Reduce Track Volume or Reduce Master Volume?

[mattr]

I know that Pro Tools does this for sure and imagine that most of the others are the same. When you turn down the master, the DAW actually adjusts the output level of each track going to that master buss equivalently therefore getting rid of the distortion of the master summing buss. If you know that your DAW does this, you can get away with this "cheating" fix rather than go to the trouble of lowering every track.

Really!?

I just thought it was just one of the advantages of having an audio engine based on floating point math.

 

[mixsit]

I have never tried LE, but I'd be surprised if it didn't. If you got automation you've got the ability - or at least you should. Think of it this way:

The automation control is nothing more than control of the track fader. The track fader on any mixer is nothing more than an an up/down volume control for *adjusting* the the playback volume of the track from it's input level. But you still gotta be able to set the initial track level, whether it's by a separate trim control or simply by the starting point for the input fader.

Automation is nothing more than a control saying what percentage of the initial fader level you want to have it at at that point in time on the timeline. All the way up in the timeline is 100% of that initial level. But that actual initial level still needs to be set.

Actually, CEP/early Audition as shown is kind of a hybrid setup; it has the seperate locations for setting the initial "trim", but as can be seen from the faders on that screenshot, that trim is really just moving the fader to that volume level. I'd prefer for them to actually be entirely separate controls where the trim level does not affect the fader, just like it is on an analog mixer in the real world. But even if you don't have that, the basic ideas for using automation remain the same.

Have fun with it! Until one fully embraces automation in DAW software, they are not really mixing yet.

G.

Glen please help out my thick brain this am. On Sonar we have a trim (gain) slider, gain automation, both of these pre insert paths, then the 'fader and fader automation. Automation 'locks (controls) the fader but trim remains indepentant of the gain automation.
Is this the same as your example 'cause it seems like you're calling 'trim 'the fader?

Here's a few quickies I go by fwiw-
Rough in the faders for a mix well under zero at the master, (master fader always stays at zero'), do the big level fixes and/or even edit and mute' rides on the gain automation, then as the mix settles, fine tune and lock in the faders with their automation.
I'd fix really out of whack' track levels if any back into nominal' range with the clip gain process (same as a 'normalize to -6' or whatever).
Master stays 'zero and dial final mix level at master trim.

 

[SouthSIDE Glen]

Glen please help out my thick brain this am. On Sonar we have a trim (gain) slider, gain automation, both of these pre insert paths, then the 'fader and fader automation. Automation 'locks (controls) the fader but trim remains indepentant of the gain automation.
Is this the same as your example 'cause it seems like you're calling 'trim 'the fader?

Thank you for pointing out an oversight on my part so diplomatically . Frankly I ignored trim automation, which many editors don't include and which, frankly, I personally don't see a whole lot of need for myself (YMMV).

There are three levels of software operation/comfiguration (that I know of) when it comes to this whole gain/level automation thang. There many be more, I don't even begin to claim to know everything about every editor out there (not even close). But based upon just general knowledge of both analog and digital mixing, and having used a few different multitrack editors at one point or another here's how I'd break most of them down:

- Those with fader-based gain automation where the "trim" control is really just the initial/maximum setting for the fader automation. This is basically what's going on with the CEP/early Audition model I described. The only level automation here is the fader automation. The graphic display of the fader may or may not graphically move with the automation, depending on the software brand and version, and possibly user configuration.

- Those with a separate input/trim level that's independent of the channel fader, but only has gain automation on the channel fader and does not offer trim gain automation.

- Those like you describe that offer two different levels of automation, one on the trim and one on the channel fader.

I was describing a method that applies fully to the first two. I'd also use it on the third, but I'd just leave the trim automation turned off.

Here's a few quickies I go by fwiw-
Rough in the faders for a mix well under zero at the master, (master fader always stays at zero'), do the big level fixes and/or even edit and mute' rides on the gain automation, then as the mix settles, fine tune and lock in the faders with their automation.
I'd fix really out of whack' track levels if any back into nominal' range with the clip gain process (same as a 'normalize to -6' or whatever).
Master stays 'zero and dial final mix level at master trim.

Yeah, that sounds pretty good to me too, and really, in effect, is not really a whole lot different than what I describe.

The main difference is that I almost never do anything with the master bus gain; they typically just stay at unity gain. One exception is - assuming I'm using an editor that offers master bus automation - if I'm using a *huge* number of tracks and it's just much easier to pull the master bus down two dB than to individually drop thirty different channel trims down a half dB each, or something like that (no fair checking my dB math there, I'm just winging an example ). But I'd much, much rather control the final mix volume by tweaking the channel tracks and getting those "right" when feasible.

Another exception would be to use the master faders for global song fade-in/fade-out. But even there, if I'm controlling fades in the mix, usually I'd prefer to fade the individual tracks. This is not just to be anal, but I personally find that often different track types "like" different fade slopes; i.e. the fade can sound better by having different tracks either start their fades or reach the end of their fade slopes a beat or two apart. That's assuming that I even do the fades in the mix and don't decide to apply global fades in mastering instead.

But it's mostly all good. I am not way meaning to imply that my personal technique is the only way to do things. Whatever works for whoever is fine by me. I just threw it into the thread mix as a very neat and tidy way to approach the OP question and have the levels more often than not just kind of work out for themselves in the process.

Thanks for the followup question, and Happy Holidays!

G.

 

[johnsuitcase]

There are two other considerations here:

If you set the inpu gain of the channel to something close to the level you want it at in the mix, your fader can operate in its sweet spot, where large moves of the fader aren't making gigantic level changes. If something is to be low in the mix, you can adjust the input gain to reduce it, then use the channel fader for automating the level with greater precision than trying to automate the fader way down by the bottom, since the fader is not linear.

2nd, if the sound you want is the result of a higher level hitting one of your insert effects, like a tape saturation, limiter, compressor, etc, you don't want to set the level using the input gain. But you still want the effect of being able to mix with the fader up around unity. So, you can insert a fader plug after your compressor/tape sat, etc. There are a few out there, for free.

Ideally, you would like to see see all of your channel faders around unity, if possible. Especially for automation.

There are further considerations when adjusting the level of all tracks (which you can do by grouping them all together in most DAWs.) If you have any effects on groups or the two buss that are level dependent (tape sat, compressors, etc) they are going to sound different. If you like to mix into a tube emulator for instance, and get everything sounding good, but want to lower your output level, you can't just lower all the faders, as your tube plug will sound different.

It can be a game of chasing your tail if you're not careful!

 

[SouthSIDE Glen]

So, you can insert a fader plug after your compressor/tape sat, etc. There are a few out there, for free.

Or, hopefully, your processing plug has it's own input/output gain stages.

Ideally, you would like to see see all of your channel faders around unity, if possible. Especially for automation.

Yep, though that can be problematic on editors where the "trim" is not separate from the faders.

Nice post, suitcase! Merry Christmas to you, Mrs. Valise, all the little knapsacks and the rest of the Luggage family .

 

[mixsit]

Thanks Glen that clears a lot not having used but Sonar mostly. I figured there might be variations on the methods out there (+/- the thick thing.

..2nd, if the sound you want is the result of a higher level hitting one of your insert effects, like a tape saturation, limiter, compressor, etc, you don't want to set the level using the input gain. But you still want the effect of being able to mix with the fader up around unity. So, you can insert a fader plug after your compressor/tape sat, etc. There are a few out there, for free.

Ideally, you would like to see see all of your channel faders around unity, if possible. Especially for automation.

There are further considerations when adjusting the level of all tracks (which you can do by grouping them all together in most DAWs.) If you have any effects on groups or the two buss that are level dependent (tape sat, compressors, etc) they are going to sound different. If you like to mix into a tube emulator for instance, and get everything sounding good, but want to lower your output level, you can't just lower all the faders, as your tube plug will sound different.

It can be a game of chasing your tail if you're not careful!

A few fill ins, on track gains, automation, pre and post' and such.. When I mentioned pre-gain automation (vs fader), as well as editing' and muting' there I'm thinking in terms of this layer does re-balancing on punches/comps for example and anything from roughing in to nominal' for the track to fine tuning at the clip level. In all cases though there is the consideration of pre-gain moves vs. post (fader) moves on track compression. Always there needs to be the conscious question of how (where) do we want the move to hit the compressor (if there is one. Same as John mentions here regarding at sub groups and the master.

My preference for 'trim at the master, master at zero' is purely practical; the meter always shows a pure final in and out' reference, and a bit more consistency; at the master and on the master comp/limiter.
This scenario really shows it's upside doing a string of songs on the same project and track-lines. A live gig' gig for example; Lots of variation song to song, but once I get things in the ball park and the master global treatment set up, just dialing the master trim automation from song to song and watching the master meter, final compression, final level, both come together in that move.
(Geeze, I just made that sound like it's quick and easy' for me. Not so.

You know I just thought of something. Not using a fader pack/mixer, always mixing in track view', I realize I'm not bothered by track sliders not being near unity. Fact this would have the up side' of having a little spread on the gain and fader automation lines not land in the same spot in the track pane.
Fun stuff.
Merry Christmas all.