Setting the channel volume before starting Mix

[sacredmimi]

During my research, I have seen multiple ways that people go about setting up gain staging. At least these are what I encountered the most:

1. lowering each channel volume fader to get a rough balanced mix after done tracking.

2. Using trim plugins to lower each channel rather than the built-in DAW's fader itself, so each channel faders are set at 0.00.

What is the reason people do it one way or the another? I also don't necesarrily have what is called a 'trim plugin', is trim plugin basically the same as, say, moving the volume from channel strips, VSTi or whatnot?

[nickamandote]

just use this https://www.hornetplugins.com/plugins/h ... meter-mk3/

or if you do it manually, no track above -18dbs before anything

[No_Use]

I use a variant of method 2. because

- You operate the track faders while mixing at around 0 db where they might have a higher resolution.

- Some plugins (e.g. console emulations) expect a certain input level. As track inserts are mostly pre-fader, with method 1. you wouldn't account for this, as you adjust the level post-insert FX (when using pre-fader inserts).

"A variant of" = I adjust the clip gain directly (in DAWS where possible of course, but I think most Daws have this), as this is usually pre- everything.

[thecontrolcentre]

Its basically preference. There's no right or wrong way to set track levels (unless the track is clipping). If you're careful about levels while recording, it shouldn't be an issue.

[sacredmimi]

Its basically preference. There's no right or wrong way to set track levels (unless the track is clipping). If you're careful about levels while recording, it shouldn't be an issue.

But why would the latter be preferencial when trimming via plugins, you would have to open it in the editor and change it, and do this for multiple channels whereas the daw's built-in fader is always visible next to the tracks?

[bustedfist]

Much more to gain staging than what's been said so far. From input, to tracks and effects on those tracks, to where they're routed and effects there, how 32bit float applies to all internal processes, to summing tracks, to K scale level, to mastering. Can't be covered adequately with those two questions. Plenty of youtube vids and books that have a firmer grasp than I on the subject.

[sacredmimi]

just use this https://www.hornetplugins.com/plugins/h ... meter-mk3/

or if you do it manually, no track above -18dbs before anything

I was just now testing the -18db peaks with bunch of effects on the sends. Some instrument tracks that are multis do peak over -18db with a lot of fx with the daw's fader on the very low side. Is this maybe why trim is necessary for a better headroom?

[Googly Smythe]

Its basically preference. There's no right or wrong way to set track levels (unless the track is clipping). If you're careful about levels while recording, it shouldn't be an issue.

But why would the latter be preferencial when trimming via plugins, you would have to open it in the editor and change it, and do this for multiple channels whereas the daw's built-in fader is always visible next to the tracks?

It's easier to use the faders when using automation to adjust the levels across the duration of a track.

[Funkybot's Evil Twin]

i vote for option 3: check your track levels during the tracking stage and shoot for 0db on a VU for sustained material and 0db in a PPM meter for transient material (meters calibrated to -18).

This way, your tracks are all roughly starting out at a similar level, and one that won't distort your analog modeled plugins too hard. I like setting things at this level during tracking because 1) I don't need to repeat the process at mix time, and 2) when it comes time to mix, it's easy to visually orient what you're hearing with what you're seeing on the console faders when all the tracks are at similar levels. It's weird when you have a bass track that's at -6db on the console fader, but is considerably louder than the vocal that's fader is at 0db.

The annoying thing about this approach is that just about EVERY VST synth has presets that output way too hot. So I'm constantly turning the output down when dealing with VSTi's and preset browsing can be a pain when I'm looking for something different.

[sacredmimi]

You mean adjusting the trim plugin according to what's being shown on VU or PPM meters?

It's quite confusing because I just tried and set all the faders at 0, and of course, peak db are all different. So even if I were to use trim plugin, I would have to adjust it for every individual track in order for all of them to peak at -18db?

[nickamandote]

just use this https://www.hornetplugins.com/plugins/h ... meter-mk3/

or if you do it manually, no track above -18dbs before anything

I was just now testing the -18db peaks with bunch of effects on the sends. Some instrument tracks that are multis do peak over -18db with a lot of fx with the daw's fader on the very low side. Is this maybe why trim is necessary for a better headroom?

max peak is -6dbs set by plugin, that's fine if I got the question right

[Aleatoriac]

just about EVERY VST synth has presets that output way too hot. So I'm constantly turning the output down when dealing with VSTi's and preset browsing can be a pain when I'm looking for something different.

And people think competition is a good, and indeed necessary thing!

[musiclover55547]

During my research, I have seen multiple ways that people go about setting up gain staging. At least these are what I encountered the most:

1. lowering each channel volume fader to get a rough balanced mix after done tracking.

2. Using trim plugins to lower each channel rather than the built-in DAW's fader itself, so each channel faders are set at 0.00.

What is the reason people do it one way or the another? I also don't necesarrily have what is called a 'trim plugin', is trim plugin basically the same as, say, moving the volume from channel strips, VSTi or whatnot?

Gain staging should be performed when utilizing Pre-Fader Metering. Often times, the initial signal is too hot & that's not readily discernible if traditional Post-Fader Metering is utilized in many cases. Some DAWs are better than others in enabling this feature at the highest level via Settings.

[sacredmimi]

i vote for option 3: check your track levels during the tracking stage and shoot for 0db on a VU for sustained material and 0db in a PPM meter for transient material (meters calibrated to -18).

This way, your tracks are all roughly starting out at a similar level, and one that won't distort your analog modeled plugins too hard. I like setting things at this level during tracking because 1) I don't need to repeat the process at mix time, and 2) when it comes time to mix, it's easy to visually orient what you're hearing with what you're seeing on the console faders when all the tracks are at similar levels. It's weird when you have a bass track that's at -6db on the console fader, but is considerably louder than the vocal that's fader is at 0db.

The annoying thing about this approach is that just about EVERY VST synth has presets that output way too hot. So I'm constantly turning the output down when dealing with VSTi's and preset browsing can be a pain when I'm looking for something different.

Could this be an option:

After playing raw tracks, I now know the peak db for each track. Accordingly, I subtract x amount of numbers so each track is peaking at -18.

ex. one track is peaking at 6db, so lower it by -24 on the trim plugin, another track peaking at -20.6db, so add 2.6db by trim plugin. And doing it this way for all individual tracks..

Does this work? Does anybody do it this way by any chance?

[LawrenceF]

Three things...

1. Digital gain staging is much overblown and misunderstood.
2. -18 is not a "peak" level for anything. See #1.
3. Any "analog emulator plugin" that cost more than $2 should have an input trim knob on it.