ProSoundWeb Community

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4   Go Down

Author Topic: Fader as compared to main levels  (Read 12879 times)

James A. Griffin

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 832
Re: Fader as compared to main levels
« Reply #10 on: January 16, 2014, 01:58:16 PM »

Dan- please disabuse yourself of the notion of "unity" as it applies to fader position or the level of a signal.  There ain't no such critter, and Mackie's marketing dept should have been shot for giving this marketing effort the patina of science.

+1   And Peavey jumped on that train, giving the name UNITY to a line of mixers.
Logged
I need to determine where in this swamp of unbalanced formulas squatteth the Toad of Truth

g'bye, Dick Rees

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 7424
  • Duluth
Re: Fader as compared to main levels
« Reply #11 on: January 16, 2014, 02:21:46 PM »

+1   And Peavey jumped on that train, giving the name UNITY to a line of mixers.

Maybe we could define it as "like a unit" or "possessing the quality of a unit". 

You know: "unit-y".
Logged
Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain...

Tommy Peel

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1468
  • Longview, Texas
Re: Fader as compared to main levels
« Reply #12 on: January 16, 2014, 04:17:29 PM »

Dan- please disabuse yourself of the notion of "unity" as it applies to fader position or the level of a signal.  There ain't no such critter, and Mackie's marketing dept should have been shot for giving this marketing effort the patina of science.

Mackie did love that "Unity" gain marketing stuff... It's all over the user manual for my Onyx 1640





Note: I'm not implying that anything the the screengrabs is good or useful advice...  ;D
Logged

Steve M Smith

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3381
  • Isle of Wight - England
Re: Fader as compared to main levels
« Reply #13 on: January 16, 2014, 04:23:21 PM »

 
Quote
Once you have adjusted the input signal to line level, you can set every control to "U" and your signals will travel through the mixer at optimal levels

Not much point in having those controls then!


Steve.
Logged

g'bye, Dick Rees

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 7424
  • Duluth
Re: Fader as compared to main levels
« Reply #14 on: January 16, 2014, 04:28:38 PM »

"Once you have adjusted the input signal to line level, you can set every control to "U" and your signals will travel through the mixer at optimal levels"


Not much point in having those controls then!


Steve.

Yeah.  How are you supposed to make everything louder than everything else???
Logged
Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain...

Jason Lucas

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 806
  • Hillsboro, OR, USA
Re: Fader as compared to main levels
« Reply #15 on: January 16, 2014, 04:31:59 PM »

The "attenuator" on the main bus of the Roland consoles reduces the level of signals before the main fader, not after, it is not the same as turning down your amps.

I also use a Roland console and have had good success with running my signal level around -18dBFS. I generally take it down a click if it hits the -6dBFS mark, and I treat -3dBFS as my maximum limit. This way none of my channels ever clip, but I still get plenty of signal to work with.

I generally have my main fader set so that the majority of my channel faders are operating at or slightly below 0.
Logged
There are three things I hate: Harsh highs, hollow mids, and woofy bass.

g'bye, Dick Rees

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 7424
  • Duluth
Re: Fader as compared to main levels
« Reply #16 on: January 16, 2014, 04:51:40 PM »


I generally have my main fader set so that the majority of my channel faders are operating at or slightly below 0.

Zero what?
Logged
Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain...

Jason Lucas

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 806
  • Hillsboro, OR, USA
Re: Fader as compared to main levels
« Reply #17 on: January 16, 2014, 04:55:31 PM »

Zero what?

The "0dB" point on the fader.
Logged
There are three things I hate: Harsh highs, hollow mids, and woofy bass.

Dan Crocker

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 25
Re: Fader as compared to main levels
« Reply #18 on: January 16, 2014, 05:13:22 PM »

Regarding the attenuation, I see what you mean and agree it's not the same as turning down the preamp. From a practical point of view, how would this difference matter to me? I just looked at the block diagram (which I should have done already...sorry), and I can see that there's a bunch of processing after the attenuator. The attenuation would reduce the signal level going to these things. Is it correct to assume this wouldn't necessarily be the best approach if all I want to do is to make the overall mix not-so-loud? Would I be negatively impact SNR?

Also, when you say that you run your signal at -18dBFS, are you talking about the levels of the channel signals out of the preamp? I think you are but I wanted to make sure.

Thanks,
Dan


The "attenuator" on the main bus of the Roland consoles reduces the level of signals before the main fader, not after, it is not the same as turning down your amps.

I also use a Roland console and have had good success with running my signal level around -18dBFS. I generally take it down a click if it hits the -6dBFS mark, and I treat -3dBFS as my maximum limit. This way none of my channels ever clip, but I still get plenty of signal to work with.

I generally have my main fader set so that the majority of my channel faders are operating at or slightly below 0.
Logged

Jason Lucas

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 806
  • Hillsboro, OR, USA
Re: Fader as compared to main levels
« Reply #19 on: January 16, 2014, 05:26:36 PM »

Regarding the attenuation, I see what you mean and agree it's not the same as turning down the preamp. From a practical point of view, how would this difference matter to me? I just looked at the block diagram (which I should have done already...sorry), and I can see that there's a bunch of processing after the attenuator. The attenuation would reduce the signal level going to these things. Is it correct to assume this wouldn't necessarily be the best approach if all I want to do is to make the overall mix not-so-loud? Would I be negatively impact SNR?

Thanks,
Dan

If the signal coming out of the console is too hot I'd rather turn down the main fader than engage the attenuator. Otherwise I'll be pushing my channel faders up higher. If you're using one of the GEQs on the main output then the attenuator will go before the GEQ, if you're overloading the input stage of the GEQ you could engage the attenuator to reduce the level going into that, but I'd just as soon raise the level of the main fader and reduce the level of my input channels. The GEQ is usually the only processing that will be on the main output unless you use effects or the 4-band EQ in addition to the GEQ (I don't do either).

I like to keep it simple and have as few volume controls in the chain as possible. If I'm hitting the main bus too hard I raise the main fader and turn down my input channel faders.

Also, when you say that you run your signal at -18dBFS, are you talking about the levels of the channel signals out of the preamp? I think you are but I wanted to make sure.

Yes, I always set my metering to "preamp" on the Roland consoles and set my preamp level so that I'm hitting about -18dBFS most of the time. Works fine for most things, some signals need a tad more headroom.
Logged
There are three things I hate: Harsh highs, hollow mids, and woofy bass.

ProSoundWeb Community

Re: Fader as compared to main levels
« Reply #19 on: January 16, 2014, 05:26:36 PM »


Pages: 1 [2] 3 4   Go Up
 



Site Hosted By Ashdown Technologies, Inc.

Page created in 0.03 seconds with 24 queries.