"essential for ensuring maximum optimization of output "0"db from DAW's"...huh???

[Geddyleewannabe]

In a post discussing passive volume controllers, I recently read a comment that stated...

"essential for ensuring maximum optimization of output "0"db from DAW's"

This concept is new to me. I'm checking out the NHT Pro PVC to control the volume of my power amp to my passive monitor speakers. I would run DAW -> DA converter -> PVC -> power amp -> monitor speakers. Given this setup, does this concept pertain to my situation? If so, what do I need to know to optimize what I'm hearing from my DAW?

[rufus13]

Is this poorly explained phrase referring to people who use D/A level as a volume control?

It's pretty well known that reducing the digital level to put out a low analog level from a converter doesn't sound so good. Adjust the digtal level so that D/A converters peak just a little below 0db full scale, and use an analog volume control to adjust the level to amplifiers/speakers.

This might be a problem you don't have.

Cheers.

Karl

[dbbubba]

I have bitched for years about the loss of a useful 0db reference once digital audio production evolved. The acceptable window for material to be recorded ona given medium is a total crapshoot presently. Yeah, people want to get it in the system at as hot a level as possible, but that is about it! With analog you had a fairly narrow window to work with before material fell into the noise floor or was over saturated (distorted.)
Having to work in this narrow window placed constraints on people that caused you to think and work a little harder. It wasn't neccesarily a bad thing!

At the present state the normal method in music production is to get it on the storage medium at as high of a signal (bit depth) level as possible without overages.
This way of thinking is OK when your only goal is to have your CD as loud as possible.

In the transistion days between analog and digital production (late '80s through mid '90s) the fact that DATs and DAWs didn't have a metering system that really referenced a zero at +4db caused MAJOR headaches in delivery in the broadcast world.
Radio and TV facilities and networks had strict standards as far as what they expected to see for levels. It was pretty much up to dub rooms to make sure that the material sent out to the broadcast/network facilities was acceptable. In other words, they were almost functioning as mastering rooms!

The fact that a large portion of the equipment that is now used in pro production environments was developed from equipment that was marketed towards the semi-pro user has caused many manufacturers to abandon the concept of a zero reference level.
A whole generation of engineers has come of age that don't even know why a zero reference was even neccesary in the first place.

I'll have to admit that even I don't really get overly concerned about reference levels. On the otherhand I have years of experience with a lot of equipment. I have a degree of a sixth sense about interfacing gear. I see a lot of people who don't have a clue about levels when interfacing equipment.

I'll never forget when I sold the room I built and used for seven years and went into radio/TV production work. The facility I went to had a Neve room with a Sony 3324 DASH machine ans an Otai MTR90ii. The plasma meters on the Neve 8218 were almost impossible to keep calibrated themselves, but they told you nothing when recording to the 3324. At least the 3324 was digital and noise wasn't a big factor. I had to physically get up and walk into the machine room and look at levels to get optimal results. I could at least turn the MTR90ii sideways and see the analog meters on it. It required a complete calibration of the console's output buss levels to get the meters to mean anything on the 3324. It felt wrong recording without regard for true level when using the 3324, yet it was the only way. The meters looked like meters on a toy! There was reference for zero!

Standards are not a bad thing.

Danny Brown

[Geddyleewannabe]

Originally Posted by rufus13

Is this poorly explained phrase referring to people who use D/A level as a volume control?

It's pretty well known that reducing the digital level to put out a low analog level from a converter doesn't sound so good. Adjust the digtal level so that D/A converters peak just a little below 0db full scale, and use an anlog volume control to adjust the level to amplifiers/speakers.

This might be a problem you don't have.

Cheers.

Karl

So you're saying that whatever you may be sacrificing in sound by putting a Passive Volume Attenuator between the DAC and the power amp is worth it to be able to crank the DAC to an appropriate level (0dB) to make it sound its best?

If the answer is yes, I wonder if I have EVER really heard the full potential of my DAC as I have probably never turned it up to 0dB. Would anyone agree with this theory or am I totally off base at this point?

[dbbubba]

Hey, I ripped a dual 10K pot out of an old Crown pre-amp and made a passive volume control that I use when transfering between digital stuff.
I have doing a lot of archiving where I am just going from DAT to a stand alone CD burner with a TC Electronics Finalizer in between.
I go out of the CD burner to my passive volume thing and on to an amp.
It's pretty easy to build and it's a fairly pure way to monitor things.

Danny Brown

[DAS]

Originally Posted by Geddyleewannabe

So you're saying that whatever you may be sacrificing in sound by putting a Passive Volume Attenuator between the DAC and the power amp is worth it to be able to crank the DAC to an appropriate level (0dB) to make it sound its best?

If the answer is yes, I wonder if I have EVER really heard the full potential of my DAC as I have probably never turned it up to 0dB. Would anyone agree with this theory or am I totally off base at this point?

I believe the output control of the DAC1 is a placed in the circuit after the D/A conversion. As such turning it down does not cause the aforementioned problem with resolution.