Digital and Analogue Metering

PaulBrewer

http://www.uaudio.com/webzine/2010/may/digital-versus-analog-metering.html

Here's an article that explains the mystery of '0dB'

DamagedTrax

good article as always by UA but im perplexed as to why there's any confusion.

it basically boils down to:

analog - get a good strong signal
digital - keep your signal well out of the red.

most of us work this way and will probably never worry about digital signaling until the mix stage (unless you're tracking thru plugins). even then if a plugin has no input control then just put a trim before it and get the signal correct on the input meter before doing anything else.

like UA said, there is no real mystery.

i57dwun4yb1pt8

its a bout fcuking time

madtheory

Whaddya mean? This was standard practice at the dawn of digital. It wasn't until ADAT came out that confusion arose. A lot of people who used them didn't know that dBFS is not the same as dBu. And not all +4dBu are the same

DamagedTrax wrote: »

good article as always by UA but im perplexed as to why there's any confusion.

Because it is not widely understood that dB is only a scale, and that the important part is the reference level. "dB" on its own means nothing unless it's a ratio or referenced (e.g. SPL, FS etc.)

The issues inside the digital mixer are not as clear cut as you seem to imply. For example, see this month's SOS article about Pro Tools master fader.

DamagedTrax

madtheory wrote: »

Because it is not widely understood that dB is only a scale, and that the important part is the reference level. "dB" on its own means nothing unless it's a ratio or referenced (e.g. SPL, FS etc.)

oh, i woulda thought that most people knew that db was only a reference. i mean you only have to use your head when working within your DAW to realise this.
if you raise your PT faders to a certain level you only get that level as a visual representation. obviously its dependent of your initial input level.

maybe it does cause confusion, i just thought it was fairly logical

madtheory

The word deciBel is bandied about (and spelled) incorrectly every day.

PT is a big source of confusion, not the least of which is that -18dBFS only lights up 60% of the meter. The urge is to light it up more, ignoring the colour coding (green, yellow, red.)

DamagedTrax

madtheory wrote: »

The word deciBel is bandied about (and spelled) incorrectly every day.

PT is a big source of confusion, not the least of which is that -18dBFS only lights up 60% of the meter. The urge is to light it up more, ignoring the colour coding (green, yellow, red.)

even given the meter colour coding (which isnt present until PT8) surely someone would notice their waveform looking a bit hot?

i just dont understand the confusion. even with no knowledge of metering and with a dreadful set of ears, theres still a visual indication. so with 3 differant references to go by how do people still get their input levels wrong?

PaulBrewer

DamagedTrax wrote: »

even given the meter colour coding (which isnt present until PT8) surely someone would notice their waveform looking a bit hot?

i just dont understand the confusion. even with no knowledge of metering and with a dreadful set of ears, theres still a visual indication. so with 3 differant references to go by how do people still get their input levels wrong?

The confusion for the beginner is pretty obvious.

One could easily imagine a scenario where one might expect a '0dB' on one thing to be the same as '0dB' on another.

PaulBrewer

madtheory wrote: »

The word deciBel is bandied about (and spelled) incorrectly every day.

Alexander Graham Decibel, yea?

DamagedTrax

PaulBrewer wrote: »

The confusion for the beginner is pretty obvious.

One could easily imagine a scenario where one might expect a '0dB' on one thing to be the same as '0dB' on another.

true that. but i doubt UA are aiming their articles at beginners.. although i could be mistaken.

madtheory

This is such a common misunderstanding for beginners, and continues to be so. Did it myself back in 16 bit ADAT days!

PaulBrewer wrote: »

Alexander Graham Decibel, yea?

LOL!

Echoplex

Worth noting that a 24 Bit Recording doesn't diminish to 16Bit until
-48dBFS
Yes really!
Any indication at all around the middle of the meter is plenty.
I have to keep reminding myself of that, having grown up with Tape and 16 Bit, both of which needed careful tending.
DD