On Sun, 15 Aug 2010 14:17:45 +0200 [email protected] wrote: > On Sun, Aug 15, 2010 at 09:50:32AM +0100, Gordon JC Pearce wrote: > > > On Sat, 2010-08-14 at 22:51 +0200, [email protected] 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 [email protected] http://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-dev
