A discussion of "Gainstaging" without talking about signal-to-noise ratio, clipping, and headroom, is not a discussion of gain-staging at all. This video is about mixing. I don't think you understand the fundamental concept of gain-staging.
On a fundamental level I totally agree that it's more important to focus on making music rather than fretting if the gain of everything is perfect. However I think the misunderstanding of gain is the main issue. Gain is not the same as setting levels. Gain is setting how much of the signal is available. It's like plumbing. You have the gain/main water line which limits how much water you can pull at a given time. The fader is like a faucet. You can control how much of the source you want to use. 😀
I gain stage for multiple reasons, if I don’t gain stage then I’ll have issues where adding a plugin will clip the track if it’s too high coming in for example. Gain staging helped me to mix and sound better, the thing about mixing that’s cool and fun is everyone has their own workflow. And for me the mix balance is more easier for me after gain staging.
I heard you make a lot of valid points but none were a case against gain staging. This is the process of maximizing a signal's level so as to minimize noise and optimize it for the next amplification stage in the chain. Normalizing tracks so the waveforms look bigger is not gain staging and it never was.
I’m sorry man this argument doesn’t really make any sense. Gain staging videos like this should be for tracking, not mixing. Normalizing raw tracks, without degradation to have a nice solid starting point BEFORE I mix is not harmful at all. This is incredibly helpful when you’re tracking yourself.
I understand what you’re trying to say but gain and level are two different things. Gain staging in mixing isn’t really a thing, gain staging only applies to recording as an engineer, not a mixer. Like you said briefly it applies to analog hardware, and setting the right gains through a chain of analog hardware on the way IN to the DAW. Which is very important it have proper gains hence gain staging. I think the conversation you’re trying to have is about a great balanced mix, not gain staging.
I think usually what people mean by gain staging is not about making everything the same level, but leaving room for the mix to not clip when you put every track together. That's the main goal for me at least.
Gain staging for me is getting all the levels of all my session tracks to hover around -10dBFS with no processing engaged. That will usually ensure me enough wiggle room once I do have my plugins and auxes in the mix. By the end of the mix, I should then have another 5dB of headroom left to account for any mastering processes and make sure my True-Peaks are below 0dBFS. It basically comes down to understanding how much headroom your particular system has to work with.
The concept of gain staging has been misunderstood completely in this yt video. Should the loan shaker be the same volume as the snare drum? Has nothing to do with gain staging. Gain staging is the process, which you already mention, of making sure what is fed into the analogue gear, comes in at a certain sweet spot for the gear to handle. What level you choose to have the shaker, after the processing - so long as is not going through more analogue gear, can be any level you want it to be. It baffles me why so many CZcams videos on this subject, to miss this and don't grasp it. The thing which baffles me, is nobody moans or highlights the pointlessness of calibrating all the analogue gear with test tones, which we would do at the BBC or Abbey Road, with every piece of outboard gear, including all the calibration work with tape machines, yes gain-staging included, because it is all necessary and vital to achieving a mix which - ultimately becomes easier to mix. People wonder why they don't have 3d space and depth in a mix, they wonder why their mixes sound a little muffled, or squashed, they wonder why their mixes don't travel to other setups on playback, they wonder why they are stacking 8 compressors and 5 eq's just to get things to sit in the mix. The first thing they don't wonder about, is an obvious hidden secret, gain stage and level match and level balance, and you'll all be stunned at how much clearer, deeper, sonic and better your mix sounds, and that's before any eq or, panning and or other fx. Rant over.
I had an employer who was a mastering engineer and a teacher previously. He told me he used to have students make a mix using only level faders. Then do it again using faders and panning. Then do it again with faders, panning, and hi pass filters. And so forth for a few more steps. I think people will over utilize plugins and processing without knowing what they want to hear or feel. I feel like most my mixes are just levels, pans, and filters.
This particular process and concept, above all others, truly was the game changer and got me to a point that I could make a mix, instead of mixing a variety of clipping noise.
THANK YOU! I was doing static mixes all my life until I started hearing about gain staging. So I researched it, tried it, and struggled with it. I did get some decent results, but I kept wondering why they weren't better results than what I'd always done. And then you made this video. And I thank you for "giving me permission" to go back to static mixes. That's what I know, where I'm comfortable, and what gives me the results I want. [for readers of this comment, I've been recording for over 40 years, so it's not a matter of being a relatively new kid on the block who doesn't grasp the concept of mixing well. ;-) ]
Thanks so much for making this topic clear and concise in a world where the usage of the term "gain staging" is as diverse and dynamic as all the colors in the spectrum. This what you've provided is quite liberating! 😀
Finally 💙. Thanks. I always thought I was wrong. I kinda do gain staging but I think I do it differently. First I mix all the tracks, find the right level between all the tracks using just the faders, no plugins, just fader levels, focusing on what sounds right to me in terms of relative balance between the tracks. Then, I select all the tracks and I bring all the faders down (or up) till the master output gets to around -6 db. Then I apply plugins and I make sure to keep that - 6db in the master output by adjusting the output volume of each plugin, I do not touch the faders anymore (besides small corrections). It musically works for me, it’s not math, and it’s simple. Thank you Joe.
Isn't there a difference between gain staging, (making sure that the signal being recorded is at the appropriate gain in the beginning and then going from one device and or plug in to the next), and relative volume levels between the different signals or tracks? I thought those were 2 different issues...
Interesting! I actually take this approach for tracks I'm using heavy compression on, because Graham had previously mentioned many plug-ins function optimally at around -18db. I do find that my plug ins react better with the input in that range, BUT I now realize that I probably have been skipping or RUSHING the static mix because I can "fix it later" with plug ins.
A discussion of "Gainstaging" without talking about signal-to-noise ratio, clipping, and headroom, is not a discussion of gain-staging at all. This video is about mixing. I don't think you understand the fundamental concept of gain-staging.
On a fundamental level I totally agree that it's more important to focus on making music rather than fretting if the gain of everything is perfect. However I think the misunderstanding of gain is the main issue. Gain is not the same as setting levels. Gain is setting how much of the signal is available. It's like plumbing. You have the gain/main water line which limits how much water you can pull at a given time. The fader is like a faucet. You can control how much of the source you want to use. 😀
I gain stage for multiple reasons, if I don’t gain stage then I’ll have issues where adding a plugin will clip the track if it’s too high coming in for example. Gain staging helped me to mix and sound better, the thing about mixing that’s cool and fun is everyone has their own workflow. And for me the mix balance is more easier for me after gain staging.
I heard you make a lot of valid points but none were a case against gain staging. This is the process of maximizing a signal's level so as to minimize noise and optimize it for the next amplification stage in the chain. Normalizing tracks so the waveforms look bigger is not gain staging and it never was.
I’m sorry man this argument doesn’t really make any sense. Gain staging videos like this should be for tracking, not mixing. Normalizing raw tracks, without degradation to have a nice solid starting point BEFORE I mix is not harmful at all. This is incredibly helpful when you’re tracking yourself.
I understand what you’re trying to say but gain and level are two different things. Gain staging in mixing isn’t really a thing, gain staging only applies to recording as an engineer, not a mixer. Like you said briefly it applies to analog hardware, and setting the right gains through a chain of analog hardware on the way IN to the DAW. Which is very important it have proper gains hence gain staging. I think the conversation you’re trying to have is about a great balanced mix, not gain staging.
I think usually what people mean by gain staging is not about making everything the same level, but leaving room for the mix to not clip when you put every track together. That's the main goal for me at least.
Gain staging for me is getting all the levels of all my session tracks to hover around -10dBFS with no processing engaged. That will usually ensure me enough wiggle room once I do have my plugins and auxes in the mix. By the end of the mix, I should then have another 5dB of headroom left to account for any mastering processes and make sure my True-Peaks are below 0dBFS. It basically comes down to understanding how much headroom your particular system has to work with.
The concept of gain staging has been misunderstood completely in this yt video. Should the loan shaker be the same volume as the snare drum? Has nothing to do with gain staging. Gain staging is the process, which you already mention, of making sure what is fed into the analogue gear, comes in at a certain sweet spot for the gear to handle. What level you choose to have the shaker, after the processing - so long as is not going through more analogue gear, can be any level you want it to be. It baffles me why so many CZcams videos on this subject, to miss this and don't grasp it. The thing which baffles me, is nobody moans or highlights the pointlessness of calibrating all the analogue gear with test tones, which we would do at the BBC or Abbey Road, with every piece of outboard gear, including all the calibration work with tape machines, yes gain-staging included, because it is all necessary and vital to achieving a mix which - ultimately becomes easier to mix. People wonder why they don't have 3d space and depth in a mix, they wonder why their mixes sound a little muffled, or squashed, they wonder why their mixes don't travel to other setups on playback, they wonder why they are stacking 8 compressors and 5 eq's just to get things to sit in the mix. The first thing they don't wonder about, is an obvious hidden secret, gain stage and level match and level balance, and you'll all be stunned at how much clearer, deeper, sonic and better your mix sounds, and that's before any eq or, panning and or other fx. Rant over.
Wow the first definition you use on gain staging its wrong
I had an employer who was a mastering engineer and a teacher previously. He told me he used to have students make a mix using only level faders. Then do it again using faders and panning. Then do it again with faders, panning, and hi pass filters. And so forth for a few more steps. I think people will over utilize plugins and processing without knowing what they want to hear or feel. I feel like most my mixes are just levels, pans, and filters.
This particular process and concept, above all others, truly was the game changer and got me to a point that I could make a mix, instead of mixing a variety of clipping noise.
THANK YOU! I was doing static mixes all my life until I started hearing about gain staging. So I researched it, tried it, and struggled with it. I did get some decent results, but I kept wondering why they weren't better results than what I'd always done. And then you made this video. And I thank you for "giving me permission" to go back to static mixes. That's what I know, where I'm comfortable, and what gives me the results I want. [for readers of this comment, I've been recording for over 40 years, so it's not a matter of being a relatively new kid on the block who doesn't grasp the concept of mixing well. ;-) ]
The idea with peak normalizing is to do it on the raw tracks, and it has
You are so good at explaining things, thank you so much, great video!
Thanks so much for making this topic clear and concise in a world where the usage of the term "gain staging" is as diverse and dynamic as all the colors in the spectrum. This what you've provided is quite liberating! 😀
Finally 💙. Thanks. I always thought I was wrong. I kinda do gain staging but I think I do it differently. First I mix all the tracks, find the right level between all the tracks using just the faders, no plugins, just fader levels, focusing on what sounds right to me in terms of relative balance between the tracks. Then, I select all the tracks and I bring all the faders down (or up) till the master output gets to around -6 db. Then I apply plugins and I make sure to keep that - 6db in the master output by adjusting the output volume of each plugin, I do not touch the faders anymore (besides small corrections). It musically works for me, it’s not math, and it’s simple. Thank you Joe.
👍 Great videos, thanks! 🙏
Isn't there a difference between gain staging, (making sure that the signal being recorded is at the appropriate gain in the beginning and then going from one device and or plug in to the next), and relative volume levels between the different signals or tracks? I thought those were 2 different issues...
Interesting! I actually take this approach for tracks I'm using heavy compression on, because Graham had previously mentioned many plug-ins function optimally at around -18db. I do find that my plug ins react better with the input in that range, BUT I now realize that I probably have been skipping or RUSHING the static mix because I can "fix it later" with plug ins.