hello everyone,

1) if you do a pan inside the daw, does that affect the "math" of the
audio? i'm guessing it is the equivalent of two fader moves; you
increase the gain on one side, and decrease it on the other. so that
must mean a recalculation, correct?

2) let's say instead of "bouncing to disk" or "rendering" the stereo
mix in the daw, you send the playback 2-mix in real time out to
another computer via spdif and record it. does that produce a
different final stereo file in terms of the math?

thanks for any insights

xy wrote:

1) if you do a pan inside the daw, does that affect the "math" of the
audio? i'm guessing it is the equivalent of two fader moves; you
increase the gain on one side, and decrease it on the other. so that
must mean a recalculation, correct?

Right. So there's a little rounding going on in the process.

2) let's say instead of "bouncing to disk" or "rendering" the stereo
mix in the daw, you send the playback 2-mix in real time out to
another computer via spdif and record it. does that produce a
different final stereo file in terms of the math?

Depends on how the DAW stores the data. If all of the internal representation
is in 24 bit integer, and you transfer to another machine in 24 bit
integer format, it'll be the same. But if the DAW is doing internal
floating point, doing an internal render might have higher resolution.
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

thanks scott.

i came up with an idea:

say you are going out to an analog mixer. if you do the pan on the
mixer instead of inside the daw, then the math stays "purer". so let
the mixer take care of the static pans to avoid unnecesary digital
recalculation.

xy wrote:
hello everyone,

1) if you do a pan inside the daw, does that affect the "math" of the
audio? i'm guessing it is the equivalent of two fader moves; you
increase the gain on one side, and decrease it on the other. so that
must mean a recalculation, correct?

Right, but this is nothing to worry about. A lot of DAW software does this
with 32 bit floating point math - 1000 dB dynamic range. Even mere 24 bit
fixed-point arithmetic has 144 dB dynamic resolution which is tough to even
approach in the analog domain.

xy wrote:
i came up with an idea:

say you are going out to an analog mixer. if you do the pan on the
mixer instead of inside the daw, then the math stays "purer". so let
the mixer take care of the static pans to avoid unnecesary digital
recalculation.

Yeah, but now you have lower levels than optimal going through one side
of the analogue stereo buss. It works both ways. You just have to grin
and bear it and stop worrying. Have a cup of tea.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

interesting insights guys, thanks

xy wrote:

interesting insights guys, thanks

Another insight based on comments from someone who was bragging up the
impressive specs of their analog-domain mixer for use with digital
recordings.

Those specs aren't nothing compared to the performance you get if you stay
in the digital domain, even with what is now bread-and-butter 32 bit
floating point arithmetic, such as that commonly provided with
reasonably-priced software.

Within the digital domain the slew rate is truely infinite. Slew limits are
from the initial (tracking) and final (consumer playback) A/D interfaces
which the signal passes through anyhow. Inside the digital domain there is
zero slew limiting unless its intentionally added with a DSP.

Within the digital domain the frequency response perfectly flat unless some
kind of a digital filter is intentionally added with some kind of DSP.

Within the digital domain nonlinear distortion absolutely zero unless some
kind of nonlinear distortion is intentionally added.

Other than that, you're *stuck* with 1,000 dB dynamic range. And from a
performance standpoint, that 1,000 dB dynamic range is the BAD news. Some
bad news, eh?

;-)