precision faders

[rvman]

I would like to have more precise control over the faders. I'm just using a mouse with my laptop and it can be a hassle to set the faders where I want them.

[QVprod]

Have you tried holding shift when you move the faders? That allows you to make fine adjustments.

[Theo.M]

I also have very precise mouse control set in global reason prefs which helps again.

it's still difficult to match values, go back to a specific value, etc.. the workaround for that is automation.

[rvman]

Have you tried holding shift when you move the faders? That allows you to make fine adjustments.

No, I have not. Thanks.

[selig]

How much resolution do you need? In other words, how small of a change in level do you typically make?

I seldom move a fader much less than a dB, maybe a half a dB when things get VERY critical towards the end of a mix. 1/2 dB resolution is available down to a very low level on the main faders, somewhere below -60 dBFS on the fader - does anyone actually use the fader down that low? Even so, there's still enough resolution that low for my work, FWIW.

As for matching levels etc, I never need to do that unless I'm testing something critical. Again, there's lots of resolution with these faders! 

Would I prefer to type values in directly? Sure, but the only time I need to have two channels at exactly the same level would be doing a null test or similar (and I use Gain for those precise dB level setting exercises). So I would agree that it would be "nice" to have that ability, it's never stopped me from doing a single thing I needed to do in the context of a mix down.

Hopefully holding down shift will work for you for now!

[rvman]

Selig, you are correct in your post. Most of the time I can get by with just getting things very close. Using shift may be all I need. But I sure would love to be able to type in a value as well.

[normen]

Funnily I am using faders less and less when creating my static mix. Sounds funny but in most of my last mixes I had the faders all at unity (some parts at -3 or -6) and do the fine tuning in the compressors output gain etc. Then for automation and making the mix dynamic I automate the faders.

[Namahs Amrak]

Have you tried holding shift when you move the faders? That allows you to make fine adjustments.

This is a great tip for everyone to know. Works right across Reason, not just with faders, so it's easier to dial in those fiddly little device knobs.

Now another things with those faders, there's an instinct-driven process I often attempt, I think it's born from the way I use Excel to make bulk changes. Often I find myself trying to 'highlight' the fader by dragging a box around them, hoping to move one, so all of them shift together. Of course this isn't possible, but makes me think it would be a good feature. There are some detailed threads in the PUF as to why this isn't as easy a design change as we might think, due to dB variation between tracks which would create inconsistent volume reductions (or something like that - the people who know about this got right into the topic which was fascinating)

[normen]

This is a great tip for everyone to know. Works right across Reason, not just with faders, so it's easier to dial in those fiddly little device knobs.

Now another things with those faders, there's an instinct-driven process I often attempt, I think it's born from the way I use Excel to make bulk changes. Often I find myself trying to 'highlight' the fader by dragging a box around them, hoping to move one, so all of them shift together. Of course this isn't possible, but makes me think it would be a good feature. There are some detailed threads in the PUF as to why this isn't as easy a design change as we might think, due to dB variation between tracks which would create inconsistent volume reductions (or something like that - the people who know about this got right into the topic which was fascinating)

+1 Reason totally needs multi-channel fader movements

The general problem you're talking about has been solved so many times already. Though I had one hardware mixing desk (Soundtracs DPC-II) that would make your fader jump to +10dB if you grouped a -infinity and -10dB fader and then moved the -10dB up, after all the simple algorithm came up with a value of +infinity for the other fader
:m0358:

[Theo.M]

How much resolution do you need? In other words, how small of a change in level do you typically make?

I seldom move a fader much less than a dB, maybe a half a dB when things get VERY critical towards the end of a mix. 1/2 dB resolution is available down to a very low level on the main faders, somewhere below -60 dBFS on the fader - does anyone actually use the fader down that low? Even so, there's still enough resolution that low for my work, FWIW.

As for matching levels etc, I never need to do that unless I'm testing something critical. Again, there's lots of resolution with these faders! 

Would I prefer to type values in directly? Sure, but the only time I need to have two channels at exactly the same level would be doing a null test or similar (and I use Gain for those precise dB level setting exercises). So I would agree that it would be "nice" to have that ability, it's never stopped me from doing a single thing I needed to do in the context of a mix down.

Hopefully holding down shift will work for you for now!

Good question.. I am a 0.1 guy, i can sit there for an hour just one track level continually adjusting it till it is the exact perfect volume to me and whoever i am working on the project with if a collab.

I think the problem is that often in reason, without automation, faders can't be matched, or if you move them and do a bunch of other critical stuff after that that you can't undo, but decide you want to go back to the volume you were at, the "relativity" has changed and you can shift drag even on the finest settings and it will simply never drop back to that value. Fader text entry is the key IMO. They have it on the gain as you know in the arrange page for audio at least, but even that truncates to certain values (I must admit that's a first for me, had never seen that before, for example being unable to set something at exactly -2.0, etc, etc).

[Faastwalker]

Have you tried holding shift when you move the faders? That allows you to make fine adjustments.

I have the SHIFT key almost permanently depressed. I wish there was a way to toggle this on/off. If you just miss a control you end up moving the entire device. Then if you release the device before you release the SHIFT key all the cabling is removed! Very annoying.
 
 

[selig]

How much resolution do you need? In other words, how small of a change in level do you typically make?

I seldom move a fader much less than a dB, maybe a half a dB when things get VERY critical towards the end of a mix. 1/2 dB resolution is available down to a very low level on the main faders, somewhere below -60 dBFS on the fader - does anyone actually use the fader down that low? Even so, there's still enough resolution that low for my work, FWIW.

As for matching levels etc, I never need to do that unless I'm testing something critical. Again, there's lots of resolution with these faders! 

Would I prefer to type values in directly? Sure, but the only time I need to have two channels at exactly the same level would be doing a null test or similar (and I use Gain for those precise dB level setting exercises). So I would agree that it would be "nice" to have that ability, it's never stopped me from doing a single thing I needed to do in the context of a mix down.

Hopefully holding down shift will work for you for now!

Good question.. I am a 0.1 guy, i can sit there for an hour just one track level continually adjusting it till it is the exact perfect volume to me and whoever i am working on the project with if a collab.

I think the problem is that often in reason, without automation, faders can't be matched, or if you move them and do a bunch of other critical stuff after that that you can't undo, but decide you want to go back to the volume you were at, the "relativity" has changed and you can shift drag even on the finest settings and it will simply never drop back to that value. Fader text entry is the key IMO. They have it on the gain as you know in the arrange page for audio at least, but even that truncates to certain values (I must admit that's a first for me, had never seen that before, for example being unable to set something at exactly -2.0, etc, etc).

Man, if I spent an hour making 0.1 dB changes it would take YEARS for me to finish a mix (and I'm not that fast a mixer to begin with!). The "exact perfect volume" is only something that applies to a track playing a sample at the same exact level anyway - for tracks with any dynamic changes you'd have to squash all the dynamics out of it before you could accurately set it's level to ANY value throughout the song. In other words, there probably isn't "one" exact perfect level for a track that has dynamics - or maybe I just lack imagination here and maybe there are cases where this does apply? 

To be totally honest, I couldn't pick a 0.1 dB change in a blind test, so I have never used an increment that small. But Reason can make adjustments that are half that 0.1 dB when the fader is close to 0 dB, so it's there for those who need it.

[normen]

Man, if I spent an hour making 0.1 dB changes it would take YEARS for me to finish a mix (and I'm not that fast a mixer to begin with!). The "exact perfect volume" is only something that applies to a track playing a sample at the same exact level anyway - for tracks with any dynamic changes you'd have to squash all the dynamics out of it before you could accurately set it's level to ANY value throughout the song. In other words, there probably isn't "one" exact perfect level for a track that has dynamics - or maybe I just lack imagination here and maybe there are cases where this does apply? 

To be totally honest, I couldn't pick a 0.1 dB change in a blind test, so I have never used an increment that small. But Reason can make adjustments that are half that 0.1 dB when the fader is close to 0 dB, so it's there for those who need it.

The guy who wrote the "Zen and the art of mixing" also talked about 0.1dB changes but I put away the book after a while because it became increasingly esoteric and silly towards the end. I think its the same guy that Paul Frindle made fun of because of his eccentric antics when he's supposed to mix in some studio I'd have to agree that I probably couldn't make out a change of 0.1dB either and if I'd do such changes I'd suspect that theres an issue elsewhere (probably in my head) 

[Theo.M]

How much resolution do you need? In other words, how small of a change in level do you typically make?

I seldom move a fader much less than a dB, maybe a half a dB when things get VERY critical towards the end of a mix. 1/2 dB resolution is available down to a very low level on the main faders, somewhere below -60 dBFS on the fader - does anyone actually use the fader down that low? Even so, there's still enough resolution that low for my work, FWIW.

As for matching levels etc, I never need to do that unless I'm testing something critical. Again, there's lots of resolution with these faders! 

Would I prefer to type values in directly? Sure, but the only time I need to have two channels at exactly the same level would be doing a null test or similar (and I use Gain for those precise dB level setting exercises). So I would agree that it would be "nice" to have that ability, it's never stopped me from doing a single thing I needed to do in the context of a mix down.

Hopefully holding down shift will work for you for now!

Good question.. I am a 0.1 guy, i can sit there for an hour just one track level continually adjusting it till it is the exact perfect volume to me and whoever i am working on the project with if a collab.

I think the problem is that often in reason, without automation, faders can't be matched, or if you move them and do a bunch of other critical stuff after that that you can't undo, but decide you want to go back to the volume you were at, the "relativity" has changed and you can shift drag even on the finest settings and it will simply never drop back to that value. Fader text entry is the key IMO. They have it on the gain as you know in the arrange page for audio at least, but even that truncates to certain values (I must admit that's a first for me, had never seen that before, for example being unable to set something at exactly -2.0, etc, etc).

Man, if I spent an hour making 0.1 dB changes it would take YEARS for me to finish a mix (and I'm not that fast a mixer to begin with!). The "exact perfect volume" is only something that applies to a track playing a sample at the same exact level anyway - for tracks with any dynamic changes you'd have to squash all the dynamics out of it before you could accurately set it's level to ANY value throughout the song. In other words, there probably isn't "one" exact perfect level for a track that has dynamics - or maybe I just lack imagination here and maybe there are cases where this does apply? 

To be totally honest, I couldn't pick a 0.1 dB change in a blind test, so I have never used an increment that small. But Reason can make adjustments that are half that 0.1 dB when the fader is close to 0 dB, so it's there for those who need it.

I am talking including automation Giles.. Not just one static value. Also there are sometimes one shots like a one off effect and I will adjust for as long as it takes till it sounds to be the exact perfect volume to me. I absolutely do not squash dynamics out of my stuff at all, in fact i am pretty easy going with compression. It's the so called masterers that manage to kill them for me afterwards LOL. :frown:

Yeah, it has happened to me and a friend, I remember clearly.. there was one super short "ooh" vocal that was a one off instance, and we were getting even to 0.05 resolutions and kept playing it back till we were satisfied it was the correct level in the mix. Then of course checked it again the next day after a rest. It's not common practise, i guess i generalised too much but that was a figure of speech.. i simply meant that i *can* be a 0.1 guy in certain, rare situations like the example above.

Anyway, i guess i shouldn't even commented in this topic, as the fader resolution in reason is definitely fine enough for sure.. My tangent was about not being able to hit the same precise values all the time without automation, even holding shift.. it happens to me all the time where i can't match faders that i want to match for example a parallel channel. But that's probably being a bit OCD too.

[Smedberg]

To be totally honest, I couldn't pick a 0.1 dB change in a blind test, so I have never used an increment that small. But Reason can make adjustments that are half that 0.1 dB when the fader is close to 0 dB, so it's there for those who need it.

Most studies show human ability (normal hearing) to hear changes between 0,5 to 1,5 dB difference. On sounds well above ATH (absolute threshold of hearing) and on signals between 2-4kHz. One study made 1988 showed ability down to 0,25 dB changes on a 5kHz signal.

So hearing changes in 0,1 dB is not realistic...

[Exowildebeest]

To be totally honest, I couldn't pick a 0.1 dB change in a blind test, so I have never used an increment that small. But Reason can make adjustments that are half that 0.1 dB when the fader is close to 0 dB, so it's there for those who need it.

Most studies show human ability (normal hearing) to hear changes between 0,5 to 1,5 dB difference. On sounds well above ATH (absolute threshold of hearing) and on signals between 2-4kHz. One study made 1988 showed ability down to 0,25 dB changes on a 5kHz signal.

So hearing changes in 0,1 dB is not realistic...

But were those studies conducted on average boring normal people, or on experienced producers?

I too like matching faders of e.g. duplicate tracks to the exact same level  - but that's not even for any audio reasons, just another one of those OCD things.

I hope reason will get type-in values ASAP. Will save me some time fiddling to get the values I want

[mcatalao]

With my surface i have ~0.3 db control on the top of the fader, and its more than enough imho. 
If you do a good gain staging, and lower the the base volume in the gain pot or the instrtument, you will be working your fader near its upper part giving yourself a lot more control over the track level with the fader.

[selig]

With my surface i have ~0.3 db control on the top of the fader, and its more than enough imho. 
If you do a good gain staging, and lower the the base volume in the gain pot or the instrtument, you will be working your fader near its upper part giving yourself a lot more control over the track level with the fader.

When tweaking automation levels I can get 0.04 dB steps as the smallest. But if 0.3 dB steps are more than enough for you, you're in luck!

It's not until you get the fader almost down to the bottom that you even get close to having a mere 0.3 dB steps as you describe (around -51 dB, an automation setting of around 100). Even down at -70 dB the fader still gives 0.5 dB resolution - and this is with the fader ALMOST touching bottom, something most of us would never need to do!

So if 0.3 dB is MORE than enough resolution, and you can get nearly this resolution across almost the ENTIRE range of the SSL fader, there's really absolutely NO reason to ever worry about getting the faders near 0 dB for "better" resolution!

It's been a hard habit to break coming from the analog world (just like breaking the habit of getting audio levels to 'kiss the reds' when recording, something no longer necessary in the least). For the record, I did a test with the master fader down around - 50 dB, and did a fade out to silence. I bounced this and normalized it and the fade was PERFECTLY SMOOTH. So even the master fader can be that low and not loose any "resolution" in the audio sense. This is due to the 3000 dB dynamic range the 64 bit mixer affords!

[mcatalao]

Selig, i'm at work, so i might have incorrect values. but mind i'm talking about tweaking the faders with the control surface...

[selig]

Selig, i'm at work, so i might have incorrect values. but mind i'm talking about tweaking the faders with the control surface...

My main point is that you can get a LOT more fader resolution across the entire range than most folks realize, and therefore there's no reason to suggest you keep faders anywhere near 0 dB.

[mcatalao]

PS.: I must not be completely wrong as my BCF2000 has only 7 bit resolution (according to the manual, that is 128 steps). 

As these steps are static, and the fader scale is logarithmic, though what you say is truth working completely ITB, when you mix with the the controllers it ends being somewhat truth. 

According to a thread on Gearslutz, (https://www.gearslutz.com/board/low-end ... ons-6.html), behringer are 7 bit resolution and Mackies are 10 bit resolution (at the top of the fader, they  give you 0.1Db resolution). And maybe that's why they are 10 times costlier...

[selig]

PS.: I must not be completely wrong as my BCF2000 has only 7 bit resolution (according to the manual, that is 128 steps). 

As these steps are static, and the fader scale is logarithmic, though what you say is truth working completely ITB, when you mix with the the controllers it ends being somewhat truth. 

According to a thread on Gearslutz, (https://www.gearslutz.com/board/low-end ... ons-6.html), behringer are 7 bit resolution and Mackies are 10 bit resolution (at the top of the fader, they  give you 0.1Db resolution). And maybe that's why they are 10 times costlier...

Good point about the difference between controllers and software faders. Even the original SSL faders had only 1024 steps IIRC (10 bits I believe) - maybe that's why Reason choose 1000 steps for their faders?

But one point to take away would be that if your controller has only 127 steps and you feel it is more than enough (did I quote you correctly on that?), maybe many of us are over-stating the importance of having such high resolution on faders? As I've stated before, I rarely use as small a change as 0.5 dB, and that's probably the smallest I could ever claim to hear (on a GOOD day). Most of the time I'm more than happy with 1 dB changes to mix levels for minor tweaks!

I wouldn't even care if Reason's faders were identical 0.1 dB steps from 0 dB down to 100 (1000 steps), and then abruptly cut off below that. Having a consistent step size would be more important to me, which is why I designed Selig Gain to allow you to access every 0.1 dB step from 0 dB to well below -100 dB (and obviously it's using more than 1000 steps)!

[mcatalao]

But one point to take away would be that if your controller has only 127 steps and you feel it is more than enough (did I quote you correctly on that?), maybe many of us are over-stating the importance of having such high resolution on faders? As I've stated before, I rarely use as small a change as 0.5 dB, and that's probably the smallest I could ever claim to hear (on a GOOD day). Most of the time I'm more than happy with 1 dB changes to mix levels for minor tweaks!
!

Well, i guess that was my main message... 

IMHO, mixing is a contextualized process.
A 1 dB change on a fader on a Loud song might be nothing, and in a soft song it can make a big difference. 

You know what i like about Control Surfaces?
I just tweak those faders up and down until it sounds right!

[selig]

But one point to take away would be that if your controller has only 127 steps and you feel it is more than enough (did I quote you correctly on that?), maybe many of us are over-stating the importance of having such high resolution on faders? As I've stated before, I rarely use as small a change as 0.5 dB, and that's probably the smallest I could ever claim to hear (on a GOOD day). Most of the time I'm more than happy with 1 dB changes to mix levels for minor tweaks!
!

Well, i guess that was my main message... 

IMHO, mixing is a contextualized process.
A 1 dB change on a fader on a Loud song might be nothing, and in a soft song it can make a big difference. 

You know what i like about Control Surfaces?
I just tweak those faders up and down until it sounds right!

All music is contextualize IMO - "context" is one of my favorite words to use when speaking about music production, since it's always in play IMO! 

It's in context that the smaller moves make a difference IMO, not whether the song is a soft or loud song (in my experience), as both can use the same dynamic range in many cases. It's mores about being able to hear relative differences easier than absolute. Meaning, moving one fader in a mix by 0.1 may make an audible difference, while moving that same fader when soloed may not. That's what I've always heard, anyway!