Master fader level rising

maxman65

maxman65

Member
Hi every time I try to balance tracks against each other they compete to go gradually lower. Sounds more balanced somehow . Subsequently I push the master fader over 0db to get it louder . This happens to me everytime .anyone else have this ? I try to get at least one of the tracks back to 0db and start again . Then the process repeats. To get the whole mix loud enough maybe +6 to +12db but I'm pretty sure this might be a touch distorted and brings up the noise floor ?. Does all this happen to anyone else
 
Last edited:
WELL! I'll 'set the scene shall I and kick off?

The standard process in a DAW is to have each track averaging around -18--20dB or even a bit lower to ensure plenty of digital headroom (24 bit word length of course). As you add tracks to the mix they will increase the level by about 3dB each time because they are "uncorrelated".

WTF Maxy is doing I cannot begin to imagine!

Dave.
 
Ok so maybe I accept that the whole mix won't be loud at 0db on the master fader . Then when I end up adding vox and overall compression with mastering it will come good
 
maxman65 said:
Hi every time I try to balance tracks against each other they compete to go gradually lower. Sounds more balanced somehow . Subsequently I push the master fader over 0db to get it louder . This happens to me everytime .anyone else have this ? I try to get at least one of the tracks back to 0db and start again . Then the process repeats. To get the whole mix loud enough maybe +6 to +12db but I'm pretty sure this might be a touch distorted and brings up the noise floor ?. Does all this happen to anyone else
Click to expand...
Just not enough information here to provide a solid answer. Will I assume the mention of "tracks" and "master fader" are references to a DAW? I'll also assume you're shooting for an output level of -6 to -12 and not +6 to +12?

With those questions on the table, the short answer is, at least in the digital realm, the master fader is not the place to make significant "volume" changes. Yes, you indeed risk digital clipping. I'm guessing your signal chain might be a tad askew but, maybe you can provide a bit more detail before we move further?
 
Mixing isn't the time to worry about final volume. If your level is averaging in the general region of -18 dBFS and your peaks are staying away from 0 dBFS, it's fine.
 
Zoom r16 standalone recorder . The metering is pretty rudimentary . 4 led blocks relating to -48 -12 -6 and 0db. None of the tracks exceed the - 48 block at any time . The master will venture into -12 territory on the led meter at times when the master faders are at +6db
 
I think I might understand this one. It's very easy to get into the habit of mixing by reduction. You hear the mix, and the bass pops out, so you pull the fader a bit - then that trumpet bursts out at the chorus, so that comes down a bit revealing an over loud piano, and so on - eventually you get the mix just right but discover you are just tickling the master meter - the peaks maybe half way up. I have no idea what level I master to, because I never adjust the monitor volume. What I hear from the speakers has been mixed at what my ears like. For me, invariably it will be a bit too much, so I listen and think this is just too loud for the balance I want, so I pull the master fader down a bit. Occasionally, cubase shows me the red lights, and I know I over cooked it somewhere, but I never mix with master levels visible, I have them off the screen, so I'm doing it totally blind. I can easily fix the average level later, and for me, it comes down usually. I guess here, the OP has mixed too low, so has to boost the master, and that'w where these dB mentions come from. I suppose you could go through track by track and nudge them all a bit, but that might alter the way effects and processors sound, so as long as you don;t hear noise or distortion, then I see nothing wrong with pushing the output fader, or even just normalising the file if the noise is evidently way down and not an issue. I have my own favourite normalistion settings for loud, medium and quiet tracks. The loudest, busiest, angriest tracks would perhaps be -3dB below maximum, but a quiet track could sit normalised at -10dB if that weas suitable. As for LUFs, no idea, I refuse to play the numbers game, and Spotify and youtube seem to work just fine. I am, of course, simply wierd!
 
  • Like
Reactions: RFR
Many thanks . Should be ok . I suspect there might possibly be a bit of noise when I make a stereo from this into the 8 track (where I'll then try to conceive of a vocal .) In any case my music has a habit of vibing a bit early 70s so maybe not ultra clean is passable . Spitfire strings have helped alot with things being less angry sounding ( as with yamahas modx strings)
 
maxman65 said:
Zoom r16 standalone recorder . The metering is pretty rudimentary . 4 led blocks relating to -48 -12 -6 and 0db. None of the tracks exceed the - 48 block at any time . The master will venture into -12 territory on the led meter at times when the master faders are at +6db
Click to expand...
Like others have mentioned you seem to be mixing by subtraction. For me that wouldn't be ideal and inevitable problems with levels are bound to crop up. I do however think we're discussing volume more than discussing levels. Someone has already mentioned the master fader is not the place to look for volume when mixing, at least to any significant degree. As has been mentioned in a few threads here recently, proper gain staging is critical. The Zoom R16 has an input sensitivity control, which feeds the channel fader and then sends and returns. All of that feeds the master fader which feeds the control room out (on the back of the zoom). Further, if you're using powered monitors you have another gain stage as most, if not all monitors, have an input sensitivity stage. All of those have an effect on each other.

A fundamental understanding of how all those stages interact can be awfully helpful for both recording and mixing. It's certainly not all that complicated and there are a bunch of great articles online if needed.

Here is a pretty good article on the whole "gain staging" shebang. I'm a big fan of the company Izotope and this article reflects as such.

www.izotope.com

Gain Staging: What It Is and How to Do It

Gain staging is tough to understand—so let us explain it! In this article, we’ll give you a modern approach to gain staging, as well as a brief history of the term in analog and digital contexts.
www.izotope.com www.izotope.com
 
Last edited:
Here's some more on gain staging. I just rewatched it and it sunk in a little more than the first time. This would let you concentrate on the mix balance without worrying about track, or buss volumes other than the Master.

 
spantini said:
Here's some more on gain staging. I just rewatched it and it sunk in a little more than the first time. This would let you concentrate on the mix balance without worrying about track, or buss volumes other than the Master.

Click to expand...

Well, I think we have to be careful here :) This video is based on Reaper's 64-bit architecture. Most DAW's and most plug-ins are 64-bit these days, but not all. I'm also pretty sure the OP's Zoom R16 is not. This video would invite utter disaster for anyone not using that architecture.

The bigger "head scratcher" here is why anyone would propose that over-loading a channel/track/plug-in/master fader is ok, cause one can simply fix it later. I can't think of a single advantage of this methodology. It seems to me learning proper gain staging (which BTW still applies to all audio, analog, or digital) is a more desirable investment of time than holding on to the notion that it's ok to wing it. cause you can always fix it later.
 
The plugin doesn't fix it later, it actually applies it's gain correction prior to it's location in the chain. Say A, B and C are the chain. A plugin placed at point D in the chain to correct the gain overage actually applies the correction to A where it begins but does not correct the meter reading, which puzzles me. It all seems a bit unecessary as far as gain itself goes considering there really is no need to push it into the red, but it does allow for tracks to be mixed well without continually reducing their fader levels.

The more you think about this procedure the more it seems to not make sense. I mean, if you don't go into the red to begin with then all this is moot. So this may really just be a way of mixing to get to where your ears tell you it's right without worrying about overages, then, if anything is in the red, apply the correction where needed.

I get lost just talking about it :drunk: :D
 
It could be all these problems inter relate. Currently I'm trying to grasp eq at the same time . Presumably if a frequency range is masking or competing then I'll be inclined to get instruments to compete to be at lower levels
 
Turning down the elements that are too loud is a much better habit to get into rather than turning up things that are too quiet. Most newbie mixes end up with the faders close to max and the output clipped because they haven't discovered the master fader. I wouldn't start on eq until you have a good feel for mixing levels but when you do eq I would suggest using cuts in preference to boosts.
 
jamesperrett said:
Turning down the elements that are too loud is a much better habit to get into rather than turning up things that are too quiet. Most newbie mixes end up with the faders close to max and the output clipped because they haven't discovered the master fader. I wouldn't start on eq until you have a good feel for mixing levels but when you do eq I would suggest using cuts in preference to boosts.
Click to expand...
Phew! I am so glad you have said that James. I would not suggest it because I am a deaf old numpty that does no mixing but most of the advice I have read about it in the last ten years or so has also been about being "subtractive".

Meant to say also...This is the way live music was 'balanced' for centuries. Soloists did not get louder, the rest of the band STF up!

Dave.
 
Also if you lower your monitor level you will find yourself turning stuff down less often and usually ending up with a better track balance IME
 
Yes this whole thing is tricky . A ton of trial and error going on . I try extra loud and extra quiet to identify anything poking out in the mix . In effect I've established in my mind that reducing one component then alters (increase) what else in the mix is coming through . Ultimately it's a compromise. Arguably if one component is very slightly proud in the mix it might be best to leave it rather than throw out the whole balance . This I think is partly where the whole repeat climb down in levels comes from in my case . Unless further eq might solve that it I guess . Have made fair improvements in any event .
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top