… whereas with 24bit or higher resolutions there should be higher dynamic ranges. Thanks
There isn’t. It is a logarithmic scale so things get tight near the bottom, but the indicator lines go
So wayyyyyy more than 60dB
I just played around with it and you can manually set the fader down to -120dB just fine, but if you try for -121dB it goes to -infinity.
Ah! Thanks!!! I’d love to try something like a semilogarithmic scale - just to be able to mess around experimantally wit small differences in low volumes :).
But this would have to be well hidden - otherwise newbs would really hate not to find the original behavior of the faders
You can do that now by hand entering the values - either on the faders or as automation nodes. Or even start with more normal automation values and scale that down to lower levels which could be manually or by using the PLE.
-120dB is essentially silence for humans, so you have control over the range we can hear. Your limiting function is going to be the resolution of the values which looks to be 0.01dB based on the resolution of the numeric field on the fader. I’m pretty sure (but not quite without checking) that that is much finer than our ears can detect.
I absolutely agree - its more of a thougt experiment right now: It would of course have no effect on modern mainstream music production (14dB Lufs music) - but say for soundscaping or loose jazz music this might be great: to have zoomable fader - on where you could ‘highlight’ areas (-30dB to -70dB for example) and than have the virtual fader lenght only covering that range. This would probably affect the way you mix into group tracks etc. Anyways - thanks for your explenations!
Not exactly the same, but you could do something similar using a VCA. Set it up so the Channel(s) being controlled are set low, but have the VCA up near 0 where a fader has its best resolution. Now moving the VCA fader by a reasonable amount should cause tiny changes in the controlled fader.