The 'all the faders flat' thing and a console question

[Dean Roddey]

So there was a thread a whlie back and a bit of a heated conversation (well, is there anything other kind here?) about the idea of recording everything just exactly at the volume you think it hsould be in the mix and just bring up the faders to flat and the basic mix is there already.

I've been going through all the Classic Albums DVDs now for a while. I've been through quite a few of them so far, and I've never seen a single example of this on any of the songs where they have the mix up. Anyway, just wanted to point that out. Clearly it's not something that is key to recording all time classic albums.

The other question I had was that I've seen in a LOT of these a particular type of console, but they almost never show a shot up the console so I never have figured out what it is. Its in the Boh Rap one, the Dark Side one, and the Aja one, and various others. I was wondering if it was a Quad Eight since it has a similar look to the Pacifica in the fader section (the only part that is typically shown up close in these videos) with the whitish background (though it may be actually kind of metallic) and the red buttons and knobs. Anybody know what console is being used in those?

[joeq]

Once, when recording to tape, I had an 'assistant' who, while I was performing in the live room, took it upon himself to adjust all the record levels to where they 'should' be so that the mix sounded good (to him anyway!) with all the monitor faders flat.

He managed to escape with his life, but his job he had to leave behind.

hey, maybe he was just (way) ahead of his time!

[MiserableSod]

Originally Posted by Dean Roddey

So there was a thread a whlie back and a bit of a heated conversation (well, is there anything other kind here?) about the idea of recording everything just exactly at the volume you think it hsould be in the mix and just bring up the faders to flat and the basic mix is there already.

It's not about "recording everything just exactly at the volume you think it hsould be in the mix", it's about optimum gain staging in the console and optimum level to tape, resulting in a good general balance with all faders at 0VU.

[dbjp]

It's just a lot easier to make minor/precise adjustments when the faders are closer to 0.
Try it yourself. Move the fader the same amount at separate positions. When the faders are quite low down, you tend to have to move them a lot more to make adjustments. There's a reason for that and hopefully a well educated guy can clarify.

[Silvertone]

Originally Posted by Dean Roddey

The other question I had was that I've seen in a LOT of these a particular type of console, but they almost never show a shot up the console so I never have figured out what it is. Its in the Boh Rap one, the Dark Side one, and the Aja one, and various others. I was wondering if it was a Quad Eight since it has a similar look to the Pacifica in the fader section (the only part that is typically shown up close in these videos) with the whitish background (though it may be actually kind of metallic) and the red buttons and knobs. Anybody know what console is being used in those?

Well I know for the Aja and Dark Side that it is a Quad Eight, not sure about the Boh Rap... do you have a picture? In any case these could be the Pacifica, Coronado or a Ventura as they all had the same "looks"...

[theblue1]

I went through two commercial recording programs at two community colleges in the early/mid 80s. It was expensive to get studio time, but in Cali, community colleges were cheap at the time. The school I started at was just starting out and had a self-taught program director (who only had a 2 year EE degree and no commercial studio experience) -- he was the only guy I ran into in those days who used the faders-at-0 method.

I tested into a more rigorous program in the next county, where we did things 'by the book' -- but the director had a working commercial studio, so he had plenty of real world experience, too. The first school finally added a teacher who came up in the studios because it was perceived they needed someone who had real experience. Both of those latter two guys used the method I describe below, as did engineers I worked with in the commercial world:

• Get the best level you can on tape.
• On playback, you want the best level [optimal S/N ratio] going through the channel strip you can get. Set the trim to give an optimal signal through the channel strip.
• Mix with the faders. That's why the trim is a tiny little knob and the fader is a big ol thing with a long throw.

If you mix in this fashion, you are giving anything inserted in the channel strip (EQ, FX) an optimal signal to work with. You are assuring best S/N ratio through the strip. By then setting the output faders to an appropriate level (or starting level if the mix levels change in the mix) for the desired channel level in the mix, you are then assuring the best signal to noise ratio leaving the channel and going into the mix buss.

Clearly, it seems to me, this is why boards are designed as they are -- if you were 'supposed' to mix with your trim pots, as the 'everything at zero' folks seem to suggest, the trim pots would be big ol long throw slider pots (as the faders are), instead of tiny little things at the top of the strip -- don't you think?


Here's a practical exercise: if you have a 24 channel board, turn your trims down and throw all your faders up to 0 and put a meter across the output and see what the board's self noise is. Then pull all your faders down to -Inf and take a meter reading across the output. The difference is the (max) amount of noise you would be potentially adding by using this 'faders-at-0' approach. Now, it's all about tradeoffs, right? So what do you get by using faders-at-zero? Convenience. I guess. Me, I'll take optimal signal level -- even in today's relatively quiet boards.

(Hell, I work in the box anyhow, these days; but that's how I did it back in what us old-timers laughingly call the day.)

[dbbubba]

In theory, with a well designed console with "proper" gain structure and with a recording device interfaced with the console at unity gain it is almost possible to have the front side faders (send to tape) at close to zero.
Since the '70s when consoles started to have completely variable mic pre gain instead of click stop attenuators it became possible to set your front side (record) faders to zero and adjust your mic pre gain to achieve a proper record level.
In a well designed console, once the mic pre is set to a proper gain structure the signal is very close to it's optimal level.
Once that level is established it should translate to tape if everything is set up and calibrated properly.
Prior to the variable gain attenuation days you had click stops and you could not fine tune levels as accurately, so the record fader was how you set your level to tape.

Obviously, the monitor or mix faders need to be adjusted to produce a mix that is proper, so they will probably NOT be at zero.
Still, a well recorded tape (or any recording for that matter) should have levels that allow the faders to be close to zero or unity gain for most tracks.

In live mixing it IS often possible to have the faders set VERY close to zero.
Again, the gain structure is set up with the mic pre and that gain structure is carried through-out the console.

[theblue1]

[First... let me say that I was focused on mixing in my comments above, as is probably obvious. As I noted, during tracking you want optimal levels on tape as a bedrock. That means setting optimal level at the trim, if one is then going direct out to tape, assuming the channel fader is not active, as is typically the case. In my day, it was, of course, not at all uncommon, particularly with a heavily miked kit, to send kick and snare out direct and then to send one or more submixes out via buss for toms and overheads.]

Originally Posted by dbjp

It's just a lot easier to make minor/precise adjustments when the faders are closer to 0.
Try it yourself. Move the fader the same amount at separate positions. When the faders are quite low down, you tend to have to move them a lot more to make adjustments. There's a reason for that and hopefully a well educated guy can clarify.

This is the best rationale for faders-at-0 approach I can think of (aside from 'convenience') if you have to continually make adjustments to signals which are already low in the mix. (I don't recall doing that much -- and you can always make an exception to the 'rule' if you need to. Rules are made to be broken and with one or two channels like that, you're not adding much noise.)

Fader pots do tend to have a logarithmic taper (take a look at the scale printed next to the fader to see the practical import). That means moving the fader down at a steady rate tends to give a 'pleasing' fade, which is why they're designed that way.


I'll admit -- the way I learned to do it was all about optimal gain structure and keeping noise at a minimum, which at the time, was plenty difficult. Maybe if I'd used higher end boards (although the board at my by-the-book school was, indeed, a nice old Neve, but it was not silent) I might have developed a different strategy.

BTW... I found this thread over at MusicPlayer Network: MusicPlayer Forums: setting gain/volume

The fella posting under audiorulez succinctly describes the method I learned to use for setting channel gain structure and mixing.


I was always pretty worthless at SR mixing so I'll just keep my big ugly ol' nose out of that one -- but what Danny says about that makes good sense.

[nickynicknick]

Originally Posted by theblue1

I went through two commercial recording programs at two community colleges in the early/mid 80s. It was expensive to get studio time, but in Cali, community colleges were cheap at the time. The school I started at was just starting out and had a self-taught program director (who only had a 2 year EE degree and no commercial studio experience) -- he was the only guy I ran into in those days who used the faders-at-0 method.

I tested into a more rigorous program in the next county, where we did things 'by the book' -- but the director had a working commercial studio, so he had plenty of real world experience, too. The first school finally added a teacher who came up in the studios because it was perceived they needed someone who had real experience. Both of those latter two guys used the method I describe below, as did engineers I worked with in the commercial world:

• Get the best level you can on tape.
• On playback, you want the best level [optimal S/N ratio] going through the channel strip you can get. Set the trim to give an optimal signal through the channel strip.
• Mix with the faders. That's why the trim is a tiny little knob and the fader is a big ol thing with a long throw.

If you mix in this fashion, you are giving anything inserted in the channel strip (EQ, FX) an optimal signal to work with. You are assuring best S/N ratio through the strip. By then setting the output faders to an appropriate level (or starting level if the mix levels change in the mix) for the desired channel level in the mix, you are then assuring the best signal to noise ratio leaving the channel and going into the mix buss.

Clearly, it seems to me, this is why boards are designed as they are -- if you were 'supposed' to mix with your trim pots, as the 'everything at zero' folks seem to suggest, the trim pots would be big ol long throw slider pots (as the faders are), instead of tiny little things at the top of the strip -- don't you think?


Here's a practical exercise: if you have a 24 channel board, turn your trims down and throw all your faders up to 0 and put a meter across the output and see what the board's self noise is. Then pull all your faders down to -Inf and take a meter reading across the output. The difference is the (max) amount of noise you would be potentially adding by using this 'faders-at-0' approach. Now, it's all about tradeoffs, right? So what do you get by using faders-at-zero? Convenience. I guess. Me, I'll take optimal signal level -- even in today's relatively quiet boards.

(Hell, I work in the box anyhow, these days; but that's how I did it back in what us old-timers laughingly call the day.)

and that should be the end of that....well put.

Nick

[msmith]

I think that this idea has been taken a little too far out of context. Saying that controls on a console should be set to some arbitrary amount for things to be "good" is clearly a conflict of interests. I think that thinking about it more abstract would be more helpful. My take would be that if you have a good palette of sounds, a good arrangement, and good engineering technique going in, the mix should be fairly "representative" of its idealogical state with all faders at roughly unity. Thats all.
Spending time and creative energy on making the mix perfect with all faders set to a certain level seems more like engineer ******y to me than anything else.

[dbbubba]

MIXING CONSOLE GAIN STRUCTURE DESIGN 101

When your big fader is at zero the gain staging through that portion of the console is close to the operating level of the console.
In "pro" consoles this is usually 0db = +4db.
In pro-sumer consoles this is usually 0db = -10db

If you adjust your mic pre to feed the next stage of the channel with the channel fader at zero you will be adjusting the mic pre to output a signal that is at the console's designed operating level.
The O db mark on the fader is there for a reason.
It is a visual indicator that shows when the associated amplifier's gain is at unity or at the console's operating level.

This is just how consoles are designed.

It doesn't mean that you are mixing with the small knobs on the mic pres.

YOUR GOAL IS TO ADJUST THE MIC PRE, WHICH IS A HIGH GAIN AMPLIFIER, TO AMPLIFY THE MIC'S SIGNAL AND BRING IT TO A LEVEL THAT IS AS CLOSE THE CONSOLE'S DESIGNED OPERATING LEVEL AS POSSIBLE.

No matter how you want to describe anything, having the signal as close to this level is how to realize the very best signal to noise ratio in any console (or any combination of equipment.)

Gain staging in a console is no different than gain staging with seperate audio devices.
A console is only a collection of separate audio amplifiers arranged on a convenient plane.
The principals of gain structure apply to a console just the same as separate audio pieces.
Fortunately, on a well designed console much of the interstage gain structure is designed in.

Here's a test you can perform to prove this:
If you have a well designed console that is interfaced with a tape machine or recorder where ALL levels are maintained at unity gain you should be able to sample (look at) the signal at ANY point in the signal flow and see it be close to Odb (the console's operating level) ONCE THE MIC PRE'S LEVEL IS SET TO OUTPUT 0db.
This is how the very best s/n ratio is achieved.

Soem people have been confused because there are some designs where the sound of the console is "better" when the fader is at or above zero.
Still, these consoles were mostly consoles of lesser quality.
This doesn't happen with "good" consoles and maybe you could say that it is a good indicator of what you want to see.

[stuntbutt]

I worked with a guy who did sessions in Nashville in the 70s. He told me it was common to put levels to tape so that "all returns at zero" would produce a reasonable mix. They did it purely for speed of production. They might need to work on over a dozen songs in one session that were all tracked at different places and times. With levels tracked that way you could change reels and and a rough mix was basically up. They were fully aware of the tradeoff in S/N.

That's how he explained it. I don't know for sure as I was in my pajamas watching "Happy Days" in the 70s.

[travisbrown]

One of the nice things about having faders around zero is you get more throw for small changes (being logarithmic). A 10mm change around 0 on a fader allows much more precise adjustments than down around -18. A 10mm change down there is huge.

In a DAW, I usually do this with buffer plugin to knock hot levels down so I can bring the faders up. On an analogue console, there's your trim pots.

Roger Nichols has an old Mix article where he goes into depth on where it's best to work your faders. It's on his website, when his website is up...

In the end, it's best to have a clear idea from end to end what your gain staging should be.

[dbbubba]

That theory does work out when you need constancy.

After years and years of recording I found that I could put up a reel of tape and the basic rhythm track would have VERY close to the same fader levels and EQ as any other session I might have tracked.
I could put up a tape from almost any session once the faders and EQ were set and the rhythm track mix would be very close.

You just develop standard way of working after enough years.

This is akin to how people say Chris Lord Alge sets the board and equipment up the same every time he mixes regardless of the source material.
You develop a style and methods that just.... work!

I can't recall his name, but there is a name engineer/mixer that performed all of his mix moves to multitrack in live situations.
I recall an article where Paul Simon described the guy mixing a live recording in South Africa this way.
Hell.... If you good enough to pull it off there is no reason that it wouldn't work!

[Dean Roddey]

Originally Posted by MiserableSod

It's not about "recording everything just exactly at the volume you think it hsould be in the mix", it's about optimum gain staging in the console and optimum level to tape, resulting in a good general balance with all faders at 0VU.

But it's effectively the same thing. If a guitar part is going to be way back in the background, you cannot record it at -6dB and have the fader at 0 at mix time. If the faders are going to be at zero, then you have to record them at the level they'll be in the mix, which is the opposite of getting optimum levels to tape.

[Dean Roddey]

Originally Posted by Silvertone

Well I know for the Aja and Dark Side that it is a Quad Eight, not sure about the Boh Rap... do you have a picture? In any case these could be the Pacifica, Coronado or a Ventura as they all had the same "looks"...

OK, if that's the one in Aja and Dark side, then that's the classic console (they also have a couple scenes where a more modern one is used) used on Night at the Opera.

So clearly, from a survey of these uber-classic albums covered in these DVDs, Quad Eight was very heavily used on some of the best stuff ever recorded, but then just got lost in the mists of time.

[ckreon]

Originally Posted by Dean Roddey

But it's effectively the same thing. If a guitar part is going to be way back in the background, you cannot record it at -6dB and have the fader at 0 at mix time. If the faders are going to be at zero, then you have to record them at the level they'll be in the mix, which is the opposite of getting optimum levels to tape.

With the proper reverb and eq you can...(and no I don't mean cutting the entire spectrum).

I'm not an advocate of this method necessarily, I just happens to work out this way when I mix (live or studio). It works for me, and plus, it looks cool!

[MiserableSod]

Originally Posted by Dean Roddey

But it's effectively the same thing. If a guitar part is going to be way back in the background, you cannot record it at -6dB and have the fader at 0 at mix time. If the faders are going to be at zero, then you have to record them at the level they'll be in the mix, which is the opposite of getting optimum levels to tape.

You don't seem to understand, and I don't want to spend any more time on this.
Good-bye.

[psycho_monkey]

Originally Posted by MiserableSod

You don't seem to understand, and I don't want to spend any more time on this.
Good-bye.

It's not just a clever name, you know.

[kooz]

I think both can be utilized...depends on how the band likes to work.

If they want to get it right, keep it right all the way along thru overdubs and are in and out fairly frequently working on their stuff, then are in a big hurry for the mixes when they're "done", then the project should be "tracked for mix" if you will, meaning all the faders at zero. It implies preproduction and establishing appropriate gain staging from the outset, IMO.


If, OTOH, the band is into hit it and quit it, meaning get it tracked quickly and then get the hell out of the studio and wait for someone to pull it all together afterwards, you must "track to mix", or faders all over the place...because you have no choice other than to get it down.

[Brenton]

Firstly I agree with the proper gain staging comments above, but also in the tv studio I worked in for many years it was used as a standard for convenience. There were a number of sound guys working and you would often take over from someone else and with this system you knew all you had to do was bring the faders to zero and you could start the show. You would then fine tune as you went but it was a starting point. No need to do a sound check.

[ckreon]

re-reading through this thread really makes me feel like a lot of people don't understand gain-staging...

it think i saw two people answer in a manner that actually represented true understanding.

tracking for the mix? well, besides the obvious fact that no matter what you do you're tracking for the mix - the context in which this was implied was way off

[narcoman]

Originally Posted by MiserableSod

You don't seem to understand, and I don't want to spend any more time on this.
Good-bye.

[AnthonyRochester]

I think dbubba and theblue1 have explained gain staging quite well, and it is important info for people to understand.

In an interview in Audio Technology (Australia) magazine, Bruce Johnston (a live sound guy who mixes big concerts for big rock bands) says that he likes to have the faders at close to 0dB and ride the trim pots because he thinks it sounds better. I don't know, it doesn't make much sense to me, but at least he is using his ears rather than his calculator..

[bgrotto]

Originally Posted by dbjp

It's just a lot easier to make minor/precise adjustments when the faders are closer to 0.
Try it yourself. Move the fader the same amount at separate positions. When the faders are quite low down, you tend to have to move them a lot more to make adjustments. There's a reason for that and hopefully a well educated guy can clarify.

That's my take on it, too.

Obviously, this approach can make for problems when you record to tape, bringing up hiss and such (though it's not always really a problem, depending on what and how you're recording). But tracking digitally sorta eliminates this issue.

I also occasionally do records where the basics are cut one week, then we take a week off, come back for ODs, etc. It's nice being able to just throw all the faders up (I actually set them to -5dB myself) and jump right in. For minor volume adjustments, I use the faders in Pro Tools; that way, I can easily come back to my rough mixes (assuming I still like em after a week!) to get into ODing.

On top of all that, my console just sounds better (way better, in fact) when I run it that way, and my outboard reacts more predictably as well (no surprise there, since I'm hitting those toys with the level they're designed to work with).

I dunno, it just works for me. Not saying it's right, wrong, better, or worse.

[dbbubba]

Originally Posted by beebay007

I think dbubba and theblue1 have explained gain staging quite well, and it is important info for people to understand.

In an interview in Audio Technology (Australia) magazine, Bruce Johnston (a live sound guy who mixes big concerts for big rock bands) says that he likes to have the faders at close to 0dB and ride the trim pots because he thinks it sounds better. I don't know, it doesn't make much sense to me, but at least he is using his ears rather than his calculator..

I promise that I am not trying to sound condescending here.

Are you sure that the guy isn't talking about setting the faders at "O db" and then adjusting the "trim pots" (mic input attenuators) to set the gain structure (level)?

They way you are describing things I have to picture the guy leaning way over the console and mixing the show with the mic input attenuators up at the top of the console.
I am pretty sure that he is isn't talking about doing that.
If he did it'd be known because he'd be a legend in the business!

[AnthonyRochester]

Well here's a quote, you can judge what he means for yourself:

"Another thing I like to use is VCAs, although I really only use them for levelling things while I'm mixing. I'm actually more of a gain rider. I do a lot of mixing by turning the gain knob rather than pushing the faders, group masters or VCAs. I like to keep the channels at unity. If the channels are running at zero all the time, they seem to run better."

..and he goes on to say how he likes to overload some channels to get saturation, if its a nice analog board.

[dbbubba]

It IS hard to tell exactly what he means, isn't it?

He refers to using the VCAs to level things, so I feel he has to be talking about setting the faders at Odb and setting the mic pre gain to an optimal level.
He'd then use the channels faders (with VCAs) to fine tune the mix.

I just can't see anyone mixing a show of any complexity with the mic pre level pots.
Maybe he stands on the back side of the console and reaches over the doghouse?
(I doubt that!)
Kinda' like Kieth Emerson with his A1 Hammond!
Stabbing knives in and all.

[nickynicknick]

Originally Posted by dbbubba

MIXING CONSOLE GAIN STRUCTURE DESIGN 101


YOUR GOAL IS TO ADJUST THE MIC PRE, WHICH IS A HIGH GAIN AMPLIFIER, TO AMPLIFY THE MIC'S SIGNAL AND BRING IT TO A LEVEL THAT IS AS CLOSE THE CONSOLE'S DESIGNED OPERATING LEVEL AS POSSIBLE.

MAKING A RECORD 101..do anything to make a great sounding record...



Your condescending tone is annoying (as usual) and you are dead wrong...in your world I guess you would sacrifice some great sounding saturation ,on say, cymbals (that the band loves)...just because you can't run the fader at zero when mixing..


you have to go for a sound to get a sound...if you are worried about where the fader is on playback...you've missed your first assignment .

Nick

[bgrotto]

Originally Posted by nickynicknick

MAKING A RECORD 101..do anything to make a great sounding record...



Your condescending tone is annoying (as usual) and you are dead wrong...in your world I guess you would sacrifice some great sounding saturation ,on say, cymbals (that the band loves)...just because you can't run the fader at zero when mixing..


you have to go for a sound to get a sound...if you are worried about where the fader is on playback...you've missed your first assignment .

Nick

I'm sorta with you, but to be fair, you could add a second gain stage after the pre amp to lower the level-to-tape of those beautifully saturated cymbals...

A console fader, a compressor, even an EQ might do the trick. And us "faders-flat" weirdos can saturate to our hearts' content.