Making tracks louder

[Thousand Ways]

Lowpryo et al, thank you again for all this info.

For final mix levels it is suggested by many mastering engineers to keep the un-mastered mix to peaks between -6 and -3 dBFS.

your master doesn't need to be set back to -12dB. the only hard rule is that your master should not exceed 0dB (selig recommended to peak around -6dB to -3dB, but that's just a rule of thumb). the purpose of setting all of the previous tracks at -12dB was so that when they add up, the overall level doesn't reach 0dB (hopefully).

So –12dB referred only to the average level, and the peaks are on top of this, up to –3dB? I'd previously understood the general gist of the posts in this thread to be that around –12dB was the level for peaks.

you don't have to use the blue gain control here. it's what Bogg uses, and that's fine. but it's important to remember - that is the level of the signal before any channel strip processing or insert FX (in step 2), and modifying this level will change any compression or distortion that you applied.

Thanks. So the blue gain control does not take into account anything added, just the original instrument or clip?

[lowpryo]

your master doesn't need to be set back to -12dB. the only hard rule is that your master should not exceed 0dB (selig recommended to peak around -6dB to -3dB, but that's just a rule of thumb). the purpose of setting all of the previous tracks at -12dB was so that when they add up, the overall level doesn't reach 0dB (hopefully).

So –12dB referred only to the average level, and the peaks are on top of this, up to –3dB? I'd previously understood the general gist of the posts in this thread to be that around –12dB was the level for peaks.

-12dB refers to a safe estimate of the peak level of individual tracks, because we know that when all of these tracks add up, the total peaks of the master are going to increase, and we don't want them going above 0dB. to go back to the glass of water analogy that selig said, we know that eventually all of our glasses of water (tracks) are going to pour into one bigger cup (master), and we don't want that one cup to overflow. so to plan ahead, we're going to fill all of these individual glasses of water up a small amount. this is that -12dB.

you don't have to use the blue gain control here. it's what Bogg uses, and that's fine. but it's important to remember - that is the level of the signal before any channel strip processing or insert FX (in step 2), and modifying this level will change any compression or distortion that you applied.

Thanks. So the blue gain control does not take into account anything added, just the original instrument or clip?

correct! the blue gain knob is before just about everything else. the flow chart that selig posted is good at showing this.

[selig]

I just want to throw in here that *loudness* is definitely not something that is only achieved by mastering, its very much depending on your mix, the EQing, arrangement and overall crest factor you generate during mixing. The final *level* of your track should definitely be pulled up only during mastering though and you should leave enough headroom during mixing.

What the meter displays is * level*, the *loudness* of tracks can differ very much even when they have the same *level* (or volume).

+1
Glad to see I'm not the only one advocating for this - can't be repeated enough IMO!

[zeebot]

Though this is somewhat of an 'advert' and it doesn't involve Reason its an interesting video about sending off your stems instead of a full mix to an engineer, or even a way to home master instead of just bouncing down a mix.
The outcome is pretty good..anyway its only a short vid so give it a look.

[Thousand Ways]

Apologies – I'm having to return to this thread, because gain staging is still not working for me at all.

One of the early posts on this thread included this:

So in digital systems we think of "0 dB" quite differently than with all analog systems of the past, and this is where some confusion comes in IMO. Cutting to the chase, you need to build in some headroom for all individual tracks in a digital system, and you need to use PEAK meters to measure these levels. It is suggested to leave 12 dB headroom in most digital systems, and this is exactly what Reason expects as well.

When headroom is referred to, is this
a) the space between the upper limit of the signal and the 0 dB mark on the individual track volume meter, or
b) the space between the upper limit of the signal and the very maximum (12 dB) allowed by the meter?

… I too have chosen to use the reference level of Peaks @ -12 dBFS for all tracks. I'm not too worried when tracks fall slightly above or below this level - there IS some wiggle room here.

Lost again here. If I create a song and mix all of the volume meters of individual tracks so that they're peaking at around minus 12 dB, the song is hopelessly quiet. Why would –12 dB be a good reference here?

The more I look at, and consider, the whole topic of gain staging, the more of a mental block it becomes. I came to this thread because my song files in Reason are generally too quiet, and I could not understand why. But attempts at gain staging do not seem to be remedying this. I'm starting to suspect that gain staging is just a way of 'normalizing' songs: of mixing them in a blander, more conservative way, with highs and lows ironed-out. If anyone knows otherwise and can actually explain why, I'd be interested to read this. Thanks.

[Tincture]

I understand where you are coming from, it took me a while to understand the advantages.

In a nutshell... if you mix at the levels Selig etc have suggested you will always have room for changes/additions and Mastering techniques.

You just have to look at it this way: Mixing is quieter but that's why you have a volume/gain knob on your soundcard/monitors/whatever. So I boost the volume out (not in Reason) when mixing then when mastering I turn it back down so I don't blow my ears out! Basically - you get the mix right targeting individual elements at around -12dB as a starting point - so that when all the elements play together they may give a combined peak of somewhere between say -6 and -3dB. That 3 or 6 dB headroom is handy for the SEPARATE process of Mastering. Getting it Loud/Punchy/Whatever. The simplest Mastering being just pushing the level up via a Limiter so that you hit your desired average Level (the limiter infinitely compressing any signal above your set threshold... 0dB or -0.5 or -1 or whatever.

More experienced better advice will hopefully follow but hope this helps?

[Trefor]

Something to ponder when talking about just making things louder. A quote from Alan Parsons:

"I prefer to use external compressors and limiters. I tend to avoid compression and limiting, I never compress mixes, and I only ever usually limit two things: vocals and bass."

Records are mastered very loud these days, so if you're not compressing at the mixing stage the mastering engineer...

"I resist even letting the mastering engineer limit or compress. I mean, maybe just a dB of brickwall limiting for the peaks but otherwise no, I'd much rather leave it alone. If the consumer says it isn't loud enough, turn it up! Do you think records sound as good as they used to?"

No.

"Absolutely. The level war is the worst thing to happen to audio in years. Interestingly though there has always been a level war, even on vinyl."

And here's the link to the full article: http://www.musicradar.com/news/tech/ala ... ion-630648

[selig]

There really is so much for consideration in this thread. I never expected such a response, but I definitely appreciate it.

I'm trying to understand it all so that I can better phrase my questions. It is bad when one doesn't even know enough to ask the questions correctly.

Part of what I was getting at in the original post was that there seem to be so many places from which to observe/measure the signal level, (e.g. channel strip, Big Meter, the meter on some instruments, master) that I wonder which is the one to watch.

It seems maybe the Big Meter.....

For example, I was just looking at a song and the master is peaking at about -12db but the Big Meter (set to peak mode) is not anywhere near that.

In fact, it seems to be doing nothing. It just hovers around -65db whether or not the track is playing.

Apparently I'm not using the fracking thing correctly....

Sorry I missed this one before - you have to select the source for the Big Meter. For some unknown reason it defaults to input 1/2 (all but useless for me, as I use the meters in the sequencer when recording from those inputs). I switch it to show output 1/2 and save that as the default startup file. Do this at the top of the Rack View via the "Audio I/O tab, using the little buttons below the rows of meters. Now the Big Meter should show something a bit more useful…

[selig]

Apologies – I'm having to return to this thread, because gain staging is still not working for me at all.

One of the early posts on this thread included this:

So in digital systems we think of "0 dB" quite differently than with all analog systems of the past, and this is where some confusion comes in IMO. Cutting to the chase, you need to build in some headroom for all individual tracks in a digital system, and you need to use PEAK meters to measure these levels. It is suggested to leave 12 dB headroom in most digital systems, and this is exactly what Reason expects as well.

When headroom is referred to, is this
a) the space between the upper limit of the signal and the 0 dB mark on the individual track volume meter, or
b) the space between the upper limit of the signal and the very maximum (12 dB) allowed by the meter?

… I too have chosen to use the reference level of Peaks @ -12 dBFS for all tracks. I'm not too worried when tracks fall slightly above or below this level - there IS some wiggle room here.

Lost again here. If I create a song and mix all of the volume meters of individual tracks so that they're peaking at around minus 12 dB, the song is hopelessly quiet. Why would –12 dB be a good reference here?

The more I look at, and consider, the whole topic of gain staging, the more of a mental block it becomes. I came to this thread because my song files in Reason are generally too quiet, and I could not understand why. But attempts at gain staging do not seem to be remedying this. I'm starting to suspect that gain staging is just a way of 'normalizing' songs: of mixing them in a blander, more conservative way, with highs and lows ironed-out. If anyone knows otherwise and can actually explain why, I'd be interested to read this. Thanks.

For one thing, you need to know what the meters are showing you. There are many different meter types, and you can't assume that any meter is 100% showing you what you think it's showing you. In Reason there is much confusion because the channel meters show VU, not peak levels. Also, they default to showing RED at VU levels of -11 to 0 dBFS, which is not a standard in any system I've worked on (the "RED" part is not a standard, as RED always means clipping or "above 0 dBFS").

In my experience if all tracks are peaking around -12 dBFS (PEAKING being the key word here), the mix is typically hitting between -6 to 3 dBFS which is plenty hot enough. Notice I did NOT say plenty LOUD enough, because loudness is a perceptual thing and is difficult to measure since we all experience it differently.

BTW, "headroom" just means the distance from the highest peak and the clipping point. Make sense?

Gain staging, not the best term IMO, won't make your mix sound "louder", as I explained above. I prefer to say that I use a "reference peak level" throughout the mixer, which makes more sense in a digital mixer IMO.

Louder tracks come from choosing louder sounds, creating louder arrangements, louder mixes, and louder masters. It really starts at the first track you record IMO. Understanding the way humans perceive loudness is one way to start. This involves understanding which frequency ranges sound the loudest (the area from roughly somewhere around 1-2 kHz to 5-8 kHz), and the difference between peak and average levels (AKA "Crest Factor"). It's actually a very subtle dance between all of the above concepts - if you neglect one area and attempt to make it up elsewhere, it would sound as natural. For example, if you create a very dynamic mix, which by definition won't likely sound "loud" compared to less dynamic mixes, and then try to achieve "loudness" by squashing the crap out of the mix in mastering, you'll likely end up with a squashed mix.

The best thing I can suggest is to provide an example of a track you are working on and get specific feedback - that's the best way I learned.

[selig]

Something to ponder when talking about just making things louder. A quote from Alan Parsons:

"I prefer to use external compressors and limiters. I tend to avoid compression and limiting, I never compress mixes, and I only ever usually limit two things: vocals and bass."

Records are mastered very loud these days, so if you're not compressing at the mixing stage the mastering engineer...

"I resist even letting the mastering engineer limit or compress. I mean, maybe just a dB of brickwall limiting for the peaks but otherwise no, I'd much rather leave it alone. If the consumer says it isn't loud enough, turn it up! Do you think records sound as good as they used to?"

No.

"Absolutely. The level war is the worst thing to happen to audio in years. Interestingly though there has always been a level war, even on vinyl."

And here's the link to the full article: http://www.musicradar.com/news/tech/ala ... ion-630648

For every "rule" there is an exception. I'd say that Alan Parsons has an un-compressed sound, and if that's what you're going for you certainly should not compress much! But more music is compressed than not compressed, and I'm not talking about loudness wars, I'm talking about the sound of compression. Some folks like it, some do not. Some use a LOT of it (some would say "too much"), others not so much. It's a "color" that we all can choose to use or not use according to our own personal taste and musical/production goals.

[Thousand Ways]

Thanks for your patience, all. Part of the issue – for me, maybe for others – is that music is not my occupation, so it has to be squeezed-in around other things. During the interruptions I frequently forget what I'd learned last time.

Is it the case that all 'professionally-released' (can't think how else to phrase that) music goes through the process of gain-staging? Or do some producers not bother with it at all?

Gain-staging seems to be preemptive: once you've done it you can't add any more tracks. To return to Selig's analogy of the full glass: let's say we begin a song with ten tracks, each of them gain-staged at the outset so that each accounts for 10% of the possible amount of sound, thereby presumably resulting in a 100% full glass. We are now stuck with our tracks and levels, and can't change them. So what happens if, halfway through working on a song, we decide to bring in an additional guitar, or another set of hi-hats, or a whole orchestra? Surely then all our gain-staging work is rendered useless and we have to start all over again? The only alternative would be to stick with exactly the bunch of instruments we had at the start. If that's how gain-staging works, then it must become very limiting (no pun intended). Wouldn't it be better, then, to work out all the levels properly at the end, after all the tracks/instruments have been added and parts recorded?

I still feel sure that there's more I don't understand. The mental image I have of gain-staging is:
1) on adding any track or instrument to the song (at the outset), make its signal match –12 dB, then
2) somewhat undo step 1 by reducing the level to where you really want it

This seems a self-contradicting process. If gain-staging is to be taken literally, doesn't this result in every track in the song being exactly the same volume as every other?

In my experience if all tracks are peaking around -12 dBFS (PEAKING being the key word here), the mix is typically hitting between -6 to 3 dBFS which is plenty hot enough.

Doesn't this depend on how many tracks are in the song?

BTW, "headroom" just means the distance from the highest peak and the clipping point. Make sense?

Is this when measuring via Peak or via VU?

And here's the link to the full article: http://www.musicradar.com/news/tech/ala ... ion-630648

Thanks for the link. The loudness war seemed inevitable once music was online. In something like iTunes, if people are listening to clips, the loudest ones will stand out, so it became a competition. There were some suggestions that the loudness war itself 'peaked' (no pun intended here either) around 2005–2008, with releases such as Depeche Mode's Playing the angel, and that things have improved since. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loudness_war#2010s

The best thing I can suggest is to provide an example of a track you are working on and get specific feedback - that's the best way I learned.

Well, I won't paste a Soundcloud track directly into this thread, in case it annoys anyone. But if anyone has comments on the levels/mixing of this track, I'd be interested to read them. https://soundcloud.com/deliberate/fold-turn-and-unwrap

[selig]

Sorry I've not been more clear.

Gain staging does nothing for loudness. it is a technique in the analog world used to avoid clipping any of the many gain stages in the recording/mixing process. This process is no longer necessary in the digital world with floating point audio. The only place you can clip in Reason (a floating point system) is the final output, so it absolutely does not matter what levels you see between the input and the output. However, there ARE advantages to keeping all tracks around the same peak level.

I would say that many professionals use some form of system with regards to levels, many coming from the analog world where gain staging is important, and many who work full time find a "system" such as using a consistent reference level as I've previously mentioned simply makes things easier for many reasons.

Leaving the term "gain staging" behind since that's not what we're discussing here…
Using a consistent reference level is a starting point. To simplify, all tracks coming IN to the mixer hit the same peak level. It is ONLY at the output, the fader, where you make the final adjustments. As for your confusion over how adding a track changes things, consider this. For each doubling of IDENTICAL tracks (which can't happen in a real mix), you get only 6 dB overall increase. On average, each doubling will typically add 3 dB. Going further, some tracks don't always play, so lower this number even further. Additionally, many tracks will not need to be at their full level in order to create a balanced mix, further lowering the final output level of your mix.

As a specific example, if you have 24 tracks in your mix, you would have to add 24 MORE tracks to increase the mix level by 3 dB. Adding ONE more track will hardly make any difference. BUT if you were to increase ALL tracks you WOULD see an increase in mix level (but that's how far you would have to go to see a difference on the output in this scenario).

As for your suggestion of "working out the levels at the end", remember the reference level applies to signals coming IN to the mixer. Mix balances apply to levels going OUT of the mixer. So when you mix, THAT is when you are "working out the levels". Combine that with the small changes that even adding a signal full level track to a mix make, once you get your mix levels close you're going to be fine. For my work, I've found that using a reference level of peaks at -12 dBFS gives me a mix level that does not clip - that's the first goal of using a reference level.

The second reason to use a reference level is for when you add compression or saturation devices to a channel/bus/mix. IF you use a consistent level for ALL tracks, these devices will always "see" an input at their nominal level, which means at their sweet spot. All devices such as dynamics/saturation etc. have a limited range where they will function correctly, referred to generically as their nominal level. If your signal is too hot, there is no setting where you can reduce the effect. If the signal is too low, there is no setting where you can get ANY effect. Though it is unlikely you will increase or reduce a signal enough to exceed these ranges, by using the same level for all tracks you will make your job simpler since you will get a consistent response from these devices - thresholds will always be in the same range for the same result, for example. This simply makes your workflow simpler and quicker, and also allows you to save patches of your favorite settings and know they will work with little adjustments the next time you call them up!

To answer this question:
I still feel sure that there's more I don't understand. The mental image I have of gain-staging is:
1) on adding any track or instrument to the song (at the outset), make its signal match –12 dB, then
2) somewhat undo step 1 by reducing the level to where you really want it

Not always, sometimes you leave the fader where it is. But here's a question - where do you set the level of your FIRST track? Don't you have to start SOMEWHERE? And I'm suggesting CONSISTENCY, saying all tracks should be set the same, so I'm suggesting all tracks start at the same level for all of the reasons above (including some I've not had space to mention). My suggestion for a level of -12 dBFS is taken from experience, from other engineers, and even from the Reason User Guide! And not, every track is not the same level, because of where you put the faders to set the mix balances.

I said:
BTW, "headroom" just means the distance from the highest peak and the clipping point. Make sense?

You asked if it was Peak or VU level, but the answer was in my statement: "…from the highest PEAK and the clipping point", so PEAK level is what I was talking about.
Maybe start a new thread in the Music section where we can discuss a specific track, something I find can be valuable since you will hear different perspectives.
Keep your questions coming!

[JerrelTheKing]

I'm mixing a project in Reason now and here is my suggestion. Get Selig Gain. Route the master into it and from it go to your interface. When you solo any track you'll get an accurate number of dbs level. Then use the input gain knobs at the top of the mixer to set your reference levels to -12dbs or whatever. Make sure your faders are at Odb when doing this. You have now set your peak. Don't touch the input gain knobs again. Mix using your faders never raising them above the 0db on the fader. When you compress. eq, etc you will add volume but control it with the faders. This is the safest way to get a good mix if you're mixing in Reason. As for the loudness your options are the sounds you choose and the mastering phase. But getting a good mix is fundamental so that when its louder it sounds great. Hope that helps.

[JerrelTheKing]

What I'm concerned with most now myself is how much should I compress on the master or should I just let all of it be done at mastering...

[selig]

What I'm concerned with most now myself is how much should I compress on the master or should I just let all of it be done at mastering...

That will depend on a few things, one being which compressor you're using and another being how much the tracks have been compressed already, and finally what effect (and end goal) you're going for.

One easy thing you can do right away is to listen to a few tracks that represent the "goals" you have: the sounds you like in a genre similar to yours.

Load a good reference track into a new empty Reason song file, set the big meter to "VU + Peak", play the song and note the difference between the peak (highest) levels and the VU (average) levels at various points in the song. Make sure there are no other effects on such as the master compressor or any insert devices in the Master Inserts.

For many of the tracks I mix I'm shooting for a Peak to VU (crest factor) of around 12 dB, so that is my eventual goal of my mixes.

Next concept: every compressor has a range of settings/results that sound best (different for everyone). For me, the Master Compressor and the original compressor it's based on the SSL E/G series consoles (which I've worked on since 1984) sounds best with between 3-6 dB gain reduction. I tend to use slow attacks and fast releases for this process, with a low (2:1) ratio. This gives me a gentle mixing smoothing (glueing) effect by ducking down the louder tracks such as vocals and leads while allowing the track to still breath on softer parts.

I also subtly compress individual tracks, as well as sub-mixes, which is how I achieve overall "loudness" without squashing the mix at the master level.

Finally, I'm using Ozone (when mixing in Reason) to catch the final peaks, typically limiting by 2-4 dB max. The end result is the same crest factor of the mixes I'm using as my reference, but it's not achieved with a single device at a single point in time.

Hope this helps - I'm happy to share further details if you like, and encourage others to also share their process. I can also provide examples of my work, which are often more indy rock/pop or singer songwriter style and therefore may not appeal or apply to modern dance music type genres.

[JerrelTheKing]

@selig thank you it does help. Basically small subtle compression where needed along the way. I just want a good glue setting on the master and that works. Now when you're using Ozone is that apart of your mix process or your mastering process?

[selig]

@selig thank you it does help. Basically small subtle compression where needed along the way. I just want a good glue setting on the master and that works. Now when you're using Ozone is that apart of your mix process or your mastering process?

Both the Master Compressor and Ozone ONLY come on after the basic mix balances are set and I'm happy with them. First I'll add the Master Compressor, then finally add Ozone (pretty much at the end of the process, or when I'm bouncing out a rough mix to check). My main rule is I try not to do big (if any) level changes after adding compression to the mix since it will change the balances in often unpredictable ways. But sometimes it's necessary, and careful listening will tell me if the changes are adversely affecting the mix (due to compression) or not.

[JerrelTheKing]

@selig I've loaded in reference tracks with some commercial releases from my genre hip hop and what stands out to me is that the output level is lower on them yet the bottom end is louder and more defined. What is causing this is what I've been trying to figure out. I do understand that they are mastered compared to my mixes is that all there is?

[selig]

@selig I've loaded in reference tracks with some commercial releases from my genre hip hop and what stands out to me is that the output level is lower on them yet the bottom end is louder and more defined. What is causing this is what I've been trying to figure out. I do understand that they are mastered compared to my mixes is that all there is?

Really no way to say for sure without hearing the tracks in question. One thing to remember - these guys are likely at the top of their field (engineer/mastering).

it's kinda like watching someone do a double backflip on a motorcycle and asking how they do it, and why you always crash when you try it.


Some common ways to make the bass louder: compression, saturation, and EQ. Compression will only work on a bass sound that is dynamic to start with. Saturation primarily works with bass sounds that are dynamic and lack strong harmonic content (because it compresses and adds harmonics). EQ only works on bass sounds with harmonic content - you can't EQ and sine wave and do anything more than change it's gain, and only then you have to EQ at the same frequency as the sine.

[kloeckno]

@selig I've loaded in reference tracks with some commercial releases from my genre hip hop and what stands out to me is that the output level is lower on them yet the bottom end is louder and more defined. What is causing this is what I've been trying to figure out. I do understand that they are mastered compared to my mixes is that all there is?

One way to get louder bass without clipping your mix is to be sure that all the other non-bass sounds in the track have most, if not all, of their frequencies cut at the region that the main bass instruments lie. That way you have the most headroom in that part of the spectrum.

A sub bass, for example, is only in a very narrow spectral region. You should be able to get it to -6 dB or so without clipping if nothing else is in that frequency range. But if you added a bunch of samples and don't high pass filter them, it will clip pretty quickly and you'd have to start turning things down. But if there is very little frequency overlap, you shouldn't have to touch the levels.

[JerrelTheKing]

@selig @kloeckno thanks guys. Yeah I almost always put a hpf on everything but the kick and bass. One solution that got me close is using a master eq and just boosting at 100k.

[avasopht]

Some common ways to make the bass louder: compression, saturation, and EQ. Compression will only work on a bass sound that is dynamic to start with. Saturation primarily works with bass sounds that are dynamic and lack strong harmonic content (because it compresses and adds harmonics). EQ only works on bass sounds with harmonic content - you can't EQ and sine wave and do anything more than change it's gain, and only then you have to EQ at the same frequency as the sine.

This is key.

You really need to know the character of bass you're dealing with and then you can take appropriate action.

[selig]

@selig @kloeckno thanks guys. Yeah I almost always put a hpf on everything but the kick and bass. One solution that got me close is using a master eq and just boosting at 100k.

That solution is probably not much different from simply increasing the level of the bass and kick, with the exception that it will not increase the higher frequencies (if present). The issue here is that the lower frequencies take up more "weight" (read: level), thus pushing your overall level higher.

OTOH, it's often the middle and higher frequencies that will add loudness without adding "weight" and therefore will add much less level while increasing loudness.

Loudness is an illusion of sorts, as is all mixing really. In many cases it's not just a "brute force" increasing of the level that will solve the problem, but often more "sneaking in the back door" by creating the illusion of loudness without the actual increase in level (or not as much increase as other options).

This has long been known, and why (back in the "old days") folks would add some upper midrange energy to radio "single" mixes to help them cut through better without over modulating (broadcasting term meaning going beyond their legal limit). Historical note: it was in radio where the so-called "loudness wars" were first fought, each station trying to sound louder than the next so you would stop scanning the dial and listen to them. It was in radio where I saw my first multi-band limiter (10 band Traynor) that blew my mind because this was in the late 80s/early 90s long before the idea of multi-band limiting can into existence in the mixing/mastering world! Granted this was at the biggest station in the US, Z100 in NYC, where my older brother just happened to be the chief engineer, because this technology was not cheep or well understood in smaller markets (yet).

This is also a part of where I got exposed to the idea of "loudness" vs actual peak level, because I was seeing this sort of stuff from the late 60s onward.

[Thousand Ways]

All: thanks as ever for the continued posts.

Gain staging does nothing for loudness. it is a technique in the analog world used to avoid clipping any of the many gain stages in the recording/mixing process. This process is no longer necessary in the digital world with floating point audio.

Do you therefore think that videos such as the aforementioned one on gain staging by LearnReason are redundant, or plain wrong? (For anyone who hasn't read the much earlier posts, I mean this:)

You asked if it was Peak or VU level, but the answer was in my statement: "…from the highest PEAK and the clipping point", so PEAK level is what I was talking about.

Thanks. Surely the VU levels also have highs/lows, peaks/troughs?

For each doubling of IDENTICAL tracks (which can't happen in a real mix), you get only 6 dB overall increase. On average, each doubling will typically add 3 dB […] As a specific example, if you have 24 tracks in your mix, you would have to add 24 MORE tracks to increase the mix level by 3 dB.

Very interesting. I won't pretend to understand the physics.

the reference level applies to signals coming IN to the mixer. Mix balances apply to levels going OUT of the mixer.

But aren't these two things both displayed via the same meter, ie. the level meter on each track?

My suggestion for a level of -12 dBFS is taken from experience, from other engineers, and even from the Reason User Guide! And not, every track is not the same level, because of where you put the faders to set the mix balances.

Again, there's something I'm not seeing here. Each track's level is monitored only by its fader. If this fader is positioned to bring the track's level to around -12 dB, then there it must stay. But then you refer to 'where you put the faders to set the mix levels'. Touching the fader again, to 'set the mix level' will then make the signal deviate from the -12 dB level at which it's been set. It's as if you can see two faders per track (one measuring audio in, another measuring audio out) whereas I am seeing only one per track.

Get Selig Gain. Route the master into it and from it go to your interface.

I don't use any interface. I mix my tracks in Reason, and from there output them as AIFF files. They do not – yet – go through any further mastering stage. I would only put them through that process if I were preparing them for vinyl or CD pressing. (On the one occasion thus far when I've released something on vinyl, the tracks went through no additional mastering stage, yet the result was fine, and sounded comparable to other releases in the same genre.)

[selig]

All: thanks as ever for the continued posts.

Gain staging does nothing for loudness. it is a technique in the analog world used to avoid clipping any of the many gain stages in the recording/mixing process. This process is no longer necessary in the digital world with floating point audio.

Do you therefore think that videos such as the aforementioned one on gain staging by LearnReason are redundant, or plain wrong? (For anyone who hasn't read the much earlier posts, I mean this:)

You asked if it was Peak or VU level, but the answer was in my statement: "…from the highest PEAK and the clipping point", so PEAK level is what I was talking about.

Thanks. Surely the VU levels also have highs/lows, peaks/troughs?

For each doubling of IDENTICAL tracks (which can't happen in a real mix), you get only 6 dB overall increase. On average, each doubling will typically add 3 dB […] As a specific example, if you have 24 tracks in your mix, you would have to add 24 MORE tracks to increase the mix level by 3 dB.

Very interesting. I won't pretend to understand the physics.

the reference level applies to signals coming IN to the mixer. Mix balances apply to levels going OUT of the mixer.

But aren't these two things both displayed via the same meter, ie. the level meter on each track?

My suggestion for a level of -12 dBFS is taken from experience, from other engineers, and even from the Reason User Guide! And not, every track is not the same level, because of where you put the faders to set the mix balances.

Again, there's something I'm not seeing here. Each track's level is monitored only by its fader. If this fader is positioned to bring the track's level to around -12 dB, then there it must stay. But then you refer to 'where you put the faders to set the mix levels'. Touching the fader again, to 'set the mix level' will then make the signal deviate from the -12 dB level at which it's been set. It's as if you can see two faders per track (one measuring audio in, another measuring audio out) whereas I am seeing only one per track.

Get Selig Gain. Route the master into it and from it go to your interface.

I don't use any interface. I mix my tracks in Reason, and from there output them as AIFF files. They do not – yet – go through any further mastering stage. I would only put them through that process if I were preparing them for vinyl or CD pressing. (On the one occasion thus far when I've released something on vinyl, the tracks went through no additional mastering stage, yet the result was fine, and sounded comparable to other releases in the same genre.)

Responses in order…
My thoughts on the video in question have already been expressed - there are things I don't feel make any sense in that video, things that make the concept more complicated and make more work for the end user, and so on. Read my previous responses unless you have more specific questions.

VU levels have highs and lows, but they don't represent the ACTUAL audio level. The only meter mode that can do this is a Peak meter, and even then it's showing you SAMPLE levels in most cases rather than a true reconstruction of the audio signal.

The channel meter displays one thing at a time, so no, it cannot display both the input AND the output of the channel.

The fader sets the OUTPUT level, which can be very different than the INPUT level. The input level is what is "seen" by everything in the channel path, which includes the dynamics section and any inserts you add. Pulling the channel fader all the way down will silence the OUTPUT, but you will still have the same exact signal level present at EVERY other point in the channel, including the dynamics section and the inserts. If you could put a SECOND meter at the input or even in the insert, you would still see a signal there even with the channel fader all the way down or the channel muted (because the fader and mute is on the OUTPUT of the channel). This is the basic concept of SIGNAL FLOW, which is in part knowing what level is present at each point in the signal path.