KVR Audio

efluon · Post by **efluon** » Thu Apr 28, 2005 3:47 pm

SJ_Digriz wrote: No, not panlaw but dblaw. It started in SX-1 and remained until SX-3.02.

yes, that's what i said!?

There are adjustments for pan law (0, -3, -4.5, -6) but that is entirely different issue.

could you elaborate on that one? i thought that adjustment would alter the rms-level when centered? so that volume being prop to the root of rms would depend on that offset nonlinearly.
have you tried to reach conformity with the aes-norm using the different pan-laws?

efluon · Post by **efluon** » Thu Apr 28, 2005 3:48 pm

SJ_Digriz wrote:btw if you don't think that bug was huge, imagine if you are working a project and do a global trim (very common task). It would destroy your entire mix.

sure. that bug was really awful.

SJ_Digriz · Post by **SJ_Digriz** » Thu Apr 28, 2005 4:13 pm

efluon wrote:
SJ_Digriz wrote: No, not panlaw but dblaw. It started in SX-1 and remained until SX-3.02.
yes, that's what i said!?

There are adjustments for pan law (0, -3, -4.5, -6) but that is entirely different issue.
could you elaborate on that one? i thought that adjustment would alter the rms-level when centered? so that volume being prop to the root of rms would depend on that offset nonlinearly.
have you tried to reach conformity with the aes-norm using the different pan-laws?

Well, understand that Steinberg used a scientific max amplitude of a 0db sine to calibrate their meters which is in direct opposition to the AES methods.

But in general (funny this just came up on the Cubase board)

0db = no modification in output during pan. So center will be far louder than max pan positions.

-3 = <c> will be -3db in relation to nominal center output. and L50 will be -1.5db etc...

-4.5 = one of the industry standards for production desk panners and I believe is supposed to be the scientificly correct attenuation factor acrossed the sound field.

-6 = flat response acrossed the sound field.

Just as I pointed out in the cubase thread, I'm doing that from memory, I could have a few of the details messed up a bit as I don't deal with it on a day to day basis. I've been using 4.5 for so long I don't even worry about the rest.

SJ_Digriz · Post by **SJ_Digriz** » Thu Apr 28, 2005 4:18 pm

efluon wrote: have you tried to reach conformity with the aes-norm using the different pan-laws?

In practice it hasn't made a difference. I know that the Steinberg method is a non-linear -3db at -6db from AES-17 -6db. But, it gets screwy trying to apply other metering solutions like the K-System when you are always having to mentally adjust for the "Steinberg" way. In all fairness the Steiny meters are mathematically more correct. The AES system is based off real world metering which in itself is a semi-subjective set of values to work from.

SJ_Digriz · Post by **SJ_Digriz** » Thu Apr 28, 2005 4:31 pm

heh, right on cue someone posted a link to eq magazine with an explenation of this very issue and points out my initial statement on this thread that most sound differences in hosts are level based not quality based.

http://www.eqmag.com/story.asp?storycode=7672

Sound quality in Cubase vs Sonar