Great - though "saturate" is an analog term not really appropriate - I
won't go into it, as your use is an anology itself.
The problem with going up to -6 dBFS is it does not leave much headroom
for unexpected peaks... so it is a mixed bag of risk!
Glad I could contribute...
Lou Judson =95 Intuitive Audio
415-883-2689
On Sep 9, 2006, at 12:55 PM, Danny Meltzer wrote:
> Well that's all the reason I need to saturate the tracks...
>
> Gentlemen we have an answer.
>
> Danny
>
> --- In Lou Judson <>
> wrote:
>>
>> As I understand it, if your peak level reaches -6dBFS you are using
>> all
>> the bits available. Lower than that and you are losing definition.
>>
>> the reference levels of -12 or -18 or -20 used in some conventions
>> refers to Zero VU, not the maximum level...
>>
>> Hope this helps!
>>
>> Lou Judson =95 Intuitive Audio
>> 415-883-2689
>>
>> On Sep 9, 2006, at 10:29 AM, Walter Knapp wrote:
>>
>>> Wasn't Rob giving us a talking to a little while back about how
> much we
>>> lost recording that low? Particularly in 16bit. About how the lower
>>> half
>>> of the range did not resolve as well as the upper half? Maybe should
>>> resolve that issue before going down there as a standard practice? If
>>> we
>>> record in the bottom 60dB of the dynamic range of a digital recorder
>>> will the recording be as good as if we did so in the top 60dB?
>>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> "Microphones are not ears,
> Loudspeakers are not birds,
> A listening room is not nature."
> Klas Strandberg
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
> (Yahoo! ID required)
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
|