Quote:
Originally Posted by oky****  hi,
48-bit mixer, at page 6.
"We should take a moment to distinguish between the result of lowering a fader within the context of the internal mixer (where 48-bit precision is maintained) and lowering the level of a signal that is being sent to a DAC output.
As with any digital audio system (not just Pro Tools), if you
lower a fader assigned to an individual DAC output you can
lose resolution and dynamic range, as you are simply reducing the number of bits representing the output signal in comparison
to the DAC’s theoretical 24-bit resolution. You would be throwing away dynamic range that the DAC can represent
if you, say, pulled your fader down to -14 dB and left it there
so that peaks hitting the converter were far below full scale. That would decrease your signal-to-noise ratio significantly,
so optimizing signal levels going to individual DAC outputs is important to preserving signal quality—you want to get as much resolution out of the DAC that it can offer before clipping to take maximum advantage of its dynamic range performance."
also, even within the tdm environment you are exceeding the [purported] -90 dB leeway in many panning scenarios. there is more to it as well.
dither is not the be all and end all.
panning is better done outside the box.
right. |
I don't think your analysis supports your conclusion. As long as you remain ITB then you are not losing dynamic range. Only when you go out your converters do you lost bit depth. Therefore, for the best low level resolution, required for convincing panning, it makes more sense to stay ITB, when your depth of resolution far exceeds analog.
I don't have any trouble panning in PT, and have no trouble in getting a very wide stereo field. And I like the fact that every time I call up the mix every subtle little thing I did to create the stereo field pops up exactly like I left it. Spatial positioning is about way more than just twisting a pan pot.
-R