TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Production Studio
-- Lowering the master volume
Pages (3): « 1 [2] 3 »

quote:

Originally posted by DEAD_MOOSE If it wasn't ok to use the master volume there wouldn't be one would there! Osmodior. What the hell are you on about?

lol.. all i've said is that "in my experience" if the master fader is lowered too far my output files have been quiet. I'm not talking theoretically, i'm talking about my past experience.

If you google 'cubase mixdown volume' you will find other people with the same problem. For me, it was fixed (on peer advice) simply by lowering the other channels, and raising the master fader. This made a noticeable difference to the levels of my output files, even tho the apparent volume during in-project playback stayed approximately the same.

Regardless of the reasons behind it, my advice to the OP was essentially to try and leave the master fader up and control the mix with the individual channels instead, and since this idea has been challenged by a couple of people i've done a quick google and almost instantly found a resource that supports this notion, so it's not complete nonsense.

"Keep your levels in check and use groups if needed to ensure the overall level being fed to your master output is well below 0db. Aim to finish your mix with the master fader at Unity gain (0db) with around 3-4db of headroom."

(Step 7 - Preserve Headroom)
http://audio.tutsplus.com/tutorials...-your-mix-down/

In the end it doesn't matter, it's just a suggestion i'm making based on my past experiences, the OP can take it or leave it as he see's fit.

quote:

Originally posted by Osmodiar lol.. all i've said is that "in my experience" if the master fader is lowered too far my output files have been quiet. I'm not talking theoretically, i'm talking about my past experience. If you google 'cubase mixdown volume' you will find other people with the same problem. For me, it was fixed (on peer advice) simply by lowering the other channels, and raising the master fader. This made a noticeable difference to the levels of my output files, even tho the apparent volume during in-project playback stayed approximately the same. Regardless of the reasons behind it, my advice to the OP was essentially to try and leave the master fader up and control the mix with the individual channels instead, and since this idea has been challenged by a couple of people i've done a quick google and almost instantly found a resource that supports this notion, so it's not complete nonsense. "Keep your levels in check and use groups if needed to ensure the overall level being fed to your master output is well below 0db. Aim to finish your mix with the master fader at Unity gain (0db) with around 3-4db of headroom." (Step 7 - Preserve Headroom) http://audio.tutsplus.com/tutorials...-your-mix-down/ In the end it doesn't matter, it's just a suggestion i'm making based on my past experiences, the OP can take it or leave it as he see's fit.

I'm too tired to search around, but that quote is wrong for DAWs. The master fader in a DAW is nothing like the one on an analog console. Search gearslutz, kvr,.... I remember the freaking designer of the Neve console explaining this on gearslutz (if you care to search around) and the dude from Steinberg that actually made Cubase and now Studio One.

Generally, one shouldn't have to adjust the Master fader if one's individual channels are set to appropriate levels.

quote:

Originally posted by Nick Cenik Generally, one shouldn't have to adjust the Master fader if one's individual channels are set to appropriate levels.

Exactly. vikerness, did you follow the resource i linked? it is 100% talking about software, not analogue stuff.

If you keep pulling down the master fader until all your peaks are below the 0db point, then the non-peak sections of your track will be too quiet in your output file. If instead of reaching for the quick fix master fader, you go through your individual channels and find the tracks that are causing the peaks, and use some subtle compression on them or otherwise bring their levels down into the mix, then you fix the clipping problems without lowering ALL your levels via the master because of a few peaks on some channels.

It makes perfect sense to me..

WFT? This again?

Pulling down the master fader for an ITB situation is technically not an issue in a DAW because it's a 32 point floating system and there's no resolution loss by doing so.

However, it's kind of bad practice for the following reasons:

1, If you even have to use analogue hardware, pulling down down the master is an absolute no-no unless you really are a ninja.

2, Why would you need to? Pulling down your track faders has exactly the same outcome as pulling down the master, so don't be lazy, get your mix right in the first place.

3, On some DAw's the plugins return on them master channel are post fader, meaning if you pull it down your balance of tracks vs Master FX is going to be screwed.

4, You could overloading a track or the bus, and if you are, pulling down the master will just make it quieter, not fix the digital distortion you've just introduced.

Personally, i I feel it's just good practice to learn and maintain gain staging - there's no reason why you can't produce a perfect mix to unity gain and if you have to pull down the master then you're not accomplished/knowledgable enough. Yes, there ARE circumstances where's it's necessary/useful but my feeling is, if you're having to ask "should I" then you don't know enough to be considering it.

And what the shit is this about cubase having 6db of headroom?

quote:

Originally posted by DJ RANN WFT? This again? However, it's kind of bad practice for the following reasons: don't be lazy, get your mix right in the first place. if you're having to ask "should I" then you don't know enough to be considering it. And what the shit is this about cubase having 6db of headroom?

Well said!

quote:

Originally posted by Osmodiar but yeah with cubase i think it is better to leave your master at 0db and adjust the individual channels (which you can link and do all at once to retain the relative differences).

how do you do this mate ?

quote:

Originally posted by djandymac how do you do this mate ?

To link channels, first go to the mixer window and click on one the first channel you want to include (being careful not to click on any of the controls or editable settings). Then Shift-click on the last channel to select all those between it and the first, and/or Ctrl-click to add other channels that don't follow in sequence in the mixer. The channels you want to link should now be highlighted in the mixer. Now right-click on the background on one of the channels (somewhere near one of the faders is good � but avoid right-clicking the pan pots as this accesses a different function on stereo tracks) and select 'Link Channels'. Now, when you select a different channel, and then reselect one of the linked ones, you should notice that all of the linked channels will be highlighted in the mixer.

RANN's got the right advice.

I also thought that the audio summing (and dithering, if used) will yield a different result if the master fader is not at unity gain (0dB). that is, the algorithm is changed, and your resolution will be applied to quieter parts in the mix, upon export. I think this question is posed to rann.

quote:

Originally posted by Kthought RANN's got the right advice. I also thought that the audio summing (and dithering, if used) will yield a different result if the master fader is not at unity gain (0dB). that is, the algorithm is changed, and your resolution will be applied to quieter parts in the mix, upon export. I think this question is posed to rann.

I've been saying it since page 1 but sure give hime the credit, lol

Aplogoies, then I agree with Osmo too. :P

quote:

Originally posted by Kthought RANN's got the right advice. I also thought that the audio summing (and dithering, if used) will yield a different result if the master fader is not at unity gain (0dB). that is, the algorithm is changed, and your resolution will be applied to quieter parts in the mix, upon export. I think this question is posed to rann.

Not quite sure what the question is but I think you're referring to the theory of loss of bit depth with the master at a lower level.

While true in primitive digital systems, it doesn't make a shade of difference with 32 bit float as you have over 1500db of headroom meaning you won't hear distortion even at the lowest settings on the fader.

I remember some test where this guy put his master fader only one notch above infinity (off) then put like 8 gain plugins on his intstrument track in series and jacked them all up with a test sound on that track.

Zero distortion - it sounded completely clear as if the two tracks were gained correctly and unity was maintained on the master.

Maybe, there is a subjective difference based on how a particular DAW itself handles the processing on an export with the master below unity, but in theory, it really shouldn't matter becuase of how much internal headroom fully digital 32bit float systems have.

The exceptions are of course that some plugs don't operate at higher bit depths and not everyone's daw is 32 bit float.

Is that what you meant?

kthought, osmo, etc....... GIVE UP ALREADY!

If you have master low but the gain structure of the other faders means the track is hitting -0.1 it will come out -0.1

AHHHHH =P

It sounds like you are overcomplicating things for the man.

Sometimes i dont mix right and my levels are wrong and it peaks to high so i just put a gain plug-in on my master as the first in the chain. eg. gain -> compressor -> EQ -> limiter.

Adjust gain to suit and done.

This is on Logic, i assume its the same on Cubase.

I lowered my master on FL and everything sounds nice. If FL9 had a feature where you could lower all mixer volumes together then I wouldn't need to lower the master. I could lower each channel independently but my mixdown is perfect and lowering each one at a time would ruin the mix.

I believe you're better off examining your individual tracks and resolving the gain issues on the channels that are running hot, not just making everything softer via the master vol. That is my advice in a nutshell.

Sonic my point is that if you pull the master fader down to resolve clipping problems you are lowering your entire mix, even the parts that are already softer than the clipping threshold, so you may end up with no clipping by lowering the master, but the softer parts of the track will be reduced aswell when you don't want them to be.

The peak output level of each export done either way may be the same as you say, but that's not my point.

Surely when tackling a clipping issue you only want to adjust the channels/parts that are causing the issues, and leave the rest alone, to preserve the dynamic range of the mix.

quote:

Originally posted by DJ RANN Is that what you meant?

Precisely, thanks for clarifying that.

Give up?

Im not having any trouble with my mixes, and havent touched a master fader in years. I was merely deepening the topic discussion. Procuring fud for thought.

hmm..what about lowering the master and raising the softer parts of the track?

that could work, but it might be more difficult than you think - unless your soft parts happen to have their own channels and constant volume throughout your tune.. which i think is unlikely.

even if it is, will your next tune be the same? probably not.. so better practice is to find & cut the peaks down rather than trying to raise the rest up to compensate for adjusting the master volume.

say you've got a drums channel with some loud crash cymbals on it, start by putting a compressor on that channel set to soften the peak of the crash cymbal without affecting anything else in the mix. Approach it step by step like that and it won't matter what tune you're working on the skills you learn will always apply.

quote:

Originally posted by DJ RANN WFT? This again? Pulling down the master fader for an ITB situation is technically not an issue in a DAW because it's a 32 point floating system and there's no resolution loss by doing so. However, it's kind of bad practice for the following reasons: 1, If you even have to use analogue hardware, pulling down down the master is an absolute no-no unless you really are a ninja. 2, Why would you need to? Pulling down your track faders has exactly the same outcome as pulling down the master, so don't be lazy, get your mix right in the first place. 3, On some DAw's the plugins return on them master channel are post fader, meaning if you pull it down your balance of tracks vs Master FX is going to be screwed. 4, You could overloading a track or the bus, and if you are, pulling down the master will just make it quieter, not fix the digital distortion you've just introduced.

1/ Not an issue if you use the bussing solutions provided for integrating external hardware in most DAWs these days. They allow you to set the gain on the way out and reset it on the way back in to allow for the correct levels to hit the analogue stage.

2/ Its neccesary in cases where your DAW doesn't have a quick solution to pull down all channels at once. Ever tried to pull down 24 channels by exactly 6 db in live 7? Its a pain.

3/most DAWs have an option to set returns post or pre fader, if you use it, then you can account for this. If your mix sounds different after doing something, and you don't like it, then one assumes that you'll go through and fix it.

4/ Its impossible to overload tracks and busses in a 32 FP audio engine AFAIK. This also assumes your plugins have that headroom as well of course, but most do these days. You'd know better than me on this, but that was my understanding?

There are cases when this sort of thing is appropriate, especially in the stages before the final mixdown. I generally have given up on worrying about it all, I like the extra resolution on the meters that you get when they're peaking up near 0 dB, as opposed to down near -6, so thats where I get my track peaking to. I like the sound of the way I do it, and technical arguments about bit depth and such silliness are just that IMO, silliness.

Of course, I generally do keep my master at unity now that ableton 8 allows you to adjust the faders of all tracks at once, but its not unusual for me to do some funny gain staging, involving dropping the master through an EQ or gain plugin going into my compressors and limiters when I'm mastering, which I do in the same session as the mixing

@ the OP, I recommend you put a gain plugin on your track and reduce the gain by 6dB, if that doesn't work you'll have to rework the mix or you won't have enough room on the channel faders to boost some of them high enough.

And of course, all this advice only really applies if you have 64 bit plugins and a 32 bit DAW and stuff...

quote:

Originally posted by Osmodiar that could work, but it might be more difficult than you think - unless your soft parts happen to have their own channels and constant volume throughout your tune.. which i think is unlikely. even if it is, will your next tune be the same? probably not.. so better practice is to find & cut the peaks down rather than trying to raise the rest up to compensate for adjusting the master volume. say you've got a drums channel with some loud crash cymbals on it, start by putting a compressor on that channel set to soften the peak of the crash cymbal without affecting anything else in the mix. Approach it step by step like that and it won't matter what tune you're working on the skills you learn will always apply.

See, I generally find that people who say all this stuff about leaving faders at unity generally try and control their gain through overuse of compression. If it came to dropping the master gain VS throwing compressors on all the peaking tracks, I'd take the option of dropping the master gain and having some dynamics left in my tracks thanks very much.

I don't use compressors (other than sidechain) on any tracks coming out of a synthesiser, and not on any bought samples either. Its all squashed to start with

Yes obviously compressing the shit out of everything is not the answer either, thats taking the idea to the extreme which i'm not suggesting.

If you've put a track together with some care you shouldn't need to use that much compression, i just prefer atleast attempting to reduce the spikes before resorting to lowering the volume of the whole mix.

Seriously how often does the easy way out ever give you the best results?

quote:

Originally posted by kitphillips 1/ Not an issue if you use the bussing solutions provided for integrating external hardware in most DAWs these days. They allow you to set the gain on the way out and reset it on the way back in to allow for the correct levels to hit the analogue stage.

Definitely an issue if you're using an analogue desk, or infact nay analogue gear with a gain pot or fader - complete no-no ubless you really know whaz you're doing. Yes for outboard used with A DAW as the mixer, you can control the send output of course, but that's got nothing to do with the track fader per say.

quote:

Originally posted by kitphillips 2/ Its neccesary in cases where your DAW doesn't have a quick solution to pull down all channels at once. Ever tried to pull down 24 channels by exactly 6 db in live 7? Its a pain.

Cubase, logic, sonar and PT can all link tracks - Live 7 is cack if you can't and therfore in the limited minority.

quote:

Originally posted by kitphillips 3/most DAWs have an option to set returns post or pre fader, if you use it, then you can account for this. If your mix sounds different after doing something, and you don't like it, then one assumes that you'll go through and fix it.

True for normal tracks but on the master of Logc and PT (not sure about the other DAWs) the sends are only prefader meaning you stuck with it.

quote:

Originally posted by kitphillips 4/ Its impossible to overload tracks and busses in a 32 FP audio engine AFAIK. This also assumes your plugins have that headroom as well of course, but most do these days. You'd know better than me on this, but that was my understanding?

That's exactly right, but digital distortion will be present if you overload a track and your master is at unity gain. The only way to resolve it is to pull the master down or the track down.

In this case, pull the track down.

The main thing is that there's just no need to pull down the master. The advantages of doing it, are greatly outweighed by the functional disadvantages such as affecting you gain staging, monitor calibration and export levels, not to mention the more anecdotal problems it causes such as teaching you to use someothing that will land you in trouble if you ever have to work on an analogue desk and teachin you not properly balance your tracks to unity output.

quote:

Originally posted by kitphillips There are cases when this sort of thing is appropriate, especially in the stages before the final mixdown. I generally have given up on worrying about it all, I like the extra resolution on the meters that you get when they're peaking up near 0 dB, as opposed to down near -6, so thats where I get my track peaking to. I like the sound of the way I do it, and technical arguments about bit depth and such silliness are just that IMO, silliness. Of course, I generally do keep my master at unity now that ableton 8 allows you to adjust the faders of all tracks at once, but its not unusual for me to do some funny gain staging, involving dropping the master through an EQ or gain plugin going into my compressors and limiters when I'm mastering, which I do in the same session as the mixing @ the OP, I recommend you put a gain plugin on your track and reduce the gain by 6dB, if that doesn't work you'll have to rework the mix or you won't have enough room on the channel faders to boost some of them high enough. And of course, all this advice only really applies if you have 64 bit plugins and a 32 bit DAW and stuff...

Totally agree. I just don't change it and always go back to the track balance if the master is clipping. My signal chain is calibrated so there's no danger of me ever worrying about level of output, must tonal quality. It just keeps it simple for mixing, so I can get as complicated as I want.

So osmo? your saying that if I have a mix where the master fader is at 0db (untouched) that is peaking at -0.1db

vs

The same mix but the master channel pulled down by 3db and the rest of the faders boosted by 3db so effectively the same mix but the fader volume and master volume difference is reversed.

they will sound different?

Man, I wish I'd had this thread when I read an article in Electronic Musician (I think) by an engineer who said to go ahead and lower the master. I have done that for pretty much every song I've made, although I also had a bit of a convoluted process on my old system for making music which compensated for any loss of fidelity once I started mastering a mix.

I'm using Sonar 8.5 on a new Quad Core versus Project 5 on a five-year-old Pentium 4, so I don't have to be very conservative with EQ and compression plug-ins for individual tracks, anymore.

I don't know if I would have changed my guerrilla-ethos production style when I was in the composition process of production but this thread is some great food for thought, now.

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.