On Sun, 15 Aug 2010 14:17:45 +0200
fons@kokkinizita.net wrote:
> On Sun, Aug 15, 2010 at 09:50:32AM +0100, Gordon JC Pearce wrote:
>
> > On Sat, 2010-08-14 at 22:51 +0200, fons@kokkinizita.net wrote:
> >
> > > On Sat, Aug 14, 2010 at 12:19:33AM -0700, Niels Mayer wrote:
> > >
> > > > The big issue with having the full 144dB range is that the "business"
> > > > end of the slider is all at the top,
> > >
> > > I've never seen a real fader that has any practical resolution
> > > below -80 dB: the next tick, 5mm or so down, is 'Off'. And most
> > > don't even go down that much.
> >
> > I'm sure most people on here know this, but the decibel scale is a
> > relative logarithmic scale.
>
> I'm sure most people know that. And what is supposed to follow from
> this ? Most faders will be calibrated +10 or +15 dB at the top, so
> if the last tick is -80 dB, that means a range of 95 dB. More than
> that is pretty useless. The 144 dB range of the chip just reflects
> the fact that the gain is set by a 24-bit integer value, that's all.
>
> > Saying "-80dB" means that whatever went in
> > was attenuated by 80dB, or 1x10E8
>
> 1e8 in power, 1e4 in amplitude.
>
> - if you put in a 1V signal, a 0.01µV signal will result.
>
> 0.1 mv actually.
>
> Ciao,
In my (limited) experience a practical mixing fader, as opposed to a
gain control, doesn't need more than 60dB range, and a L-R panning
control, even less - probably as little as 40dB.
-- Will J Godfrey http://www.musically.me.uk Say you have a poem and I have a tune. Exchange them and we can both have a poem, a tune, and a song. _______________________________________________ Linux-audio-dev mailing list Linux-audio-dev@lists.linuxaudio.org http://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-devReceived on Sun Aug 15 20:15:02 2010
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Sun Aug 15 2010 - 20:15:02 EEST