Gain Staging: God I feel Dumb

I've been a guitar player, songwriter and producer for

many years (over 15 yrs). I've recorded in some pretty amazing

studios. I've met a lot of engineers, producers, etc...

Not once did I ever hear anyone talk about gain staging.

I mean, you'd think it would have come up at some point.

Anyway, so I've been hearing about it more and more

and I've been reading articles and watching videos

about it and how to do it. I just enabled pre-fader

metering in the control bar and decided to look

at one of my song ideas.

Sure enough just about every instrument I recorded

midi or audio was recorded too damn hot. I feel like

I need training on gain staging and how to do it

correctly the whole way through song creation

and mix.

Every day is a new learning opportunity...

I got that from a Chinese fortune cookie.

For some odd reason "gain staging" has become a buzzword lately with all sort of mystery surrounding it and silly rules like "you have to use pre-fader metering" or "gain stage everything at -18 dBFS" that no one truly understands but everyone relays as the gospel. I feel like I should write an article on gain staging, whenever I can find a minute. Meanwhile, all gain staging is, is trying not to clip your audio signal at any point in the signal chain. If your levels go above 0 dBFS in pre-fader metering that means that you either start with for example software instruments turned up too loud or use audio fx plug-ins that turn the volume up too loud.

To get you started, here's a recent thread on the topic: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=150054&p=785414

For some odd reason "gain staging" has become a buzzword lately with all sort of mystery surrounding it and silly rules like "you have to use pre-fader metering" or "gain stage everything at -18 dBFS" that no one truly understands but everyone relays as the gospel. I feel like I should write an article on gain staging, whenever I can find a minute. Meanwhile, all gain staging is, is trying not to clip your audio signal at any point in the signal chain. If your levels go above 0 dBFS in pre-fader metering that means that you either start with for example software instruments turned up too loud or use audio fx plug-ins that turn the volume up too loud.

 

To get you started, here's a recent thread on the topic: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=150054&p=785414

Thats how I was taught gain staging when I was in college for my music degree, basically, don't clip at each stage of the signal path.

But to be honest, I was a gigging and recording musician for 28 years before I had ever heard of gain staging (at said college degree program).

All my recordings from that era seem to be fine.

But red=danger, so after the switch to digital from analog, anytime I saw red, I kinda instinctively turned my input stages down to get rid of the red

Hi David!

Yeah, it's a crazy buzz word all over the place now. I did some searching on the forum and i saw an epic thread where you were explaining gain staging and how you see it. BTW, you should totally write an article on the topic:)

So, after reading these, this is what I think I'm getting.

1. When recording whether it be audio, from a virtual instrument or sampler always make sure you're not clipping.

2. Once you've recorded something and you start to add/subtract eq or add compression these tools will affect the level/volume. Again, make sure you're not clipping.

My questions are these:

Let's say I'm recording an acoustic gtr. I know that after I record my pass that I'm going to add eq and compression. Is there a level I should be aiming for to account for these dynamic effects?

Also, with respect to let's say a drum bus; when you route multiple individual tracks to a buss there's obviously more energy being sent there and I'd typically add more eq, compression, tape emulation, etc...So, again, just make sure there's no clipping on the meter?

Let's say I'm recording an acoustic gtr. I know that after I record my pass that I'm going to add eq and compression. Is there a level I should be aiming for to account for these dynamic effects?

In an ideal situation, each effect should have a minimal effect on your level. I like to be able to toggle any plug-in on and off on a channel strip and hear a difference in tone but no jump in level.

In my new 10.5 book I have en example of this workflow where I have a vocal that is recorded at highly inconsistent levels. Sometimes it's very weak, at -27, sometimes it has bursts of loud consonants that peak at -13 on the channel strip. I use a compressor to level that and get a consistent level that is much closer to -13 yet never goes above -13 either. So the compressor achieves the goal (to level out the volume discrepancies) without changing the peak level (-13). I know that the compressor isn't messing with my gain staging. I try to do this with any plug-in I use. So if I started with the right recording levels or instrument levels, no plug-in I use is going to mess up my gain staging.

Also, with respect to let's say a drum bus; when you route multiple individual tracks to a buss there's obviously more energy being sent there and I'd typically add more eq, compression, tape emulation, etc...So, again, just make sure there's no clipping on the meter?

Same thing: the only reason where the bus would overload is either my original level being too dangerously close to the clipping level (for example I was summing a kick that peaked at -1 with a snare that peaked at -1, that's playing with fire; if I sum a kick that peaks at -5 with a snare that peaks at -5 I know there's no way I can possibly clip). Or I've applied gain with a plug-in when that wasn't necessary.

Very informative!

I'm gonna start toggling plugins on and off to see what they're doing to my levels. My main concern for any of this is just to make sure that when I send something to be mastered that there's enough ceiling room for the engineer to do what they need to do.

What do you think is creating/fueling the buzz about gain staging in recent years?

I think that back in the day, the only people who had access to professional recording gear where the people going to recording studios, and they were so expensive, that only professional people ended up having a chance to operate that gear. The professionals were very educated and knew exactly what they were doing, either because they had been schooled or because they had started as an intern in a studio and got a mentor and learned from her or him.

Fast forward to today and you find the same professional tools (like Logic Pro X) that are used by the top professionals in the hands of amateurs who haven't had a chance to put the necessary time and effort in educating themselves. They start producing music and quickly find that their fertile creativity is unmatched by their lacking mixing skills. So they start looking for education. But unfortunately, many people are struggling to understand that producing a professional sounding mix is a skill that takes experimenting, practice, time and effort. Part of it is due to the fact that the tools make it so easy to achieve certain tasks (record, edit, arrange, tempo-match, tune etc...) that the users feel it should be just as easy to achieve other tasks as well (mix, and master). But it's not so.

You don't buy a stradivarius and turn into Yehudi Menuhin overnight. You don't buy an SSL console (or Logic Pro X) and turn into a professional mixing engineer overnight either. It takes practice, it takes training your ears, it takes making mistakes, making very very many bad sounding mixes before you one day make a half decent sounding one and start building confidence, and slowly develop.

So that in turn makes some people turn to "recipes". They watch a video on some technique that has a cool sounding name and they figure that if they learn that and apply it, they'll become a professional. They watch a YouTuber explain what "sidechain compression" means. Or what "EQ slotting" is all about. And because they've just learned something that was explained in great details as a technique that resolves an issue like for example frequency masking, they'll feel like they've just grown by leaps and bound. I mean, why shouldn't they, they just learned that mixing was about avoiding frequency masking which can be achieved by the use of sidechain compression or EQ slotting and they learned how to set up their tools to achieve these goals!! Fantastic. The next time someone complains on a forum or facebook group that their mix sounds dull, they'll link to the EQ slotting or Sidechain Compression video, touting it as the end-all solution for their worries. Some of the more entrepreneurial ones will start producing their own YouTube videos on EQ slotting and sidechain compression even when they haven't had much experience with it or haven't fully understood how and when to use it efficiently to achieve a great sounding mix.

But unfortunately it isn't that simple. You have to develop your ears, work at it, make mistakes, listen to music, hear what's going on in other people's mix, apply it to yours, etc... these things take time. And effort. And practice. I once met a mixing engineer who had worked for the Black Eyed Peas. He told me "it's funny how everybody understands that to become great at sports, you have to practice, to build muscle, technique, mental confidence etc.... - yet nobody expects to do that for mixing. I practiced compression by compressing a snare for two hours every day for 3 weeks. Then I moved on to a kick drum for the next 3 weeks. Then a vocal. Then a guitar. Then I practiced EQing... do that for a few months and I guarantee you'll become good at mixing. But nobody wants to do it."

Very true words. It's a double edged sword. Tech has given immense access and power to the masses; but the other side of it has also muted the fact that it takes experience and hard work to get good. One video on Youtube isn't going to make you a great anything.

Honestly, I see myself as a songwriter/producer; mainly. I'm not a mixer and I'm definitely not a mastering engineer. I see my productions as rough so I'm sending my stuff to pro-mixers. I'm interested in learning more about more advanced recording and mixing techniques but it's not where my love is. I see writing, producing, engineering, mixing, and mastering as totally different skill sets. Some of them overlap and there's layers; but i see myself as just playing a couple parts in the whole process.

Thankfully I was 'trained' in an analog studio, so gain staging was kind of beat in to me. But it took me forever to understand it in the digital realm, and to be honest, I still don't totally get it (red meters in Logic don't necessarily mean...anything!)

But I've at least found a method to work through my own productions with and whereas it can be a little hit or miss (I work exclusively in experimental-music-land), I've found that basic gain staging principles (tracks@ -12db~/mix bus@ -6db~/master@ -0.1db~) still gives me results I'm happy with. It can get tricky with the virtual instruments as there are usually multiple gain stages within them. Then there are some mixing plugins that have stages of their own. One thing I've also learned recently is reducing levels using the gain plugin is no different than moving a fader - super handy if you have a lot of automation in your mix.

I've learned a lot from YT and forums like this, but have also learned to kind of take it all with a grain of salt - toooooo many variables to have a static 'recipe'-like approach (well put, David!)

Very true words. It's a double edged sword. Tech has given immense access and power to the masses; but the other side of it has also muted the fact that it takes experience and hard work to get good. One video on Youtube isn't going to make you a great anything.

not to be contrary (i'm never contrary... ), but i think it takes imagination & hard work to get good; experience doesn't make us artists, it just makes us... experienced.

an amateur production of a great idea is, for me, preferable any day to a' professionally'-produced but less remarkable piece of music.

an amateur production of a great idea is, for me, preferable any day to a' professionally'-produced but less remarkable piece of music.

1000% agree!

Many of us started as songwriters or musicians who wanted to produce our music and had no idea how to start mixing. And while some of the techniques mentioned before can be useful, there are TONS of fantastic sounding professional mixes out there that don't use them. Just like in cooking, where on YouTube, "reverse seared steaks" or "sous vide cooking" is all the rage, ultimately those techniques are completely unnecessary to cook an amazing tasting steak, and if a buddying cook who's never properly learned how to just make a great steak with normal cooking techniques thinks he should explore those first and they should help him making a great steak, they're mistaken.

It's the same with a mix. You can produce a fantastic, professional sounding mix with no special advanced recording or mixing techniques, without any 3rd party plug-ins, and without knowing what "gain staging" means other than, obviously, not going into the red or not hearing any distortion.

A little knowledge is a dangerous thing. No amount of advanced techniques is ever going to replace common sense, basic foundational mixing which is about getting a decent volume balance, a decent pan balance, decent EQ, compression or volume automation to avoid sudden jumps or drops in volume throughout a track, and a bit of reverb (but not too much) to create the desired ambiance.

Great thread with many opinions expressed with respect!

I've been writing and producing music for Broadcast media successfully for over 35 years. So I started in the analogue age. Those foundations have stuck with me, but as digital tools improved, the leeway given with noise floor, headroom and all the old analogue tools transferring to software versions and NEW tools has made me come to the following conclusions:

Taste and content are everything. Sometimes the sound quality/style is part of that, sometimes it needs to stay out of the way and be as transparent as possible.

If it sounds good to you. That's the best place to start. You are your first audience and if you don't like the way it sounds or communicates your audio idea, then why would you expect others to feel differently.

If it DOESN'T sound good to you. Find out why, either by experimentation or learning from those who produce/create content that DOES sound good.

Enjoy your toys, eventually they become tools.

Listen with open ears and an open mind. Every sound is a learning experience. We are telling stories. Every sound, tool, effect, instrument, genre that you have in your vocabulary will help you tell a compelling story.

Lastly, if a client or artist starts talking to me about Gain Staging, they're probably just trying to impress me.

it's like, you've been doing all this great work, then you read an article on the internet (where truth reigns), and think... 'oh, wait, i've been doing it wrong all these years'... so you change up everything.

not me, lol.

i love learning new things (tools, techniques); even more, i love discovering new things (tools, techniques). mostly, trust my ears, my brain (such as it is), my instincts. if it sounds good, and feels good... it is good.

then i check the master level...

Wait... you're supposed to check the master, level?

haha! i just put that in my post so the pros wouldn't beat me....

David--

I would pay a reasonable amount of legal tender cash money for your article. Just saying.

Jim

I still mostly use pre-fader metering, occasionally switching to post. When I am mixing I am using my ears much more than my eyes. When I do look, I want to see the level of signal arriving at the channel strip, not after my fader adjustment.

Because, and I am not a computer scientist like David, what I DO know is that especially with third party plug-ins, some do not sound good (yes David, I know they aren't digitally distorting) when the preceding plugin is sending it hot signal into it. So if something sounds funky, it may or may not be the channel strip that is going willy nilly into the red, but it is a good place to start.

The other advantage is that if eventually you go back and forth between fixed point DAWs or analog and 32 bit float, you are now in the habit of making sure that they are not going into the red.

David thinks my ideas are voodoo, but my mastering engineer said to me when I sent him the songs for my album, "Jay, I really didn't have to do very much., you did a good job."

...When I am mixing I am using my ears much more than my eyes. When I do look, I want to see the level of signal arriving at the channel strip,......

But you don't, you see it after your plugin chain. I'm sure you're aware of this, but for people new to Logic this could be good to clarify...

...When I am mixing I am using my ears much more than my eyes. When I do look, I want to see the level of signal arriving at the channel strip,......

But you don't, you see it after your plugin chain. I'm sure you're aware of this, but for people new to Logic this could be good to clarify...

Yes, thanks. We are talking about the fader though, pre or post, not pre or post plugins.

We are talking about the fader though, pre or post, not pre or post plugins.

Right. So what is the point of knowing for example that your pre-fader level is +3 dBFS if your fader is set to -15 dB for example? And if you don't like my example, please share an example of a specific situation where knowing your pre-fader level is useful to avoid either clipping, or overloading the input of a 3rd party plug-in?

David thinks my ideas are voodoo

Now you're putting words in my mouth. I'm only trying to understand the reason for using a specific tool and how it affects the task at hand.

but my mastering engineer said to me when I sent him the songs for my album, "Jay, I really didn't have to do very much., you did a good job."

That's not scientific reasoning. Maybe you're an excellent cook and make a mean roast, and every time the roast comes out of the oven, you do a magical hand wave movement above the roast. If everybody loves the roast, does that validate the magical hand wave as a useful technique for being a good cook?

I was in the impression that pre fader meter would tell the signal level before that fader action on it.

If that's the case, wouldn't muting the last plugin, the pre fader meter would reveal the signal level reaching that plugin?

We are talking about the fader though, pre or post, not pre or post plugins.

Right. So what is the point of knowing for example that your pre-fader level is +3 dBFS if your fader is set to -15 dB for example? And if you don't like my example, please share an example of a specific situation where knowing your pre-fader level is useful to avoid either clipping, or overloading the input of a 3rd party plug-in?

 

David thinks my ideas are voodoo

Now you're putting words in my mouth. I'm only trying to understand the reason for using a specific tool and how it affects the task at hand.

 

but my mastering engineer said to me when I sent him the songs for my album, "Jay, I really didn't have to do very much., you did a good job."

That's not scientific reasoning. Maybe you're an excellent cook and make a mean roast, and every time the roast comes out of the oven, you do a magical hand wave movement above the roast. If everybody loves the roast, does that validate the magical hand wave as a useful technique for being a good cook?

I already answered the first part. While not definitive, if the third party plug-ins are on a channel strip that is going wildly into the red, it's a good place to start checking. Also, not looking at the level post faders makes it more likely you will decide with your ears. than your eyes.

And yes, it isn't scientific, but every single good engineer I have ever met will tell you that mixing is as much about art as science. There is a reason people are paying money to watch all these videos of famous engineers., who if asked, "Why do you do X?" will say, 'because it sounds good." There is no scientific reason for their choice.

Hans Zimmer says he can tell you a Cubase mix from a Logic mix, even with no processing or panning. Eric Persing of Spectrasonics, who developed so many amazing sounds for Roland, will tell you that there can be difference with files that null, our ways of nulling are flawed , and he is preparing a White Paper to prove it.

Both of those sure sound unscientific, but the thing about science is that it evolves. Everyone believed Einstein had it nailed, until some of it was disproven, and that was not that long ago.

At any rate, I recommend, and am writing about it, that people who are learning to mix use pre-fader metering at least some of the time as again, does every good engineer I have met. Of course, many of them use Pro Tools HD which is fixed point. Not to going to argue it further through, no point.

There was a time when distorted guitar sound was considered bad. No one tough the sound was pleasant. So, Leo Fender goal was to build a distortion free Hi-Fi guitar amplifier. Nowadays, distorted guitars tone are considered musical. We also often hear people talking about tape saturation something musical too. And what about clipping a channel strip? We often read that's not a problem in the digital world, as long as the stereo out put is not clipping, all is well.

All this to say that, what ever method or science one use for recording, mixing, mastering and producing, if I listen to your final product and find it is sounding good, I'll say your a good engineer. If I fell it sound bad, I'll say you're a good engineer too. Because, sound is so subjective.

There was a time when distorted guitar sound was considered bad. No one tough the sound was pleasant. So, Leo Fender goal was to build a distortion free Hi-Fi guitar amplifier. Nowadays, distorted guitars tone are considered musical. We also often hear people talking about tape saturation something musical too. And what about clipping a channel strip? We often read that's not a problem in the digital world, as long as the stereo out put is not clipping, all is well.

 

All this to say that, what ever method or science one use for recording, mixing, mastering and producing, if I listen to your final product and find it is sounding good, I'll say your a good engineer. If I fell it sound bad, I'll say you're a good engineer too. Because, sound is so subjective.

interesting. you're saying that if something sounds bad, you're still complimenting the engineer? are mixes that subjective, such that, for example, an overloaded, brittle, bass-light, poorly mixed song still merits praise, because sound is 'so subjective'?

seriously, i don't get that at all. good or bad music is a subjective call, but engineering is an art and a science, and a poorly mixed song is a poorly mixed song.

just my thoughts, of course.

Well, some mixes are very compressed mixes. Is more headroom is better than near the ceiling? Depends what the client ask for? Right?

Some mixes are brighter, some are darker. Which one is the good one?