Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

digital faders distort sound

Last response: in Home Audio
Share
Anonymous
October 19, 2004 9:15:56 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

I've noticed that the further down you go with a digital fader
(attenuation) the more lifeless and digitized the signal becomes.
when you have a full mix and obviously you need to keep the faders
down a bit this is a concern, I believe.

opinions?
Anonymous
October 19, 2004 2:21:18 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

In article <25150933.0410190415.773e8144@posting.google.com>,
maxdm <maxdimario@aliceposta.it> wrote:
>I've noticed that the further down you go with a digital fader
>(attenuation) the more lifeless and digitized the signal becomes.
> when you have a full mix and obviously you need to keep the faders
>down a bit this is a concern, I believe.
>
>opinions?

This is a sign you have some sort of low-level nonlinearity issues going
on. This should not happen unless you have something nasty like truncation
going on, or if you have a buss that is way too low resolution. What sort
of console have you noticed this on?
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
Anonymous
October 19, 2004 3:42:12 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

All the bits are not being used and you get a degrigation in signal, are you
getting the signal from a tape machine or your computer? THat also makes a
difference. The tape machine should not have ny distortion, if it does your
mixer crossover is doing that. If it is a digital signal, try to add some
dither to the signal, maybe that could help.

"maxdm" <maxdimario@aliceposta.it> wrote in message
news:25150933.0410190415.773e8144@posting.google.com...
> I've noticed that the further down you go with a digital fader
> (attenuation) the more lifeless and digitized the signal becomes.
> when you have a full mix and obviously you need to keep the faders
> down a bit this is a concern, I believe.
>
> opinions?
Related resources
Anonymous
October 19, 2004 6:08:37 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

maxdm wrote:

> I've noticed that the further down you go with a digital fader
> (attenuation) the more lifeless and digitized the signal becomes.
> when you have a full mix and obviously you need to keep the faders
> down a bit this is a concern, I believe.
>
> opinions?

Define the terms Lifeless and Digitized as you used them here please.
Also on what makes/models of mixers do you notice this effect?
I have not noticed this effect, but I'm primarily a data and power
guy.

--Dale
Anonymous
October 19, 2004 7:34:24 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

"maxdm" <maxdimario@aliceposta.it> wrote in message
news:25150933.0410190415.773e8144@posting.google.com

> I've noticed that the further down you go with a digital fader
> (attenuation) the more lifeless and digitized the signal becomes.

I've noticed the same thing with analog faders. Don't you think that might
be due to the Fletcher Munson effect?

> when you have a full mix and obviously you need to keep the faders down a
> bit this is a concern, I believe.

What might be an example of a "full mix"?

> opinions?

When it comes to human perception, psychoacoustics rules.
Anonymous
October 19, 2004 7:34:25 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

> What might be an example of a "full mix"?

When you are using all the channels on your board you must turn the gain
down somewhere. Either on your channels or your master gain.
Anonymous
October 19, 2004 8:41:36 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

"Chip Borton" <chip@cybermesa.com> wrote in message
news:xLadnbr_Dc6A7ujcRVn-oA@comcast.com
>> What might be an example of a "full mix"?
>
> When you are using all the channels on your board you must turn the
> gain down somewhere. Either on your channels or your master gain.

Thinking about modern digital consoles, I think about products like the
Yamaha 01V, 02R, DM1000, DM2000 etc. These products are all have
properly-dithered 24 bit busses and faders which have in excess of 140 dB
dynamic range.

AFAIK, its pretty difficult to achive more than 120-130 dB with the
corresponding analog circuitry.

In either the case of good analog or digital faders, the signal disappears
into the noise floor as you turn it down. The digital faders and busses have
the advantage of at least 10 dB more dynamic range, or as one might say, a
10 dB lower noise floor.

Please explain why a digital noise floor that would be at least 10 dB lower
than analog would some kind of sonic disadvantage.
October 19, 2004 8:44:59 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

This is true.......

Digital is an aproximation of the signal already, when attenuating it doesnt
get any better.
I have noticed on my behringer crossover DCX2496 that the main faders do
major damage but the crossover functions are "not" noticable. I geuss the
had to compromise because of proccecing power........

CO


"maxdm" <maxdimario@aliceposta.it> wrote in message
news:25150933.0410190415.773e8144@posting.google.com...
> I've noticed that the further down you go with a digital fader
> (attenuation) the more lifeless and digitized the signal becomes.
> when you have a full mix and obviously you need to keep the faders
> down a bit this is a concern, I believe.
>
> opinions?
Anonymous
October 19, 2004 8:45:00 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

CO wrote:

> I have noticed on my behringer crossover DCX2496 that the main faders do
> major damage

Please expand on that and explain in more detail what you're hearing and
what settings deliver "major damage". I'm curious.

--
ha
Anonymous
October 19, 2004 9:03:05 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

"Sylvester Malik" <sylvestermalik@sympatico.ca> wrote in message news:<yBadd.22979$J16.888601@news20.bellglobal.com>...
> All the bits are not being used and you get a degrigation in signal, are you
> getting the signal from a tape machine or your computer? THat also makes a
> difference. The tape machine should not have ny distortion, if it does your
> mixer crossover is doing that. If it is a digital signal, try to add some
> dither to the signal, maybe that could help.
>
Please, use your ears, and let me know.
I notice a big difference from -15 to -30 dB etc.

try lowering your master if you ain't got a full range track.
it sounds different to me and to another friend (who has sold 15 million records)
Anonymous
October 19, 2004 9:29:00 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

CO wrote:
> Digital is an aproximation of the signal already,

So is analog...

- Logan
Anonymous
October 19, 2004 9:29:01 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

In article <w9cdd.25055$rY1.7345@fe2.texas.rr.com>,
Logan Shaw <lshaw-usenet@austin.rr.com> wrote:
>CO wrote:
>> Digital is an aproximation of the signal already,
>
>So is analog...

It's right. Only live music is any good at all.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
Anonymous
October 20, 2004 1:45:13 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Arny Krueger wrote:

> Don't you think that might be due to the Fletcher Munson effect?

There's a new plugin to compensate for that, the Meltcher Bunsen plug,
which warms up the signal considerably and puts lots more life into
playback.

--
ha
Anonymous
October 20, 2004 6:23:49 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

"Arny Krueger" <arnyk@hotpop.com> wrote in message news:<bIydnRYjq5-h8ejcRVn-oA@comcast.com>...
> "maxdm" <maxdimario@aliceposta.it> wrote in message
> news:25150933.0410190415.773e8144@posting.google.com
>
> > I've noticed that the further down you go with a digital fader
> > (attenuation) the more lifeless and digitized the signal becomes.
>
> I've noticed the same thing with analog faders. Don't you think that might
> be due to the Fletcher Munson effect?

Not exactly.
Try this:

Place the cursor at - 20 db and RAISE THE CONTROL ROOM VOLUME 20 dB so
that the listening volume is the SAME.

You will notice loss of detail etc. and on some of the DAW you will
notice a different spectral balance (brighter darker etc.)
this won't happen with a proper analog 600/600 attenuator (fader) but
a similar effect *might* come through on an improperly biased VCA I
guess.
Anonymous
October 20, 2004 10:36:44 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Arny Krueger wrote:
> I've noticed the same thing with analog faders. Don't you think that might
> be due to the Fletcher Munson effect?
:
:
> When it comes to human perception, psychoacoustics rules.

Oh, speaking of that, I've been wondering about something for a while,
and I'm curious if maybe someone here has any insight.

Sometimes I find myself hearing music at a level that is quite low.
Not quite down to the level of barely perceptible, but more at the
kind of level where I can hear the music well enough to recognize
parts of it but not well enough to necessarily follow along. For
instance, this happens in my car, where the aftermarket CD unit I
installed has a habit of resetting its volume level to something
way too low whenever I turn off the ignition. It is low enough
that, because of ambient noise, I often don't even notice that it's
playing.

Anyway, if I'm listening at this low level, I get a certain idea of
the pitch, i.e. the key that the song is in. If I then turn the
volume up so that it's normal listening level (or even below normal
listening level but high enough that I can clearly make everything
out), then the pitch seems to increase by something on the order
of 1/2 of a semitone to a full semitone! If I then lower the volume
again, it doesn't seem to go back down in pitch and instead stays
where it was at the higher volume, as if my brain has somehow "locked
on" to the proper pitch once it got a taste of it.

Perhaps coincidentally or perhaps not, I am trying to develop perfect
pitch, and I have a habit of coming in about 1 semitone low or maybe
a little less than that. For instance, I'll hear a song in my head
and start singing it, and I'll be in C#, but then I'll put the CD in
and play it to compare, and the song is actually in D.

So am I a brain-damaged freak or is this a known phenomenon? :-)

- Logan
Anonymous
October 20, 2004 12:15:33 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

On Tue, 19 Oct 2004 08:15:56 -0400, maxdm wrote
(in article <25150933.0410190415.773e8144@posting.google.com>):

> I've noticed that the further down you go with a digital fader
> (attenuation) the more lifeless and digitized the signal becomes.
> when you have a full mix and obviously you need to keep the faders
> down a bit this is a concern, I believe.
>
> opinions?

If lower volume is achieved by fewer bits (and it doesn't HAVE to be that
way), you end up with fewer bits describing each sound. That makes for grainy
sound.

You may also be being tricked by the fletcher munsen curve.

Regards,

Ty Ford



-- Ty Ford's equipment reviews, audio samples, rates and other audiocentric
stuff are at www.tyford.com
October 20, 2004 12:47:09 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

> > I have noticed on my behringer crossover DCX2496 that the main faders do
> > major damage
>
> Please expand on that and explain in more detail what you're hearing and
> what settings deliver "major damage". I'm curious.



OK, major is a bit overdone.........

On both the in and outputs the software algorithm is of a much lesser
quality than the crossover attenuation possibilities (which can cover full
bandwidth, and also digital) on my modified (powersupply) behringer DCX2496
OS version 1.16 iirc. Thats why i think they had to put the DSP power where
they needed it most.

Even a 0,1db change (compared to off) gives a noticable loss of ambient
sound on a high resolution setup.
Indeed it becomes a little lifeless.

I cant say all digital attenuation is bad perse..

Resistive fading could do even more damage though depending on the
brand/materials/setup.
There are a couple of pots that standout though........

Using a transformer to do this retains te highest quality though.

Regards, Coolin
Anonymous
October 20, 2004 1:04:48 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

"CO" <nomail@plea.se> wrote in message
news:10nc2jmho9etraa@corp.supernews.com
>>> I have noticed on my behringer crossover DCX2496 that the main
>>> faders do major damage
>>
>> Please expand on that and explain in more detail what you're hearing
>> and what settings deliver "major damage". I'm curious.

> OK, major is a bit overdone.........

> On both the in and outputs the software algorithm is of a much lesser
> quality than the crossover attenuation possibilities (which can cover
> full bandwidth, and also digital) on my modified (powersupply)
> behringer DCX2496 OS version 1.16 iirc. Thats why i think they had to
> put the DSP power where they needed it most.

> Even a 0,1db change (compared to off) gives a noticable loss of
> ambient sound on a high resolution setup.

In any resonable comparison, no way, Jose'

> Indeed it becomes a little lifeless.

Anybody who rants and raves about the audibility of 0.1 dB changes is either
dealing with grotesquely defective equipment or some kind of biased
listening test.


> I cant say all digital attenuation is bad perse..

> Resistive fading could do even more damage though depending on the
> brand/materials/setup.
> There are a couple of pots that standout though........
>
> Using a transformer to do this retains te highest quality though.

This very much depends on the quality of the transformer. Since your
baseline DCX2496 is budget-priced digital, it's logical to use a
budget-priced transformer for the comparison. BTW, the budget priced
transoformer will still cost far more. The sound quality losses in
budget-grade transformers can easily be so egregious that the claim that
"Using a transformer to do this retains te highest quality though." is
summarily demolished.
Anonymous
October 20, 2004 3:04:11 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

On Wed, 20 Oct 2004 02:23:49 -0700, maxdm wrote:

> "Arny Krueger" <arnyk@hotpop.com> wrote in message news:<bIydnRYjq5-h8ejcRVn-oA@comcast.com>...
>> "maxdm" <maxdimario@aliceposta.it> wrote in message
>> news:25150933.0410190415.773e8144@posting.google.com
>>
>> > I've noticed that the further down you go with a digital fader
>> > (attenuation) the more lifeless and digitized the signal becomes.
>>
>> I've noticed the same thing with analog faders. Don't you think that might
>> be due to the Fletcher Munson effect?
>
> Not exactly.
> Try this:
>
> Place the cursor at - 20 db and RAISE THE CONTROL ROOM VOLUME 20 dB so
> that the listening volume is the SAME.
>
> You will notice loss of detail etc. and on some of the DAW you will
> notice a different spectral balance (brighter darker etc.)
> this won't happen with a proper analog 600/600 attenuator (fader) but
> a similar effect *might* come through on an improperly biased VCA I
> guess.

That effect could be your D/As not working so well with less bits?

Try setting up some routing in a DAW so the same signal is routed
both to the master outs and through as many channels and busses as
possible, all with their faders at different levels. Then, put a polarity
inversion plug on the last bus, and adjust the level so it nulls with the
original signal.

In Cubase SX the faders don't seem to lose information, so even with the
most tortuous routing, it will still null.
Anonymous
October 20, 2004 3:15:49 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

In article <10nc2jmho9etraa@corp.supernews.com>, CO <nomail@plea.se> wrote:
>
>On both the in and outputs the software algorithm is of a much lesser
>quality than the crossover attenuation possibilities (which can cover full
>bandwidth, and also digital) on my modified (powersupply) behringer DCX2496
>OS version 1.16 iirc. Thats why i think they had to put the DSP power where
>they needed it most.
>
>Even a 0,1db change (compared to off) gives a noticable loss of ambient
>sound on a high resolution setup.
>Indeed it becomes a little lifeless.

This is still very bad, and I would not consider this acceptable. Have you
submitted a bug report to the Behringer guys?

>I cant say all digital attenuation is bad perse..

It shouldn't be, and there is really no reason for it to be bad at all because
CPU time is cheap. It takes so little to do it right that there is no reason
not to.

>Resistive fading could do even more damage though depending on the
>brand/materials/setup.
>There are a couple of pots that standout though........
>
>Using a transformer to do this retains te highest quality though.

I disagree. A good resistive attenuator should be a lot cleaner than an
autotransformer fader. If you don't like pots, stepped attenuators are just
fine.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
October 20, 2004 7:24:23 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

> > Even a 0,1db change (compared to off) gives a noticable loss of
> > ambient sound on a high resolution setup.
>
> In any resonable comparison, no way, Jose'


Your missing my point. I'm not saying 0.1db is audible but the lesser
quality digital fader kickes in at -0.1 db as compared to 0 db (as in OFF,
as in not in the loop.)
So my point is if not well executed it can be harmfull. To a lesser degree
top quality digital attenuation might do harm as well.


> > Using a transformer to do this retains te highest quality though.
>
> This very much depends on the quality of the transformer. Since your
> baseline DCX2496 is budget-priced digital, it's logical to use a
> budget-priced transformer for the comparison. BTW, the budget priced
> transoformer will still cost far more. The sound quality losses in
> budget-grade transformers can easily be so egregious that the claim that
> "Using a transformer to do this retains te highest quality though." is
> summarily demolished.

Indeed, expensive transformers.......
Anonymous
October 20, 2004 7:24:24 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

"CO" <nomail@plea.se> wrote in message
news:10ncpsgh49ikpbd@corp.supernews.com

>>> Even a 0,1db change (compared to off) gives a noticable loss of
>>> ambient sound on a high resolution setup.

>> In any resonable comparison, no way, Jose'

> Your missing my point.

Really?

> I'm not saying 0.1db is audible but the lesser
> quality digital fader kickes in at -0.1 db as compared to 0 db (as in
> OFF, as in not in the loop.)

Good quality digital faders can be shown to be completely undetectable when
set for up to a 1-2 0.1's of a dB because of the audibility of the change
for larger amounts of attenuation. Good digital faders are inaudible when
compared to a good quality analog fader set for the identically same amount
of attenuation. I've done this experiment many times, but blind testing can
be very helpful to avoid listener bias, particularly among listeners who are
analog bigots or simply poorly-informed.

Digital attenuators can be readily built with incredibly large amounts of
resolution for example 100's of dBs, while analog attenuators have
real-world resolution issues in the 120-130 dB that I described in the part
of my post that you decided to ignore. The digital attenuators in my
favorite mixer have dynamic range around 1,000 dB. Of course there is no
audible difference between dynamic range of 120 dB or 1000 dB.

> So my point is if not well executed it can be harmfull. To a lesser
> degree top quality digital attenuation might do harm as well.

The sky might fall. So much for global claims including the word "might".

>>> Using a transformer to do this retains te highest quality though.
>>
>> This very much depends on the quality of the transformer. Since your
>> baseline DCX2496 is budget-priced digital, it's logical to use a
>> budget-priced transformer for the comparison. BTW, the budget priced
>> transoformer will still cost far more. The sound quality losses in
>> budget-grade transformers can easily be so egregious that the claim
>> that "Using a transformer to do this retains te highest quality
>> though." is summarily demolished.

> Indeed, expensive transformers.......

....still corrupt the signal far more than well-executed but far less
expensive active and passive approaches, given that we're talking about
circuitry inside the console.

Transformers can be justified as interfacing devices to the outside world
when that world is atypically noisy, or as a means to obtain desired kinds
audible coloration.
Anonymous
October 21, 2004 4:49:26 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

"Logan Shaw" <lshaw-usenet@austin.rr.com> wrote in message
news:0Indd.22261$Rf4.19316@fe2.texas.rr.com...
> Arny Krueger wrote:
>> I've noticed the same thing with analog faders. Don't you think that
>> might
>> be due to the Fletcher Munson effect?
> :
> :
>> When it comes to human perception, psychoacoustics rules.
>
> Oh, speaking of that, I've been wondering about something for a while,
> and I'm curious if maybe someone here has any insight.
>
> Sometimes I find myself hearing music at a level that is quite low.
> Not quite down to the level of barely perceptible, but more at the
> kind of level where I can hear the music well enough to recognize
> parts of it but not well enough to necessarily follow along. For
> instance, this happens in my car, where the aftermarket CD unit I
> installed has a habit of resetting its volume level to something
> way too low whenever I turn off the ignition. It is low enough
> that, because of ambient noise, I often don't even notice that it's
> playing.
>
> Anyway, if I'm listening at this low level, I get a certain idea of
> the pitch, i.e. the key that the song is in. If I then turn the
> volume up so that it's normal listening level (or even below normal
> listening level but high enough that I can clearly make everything
> out), then the pitch seems to increase by something on the order
> of 1/2 of a semitone to a full semitone! If I then lower the volume
> again, it doesn't seem to go back down in pitch and instead stays
> where it was at the higher volume, as if my brain has somehow "locked
> on" to the proper pitch once it got a taste of it.
>
> Perhaps coincidentally or perhaps not, I am trying to develop perfect
> pitch, and I have a habit of coming in about 1 semitone low or maybe
> a little less than that. For instance, I'll hear a song in my head
> and start singing it, and I'll be in C#, but then I'll put the CD in
> and play it to compare, and the song is actually in D.
>
> So am I a brain-damaged freak or is this a known phenomenon? :-)

I don't know if you could say it's a known phenomenon exactly as you
describe it, but it's similar to an effect that happens to singers who are
trying to sing while monitoring with full cans (i.e. NOT leaving one ear
open/off), or even sometimes onstage/live... if the music's too loud -
relative to their own vocal volume in the mix - they tend to go sharp, if
the music's too soft - again, relative to their vocal volume - they tend to
go flat. This is certainly not universal, but it's common enough to where
I'd bet most everyone here has seen it happen.

Neil Henderson
Anonymous
October 21, 2004 9:39:39 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

> Try setting up some routing in a DAW so the same signal is routed
> both to the master outs and through as many channels and busses as
> possible, all with their faders at different levels. Then, put a polarity
> inversion plug on the last bus, and adjust the level so it nulls with the
> original signal.
>
> In Cubase SX the faders don't seem to lose information, so even with the
> most tortuous routing, it will still null.

Digital distortion appears above 5KHz to my ears.
try doing the same thing above with a FULL RANGE WELL RECORDED SIGNAL
(a group playing or a solo performance that has some high end to it).

the fletcher munsen curve is volume--dependent, and the whole idea is
to listen to the sound always AT THE SAME LEVEL by using an external
volume control you trust to be reasonably distortion -free

AF sine waves are not music, they are absolutely the easyest waveform
to reproduce, and this is why manufacturers love sine wave tests so
much!
October 21, 2004 12:40:22 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

> I don't know if you could say it's a known phenomenon exactly as you
> describe it, but it's similar to an effect that happens to singers who are
> trying to sing while monitoring with full cans (i.e. NOT leaving one ear
> open/off), or even sometimes onstage/live... if the music's too loud -
> relative to their own vocal volume in the mix - they tend to go sharp, if
> the music's too soft - again, relative to their vocal volume - they tend
to
> go flat. This is certainly not universal, but it's common enough to where
> I'd bet most everyone here has seen it happen.


Ive read something about not being able to judge pitch precisely at higher
volumes.

I think this is the reason when you see live (loud) music on TV you think
boy that sounds false,
but if you were there at the same concert you wouldnt have noticed.

Coolin
Anonymous
October 21, 2004 12:44:34 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

"Logan Shaw" <lshaw-usenet@austin.rr.com> wrote in message
news:0Indd.22261$Rf4.19316@fe2.texas.rr.com
> Arny Krueger wrote:
>> I've noticed the same thing with analog faders. Don't you think that
>> might be due to the Fletcher Munson effect?
> :
> :
>> When it comes to human perception, psychoacoustics rules.

> Anyway, if I'm listening at this low level, I get a certain idea of
> the pitch, i.e. the key that the song is in. If I then turn the
> volume up so that it's normal listening level (or even below normal
> listening level but high enough that I can clearly make everything
> out), then the pitch seems to increase by something on the order
> of 1/2 of a semitone to a full semitone! If I then lower the volume
> again, it doesn't seem to go back down in pitch and instead stays
> where it was at the higher volume, as if my brain has somehow "locked
> on" to the proper pitch once it got a taste of it.

Please see page one of
http://www.acoustics.hut.fi/teaching/S-89.320/2004/KA6b... .

The diagram is labelled "Pitch of a pure tone as a function of amplitude",
It's shown as being an inverse effect at low frequencies, about neutral at 2
KHz. and as a positive (increase amplitude, increase perceived pitch) above
2 KHz.

http://www.diku.dk/musinf/courses/mi/perception.pdf

Page 3 slide 2 shows a similar, but slightly different story.
October 21, 2004 12:55:03 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

>Even a 0,1db change (compared to off) gives a noticable loss of ambient
> >sound on a high resolution setup.
> >Indeed it becomes a little lifeless.
>
> This is still very bad, and I would not consider this acceptable. Have
you
> submitted a bug report to the Behringer guys?


There is an update available but i havent done that yet, i doubt this has
been resolved though....


> >I cant say all digital attenuation is bad perse..
>
> It shouldn't be, and there is really no reason for it to be bad at all
because
> CPU time is cheap. It takes so little to do it right that there is no
reason
> not to.


It might be cheap but theres a cpu status and even without using alot of
functions its already
80~90% busy depending on configuration. They had to cut corners
somewhere.....


> >Resistive fading could do even more damage though depending on the
> >brand/materials/setup.
> >There are a couple of pots that standout though........
> >
> >Using a transformer to do this retains te highest quality though.
>
> I disagree. A good resistive attenuator should be a lot cleaner than an
> autotransformer fader. If you don't like pots, stepped attenuators are
just
> fine.

Define good. There are BIG differences here. Resistors have there own sound.
It also depends on Impedance and gear of course. Resistors are very clean
and detailed sounding but they still do damage in a musical sense.

Later, Coolin
Anonymous
October 21, 2004 12:55:04 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

"CO" <nomail@plea.se> wrote in message
news:10nenehjij5gbfd@corp.supernews.com
>> Even a 0,1db change (compared to off) gives a noticable loss of
>> ambient
>>> sound on a high resolution setup.
>>> Indeed it becomes a little lifeless.
>>
>> This is still very bad, and I would not consider this acceptable.
>> Have
> you
>> submitted a bug report to the Behringer guys?
>
>
> There is an update available but i havent done that yet, i doubt this
> has been resolved though....

No doubt the B. tech staff are used to dealing with people who really
believe that there is such a problem to hear.
Anonymous
October 21, 2004 12:56:11 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

On or about 19 Oct 2004 13:34:55 -0400, Scott Dorsey allegedly wrote:

> In article <w9cdd.25055$rY1.7345@fe2.texas.rr.com>,
> Logan Shaw <lshaw-usenet@austin.rr.com> wrote:
> >CO wrote:
> >> Digital is an aproximation of the signal already,
> >
> >So is analog...
>
> It's right. Only live music is any good at all.

Yes, but if I'm standing next to you, I will still only hear approximately
what you are hearing. So which one of us is getting the truth?


Noel Bachelor noelbachelorAT(From:_domain)
Language Recordings Inc (Darwin Australia)
October 21, 2004 3:00:06 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

You're not getting Doppler distortion caused by ramming your car
repeatedly into your stereo are you?
Anonymous
October 21, 2004 10:25:35 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

maxdm wrote:

> AF sine waves are not music, they are absolutely the easyest waveform
> to reproduce, and this is why manufacturers love sine wave tests so
> much!

Continuous reproduction of a sine wave is demanding of power amplifiers,
so as a measure of an amp's ability to deliver power it can be a
valuable measurement parameter. Manufacturers, particularly those in the
consumer realm, did not much appreciate having to subject their amps to
continuous RMS testing because under such conditions their amps could
deliver only a fraction of their marketing department's TIP (Totally
Imaginary Power).

The relative purity of a sine wave facilitates determination of harmonic
distortion.

A very good flautist can produce a reasonably nice sine wave, and lots
of people consider flutes a musical instrument.

--
ha
Anonymous
October 21, 2004 11:28:53 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

"Noel Bachelor" <see.my.sig@bigpond.com> wrote in message
news:4177616d.527891427@news.bigpond.com...
> Yes, but if I'm standing next to you, I will still only hear approximately
> what you are hearing. So which one of us is getting the truth?

What is "truth" grasshopper :-)

TonyP.
Anonymous
October 21, 2004 11:40:17 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Gary wrote:

> You're not getting Doppler distortion caused by ramming your car
> repeatedly into your stereo are you?

Probably not. It's rumored he has a trunk full of WD40.

--
ha
Anonymous
October 22, 2004 12:11:25 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

"maxdm" <maxdimario@aliceposta.it> wrote in message
> Not exactly.
> Try this:
>
> Place the cursor at - 20 db and RAISE THE CONTROL ROOM VOLUME 20 dB so
> that the listening volume is the SAME.
>
> You will notice loss of detail etc. and on some of the DAW you will
> notice a different spectral balance (brighter darker etc.)
> this won't happen with a proper analog 600/600 attenuator (fader) but
> a similar effect *might* come through on an improperly biased VCA I
> guess.

Of course yo will if you crank the gain ! You are then listening to the
equivalent of a 13 bit signal. If you crank the analogue gain as you
suggest, it is not a meaningful observation.

geoff
Anonymous
October 22, 2004 12:11:26 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

"Geoff Wood" <geoff@paf.co.nz-nospam> wrote in message
news:SiJdd.13285$mZ2.780795@news02.tsnz.net

> "maxdm" <maxdimario@aliceposta.it> wrote in message

>> Place the cursor at - 20 db and RAISE THE CONTROL ROOM VOLUME 20 dB
>> so that the listening volume is the SAME.

>> You will notice loss of detail etc. and on some of the DAW you will
>> notice a different spectral balance (brighter darker etc.)
>> this won't happen with a proper analog 600/600 attenuator (fader) but
>> a similar effect *might* come through on an improperly biased VCA I
>> guess.

> Of course yo will if you crank the gain ! You are then listening to
> the equivalent of a 13 bit signal. If you crank the analogue gain as
> you suggest, it is not a meaningful observation.

Since this is a properly-dithered system, the 13 bits is far less
signficiant than the correspointing 78 dB dynamic range, just like an analog
system with ultimate dynamic range of about 96 dB.

However, with real world recordings, 78 dB is unlikely to actually cause an
audible difference. Bias-controlled listening tests would probably bear this
out.

Either the Behringer or the listener is not performing up to general
expectations, but the listener may be hearing his expectations.
Anonymous
October 22, 2004 12:11:26 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

"Geoff Wood" <geoff@paf.co.nz-nospam> wrote in message news:<SiJdd.13285$mZ2.780795@news02.tsnz.net>...
> "maxdm" <maxdimario@aliceposta.it> wrote in message

> Of course yo will if you crank the gain ! You are then listening to the
> equivalent of a 13 bit signal. If you crank the analogue gain as you
> suggest, it is not a meaningful observation.
>
> geoff

If you feel that having 13 bit signals in your mix is ok, that's fine.
analog faders have absolute resolution all the way down to infinity.

when you have 20 tracks going at the same time you've got to back off
on those faders a bit. or turn the master down.

by the way I noticed that the master at -10 sounds different than at 0
even for the same rms output.

digital is not a perfect mixing medium, but very convenient and cheap.
Anonymous
October 22, 2004 3:38:37 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

On Thu, 21 Oct 2004 05:39:39 -0700, maxdm wrote:

>> Try setting up some routing in a DAW so the same signal is routed
>> both to the master outs and through as many channels and busses as
>> possible, all with their faders at different levels. Then, put a polarity
>> inversion plug on the last bus, and adjust the level so it nulls with the
>> original signal.
>>
>> In Cubase SX the faders don't seem to lose information, so even with the
>> most tortuous routing, it will still null.
>
> Digital distortion appears above 5KHz to my ears.
> try doing the same thing above with a FULL RANGE WELL RECORDED SIGNAL
> (a group playing or a solo performance that has some high end to it).

I tried this with whatever was in the multitrack at the time... vox,drums
and bass I think. Anyway, if it nulls, it nulls. The signal is identical.

I would say that not all DAWs compensate for latency properly when doing
this, so you may have to line up the tracks again afterwards.

Digital nasties above 5k is probably a clocking problem, jitter or
something not dithered properly. Are you dithering the output when
listening?

>
> the fletcher munsen curve is volume--dependent, and the whole idea is
> to listen to the sound always AT THE SAME LEVEL by using an external
> volume control you trust to be reasonably distortion -free

Naturaly.

>
> AF sine waves are not music, they are absolutely the easyest waveform to
> reproduce, and this is why manufacturers love sine wave tests so much!

More likely because the results are most useful from sine waves. Not all
tests are done with a single pure sine. IMD for instance.

I wonder if they are the easiest to reproduce? Personally, I can hear very
small amounts of distortion with a single sine wave, but it's harder to
hear with a complex signal.
Anonymous
October 22, 2004 11:16:39 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

"maxdm" <maxdimario@aliceposta.it> wrote in message
news:25150933.0410211020.27ed9a46@posting.google.com
> "Geoff Wood" <geoff@paf.co.nz-nospam> wrote in message
> news:<SiJdd.13285$mZ2.780795@news02.tsnz.net>...
>> "maxdm" <maxdimario@aliceposta.it> wrote in message
>
>> Of course yo will if you crank the gain ! You are then listening to
>> the equivalent of a 13 bit signal. If you crank the analogue gain
>> as you suggest, it is not a meaningful observation.
>>
>> geoff
>
> If you feel that having 13 bit signals in your mix is ok, that's fine.
> analog faders have absolute resolution all the way down to infinity.

That's your big mistake. Well-done digital faders have just as good
resolution down to infinity.

13 bit digital signals have the same resolution as an analog signal with
approximately 80 dB dyanmic range. Since 16 bit digital signals are common
place, but there is essentially no generally-used analog media that is
capable of 96 dB dynamic range, digital generally has the advantage when it
comes to resolution at low signal levels.

> when you have 20 tracks going at the same time you've got to back off
> on those faders a bit. or turn the master down.

It's not a problem. The world is full of 24 bit digital equipment with
dynamic range > 140 dB. I suggest you start trying to find an analog console
with > 140 dB dynamic range and not post until you can find one.

> by the way I noticed that the master at -10 sounds different than at 0
> even for the same rms output.

I think you're *hearing* your misapprehensions about digital, pure and
simple.

> digital is not a perfect mixing medium, but very convenient and cheap.
Anonymous
October 22, 2004 1:30:34 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

philicorda <philicordaNOOSPAM@azriel.tydrwg.com> wrote in message news:<pan.2004.10.23.02.55.55.42508@azriel.tydrwg.com>...
> On Thu, 21 Oct 2004 05:39:39 -0700, maxdm wrote:

> I tried this with whatever was in the multitrack at the time... vox,drums
> and bass I think. Anyway, if it nulls, it nulls. The signal is identical.
>
Could you describe what you did? I didn't get the technical details.
keep in mind that two signals that distort in the same way when summed
out of phase will null anyway.
Sine waves in digital come out fairly well. up until near sampling
frequency.
the more complex the wave the more difficult it is to reproduce.
THD is not the kind of distortion I am talking about, I am talking
about loss of imaging, depth and transient distortion.
Someone posted that a flute is like a sine wave, but the flute only
resembles a sine wave, I think most musicians and listeners will agree
that there is a lot more to the flute sound than a sine wave!

the ear is very sensitive to transients and phase/time distortion.
Anonymous
October 22, 2004 6:11:44 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

On 21 Oct 2004 11:00:06 -0700, Gary <midicad2001@yahoo.com> wrote:
> You're not getting Doppler distortion caused by ramming your car
> repeatedly into your stereo are you?

Oh THAT brings back memories! The final exam for Engineering Physics II
oh . um . .*COUGHS* years ago:

"You are driving towards a perfectly reflective brick wall at 100m/s.
The temperature is 35C and there is no wind.
Your blow your horn, which sounds a pure tone at 200Hz.

What pitches do you hear?

Note all the "Only in physics class" contrivences.
Anonymous
October 22, 2004 6:11:45 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

"U-CDK_CHARLES\\Charles" <"Charles Krug"@cdksystems.com> wrote in message news:<Ay8ed.6$803.1@trndny04>...
> On 21 Oct 2004 11:00:06 -0700, Gary <midicad2001@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > You're not getting Doppler distortion caused by ramming your car
> > repeatedly into your stereo are you?
>
> Oh THAT brings back memories! The final exam for Engineering Physics II
> oh . um . .*COUGHS* years ago:
>
> "You are driving towards a perfectly reflective brick wall at 100m/s.
> The temperature is 35C and there is no wind.
> Your blow your horn, which sounds a pure tone at 200Hz.
>
> What pitches do you hear?
>
> Note all the "Only in physics class" contrivences.

200 Hz (direct from the horn) and 313.4 Hz reflected from the wall.

35C means that sound travels at 352.5 m/s. If a stationary listener
were to hear a stationary horn playing at 200 Hz, the listener would
hear 200Hz, regardless of temperature. However, the source (horn) is
moving toward the wall at 100 m/s, and the listener is approaching the
wall at 100 m/s, so the compounded rate is 200ms (listener moving
toward the source). 200 m/s is .567 the speed of the sound itself *at
this temperature* (horrible to think what would happen to the listener
if the car hit the wall at .283 the speed of sound!) so the resulting
wave is shifted up by 56.7% or 113.4 additional cycles per second,
resulting in the final 313.4Hz.

Karl Winkler
Lectrosonics, Inc.
http://www.lectrosonics.com
Anonymous
October 22, 2004 11:18:27 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

On Fri, 22 Oct 2004 09:30:34 -0700, maxdm wrote:

> philicorda <philicordaNOOSPAM@azriel.tydrwg.com> wrote in message news:<pan.2004.10.23.02.55.55.42508@azriel.tydrwg.com>...
>> On Thu, 21 Oct 2004 05:39:39 -0700, maxdm wrote:
>
>> I tried this with whatever was in the multitrack at the time... vox,drums
>> and bass I think. Anyway, if it nulls, it nulls. The signal is identical.
>>
> Could you describe what you did? I didn't get the technical details.
> keep in mind that two signals that distort in the same way when summed
> out of phase will null anyway.

Ok. I last did this ages ago, without paying much attention, so I re-did
this test today in cubase SX, and found some interesting results.

When I say 'nothing' in the following text, I mean absolutely nothing,
digital zero, nada. When I say 'fader at zero', I mean I am not boosting
or reducing the signal at all.

This is the setup.
1 stereo track with a 16/44.1k song mixdown. Fader at zero.
1 stereo track with the same mixdown, but out of phase. Fader at zero.
Both tracks are routed to the master outs.

So, as you might imagine, nothing at all comes from the speakers when I
press play. (The in and out of phase signals totally null.)

Next, I added ten group channels, and connected the out of phase mixdown
track to the first group channel instead of the master outs. I connected
the output of that first group to the input of group two, and so on up to
group ten. Group ten's fader goes to the master outs. The original mixdown
is still going direct to the master outs, with it's fader at zero, and
remains so for all the rest of the tests.

I then pressed play, and, as expected, nothing came out.

Now it gets interesting.
I set the levels of the group channels with the faders as follows. (dbs)
+1
-1
-3
-4
+6
+1
-3
-3
+5
+1

And... SHOCK HORROR! It does not null! The faders are doing something they
are not telling me about!
Analysis of the 'nulled' mixdown shows...

Min sample -0.001, Max sample 0.001
Max RMS (Left) -64.56
MAX RMS (Right)-64.75
This is very bad. The mixdown file contained the original song,
just very, very quietly, though not distorted as far as I can tell.

So, suspicious of the CubaseSX faders, I redid the test using the
'tools-1' vst plugin on each of the groups (It's a simple stereo
fader+phase reverse button plugin). All the Cubase faders on the groups
were reset to zero.
The levels in the 'tools-1' plugin are as follows (dbs)....

-1.5
+1.5
-10.5
+10.5
-17.0
-7.0
+12.0
+12.0
+3.0
-3.0

And I get a total null on the nulled mixdown.
Min sample 0, Max sample 0
Min/max RMS -infinity.
Putting the signal though all those faders had not made any change to it
whatsoever.

So, to conclude...
Some digital faders can attenuate or boost a signal, without adding
distortion, assuming the mixer and faders have a high enough bit depth to
not lose any information.

The CubaseSX faders ain't doing what they say. They are not distorting the
signal, but they are not boosting or attenuating by the amount you set
them to either. I don't know how I managed to get them to null the first
time I tried, but I suspect that a bug has crept in as the program has
been updated.

> Sine waves in digital come out fairly well. up until near sampling
> frequency.
> the more complex the wave the more difficult it is to reproduce.

Digital faders operate on a single sample at a time, so they don't care
what the waveform is. It's a multiply or divide on a single number,
nothing more complex.

> THD is not the kind of distortion I am talking about, I am talking about
> loss of imaging, depth and transient distortion. Someone posted that a
> flute is like a sine wave, but the flute only resembles a sine wave, I
> think most musicians and listeners will agree that there is a lot more
> to the flute sound than a sine wave!

You have to find a way to measure this distortion you are hearing.

>
> the ear is very sensitive to transients and phase/time distortion.

I very much doubt a digital fader would do either of these, but I welcome
further investigation.
October 23, 2004 1:05:58 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

On Fri, 22 Oct 2004 19:18:27 GMT, philicorda
<philicordaNOOSPAM@azriel.tydrwg.com> wrote:

>On Fri, 22 Oct 2004 09:30:34 -0700, maxdm wrote:
>
>> philicorda <philicordaNOOSPAM@azriel.tydrwg.com> wrote in message news:<pan.2004.10.23.02.55.55.42508@azriel.tydrwg.com>...
>>> On Thu, 21 Oct 2004 05:39:39 -0700, maxdm wrote:
>>
>>> I tried this with whatever was in the multitrack at the time... vox,drums
>>> and bass I think. Anyway, if it nulls, it nulls. The signal is identical.
>>>
>> Could you describe what you did? I didn't get the technical details.
>> keep in mind that two signals that distort in the same way when summed
>> out of phase will null anyway.
>
>Ok. I last did this ages ago, without paying much attention, so I re-did
>this test today in cubase SX, and found some interesting results.
>
>When I say 'nothing' in the following text, I mean absolutely nothing,
>digital zero, nada. When I say 'fader at zero', I mean I am not boosting
>or reducing the signal at all.
>
>This is the setup.
>1 stereo track with a 16/44.1k song mixdown. Fader at zero.
>1 stereo track with the same mixdown, but out of phase. Fader at zero.
>Both tracks are routed to the master outs.
>
>So, as you might imagine, nothing at all comes from the speakers when I
>press play. (The in and out of phase signals totally null.)
>
>Next, I added ten group channels, and connected the out of phase mixdown
>track to the first group channel instead of the master outs. I connected
>the output of that first group to the input of group two, and so on up to
>group ten. Group ten's fader goes to the master outs. The original mixdown
>is still going direct to the master outs, with it's fader at zero, and
>remains so for all the rest of the tests.
>
>I then pressed play, and, as expected, nothing came out.
>
>Now it gets interesting.
>I set the levels of the group channels with the faders as follows. (dbs)
>+1
>-1
>-3
>-4
>+6
>+1
>-3
>-3
>+5
>+1
>
>And... SHOCK HORROR! It does not null! The faders are doing something they
>are not telling me about!

I may be misdirected here, but are you assuming that because all the
"dBs" sum to 0 that the mix should be equivalent to summing 1 channels
all at 0dB (which of course is not the case, since dB is a log
function)?

Tony (remove the "_" to reply by email)
October 23, 2004 1:13:15 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

On Sat, 23 Oct 2004 09:05:58 +1000, Tony <tony_roe@tpg.com.au> wrote:

>On Fri, 22 Oct 2004 19:18:27 GMT, philicorda
><philicordaNOOSPAM@azriel.tydrwg.com> wrote:
>
>>On Fri, 22 Oct 2004 09:30:34 -0700, maxdm wrote:
>>
>>> philicorda <philicordaNOOSPAM@azriel.tydrwg.com> wrote in message news:<pan.2004.10.23.02.55.55.42508@azriel.tydrwg.com>...
>>>> On Thu, 21 Oct 2004 05:39:39 -0700, maxdm wrote:
>>>
>>>> I tried this with whatever was in the multitrack at the time... vox,drums
>>>> and bass I think. Anyway, if it nulls, it nulls. The signal is identical.
>>>>
>>> Could you describe what you did? I didn't get the technical details.
>>> keep in mind that two signals that distort in the same way when summed
>>> out of phase will null anyway.
>>
>>Ok. I last did this ages ago, without paying much attention, so I re-did
>>this test today in cubase SX, and found some interesting results.
>>
>>When I say 'nothing' in the following text, I mean absolutely nothing,
>>digital zero, nada. When I say 'fader at zero', I mean I am not boosting
>>or reducing the signal at all.
>>
>>This is the setup.
>>1 stereo track with a 16/44.1k song mixdown. Fader at zero.
>>1 stereo track with the same mixdown, but out of phase. Fader at zero.
>>Both tracks are routed to the master outs.
>>
>>So, as you might imagine, nothing at all comes from the speakers when I
>>press play. (The in and out of phase signals totally null.)
>>
>>Next, I added ten group channels, and connected the out of phase mixdown
>>track to the first group channel instead of the master outs. I connected
>>the output of that first group to the input of group two, and so on up to
>>group ten. Group ten's fader goes to the master outs. The original mixdown
>>is still going direct to the master outs, with it's fader at zero, and
>>remains so for all the rest of the tests.
>>
>>I then pressed play, and, as expected, nothing came out.
>>
>>Now it gets interesting.
>>I set the levels of the group channels with the faders as follows. (dbs)
>>+1
>>-1
>>-3
>>-4
>>+6
>>+1
>>-3
>>-3
>>+5
>>+1
>>
>>And... SHOCK HORROR! It does not null! The faders are doing something they
>>are not telling me about!
>
>I may be misdirected here, but are you assuming that because all the
>"dBs" sum to 0 that the mix should be equivalent to summing 1 channels
>all at 0dB (which of course is not the case, since dB is a log
>function)?

That should have been "10" channels. And PS, everything has a
tolerance, even the "dB" setting of a fader, but that's not distortion
in my world.

Tony (remove the "_" to reply by email)
Anonymous
October 26, 2004 9:15:12 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

"philicorda" <philicordaNOOSPAM@azriel.tydrwg.com> wrote in message

> And... SHOCK HORROR! It does not null! The faders are doing something they
> are not telling me about!
> Analysis of the 'nulled' mixdown shows...

So if your methodolgy is correct, you are actually suggesting that Cubase SX
has a bug, rather than 'digital faders' being inherently flawed ?

geoff
Anonymous
October 28, 2004 8:16:58 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

On Tue, 26 Oct 2004 17:15:12 +1300, Geoff Wood wrote:

>
> "philicorda" <philicordaNOOSPAM@azriel.tydrwg.com> wrote in message
>
>> And... SHOCK HORROR! It does not null! The faders are doing something they
>> are not telling me about!
>> Analysis of the 'nulled' mixdown shows...
>
> So if your methodolgy is correct, you are actually suggesting that Cubase SX
> has a bug, rather than 'digital faders' being inherently flawed ?

Yes, and I think it's an interface bug rather than one in the audio engine..
I bet if I entered the fader levels by hand in the number boxes without
ever touching the faders, it would null. Just a hunch, I reackon there is
a tiny rounding error cropping up, and have a vague memory of someone else
finding the same bug...

I haven't a cubase SX box here right now, so it may have to wait a while
before I can test that theory.

>
> geoff
Anonymous
October 28, 2004 8:25:59 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

On Sat, 23 Oct 2004 09:13:15 +1000, Tony wrote:


>>>And... SHOCK HORROR! It does not null! The faders are doing something they
>>>are not telling me about!
>>
>>I may be misdirected here, but are you assuming that because all the
>>"dBs" sum to 0 that the mix should be equivalent to summing 1 channels
>>all at 0dB (which of course is not the case, since dB is a log
>>function)?

Ohh. That does seem blindingly obvious now you have pointed it out, but
why did the 'tools-1' faders null? (And I don't think it was blind luck as
I changed the settings a few times and it still nulled.).

>
> That should have been "10" channels. And PS, everything has a tolerance,
> even the "dB" setting of a fader, but that's not distortion in my world.

Surely, with a digital fader, there is no problem with tolerance? At least
as far as being 'reversible'. Or is it because it's a log function, it has
to be an approximation (finding a point on a curve)?

>
> Tony (remove the "_" to reply by email)
!