Reply posted by Andy Peters on June 26, 2000

This rant isn't directly aimed at Randy -- he just started this thread.

OK, there've been some comments about "visual indication of the mix" when the faders are at unity. That doesn't make any sense to me.

If I see that all of the faders are lined up on unity (assuming that any subgroup/VCA master faders are on unity as well, with L/R masters set to a "reasonable volume level"), then I think that all of the inputs have the same level in the mix.

In other words, if the guitar fader is at unity, and so is the lead vocal, then it should follow that both inputs are equally loud in the mix. So, if that is not what is desired, then some mixing-persons advocate adjusting the mix balance with the input trims.

Me? If I think the guitar input is too loud in the mix then I pull the guitar fader down until it's right. And I don't particularly care what the dB level that's silkscreened next to the fader says -- the only indication that's really relevant is unity. When you're mixing, do you sit and think that, "Oh, the guitar needs to be 4 dB quieter?" Hell, usually my finger's on the fader and I'm looking at the guitar player.

Visual indication? Can you see the bass DI input trim position when it's dark, and you're riding the effects returns on the other side of the desk? Can you tell the bass's relative position in the mix from that indication? Neither can I.

And if no one is mixing on faders, why have them? Let's throw away those nice P & G faders and replace them with the rotary pots found on "mixers" in the Bad Old Days.

Hey, guys who mix monitors for a living? Do YOU want to throw away the faders on your desks? I didn't think so.

As for concerns about "sweet spots" in faders, the problem, of course, is that the ear's response to level changes is logarithmic but not quite the same as a log-taper pot. [Isn't that why Greg Mackie made a big deal about the custom taper of the faders on the 8*Bus desk?] If you've ever opened up a Alps or P+G or Bournes or Vishay or CTS or Panasonic or fucking Radio Shack fader catalog, you'll see that there's a somewhat bewildering array of choices for "log taper pot." Unfortunately, mixer manufacturers are most likely to go with a pot that meets a certain price point, and the taper is a secondary (or tertiary) consideration.


Reply posted by nick kourtides on June 27, 2000

Ok, my last comment on this, promise... I realize that this doesn't necessarily apply to everyone's needs but, for most of my applications, that is, live theatre with tons of wireless, huge pits, and multichannel playback, there is equal importance given to the quietness and dynamic range of the PA AND the ease of operation and repeatability of the sound design.

I agree with, and understand the need to match input trims to the effective operating range of the console, however, there are other considerations that affect where the fader HAS to be in order to execute certain tasks.

Example 1:
Large ensemble number with loud orchestra and full cast onstage. The song gradually reduces to solo voice and piano as individual singers exit the stage. Each actor needs to be faded out as they leave as well as some tricky orchestra mutes. Fine, no problem. BUT, 8 bars later, they all come back to sing the outro, maybe 18 voices with the rest of the pit blaring away again.

I can move 17 faders to unity (while they're muted) and push 'next', 'recall' in about 5 seconds and have my mix restored. How fast could that be done if each fader had to get to a different level? Can you really look at a cue sheet and go, okay, move channel channel 1 to -23db, channel 2 @ -18db, channel 3 @ -15db, etc. and repeat that 5 times each night for 3 weeks, all in a few seconds or less?

Example 2:
A CD player is running an environmental loop during all of this... crickets or rain, whatever... the loop needs to fade out in about 20 counts with the orchestra. If the input trims on the CD player are optimized for best s/n, the faders wind up at -40db during the cue and need to be faded smoothly one whole quarter f$#king inch over 20 seconds. However, if the trims are set so that that cue can run with the faders at unity, you've got a fighting chance of making an accurate, repeatable fade over 80mm or so.

None of this is to say that I would "mix" the show from the preamp trims - just that optimizing each input trim so that certain faders can sit at unity most of the show can save valuable time and energy when executing other difficult mixing maneuvers.

end of rant.
nick


Reply posted by Bill Green on June 27, 2000

nick
Your situation is much different than the others. The examples you have sited do not significantly compromise gain structure. The controversy isn't so much about trim settings as much as mix technique.

Bill


Reply posted by Bill Robinson on June 27, 2000
(In reply to post by Andy Peters on June 26, 2000)

Andy,
Right again as usual. Most of the engineers I met have all been taught the "proper" way of setting gain. Take as much as needed at the input (pre-amp) stage as is needed to make 0dB on the meters. If this is more than is needed in the mix, pull down the fader...that's what it's there for.

When I see a board with faders all at different positions and if I know the engineer is competent then I can immediately tell what is loud enough acoustically and what needs reinforcement...all at a glance of the faders.

The other method requires a constant change to all inserts, fx, or feeds coming off the desk. Everything becomes guesswork or memory if you don't understand gain structure. When I mix 30+ inputs I want it to be as easy as possible and trying to remember that channel 6 is really at +13dB while channel 26 is at -13dB while both faders say they're at 0dB is INSANITY. IMO

Bill R.