AGAIN about channel volumes

[annode]

A dynamic range is the range from some defined lowest level to some highest level.

or a funky oven, where you can use all the different compartments for different temperatures for cooking and baking.

I know I should have just gone to 3 stooges.com rather then stop in to KvR.

[vurt]

A dynamic range is the range from some defined lowest level to some highest level.

or a funky oven, where you can use all the different compartments for different temperatures for cooking and baking.

I know I should have just gone to 3 stooges.com rather then stop in to KvR.

you get what you pay for

[annode]

A dynamic range is the range from some defined lowest level to some highest level.

or a funky oven, where you can use all the different compartments for different temperatures for cooking and baking.

I know I should have just gone to 3 stooges.com rather then stop in to KvR.

you get what you pay for

Well, if I want abuse I know where to come for a bargain.

[parricide]

i gain stage at every stage of the signal path and mix levels with my channel faders. this helps me keep my signal at an ideal level for each stage.
in the digital world it does not really matter though (but with some plugins it does matter, like VA plugins).
something worth considering (that i dont usually care about) is that you will get more resolution from the top end of your channel volume than you will at the bottom, so some people like to keep the channel fader near 0dBFS. personally i ignore that factor unless it gives me problems, then i will put a gain utility in the chain and attenuate it a little.

[Burillo]

something worth considering (that i dont usually care about) is that you will get more resolution from the top end of your channel volume than you will at the bottom, so some people like to keep the channel fader near 0dBFS. personally i ignore that factor unless it gives me problems, then i will put a gain utility in the chain and attenuate it a little.

that's not true. floating point numbers work by exponents. the difference between top and bottom range is (in layman terms) 12345 * 10000 (10 to the power of 4) vs. 12345 * 0.00001 (10 to the power of -5). the "12345" part always stays at the same resolution, and so does the exponent part.

if you mean that lower values are closer to noise floor - well, yeah, but adding gain will not help with that problem with an already recorded material.

[parricide]

something worth considering (that i dont usually care about) is that you will get more resolution from the top end of your channel volume than you will at the bottom, so some people like to keep the channel fader near 0dBFS. personally i ignore that factor unless it gives me problems, then i will put a gain utility in the chain and attenuate it a little.

that's not true. floating point numbers work by exponents. the difference between top and bottom range is (in layman terms) 12345 * 10000 (10 to the power of 4) vs. 12345 * 0.00001 (10 to the power of -5). the "12345" part always stays at the same resolution, and so does the exponent part.

if you mean that lower values are closer to noise floor - well, yeah, but adding gain will not help with that problem with an already recorded material.

i was referring to the difference in small changes at the bottom of the fader compared to the top, rather than literal digital resolution.

the noise floor is not a problem with a digital signal anyway, unless, as you say, the noise is in the sound itself, in which case it doesnt matter, you will either have no noise in your mix or no sound anyway

[Burillo]

Technically speaking, the resolution is the same across the channel volume slider... If you think in terms of logarithmic scale but yeah, this is where proper gain-staging helps as well.