No, it's not.Hi,
The actual volume scale when Wiim Ultra is not set to fixed volume goes from 0 to 100.
Is it possible to set volume scaling with négative range from -99dB (full atténuation) to 0db or + (no atténuation)
Here's the Volume vs optical output dBFS (peak) level relationship I measured on my Mini a few days ago:No, it's not.
It has been requested before.
Note that there is not a 1 to 1 between the current volume percentage values and dB.
The values would be from -40 to 0 dBFS.
dBFS = 20*log10(volume/max-volume)
How was that measured?Here's the Volume vs optical output dBFS (peak) level relationship I measured on my Mini a few days ago:
View attachment 18670
Note that this was measured with "Volume Limit" set to 100 and "Fixed Volume Output" disabled.
With a 0 dBFS (peak) 1kHz sine tone playback (24bit wav file), measured with REW at the WiiM Mini optical out into my RME Babyface optical in (S/PDIF mode, using optical in as clock source).How was that measured?
Sure, but -240dBFS is minus infinity for all practical purposes.The 0% should be minus infinity.
Yes, I've noticed on the forum it was stated several times that each 1% decrease in volume is -0,6dB in output.You values don't seem to match anything related.
Didn't someone find that the the dB per volume unit varied at different points of the scale?With a 0 dBFS (peak) 1kHz sine tone playback (24bit wav file), measured with REW at the WiiM Mini optical out into my RME Babyface optical in (S/PDIF mode, using optical in as clock source).
I've also measured the exact same volume steps on the Mini analog Aux output into RME analog in.
Sure, but -240dBFS is minus infinity for all practical purposes.
Yes, I've noticed on the forum it was stated several times that each 1% decrease in volume is -0,6dB in output.
This never made sense to me because having such a linear scale would mean that 0% volume would be only -60 dBFS, so I doubted this a bit from the start.
Then in this post I made some measurements that show that compensating for a +12dB EQ boost required setting volume at about 60%, which also doesn't match this -0,6dB/% rule.
This made me want to measure the volume steps which gave the above result.
The correct scale for dBFS is the one I gave above.With a 0 dBFS (peak) 1kHz sine tone playback (24bit wav file), measured with REW at the WiiM Mini optical out into my RME Babyface optical in (S/PDIF mode, using optical in as clock source).
I've also measured the exact same volume steps on the Mini analog Aux output into RME analog in.
Sure, but -240dBFS is minus infinity for all practical purposes.
Yes, I've noticed on the forum it was stated several times that each 1% decrease in volume is -0,6dB in output.
This never made sense to me because having such a linear scale would mean that 0% volume would be only -60 dBFS, so I doubted this a bit from the start.
Then in this post I made some measurements that show that compensating for a +12dB EQ boost required setting volume at about 60%, which also doesn't match this -0,6dB/% rule.
This made me want to measure the volume steps which gave the above result.
The volume limiter doesn't follow the same pattern as the volume control.Yes, I've noticed on the forum it was stated several times that each 1% decrease in volume is -0,6dB in output.
I don't think there's anything right or wrong when it comes to volume control. It's not the inversion of digitisation, but just what feels practical.The correct scale for dBFS is the one I gave above.
dBFS = 20*log10(volume/max-volume)
The other calculations are for analog values and may vary depending on what is measured (voltage, power, etc).
The reason to use the dBFS for the sound volume, instead of percentage, is because it provides a logarithmic scale that aligns well with human perception of sound levels.I don't think there's anything right or wrong when it comes to volume control. It's not the inversion of digitisation, but just what feels practical.
OK, I think we're in agreement again. If one decides to provide a "proper" dBFS scale (like I'm e.g. used to from my Lyngdorf amp) then it has to be, well, the proper scale, of course. Due to the fact that it's logarithmic, it does comply well with human perception, indeed.The reason to use the dBFS for the sound volume, instead of percentage, is because it provides a logarithmic scale that aligns well with human perception of sound levels.
I think both works fine but would prefer the decibel if I could.
What's common for both is the min audible value which is around -60 dB.The volume limiter doesn't follow the same pattern as the volume control.
Here's the Volume vs optical output dBFS (peak) level relationship I measured on my Mini a few days ago:
View attachment 18670
Note that this was measured with "Volume Limit" set to 100 and "Fixed Volume Output" disabled.
This is not the truth, at least not for the Ultra for example where 90% volume limiter is exactly -6 dBFS but 90% volume control is -3.18 dBFS. I use the convention where full scale sine signal RMS level is 0 dBFS.and I found also that both the Volume control and Volume Limit use the same steps
Hmm. The 50% shall be at -6 dBFS, not 90%.This is not the truth, at least not for the Ultra for example where 90% volume limiter is exactly -6 dBFS but 90% volume control is -3.18 dBFS. I use the convention where full scale sine signal RMS level is 0 dBFS.
I don't own the Ultra so can't say much about it.This is not the truth, at least not for the Ultra
That would make things much more convenient - especially when dealing with positive gain PEQ. Thanks!
Here are my WiiM Mini measurements showing this (WiiM Mini Optical output into RME Babyface Optical input):I found also that both the Volume control and Volume Limit use the same steps.
These are the results of the analogue Aux Out (at 2Vrms output level setting) into RME Babyface Hi-Z unbalanced input, in dBV:I got the same relative values when measuring the analogue Aux output