I'm flabbergasted by how many perspectives there are in sound engineering! You do a great job of keeping it simple. Ask a question, then answer it, demonstrate the negatives and positives... not just saying "this is how it is". I can see why you've been so successful in your career.
Nice timing I was just about to explain this to a friend of mine. You’ve done all the hard work for me. Thank you for actually setting up and demonstrating instead of just talking about it.
I see so many people on festivals struggle with gain structure because they don’t use Matrixes. If you don’t have access or permission to turn down the PA amps or processor, using the matrix is a great way to keep good gain structure on your main fader mix and turn down what is going to the PA. Definitely mention this if you do a more advanced version of this topic!
Agreed. Many choices there. Though optimally turning own on the far end of the wire is preferred if accessible. For festivals, asking the systemtechbto from system gain 3 or 6 dB is often not an issue. But... If the system is setup well, should not need to
Gaining up was my very first practical lesson at my school for live sound, lighting and recording engineers. I set my master at unity, my SM58 channel fader at unity and gained to unity and unmuted. That low end whine at that level will stay with me until the day I die. Good on you for sharing this and other knowledge, Dave, rock on!
I have to add... this helped me SIGNIFICANTLY. I was wondering why my subs were sounding so boomy and unbalanced. I know for a fact the "send hot turn down late" is gonna work. That's what is going on. As night goes on and more people fill in, I have to inc volume... that's when things get wonky..so now I have a good fundamental to use.
Great and down to earth video again, once again and again Dave. From my experience: sound engineers who've never mixed on an analog console (like us old rats, with the preamps on board), being used to mix on systems with remote preamps, will be more suspective to get confused between gain stage, digital trim and output drive. Indeed compromising or even failing their mixing and fader surfing capabilities due to an inferior gain structure. It all makes sense ... when you realize it!
Yeah it's a different beast and the digital trims aren't really needed but are helpful and getting your faders in the right spot without making slight sacrifices in signal to noise ratio. I may do a digital version of this at some point
@@DaveRat thanks for putting sound professionals (back) on track with gain structure anyway Dave. It's so valuable considering current binary thinking sound generation!
great video as always, mann! i'm also a big fan of having a visual representation of what's on the faders - everything at 0dB is great for corporate, buuuut in rock'n'roll it's vibey to see what you're hearing! love your work 🤙🤙🤙
Hi Dave, I've been watching your videos for a while. When CZcams suggests a video that mentions gain staging, quite often I watch it. And I have to say this is the best, most practical source I've seen on the topic. I even got a take-out message from this one: set kick fader to 0, get gain right, turn down amps if the system is too loud for the room. Then you can set your other faders where you want them (probably around 0) and turn the gain pots to get an initial mix balance. You've got a practical method and make it so easy to understand!
This specific thing is what I needed as Im finishing an install of a large system. I was just thinking to turn down the amps, and you just confirmed it so my dynamics are as "dynamic" as possible. :) Thank you!
Great succinct video. Would be interesting to see another one with your "typical" digital board. Generally I try to keep the faders in a decent range and mix via subgroups (not vca). Seems to sum better and let you play with compression as desired.
👍🤙👍 Yes starting with the most dynamic and transient instruments which tend to have the largest dynamic range and therefore the most unwieldy, it's not only useful but it also reduces the time spent with guitar solos and check one two
hi Dave, I often used to mix in a 300 person venue with an analogue 32/8/2 Soundcraft console. I had LOTS of fun making sure that all the faders were at zero dB - even though, as you said, it's nice to 'see' the mix sections easily, especially for vocals and solo instruments. ... But to tease some obnoxious and loud eejits, I went the extra mile, and had the channel faders all at zero for the basic mix, and then use the groups to do the fader moves for solos, drum fills, some brass parts and BVs etc. I used a long straight-edge to 'finely tune' the levels. Hilarious! (as long as it wasn't too mad on the moves, then I reverted to the 'mix look' ... By the way, when mixing stage at the same time, balancing the monitors is SO much easier to get right, as the "o'clock" of the aux sends and the level of the channel faders is always consistent. I miss analogue consoles just for this more publicly visual (and to many utterly baffling) effect. I'm smiling as I write.... Of course the channel faders and aux sends I like to set up in the same way on the digital mixers, but i miss my special bit of wood! As always thanks for videos :) Guy
Dave!! I came here cause I saw a video in Linus Tech Tips where they demo an ultrasonic speaker and they explain how it works. It's some kind of directional speaker that can't be heard if you're off-axis. They even use a binaural "head" microphone to demo it so we can experience how it works. Very interesting. You came to mind right away!! I'd love to know your take on the technology behind it. Just a suggestion for a future video! 😂
I use one of those in a video I did with my daughter czcams.com/video/tNpPFEwX6Y4/video.htmlsi=zNKz-lr01SueDpde They're super interesting The maximum volume they can reproduce is limited by how loud they create an ultra high frequency. So it gets unwieldy pretty quick and you're considerably volume limited unless you blasting people with an insanely high amount of ultra high frequencies which is not necessarily a good idea or healthy. But yeah they are interesting and I should do a video on them, I will put that in my list
Yep, this is how most experienced sound-people do it. I've seen guys be OCD about having all faders at unity, as though it's some sort of game. You want the faders to all be hovering around unity, but you want a visual representation of where they are/should be in your mix, even if it only takes a visual difference of ~1/4". Love your videos but they make me miss my music-saturated life I left in Hawaii (for the time being). Cheers Dave!
Yes! And overloading digital consoles in the signal chain I think is the number one cause of bad sound. It's so common that people have begun to accept that sound as part of the digital world and it doesn't need to be
@@DaveRat ...the digital world had so much dynamic range! I sort of miss the analog days when you had to be on the money! I shouldn't say that... Digital and analog have their points.
Good gain structure is especially important in the world of digital mixers and personal monitor mixers. My PM mix suffers when I can’t turn a certain channel up enough to hear it.
Okay so I have a few questions for you Master Yoda! First, thank you once again for doing what you do. You've been consistently and immeasurably valuable to my and countless other's audio journeys. As to your Four factors of gain structure: I've always (Analog, Studio, Consoles & Tape Machines) primarily focused on Noise Floor & Distortion Point. Pushing EVERY input up until I hear the Distortion, then dialing back if it's undesirable or driving In if it IS adding desirable harmonics, is usually how I understand the process of maximizing Signal to Noise. In the Studio, on an Inline Console, PUSHING into Tape while listening to the tape returns, as the next step, and making the same sweet-spot Distortion decisions as with the input gains, maxemizes the signal to tape noise & hiss. This would be in a Recording & then Mixing scenario, where first recording the cleanest Multitracks to be later Mixed, is the objective. However, don't the same rules apply as with Live Mixing, in terms of Gain Staging or optimizing Gain Structure? In the actual Mixing stage, the inputs would often be Hot Line levels coming in, and not require any additinal 'Gain' (and therefore noise) but rather 'Trim' in order to bring the levels down and setup the board for the mix. No? Even then, keeping the levels as Hot as the channels can handle would maximize the signal to noise within the board (assuming no crosstalk concerns). However, bringing all the input signals to the boards Nominal level (0dB VU), or manually Normalizing, would get the levels to where they need to be for On-board and Out-board processing. Again, maximizing signal to noise Throughout the entire Processing Chain. Is this not correct up until this point? So THEN, let's imagine that ALL channels have been processed and a running through thier respective channels strips Hot to the point of thier desired levels of Distortion. And let's also briefly imagine all of the faders are Linear as opposed to Audio Taper, and they're all at infinity (fully down). So 'Pushing the Faders Up' one by one would be 'building the mix' in quite the way that many beginning engineers imagine it to be. All of the valves are closed and you open them up a little to let the water pressure in. My question here is this, would this Not be the maximum signal to noise approach? Now taking into consideration your other two? concerns, optimizing the highest resolution area of Non-linear Audio Taper Faders, and 'Visually' setting up your faders for what you want to 'See' on the board at a glance. With standard 100-mm Faders, the top half (50-mm) is usually Linear and the bottom half (50-mm) Logarithmic. The mid point of the top half is also usually 'Calibrated' as the unity point, meaning you have the Same Linear range up 25% or down 25%, with some amount of Calibrated 'Gain-in-Hand' above that unity point (maybe 10 or 12db). So all faders set to Unity, you have a 20-24dB range to work with in the mix, which is usually more than adequate assuming everything Before has been well managed. But there's always been a disconnect for me: Setting up the Gain Structure to maximize signal to noise throughout the processing chain; And presenting each channel to the Faders at Unity to optimize the tactile resolution of the Mix; There seems to be a need for a "Pre-Fader Trim". A way to attenuate the Hot Signals down to what is actually needed at the Faders. Now working in a 'three-tier mix structure' as I do, Channels -> Busses -> Master, allows for bringing down the Hot Mix at the Bus inputs, and then mixing those into the 2-Bus. However, if aiming for Unity throughout, would not a set of Trims before the Faders be the Best way to serve all master? I hope all of that makes sense, but this has been bouncing around in my skull for decades and this video just conjured it up to the surface. What say you Sir?
Pre fader trim can be useful. Also, like anything where you have several goals that sometimes are in conflict, prioritizing the four factors to be optimal for the application is wise. With tape you have an en extreme case with a high noise floor and forgiving overload. This is the opposite of modern digital live where you have a low noise floor and severe overload issues So based on the application at hand, you may need to accept non optimal fader positions or non optimal metering to stay clear of aspects that will compromise sound quality.
Agreed. Especially as to the opposites we find ourselves in today. Before Noise was the main concern at the bottom, today digital clipping at the top must be avoided at all costs. However my main question still stands: Given the Competing interests, would not the most elegant solution be to have a clean pre-fader trim, on a channel by channel basis, before any actual Mixing. Put another way, the Way Analog Consoles were built kind of necessitated the 'compromise' you are suggesting. You only had 1 Gain at the top & 1 Fader at the bottom. But anyone in the DAW era, as well as many Digital Consoles, can add clean Trim controls wherever needed, and totally avoid the compromise, can we not. And, your suggestion to setup your faders Visually, as a priority makes perfect sense in a Live Mixing scenario, where your main concern is staying on top of things in real-time. But in a Studio Session context, that wouldn't be the primary concern, Best possible Sound reigns supreme. And how the Faders 'look' would almost seem ridiculous. I'd never make that compromise. This is not to be negative in any way, only clarifying what the decision making process would be. Which you often explain remarkably well in addition to explaining the science and technical aspects. Now lastly, and to that point, the physics of either scenario are the same. And prioritizing STN over Ergonomics, or vice-versa would have identical and predictable results give how you set yourself up. And adding another trim stage seems to eliminate the need for the compromise entirely. Unless I'm missing something? @DaveRat
Many consoles even X32 has a digital pre trim and yes that will help visually and electrically out your faders in a desired position. Most dig consoles use a dig trim automatically as well. As the gain analog controlled gain usually jump in 3Db increments. And an auto dig trim fills in to give you .5 or .3 dB increments. By adding dig trim fillers Which means you are already sacrificing optimal noise floor in many gain encoder positions The acoustic difference of the digital trim vs using gain settings to alter fader positions is subtle for dig trim cuts and can be a bit noisy for dig trim gains With gain you are boosting or cutting the signal including input noise vs the console digital noise floor before the A to D, With dig trim you are doing the same, after the A to D and boosting the or cutting the noise of the mic pre. On a dig board for live, any reason to drop the actual gain well clear of clip, tends to be desirable. So rather than using dig trim to drop level and raise faders, just drop the gain. Using dig trim to add level and drop faders is noisy and best to calibrate system level and get your gains optimal. Not against a dig trim fne tune but especially but it's value is not a yay! All good thing, but more of a, gee, I need remember to regularly check them and make sure I am not fighting myself kind of thing
You can make an entire series on this subject. This would be 'the basics' and the next course could talk about various sound sources. Maybe even the various equipment techniques. For example, I play an audio file called gain match at unity to set the level of the amps.
👍👍 yes! Love them too and they were so cool to let me use their track. And... They told me that they saw a noticeable rise in fans from my vids! Honored!!!
Question for Dave and the comments section. How much better is live sound at small stadium gigs say 10,000 now then in the 90s when I saw most of bands
Interesting. Well since better is an opinion, there will be people that crave the vintage sounds. That said, technically, freq resp, coverage, and volume consistency with even a mediocre modern sound systems are quite a bit better. Though mid to late 90s is when the line array revolutionary change to live sound started so some was just beginning to drastically change for the better. It's like comparing an cassete to a CD .maybe not quite but similar. Sound has made huge advances.
Whenever I hear gain settings for me ,I immediately associated with consistency term! Reading mixer user manual and general the gear we use is always welcome! consistently is the term!❤
Great video! Quick question: Instead of adjusting the amps, would it be worthwhile - or a similar result - to just adjust the trim on a digital console? This past week, I worked at a new venue that had some CRANKED amps. Everything sounded great, but I was annoyed that I couldn't put my faders up very high. I noticed during the show that nothing came close to hitting the compression I set on my groups. Again, everything sounded great, it just threw me for a loop! Thinking about the gig after the fact, I realized that I should have adjusted the amps - and your video today confirmed that thought - but alternatively, I thought about trim and wondered if it would be just as useful! Also, just something interesting - at 10:30 in the video - your method of bringing the fader up to unity then adjusting the gain is a technique that is widely used for musical theatre mixing where engineers are mixing shows "line by line" on pre-programmed DCAs.
Digital trim versus continuation after the console are different things. Digital trim will get your channel faders in the right spot if it's the trim on the channel. If you have a digital trim after the output faders of the console that will get your main left and right in place as well. But now you're sending a low-level signal to amps that are run at full gain. This is fine as long as the system is very well wired and not noisy. It really depends on your signal chain. If you have a fully digital signal chain then trimming it anywhere in the single chain that gets your faders into the right places will work. But make sure that whatever your trims do, you really want to see full metering on the console when you're reaching the volume levels that you're going to mix at. If you digital trim to alter your fader position but the signal metering is sitting way down at the bottom of the meter that doesn't give you a good visual reference on the signal. If you have analog lines running to your apps sending hot and turning down late in the chain will minimize any induced noise. Whatever setup you do you want your faders in the right spot your clip lights not to light up and your meters to give you lots of LED lights and operate in that zone where they're 1DB increments so you can see physically and electronically what's going on and everything is ergonomically where it's supposed to be
It's the send unit side of an SCV phase tester. I will make a I will make a high quality recording of those pulses and upload them to the members Telegram channel. Since they've discontinued the SCV tester, uploading the file will allow an easy way to have that pulse
@@DaveRat That would be great.. Thanks ... .. AND ... while the gain staging was really good, What happens when you apply that to a live setting where feedback is another value that needs to be addesssed ... :) it's always a compromise isn't it
Yeah, well feedback is not really a game stage issue it is more of an EQ and overall level versus speaker placement and microphone placement. Although a poor gain structure can increase feedback susceptibility if you're getting into overload and distortion, but whether you use the game pot or the fader makes no difference on feedback
So once you get this gain structure, I assume you avoid changing the input gains because they affect the level in all downstream processing and aux/monitor busses and just adjust the faders right? And if the master is too hot/cold for a good fader position, you can adjust the amp to compensate? Are you at all concerned that the channel strips are presenting a different gain into their downstream processors (gate, compressor, EQ, etc.)? Or is this balancing gain and fader position a means of presenting more consistent signals in each channel strip?
The gain on the channel his responsible for sending enough level to work with but not set so high that it distorts. The attenuator on the amps is set to get your fader levels in good working position. Alternately there are other gain and attenuation stages between the console and the amplifiers such as matrix outs or post console outboard gear like compressors or post console processing where trim adjustments can be made to get your faders in good positions
Thanks a lot for the video Dave. One question. While mixing I noticed that when I do correctly gain structure at the end of the mix I got it saturated. Obviously I got my master lowered but well... my mix is clipping. What am I doing wrong? Again thanks. Very helpful
Hello Mr. Dave, if I were to build a banana with already built 2 way speakers ((all on top of each other)) (1x15" and a horn in the top horizontal) how should I position them,? 1(all on the sides) or 2 (vertically, one, the top horn and the one above, the bottom horn to couple the horns together and the third, the top horn to couple the 15" together and so on) or 3 (all top horns)? 1 or 2 or 3?
Great advice, even (seems to me) applicable to 'in the box' mixing, like: Thinking of "gaining" instruments, samplers etc. inside a track and adjust DAW-fadres visually, like you said? Is this fair to say? Thx!
Yeah I believe it applies across the board. Balancing those four factors for the application at hand. And weight the four factors accordingly. If you're doing a symphony orchestra you may lean more towards staying above noise floor and below distortion as priorities while mixing up metal band with a lot of fast changes, you may need more towards ergonomic layout and access as a priority
Dave I want to share to you one of my life experiences from Bahamas cruise line .Kind of short story among other stupid mistakes that unprofessional made around my various teams I ve work! Was a guy Mihai a Romanian that was just a stupid DJ with schizophrenia! Because his less experience in live he did not understand that with time like after 30 minutes we tend to hear less audio because our internal ears protection and star he had started pushing the main again and again until I was trimming from amp stage! Regarding this topic what did you think was his level of experience? Since we all have vu or at least some vubled we were running a very good mixed like digico sd8
It's pretty common for artists and musicians and DJs to get excited and turn things up. Just like children don't know when to stop eating candy. Has people become more experienced they learn not to do that hopefully
Another way speaking we can split our mixers in 2 like signal sumator and multi plexors! But as for gain staging topic I do like I be learn in old analog times.Unity gain inputs and with master all up but in after muted so I can clearly see the all stages gain level ! Because what we always do with mixers of any those 2 types is we can only lower by levels out consistent gains!! So I ve never push up a fader still we have that option .I honestly did not know how I will be able to manage that situation!😅 So I only use under zero when balancing because of processing.My goal is to stay on proper gain staging with all the processes applied!I sometimes use simple maths adding and summing some dB on paper! I do not like having all the stuff clipping my memory! And just focus on actually mixing 😅
It's pretty easy to demonstrate and prove that the difference in sound of a digital console with a low gain or high gain is almost identical and not audible except in the most critical of listening environments. I did a video where I used high gain low fader and low gain high fader and showed it those two signals are almost exactly the same. The belief that the gain noticeably or significantly changes the sound is a myth that many people believe but tends not to be true except on the cheapest of consoles or when distorting the input czcams.com/video/chgovyDUxx4/video.htmlsi=P1MKq2YE3MN10Pft
@@DaveRat True. Very much agreed. It’s the output loudness that fools our ears that it sounds different. Listening to the same signals or sounds at low levels vs higher levels will sound different for sure. The ole Phon curve in action.
I'm sure the answer differs from engineer to engineer but I'm guessing it's a combination of some engineers falling prey to fader creep, and continuously turning things up till they can do no more Perhaps some of them has to do with a lack of knowledge and misinformation regarding what a fader does versus a game pot. Some people think that a game pot turns up everything and the fader turns up the instrument so putting the faders loud and the game pots down low makes them think that they will get less feedback. This is incorrect and flawed and has no bases in actual fact. Has a game plot and a fader both rays and lower the volume of everything and are not smart enough to know the difference between the instrument and everything. That said I believe this audio myth comes from people clipping the channel by turning the game up too high which will make things feedback. Whereas the fader only increases in lowers the sound created by the game pop. I did a video on this explaining and demonstrating that you may want to check out
I still can't believe the number of people in 2024 that want to set all the faders at unity and then bring the gains up until they hear the level they want to hear in the system. Regardless of how inconsistent that makes every send on the channel strips, gate/comp thresholds, etc... Plus, ignoring the meters that even the cheapest consoles seem to have these days. Let alone the inability to easily recognize system gain problems when going from one rig to the next with a traveling console when 'normal' settings no longer give typical responses. And with matrixes, even if you don't have access to a providers system gain, you can balance your console. And... Without changing anything as far as baseline settings from one stop to the next with the same band.
Great question. With analog there is no distinct point at which the sound goes belly up and turns to shit. Instead with analog, has you increased the level the sound gradually begins to overload more and more. This behavior varies drastically depending on the circuit design and the equipment involved. So to deal with that and offer consistency and a reference point analog gear is calibrated such that a certain level is called "0" This is the nominal level and for professional audio that typically is a +4DBu calibration. Having this calibration consistent allows analog gear to interface and 0db level into a unit and out of a unit means what goes in is the same level as what comes out. With digital gear, there is an absolute maximum we're in all the numeric representations are all "1s". So this is an inherent maximum integral to the mathematics of digital design. So now we have a quandary. If we use digital zero and analog zero to be the same there's a habits of running signal above zero and analog creates massive distortion in digital. So so they needed to come up with an artificial reference level for digital that is somewhat below the absolute maximum. -12dbu or -18dbu more commonly, is typically the reference level the digital uses to simulate the 0 DB level of analog. If we look at it the other way and think why didn't digital just use -18dbu and call it zero, One of the issues is that some analog gear can operate at +18 or + 20 or + 24 or + 30 and so on. With digital it gets all messy and knowing that critical point of destruction for everything goes terrible, the absolute maximum, the all ones it can't get any louder point is very important. Digital needed a strict limit whereas analog has soft limits and a reference point. At some point in the signal chain digital is converted to analog. At which point analog convention takes over and digital -18dbu translates to analog + 4
I think, because above zero you have (somtimes wanted and nice) distorsion in the analog domain, whereas in the digital domain there is at once clipping above zero dB (unnice, most of the times unwanted).
@@DaveRat after reading your answer I invite you if you please made a video about : Yamaha original discontinued VU representation on their live mixers older and new generations! Since I ve work with some of them and 99 procent of my colleagues simply do not get it right ? Maybe your majesty could me them understand because your word mouth means a lot in this industry! Yamaha live mixers and their particular brand of vu LEDs representation ! Thank you very much ! With a little promotion then video on subject will definitely be a great add on sound live community and maybe also a conex to live recordings as well!
Hi @daverat, you seem too chill to be a noise tech. Aren’t you supposed to be road-weary,sleep deprived & riddled with anxiety & screaming at prima-donna gtr players to turn their damn amps down like the rest of us?
It always frustrates me when people run their amps wide open but have the master faders down at -20. They insist -- despite my protests -- that amps "sound their best" when the pad is disengaged.
Most amplifiers have a fixed gain amount. Some have a switch that alters it but typically that's just in attenuator and the same thing with the front panel knob is also an attenuator on an amplifier. So nearly all power amplifiers you don't have any control over the gain because it gets messy and complicates the design. The control that they give you is an attenuator that turns down the level going into the amp. A trim not unlike a fader on a console
such approachable explanations, sharing this for sure. the visual fader/audible parallel... like damn, I subconsciously insist on it but never thought about it, much less to convey! 🫡💙👊
I'm flabbergasted by how many perspectives there are in sound engineering!
You do a great job of keeping it simple. Ask a question, then answer it, demonstrate the negatives and positives... not just saying "this is how it is".
I can see why you've been so successful in your career.
Thank you and honored!!
Nice timing I was just about to explain this to a friend of mine. You’ve done all the hard work for me.
Thank you for actually setting up and demonstrating instead of just talking about it.
👍🎛️👍
I see so many people on festivals struggle with gain structure because they don’t use Matrixes. If you don’t have access or permission to turn down the PA amps or processor, using the matrix is a great way to keep good gain structure on your main fader mix and turn down what is going to the PA. Definitely mention this if you do a more advanced version of this topic!
Agreed. Many choices there. Though optimally turning own on the far end of the wire is preferred if accessible.
For festivals, asking the systemtechbto from system gain 3 or 6 dB is often not an issue. But...
If the system is setup well, should not need to
exact . A well setuped system help a lot the gain structure ❤❤
👍🤙🤙
Very nice and well explained, thank you Dave.
@audioquest1 🤙🎛️🤙
Gaining up was my very first practical lesson at my school for live sound, lighting and recording engineers. I set my master at unity, my SM58 channel fader at unity and gained to unity and unmuted. That low end whine at that level will stay with me until the day I die. Good on you for sharing this and other knowledge, Dave, rock on!
🎛️🔧👍👍👍
I have to add... this helped me SIGNIFICANTLY. I was wondering why my subs were sounding so boomy and unbalanced.
I know for a fact the "send hot turn down late" is gonna work. That's what is going on. As night goes on and more people fill in, I have to inc volume... that's when things get wonky..so now I have a good fundamental to use.
🤙🎛️🎛️🔊👍😁
Dave Ratt. What a legend. Thank you for helping us out and being a sound human!
🤙👍🤙
Only Dave can make Behringer cool!
LOVE RIAROSSA! Inspired. !
Great and down to earth video again, once again and again Dave.
From my experience: sound engineers who've never mixed on an analog console (like us old rats, with the preamps on board), being used to mix on systems with remote preamps, will be more suspective to get confused between gain stage, digital trim and output drive. Indeed compromising or even failing their mixing and fader surfing capabilities due to an inferior gain structure. It all makes sense ... when you realize it!
Yeah it's a different beast and the digital trims aren't really needed but are helpful and getting your faders in the right spot without making slight sacrifices in signal to noise ratio.
I may do a digital version of this at some point
@@DaveRat thanks for putting sound professionals (back) on track with gain structure anyway Dave. It's so valuable considering current binary thinking sound generation!
@Crutelle_Sound_Engineer 👍🤙🤙
great video as always, mann! i'm also a big fan of having a visual representation of what's on the faders - everything at 0dB is great for corporate, buuuut in rock'n'roll it's vibey to see what you're hearing! love your work 🤙🤙🤙
🤙👍🤙
That’s truly a great way to work on a console 👍
🎛️👍👍
Great! this is the first time I actually understand this, thanks so much
The most rewarding part about doing these videos is exactly what you posted.
Being able to explain complex things and have people understand thank you
@@DaveRat My pleasure
🤙🤙🤙
Hi Dave, I've been watching your videos for a while. When CZcams suggests a video that mentions gain staging, quite often I watch it. And I have to say this is the best, most practical source I've seen on the topic. I even got a take-out message from this one: set kick fader to 0, get gain right, turn down amps if the system is too loud for the room. Then you can set your other faders where you want them (probably around 0) and turn the gain pots to get an initial mix balance. You've got a practical method and make it so easy to understand!
Thank you and perfect Yes it sounds like a good strategy
This specific thing is what I needed as Im finishing an install of a large system. I was just thinking to turn down the amps, and you just confirmed it so my dynamics are as "dynamic" as possible. :) Thank you!
Great succinct video. Would be interesting to see another one with your "typical" digital board. Generally I try to keep the faders in a decent range and mix via subgroups (not vca). Seems to sum better and let you play with compression as desired.
I will ponder a digital version. Thank you!
I used to wonder why we start with Drums, but it seems pretty clear now: we get to hear the full range, and we don't have to listen to lead singers!
👍🤙👍 Yes starting with the most dynamic and transient instruments which tend to have the largest dynamic range and therefore the most unwieldy, it's not only useful but it also reduces the time spent with guitar solos and check one two
hi Dave,
I often used to mix in a 300 person venue with an analogue 32/8/2 Soundcraft console.
I had LOTS of fun making sure that all the faders were at zero dB - even though, as you said, it's nice to 'see' the mix sections easily, especially for vocals and solo instruments.
... But to tease some obnoxious and loud eejits, I went the extra mile, and had the channel faders all at zero for the basic mix, and then use the groups to do the fader moves for solos, drum fills, some brass parts and BVs etc. I used a long straight-edge to 'finely tune' the levels. Hilarious! (as long as it wasn't too mad on the moves, then I reverted to the 'mix look' ...
By the way, when mixing stage at the same time, balancing the monitors is SO much easier to get right, as the "o'clock" of the aux sends and the level of the channel faders is always consistent.
I miss analogue consoles just for this more publicly visual (and to many utterly baffling) effect.
I'm smiling as I write....
Of course the channel faders and aux sends I like to set up in the same way on the digital mixers, but i miss my special bit of wood!
As always thanks for videos :)
Guy
Thank you so much, there is something to learn from every videos of yours, God bless you with best health & Happiness...
🔧👍🔧🤙
Dave!! I came here cause I saw a video in Linus Tech Tips where they demo an ultrasonic speaker and they explain how it works. It's some kind of directional speaker that can't be heard if you're off-axis. They even use a binaural "head" microphone to demo it so we can experience how it works. Very interesting. You came to mind right away!! I'd love to know your take on the technology behind it. Just a suggestion for a future video! 😂
I use one of those in a video I did with my daughter
czcams.com/video/tNpPFEwX6Y4/video.htmlsi=zNKz-lr01SueDpde
They're super interesting The maximum volume they can reproduce is limited by how loud they create an ultra high frequency. So it gets unwieldy pretty quick and you're considerably volume limited unless you blasting people with an insanely high amount of ultra high frequencies which is not necessarily a good idea or healthy.
But yeah they are interesting and I should do a video on them, I will put that in my list
Yep, this is how most experienced sound-people do it. I've seen guys be OCD about having all faders at unity, as though it's some sort of game. You want the faders to all be hovering around unity, but you want a visual representation of where they are/should be in your mix, even if it only takes a visual difference of ~1/4". Love your videos but they make me miss my music-saturated life I left in Hawaii (for the time being). Cheers Dave!
Setting input gain is the single most important thing an engineer can do, in the digital world.
Yes! And overloading digital consoles in the signal chain I think is the number one cause of bad sound.
It's so common that people have begun to accept that sound as part of the digital world and it doesn't need to be
@@DaveRat ...the digital world had so much dynamic range! I sort of miss the analog days when you had to be on the money!
I shouldn't say that... Digital and analog have their points.
@ToddWCorey1 digital does have a lot of dynamic range it's puzzling to me why any engineer would ever mix in the digital clip
@@DaveRat Amen. So much headroom with virtually no noise... It's what every sound dude dreamed about!
Clipping is just intolerable!
🎛️🚦👎
Good gain structure is especially important in the world of digital mixers and personal monitor mixers. My PM mix suffers when I can’t turn a certain channel up enough to hear it.
🎛️🎛️🎛️👍🔧
Extremely helpful information, thank you!
🔧🎛️👍
Super interesting and well explained! Thanks
🔧🎛️🔧
Okay so I have a few questions for you Master Yoda!
First, thank you once again for doing what you do. You've been consistently and immeasurably valuable to my and countless other's audio journeys.
As to your Four factors of gain structure: I've always (Analog, Studio, Consoles & Tape Machines) primarily focused on Noise Floor & Distortion Point.
Pushing EVERY input up until I hear the Distortion, then dialing back if it's undesirable or driving In if it IS adding desirable harmonics, is usually how I understand the process of maximizing Signal to Noise.
In the Studio, on an Inline Console, PUSHING into Tape while listening to the tape returns, as the next step, and making the same sweet-spot Distortion decisions as with the input gains, maxemizes the signal to tape noise & hiss.
This would be in a Recording & then Mixing scenario, where first recording the cleanest Multitracks to be later Mixed, is the objective.
However, don't the same rules apply as with Live Mixing, in terms of Gain Staging or optimizing Gain Structure?
In the actual Mixing stage, the inputs would often be Hot Line levels coming in, and not require any additinal 'Gain' (and therefore noise) but rather 'Trim' in order to bring the levels down and setup the board for the mix. No?
Even then, keeping the levels as Hot as the channels can handle would maximize the signal to noise within the board (assuming no crosstalk concerns). However, bringing all the input signals to the boards Nominal level (0dB VU), or manually Normalizing, would get the levels to where they need to be for On-board and Out-board processing. Again, maximizing signal to noise Throughout the entire Processing Chain. Is this not correct up until this point?
So THEN, let's imagine that ALL channels have been processed and a running through thier respective channels strips Hot to the point of thier desired levels of Distortion.
And let's also briefly imagine all of the faders are Linear as opposed to Audio Taper, and they're all at infinity (fully down).
So 'Pushing the Faders Up' one by one would be 'building the mix' in quite the way that many beginning engineers imagine it to be. All of the valves are closed and you open them up a little to let the water pressure in.
My question here is this, would this Not be the maximum signal to noise approach?
Now taking into consideration your other two? concerns, optimizing the highest resolution area of Non-linear Audio Taper Faders, and 'Visually' setting up your faders for what you want to 'See' on the board at a glance.
With standard 100-mm Faders, the top half (50-mm) is usually Linear and the bottom half (50-mm) Logarithmic. The mid point of the top half is also usually 'Calibrated' as the unity point, meaning you have the Same Linear range up 25% or down 25%, with some amount of Calibrated 'Gain-in-Hand' above that unity point (maybe 10 or 12db).
So all faders set to Unity, you have a 20-24dB range to work with in the mix, which is usually more than adequate assuming everything Before has been well managed.
But there's always been a disconnect for me:
Setting up the Gain Structure to maximize signal to noise throughout the processing chain;
And presenting each channel to the Faders at Unity to optimize the tactile resolution of the Mix;
There seems to be a need for a "Pre-Fader Trim". A way to attenuate the Hot Signals down to what is actually needed at the Faders.
Now working in a 'three-tier mix structure' as I do, Channels -> Busses -> Master, allows for bringing down the Hot Mix at the Bus inputs, and then mixing those into the 2-Bus.
However, if aiming for Unity throughout, would not a set of Trims before the Faders be the Best way to serve all master?
I hope all of that makes sense, but this has been bouncing around in my skull for decades and this video just conjured it up to the surface.
What say you Sir?
Pre fader trim can be useful.
Also, like anything where you have several goals that sometimes are in conflict, prioritizing the four factors to be optimal for the application is wise.
With tape you have an en extreme case with a high noise floor and forgiving overload. This is the opposite of modern digital live where you have a low noise floor and severe overload issues
So based on the application at hand, you may need to accept non optimal fader positions or non optimal metering to stay clear of aspects that will compromise sound quality.
Agreed.
Especially as to the opposites we find ourselves in today.
Before Noise was the main concern at the bottom, today digital clipping at the top must be avoided at all costs.
However my main question still stands:
Given the Competing interests, would not the most elegant solution be to have a clean pre-fader trim, on a channel by channel basis, before any actual Mixing.
Put another way, the Way Analog Consoles were built kind of necessitated the 'compromise' you are suggesting. You only had 1 Gain at the top & 1 Fader at the bottom.
But anyone in the DAW era, as well as many Digital Consoles, can add clean Trim controls wherever needed, and totally avoid the compromise, can we not.
And, your suggestion to setup your faders Visually, as a priority makes perfect sense in a Live Mixing scenario, where your main concern is staying on top of things in real-time.
But in a Studio Session context, that wouldn't be the primary concern, Best possible Sound reigns supreme. And how the Faders 'look' would almost seem ridiculous. I'd never make that compromise.
This is not to be negative in any way, only clarifying what the decision making process would be. Which you often explain remarkably well in addition to explaining the science and technical aspects.
Now lastly, and to that point, the physics of either scenario are the same. And prioritizing STN over Ergonomics, or vice-versa would have identical and predictable results give how you set yourself up.
And adding another trim stage seems to eliminate the need for the compromise entirely.
Unless I'm missing something?
@DaveRat
Many consoles even X32 has a digital pre trim and yes that will help visually and electrically out your faders in a desired position.
Most dig consoles use a dig trim automatically as well. As the gain analog controlled gain usually jump in 3Db increments. And an auto dig trim fills in to give you .5 or .3 dB increments. By adding dig trim fillers
Which means you are already sacrificing optimal noise floor in many gain encoder positions
The acoustic difference of the digital trim vs using gain settings to alter fader positions is subtle for dig trim cuts and can be a bit noisy for dig trim gains
With gain you are boosting or cutting the signal including input noise vs the console digital noise floor before the A to D,
With dig trim you are doing the same, after the A to D and boosting the or cutting the noise of the mic pre.
On a dig board for live, any reason to drop the actual gain well clear of clip, tends to be desirable.
So rather than using dig trim to drop level and raise faders, just drop the gain.
Using dig trim to add level and drop faders is noisy and best to calibrate system level and get your gains optimal.
Not against a dig trim fne tune but especially but it's value is not a yay! All good thing, but more of a, gee, I need remember to regularly check them and make sure I am not fighting myself kind of thing
Always love your videos from a dumb drummer viewpoint . Really wish I could buy a Rat Sound shirt though. Love ya brother ❤
You can make an entire series on this subject. This would be 'the basics' and the next course could talk about various sound sources. Maybe even the various equipment techniques. For example, I play an audio file called gain match at unity to set the level of the amps.
Excellent! Thanks, Dave!
👍🤙👍
Love Riarosa!! Heard them first here from Dave!!!
👍👍 yes! Love them too and they were so cool to let me use their track. And...
They told me that they saw a noticeable rise in fans from my vids! Honored!!!
Reminds me of my learning in the 80's with all of the primitive manual setups with no subs. Had to make it happen. No conveniences at all.
👍🤙👍
Thank you so much, Dave!
🤙👍🤙
Question for Dave and the comments section.
How much better is live sound at small stadium gigs say 10,000 now then in the 90s when I saw most of bands
Interesting. Well since better is an opinion, there will be people that crave the vintage sounds.
That said, technically, freq resp, coverage, and volume consistency with even a mediocre modern sound systems are quite a bit better. Though mid to late 90s is when the line array revolutionary change to live sound started so some was just beginning to drastically change for the better.
It's like comparing an cassete to a CD
.maybe not quite but similar. Sound has made huge advances.
Exactly...well presented
🤙🎛️🤙
Whenever I hear gain settings for me ,I immediately associated with consistency term! Reading mixer user manual and general the gear we use is always welcome! consistently is the term!❤
👍🤙👍
What did you think was the reason raising the main pa from FOH board ? Since in rehearsals we ve set the proper gain level!!😅
Great video!
Quick question: Instead of adjusting the amps, would it be worthwhile - or a similar result - to just adjust the trim on a digital console?
This past week, I worked at a new venue that had some CRANKED amps. Everything sounded great, but I was annoyed that I couldn't put my faders up very high. I noticed during the show that nothing came close to hitting the compression I set on my groups. Again, everything sounded great, it just threw me for a loop!
Thinking about the gig after the fact, I realized that I should have adjusted the amps - and your video today confirmed that thought - but alternatively, I thought about trim and wondered if it would be just as useful!
Also, just something interesting - at 10:30 in the video - your method of bringing the fader up to unity then adjusting the gain is a technique that is widely used for musical theatre mixing where engineers are mixing shows "line by line" on pre-programmed DCAs.
Digital trim versus continuation after the console are different things.
Digital trim will get your channel faders in the right spot if it's the trim on the channel. If you have a digital trim after the output faders of the console that will get your main left and right in place as well.
But now you're sending a low-level signal to amps that are run at full gain.
This is fine as long as the system is very well wired and not noisy.
It really depends on your signal chain. If you have a fully digital signal chain then trimming it anywhere in the single chain that gets your faders into the right places will work.
But make sure that whatever your trims do, you really want to see full metering on the console when you're reaching the volume levels that you're going to mix at.
If you digital trim to alter your fader position but the signal metering is sitting way down at the bottom of the meter that doesn't give you a good visual reference on the signal.
If you have analog lines running to your apps sending hot and turning down late in the chain will minimize any induced noise.
Whatever setup you do you want your faders in the right spot your clip lights not to light up and your meters to give you lots of LED lights and operate in that zone where they're 1DB increments so you can see physically and electronically what's going on and everything is ergonomically where it's supposed to be
Great info!
👍🎛️👍
Tbjs was great ... what was the pulse generator??? That seems like a good tool for the 'road kit"
It's the send unit side of an SCV phase tester. I will make a I will make a high quality recording of those pulses and upload them to the members Telegram channel.
Since they've discontinued the SCV tester, uploading the file will allow an easy way to have that pulse
@@DaveRat That would be great.. Thanks ... .. AND ... while the gain staging was really good, What happens when you apply that to a live setting where feedback is another value that needs to be addesssed ... :) it's always a compromise isn't it
Yeah, well feedback is not really a game stage issue it is more of an EQ and overall level versus speaker placement and microphone placement.
Although a poor gain structure can increase feedback susceptibility if you're getting into overload and distortion, but whether you use the game pot or the fader makes no difference on feedback
So once you get this gain structure, I assume you avoid changing the input gains because they affect the level in all downstream processing and aux/monitor busses and just adjust the faders right? And if the master is too hot/cold for a good fader position, you can adjust the amp to compensate? Are you at all concerned that the channel strips are presenting a different gain into their downstream processors (gate, compressor, EQ, etc.)? Or is this balancing gain and fader position a means of presenting more consistent signals in each channel strip?
The gain on the channel his responsible for sending enough level to work with but not set so high that it distorts.
The attenuator on the amps is set to get your fader levels in good working position.
Alternately there are other gain and attenuation stages between the console and the amplifiers such as matrix outs or post console outboard gear like compressors or post console processing where trim adjustments can be made to get your faders in good positions
Thanks a lot for the video Dave. One question. While mixing I noticed that when I do correctly gain structure at the end of the mix I got it saturated. Obviously I got my master lowered but well... my mix is clipping. What am I doing wrong?
Again thanks. Very helpful
Why nobody show this to me until now?!? 😅Thank you! 🙏
🤙👍🤙
Hello Mr. Dave, if I were to build a banana with already built 2 way speakers ((all on top of each other)) (1x15" and a horn in the top horizontal) how should I position them,? 1(all on the sides) or 2 (vertically, one, the top horn and the one above, the bottom horn to couple the horns together and the third, the top horn to couple the 15" together and so on) or 3 (all top horns)? 1 or 2 or 3?
Line arrays work by minimizing the overlap of the output between horns.
So horns pointed wide and enough angle to have minimal overlap in the outputs
@@DaveRat Thank you, Have a nice day.
👍👍👍
Great advice, even (seems to me) applicable to 'in the box' mixing, like: Thinking of "gaining" instruments, samplers etc. inside a track and adjust DAW-fadres visually, like you said? Is this fair to say? Thx!
Yeah I believe it applies across the board. Balancing those four factors for the application at hand.
And weight the four factors accordingly.
If you're doing a symphony orchestra you may lean more towards staying above noise floor and below distortion as priorities while mixing up metal band with a lot of fast changes, you may need more towards ergonomic layout and access as a priority
Dave I want to share to you one of my life experiences from Bahamas cruise line .Kind of short story among other stupid mistakes that unprofessional made around my various teams I ve work! Was a guy Mihai a Romanian that was just a stupid DJ with schizophrenia! Because his less experience in live he did not understand that with time like after 30 minutes we tend to hear less audio because our internal ears protection and star he had started pushing the main again and again until I was trimming from amp stage! Regarding this topic what did you think was his level of experience? Since we all have vu or at least some vubled we were running a very good mixed like digico sd8
It's pretty common for artists and musicians and DJs to get excited and turn things up.
Just like children don't know when to stop eating candy.
Has people become more experienced they learn not to do that hopefully
Another way speaking we can split our mixers in 2 like signal sumator and multi plexors! But as for gain staging topic I do like I be learn in old analog times.Unity gain inputs and with master all up but in after muted so I can clearly see the all stages gain level ! Because what we always do with mixers of any those 2 types is we can only lower by levels out consistent gains!! So I ve never push up a fader still we have that option .I honestly did not know how I will be able to manage that situation!😅 So I only use under zero when balancing because of processing.My goal is to stay on proper gain staging with all the processes applied!I sometimes use simple maths adding and summing some dB on paper! I do not like having all the stuff clipping my memory! And just focus on actually mixing 😅
👍🤙 Yes whatever workflow works for you and if you choose a good workflow and you do it well then you should see wonderful successes your career
Thats great, for a analog board, but how about on a digital board? Where it doesn't sound as good at low gain and high fader position.
It's pretty easy to demonstrate and prove that the difference in sound of a digital console with a low gain or high gain is almost identical and not audible except in the most critical of listening environments.
I did a video where I used high gain low fader and low gain high fader and showed it those two signals are almost exactly the same.
The belief that the gain noticeably or significantly changes the sound is a myth that many people believe but tends not to be true except on the cheapest of consoles or when distorting the input
czcams.com/video/chgovyDUxx4/video.htmlsi=P1MKq2YE3MN10Pft
@@DaveRat
True.
Very much agreed.
It’s the output loudness that fools our ears that it sounds different. Listening to the same signals or sounds at low levels vs higher levels will sound different for sure.
The ole Phon curve in action.
Why do i see many mixers working on analog desks with the channel faders all the way up?
I'm sure the answer differs from engineer to engineer but I'm guessing it's a combination of some engineers falling prey to fader creep, and continuously turning things up till they can do no more
Perhaps some of them has to do with a lack of knowledge and misinformation regarding what a fader does versus a game pot.
Some people think that a game pot turns up everything and the fader turns up the instrument so putting the faders loud and the game pots down low makes them think that they will get less feedback.
This is incorrect and flawed and has no bases in actual fact.
Has a game plot and a fader both rays and lower the volume of everything and are not smart enough to know the difference between the instrument and everything.
That said I believe this audio myth comes from people clipping the channel by turning the game up too high which will make things feedback.
Whereas the fader only increases in lowers the sound created by the game pop.
I did a video on this explaining and demonstrating that you may want to check out
I still can't believe the number of people in 2024 that want to set all the faders at unity and then bring the gains up until they hear the level they want to hear in the system. Regardless of how inconsistent that makes every send on the channel strips, gate/comp thresholds, etc... Plus, ignoring the meters that even the cheapest consoles seem to have these days. Let alone the inability to easily recognize system gain problems when going from one rig to the next with a traveling console when 'normal' settings no longer give typical responses.
And with matrixes, even if you don't have access to a providers system gain, you can balance your console. And... Without changing anything as far as baseline settings from one stop to the next with the same band.
Hey Dave. Question. Why does zero on an analog which we know what sounds like sound so different on digital at zero. It the meters different or what.
Great question. With analog there is no distinct point at which the sound goes belly up and turns to shit. Instead with analog, has you increased the level the sound gradually begins to overload more and more. This behavior varies drastically depending on the circuit design and the equipment involved.
So to deal with that and offer consistency and a reference point analog gear is calibrated such that a certain level is called "0"
This is the nominal level and for professional audio that typically is a +4DBu calibration.
Having this calibration consistent allows analog gear to interface and 0db level into a unit and out of a unit means what goes in is the same level as what comes out.
With digital gear, there is an absolute maximum we're in all the numeric representations are all "1s". So this is an inherent maximum integral to the mathematics of digital design.
So now we have a quandary. If we use digital zero and analog zero to be the same there's a habits of running signal above zero and analog creates massive distortion in digital.
So so they needed to come up with an artificial reference level for digital that is somewhat below the absolute maximum. -12dbu or -18dbu more commonly, is typically the reference level the digital uses to simulate the 0 DB level of analog.
If we look at it the other way and think why didn't digital just use -18dbu and call it zero, One of the issues is that some analog gear can operate at +18 or + 20 or + 24 or + 30 and so on. With digital it gets all messy and knowing that critical point of destruction for everything goes terrible, the absolute maximum, the all ones it can't get any louder point is very important.
Digital needed a strict limit whereas analog has soft limits and a reference point.
At some point in the signal chain digital is converted to analog. At which point analog convention takes over and digital -18dbu translates to analog + 4
I think, because above zero you have (somtimes wanted and nice) distorsion in the analog domain, whereas in the digital domain there is at once clipping above zero dB (unnice, most of the times unwanted).
@@DaveRat thank u so much!!
👍👍👍
@@DaveRat after reading your answer I invite you if you please made a video about : Yamaha original discontinued VU representation on their live mixers older and new generations! Since I ve work with some of them and 99 procent of my colleagues simply do not get it right ? Maybe your majesty could me them understand because your word mouth means a lot in this industry! Yamaha live mixers and their particular brand of vu LEDs representation ! Thank you very much ! With a little promotion then video on subject will definitely be a great add on sound live community and maybe also a conex to live recordings as well!
Hi @daverat, you seem too chill to be a noise tech. Aren’t you supposed to be road-weary,sleep deprived & riddled with anxiety & screaming at prima-donna gtr players to turn their damn amps down like the rest of us?
I Dave that for things that are stressful, like going grocery shopping
It always frustrates me when people run their amps wide open but have the master faders down at -20. They insist -- despite my protests -- that amps "sound their best" when the pad is disengaged.
The concepted attenuators or pads degrade sound in an audible way is a myth indeed
Over modulating the input stage of a amp is very very hazard for the drivers and the amp protection itself! consistent is the term for gain staging!
Most amplifiers have a fixed gain amount. Some have a switch that alters it but typically that's just in attenuator and the same thing with the front panel knob is also an attenuator on an amplifier.
So nearly all power amplifiers you don't have any control over the gain because it gets messy and complicates the design.
The control that they give you is an attenuator that turns down the level going into the amp. A trim not unlike a fader on a console
🔧👍🔧
#flatfadersociety =D
Structure is not appropriate word for gain
such approachable explanations, sharing this for sure. the visual fader/audible parallel... like damn, I subconsciously insist on it but never thought about it, much less to convey! 🫡💙👊
🤙👍🤙