Hence, peak to peak

Well, no.

More like noise floor to clipping threshold or maybe to loudest peak.

 

[miroslav]

More like peck to peck.

 

[garww]

Well, no.

More like noise floor to clipping threshold or maybe to loudest peak.

That's more like some digital interpretation of something that's existed for decades. I was looking for my experimental tracks at -65 in the beginning, but they must be under Linux, somewhere. Dynamic range of music doesn't really care about noise floor

 

[bouldersoundguy]

It's dynamic range, which is the only real meaningful definition of the term "audio resolution".

Agreed, which is why I dislike the term resolution for audio. It brings up unfortunate comparisons with digital imaging where different numbers of pixels can represent the same field of view, and different numbers of bits can represent the same dynamic range.