gain staging of parallel aux's

[Tonio]

Hi all!
I've searched, but did not find much. Any input on this would be greatly appreciated. I need to check with you "pro's" to see if I'm doing this right, any opnions are welcome of course.

I guess its a two fold/question.

1. Analog situation- how do you adjust the gain stage on parallel aux's (reverb for instance). Do you adjust level of sends and/or master aux level to give the reverb unit an ultimate resolution, then add returns fader to taste**or do you put the return fader(s) at 0db and tweak the sends to taste?

I'm looking to see what ya'll do, and hopefully find which is the best way for highest resolution,and offers the best sound .

2. DAW situation- how the heck do you adjust for recording (printing) the rev on another track Say its in/out via SPDIF, so no D/A/D mess to deal with. I'm having a hard time getting the texture to sound good. Again I'm talking about gain stage, I now the mechanics of how to patch and so forth.


T

 

[TexRoadkill]

Usually you want the early stages to be hotter than the latter. I will usually try to setup so that my main Aux out is around 70% and my individual aux sends are around 50-70%. That seems to give me a good SNR and still have some room to make adjustments.

On the effects unit I usually have the input/output levels around 80% to give them a little headroom. It seems like the effect unit itself is usually the noisiest part of the chain so feeding it a hot signal is important.

On the return I keep it as low as possible to minimize excess noise. If I find it getting hissy then I raise all the earlier stages by a touch and lower the return level.

I'm not sure what you are asking for your second question. The principles are the same except you can't risk any distortion with the digital levels. Analog is alot more forgiving.

 

[sjoko2]

I don't think its possible to give a 'fixed' answer to your question.
Apart from the noise factor, as described by tex, the character of many effect processors changes depending on your level in / output. Some sound better when you run them hot, others definately do not. So, as with many such things, its a question of what you want, and taking your time to experiment.

regarding the second question..... Perhaps I don't understand it very well, but why would you want to print your effect?

 

[mixsit]

<<I'm looking to see what ya'll do, and hopefully find which is the best way for highest resolution,and offers the best sound .

2. DAW situation- how the heck do you adjust for recording (printing) the rev on another track Say its in/out via SPDIF, so no D/A/D mess to deal with. I'm having a hard time getting the texture to sound good. Again I'm talking about gain stage, I now the mechanics of how to patch and so forth.>>

As Tex noted, you're generally going for good nominal levels at each stage so your s/n is optimal. You can keep the returns at 'nominal' and use the sends for master effects level, but it seems to me that sending good strong levels out and using the reverb return faders as the master would be the quietest.
I always print my external verb tracks for a number of reasons (they stay with the project, tweaking and automation, multiple effects from the same box, ect.), but I don't get the 'texture' question. That would seem to be more of a effects or program factor that one of levels (if it's digital effects).
Wayne

 

[sweetnubs]

here's how you do it for one channel: effects unit inpout at unity, aux master at unity. turn up individual channel pot until you get the desired amount of effect. simple as that. (return at unity) As you add more channels solo the master aux send to see how hot your levels are, if they are too hot back off the master send. remember effects unit at %100 wet.

 

[Tonio]

Thanks Tex and others.

So in the anlaogue scenario, its best to keep the send and master aux @
unity, and use the return fader to taste. This way its avoiding excessive noise and give the best s/n ratio.
Great , that's what I am doing currently, I used to do it the other way.

On th DAW side, I guess I did'nt ask the question in a way it would be understood.

To restate it in a better way I'll describe what I'm doing.

I manily mix in box @ 24bit/44khz. I do have some plug-ins, but they just don't cut it-sound wise its
just too "tinny". The rev unit (MPX500) sounds a hell of alot better than plugs, heck even an Alex sounds
better in some presets.
So I run various instruments out to the board and set up the rev's to where I like it, then try to use the
SPDIF interface to bring in the wet part and record it on to another open track. Then adjust to taste.
It seems that I need to boost the dry track (via SPDIF )alot.
The problem I'm having is the "texture" or another words the rev coming back in does'nt sound anywhere
near vs. the analogue. Its like the decay is alot longer? and the initial reflections are more pronounced.
Maybe its fooling me because of the resolution in 24bit?

Tony

 

[mixsit]

<<So I run various instruments out to the board and set up the rev's to where I like it, then try to use the
SPDIF interface to bring in the wet part and record it on to another open track. Then adjust to taste..>>

You're running seperate tracks out to a mixer to use it's aux's to the verb? (Or more likely, doing the aux mix in the program and a few outs as sends...

<<It seems that I need to boost the dry track (via SPDIF )alot>>

Sorry, trying to understand. The SPDIF would be the send?
In ACKUS, I start with my master aux sends and returns at around +3 or so -good healthy levels to and from the external in/outs. (What ever it takes to get near full scale in the effects.) Then the verb-tracks can end up being pulled down quite a bit.

<<The problem I'm having is the "texture" or another words the rev coming back in does'nt sound anywhere
near vs. the analogue. Its like the decay is alot longer? and the initial reflections are more pronounced.
Maybe its fooling me because of the resolution in 24bit?>>

Got me there.
The only thing I can think of would be compression somewhere (after the effect is returned) changing the wet/dry ratios? Or could it be that they are just louder?
I've never heard much difference when I solo effects in the mixer, or in the DAW.

Wayne

 

[TexRoadkill]

So I run various instruments out to the board and set up the rev's to where I like it, then try to use the
SPDIF interface to bring in the wet part and record it on to another open track. Then adjust to taste.
It seems that I need to boost the dry track (via SPDIF )alot.

Well you can only boost the SPDIF signal to unity and that is where it should be anyway. There is a good chance you are hearing more of the subtleties of the signal by staying digital for the entire effects loop.

 

[TexRoadkill]

here's how you do it for one channel: effects unit inpout at unity, aux master at unity. turn up individual channel pot until you get the desired amount of effect. simple as that. (return at unity)

That doesn't always work that well with older noisier boxes and noisy effects like phaser and chorus. I have an older Lexicon and I have to run it hot all the time and keep the master return as low as possible, usually closer to 30-50%.

 

[sweetnubs]

it's not my rule. It's physics. Unity on the return is where the factory has marked your console runs most efficiently (i.e. less noise) The farther off of unity you are the more noise you get. That extra noise is added on top of your already noisy effects box. that's it, no ifs ands or buts. nubs has spoken the truth and blesses you all.

 

[TexRoadkill]

it's not my rule. It's physics. Unity on the return is where the factory has marked your console runs most efficiently (i.e. less noise) The farther off of unity you are the more noise you get. That extra noise is added on top of your already noisy effects box. that's it, no ifs ands or buts. nubs has spoken the truth and blesses you all.

But the added noise on a good console running at less than unity is usually far less than the added noise of running an older effects processor at 50% of it's input gain. If the return is set at unity then the only way to lower the effects levels is with the individual channel auxes. A phaser or flanger running at unity on the returns will also give you a bunch of noise.

 

[Tonio]

Tex, I think you got it.

Well you can only boost the SPDIF signal to unity and that is where it should be anyway. There is a good chance you are hearing more of the subtleties of the signal by staying digital for the entire effects loop.

Mixsit has a point also:
>>The only thing I can think of would be compression somewhere >>(after the effect is returned) changing the wet/dry ratios? Or >>could it be that they are just louder?

I'll have to do some tests to find the best settings.
So do you guys mix in the box or analogue?

T

 

[TexRoadkill]

I mix from a Radar HDR through a Ghost into a Masterlink. I only use computers for internet, video games and porn.

 

[Tonio]

Thanks nubs......but it sounds like something Wackie Is that what you use?

it's not my rule. It's physics. Unity on the return is where the factory has marked your console runs most efficiently (i.e. less noise) The farther off of unity you are the more noise you get. That extra noise is added on top of your already noisy effects box. that's it, no ifs ands or buts. nubs has spoken the truth and blesses you all.

 

[sweetnubs]

no. nubby is big time and I do big things with all of my big stuff. I thought it would be simpler for holly home recording to understand. think through it a moment friends with the concept of proper gain staging in mind. what would be the most efficient chain? something or other leads me to over-understand that perhpas nubz'z proclaimed claim is substially correct and could not be insubstatiated. please put batteries in your noisy stomp boxes instead of using wall warts, they are much quieter that way.

 

[mixsit]

it's not my rule. It's physics. Unity on the return is where the factory has marked your console runs most efficiently (i.e. less noise) The farther off of unity you are the more noise you get. That extra noise is added on top of your already noisy effects box. that's it, no ifs ands or buts. nubs has spoken the truth and blesses you all.

I'd like to try an analogy and see if this holds up, because I really don't understand why pulling a final control stage down, if you have that option, would cause more noise.
Instead of a cheap effects box with a s/n of around 90, let use a nice analog tape track, 70, 80 s/n?
Lets say you're going to record a track you know you will only be using at 20 or 30% of full volume.
Are you saying that you would prefer to record it at 20-30% of full level, then run the tape play back faders at unity?
Wayne