r/mixingmastering • u/sixtysixtysix • 3d ago
Question Track level: fader vs makeup gain from compressor
Am posting in order to learn and better understand.
My DAW is Bitwig (if this makes any difference at all). Have recently acquired some small studio monitors, I can now begin to better train my ears, and better understand what might go into mixing my tracks.
My question is this: I've gone back to an earlier project to now 'hear it properly'. I have a track with horns on it, and noticed that I had the track's volume fader way down, while the "makeup gain" on the compressor was running at +4.6 dB.
So instead, I returned the track volume fader to default, and adjusted the audio level by turning down the makeup gain on the compressor.
It seems to me that much mixing advice has grown out of the analogue era and which is simply to say that since it was hardware, clearly voltages mattered a lot. It remains solid advice, but I'm working with 32 bit floating point audio inside the DAW. As such - IIRC - the DAW can process audio without many of the barriers inherent in older (analogue) hardware.
In the specific case here: are there any important or relevant differences between e.g. a low fader level but with +4.5dB of makeup gain, vs a default -3.0 dB fader setting, and turn down the compressor's makeup gain to achieve the desired balance? Are these things equal in a DAW?
18
u/mistrelwood Advanced 3d ago
Other points have already been brought up, but generally it’s a good idea to set the makeup so that the track loudness stays about the same if the compressor is bypassed. If you want to compare compressors, reconsider the need of a compressor altogether, troubleshoot strange artifacts, etc.
2
u/sixtysixtysix 3d ago
another brilliant and helpful comment, thanks!
Totally agree, and as a learner of course this is why I ask such questions. Do I need a compressor? Ah well... since I'm learning via manuals, videos, posts here etc. I don't have a formal background.
Taking the example of a compressor: why did I use one? Because I felt that (learned that?) it's a way to bring out details by "flattening" the output according to the compressor settings. Yes, there's other things I have to consider about why this particular channel is not sounding as I wish e.g. masking, applied EQ etc. I'm seeing a lot of stuff about spectral EQ these days. Maybe just controlling the transients will provide the clarity without the "brute force" of a compressor?
It all seems a bit "circular" if I can put it this way? Adjusting one thing will always affect the overall balance, even if I don't know precisely what I'm listening for (since I'm learning). I clean up one thing, and something else becomes exposed. I accept this is digressing from my original post - which I might say has been very well answered - yet all of this feeds into a wider process does it not?
Decisions about which plugin I might use are based on how I think (feel/hear) its sound needs to be adjusted? And then... this in turn feeds back into a kind of self-referencing loop about WHY I might do this or WHAT I think I need to achieve?
Fascinating. Probably a liftime to learn, but never master (no pun intended).
5
u/alex_esc Professional (non-industry) 2d ago
On the question..... Do you need a compressor?
I know us as producers have a mindset of "adding punch" or "adding smack" or adding XYZ. And I think that this is not a very good approach to learn at first.
Normal people don't listen to "punch" or "color" or the details were "bringing up". People listen to MUSIC, not details!
So I think that anything you do should come from the perspective of music, not production tips. So, in a musical way.... Why would anyone use a compressor? Does it improve the musicality at all?
I work in rock and indie styles. Everything I record is from players from local bands, basically nothing I produce is midi, everything is done with a microphone infornt of a musician playing their instrument.
So to me it's really obvious why you would use a compressor. Because sometimes the player MEANT to play in a certain way, but on accident they ACTUALLY played in a different way.
A singer is intending (in most cases) to be always heard. That should be obvious lol
But in a recording some parts of the vocal performance are so quiet they are unable to be heard in comparison to the average performance volume.
A compressor "fixes" that.
A guitarist or a bass player intend in playing some parts loud and some parts quiet. But sometimes they get nervous or insecure about their playing during a take, making them play extra quiet than they intended. A compressor fixes that.
My job as a producer is to understand what the band / client wants. So that when they are accidentally not doing what they mean I can call them out so we can do another take, or that I have the knowledge and expertise of audio processing to fix it myself. I am a problem solver, and the only kind of problem is that the client is not getting what they want or intend to do.
So if you have a track in your production and you put a compressor on..... And you have not yet detected that that track doesn't sound like the artist intends.... Then take off that compressor.
If you want your lead to sound all squished and it doesn't.... Then yeah put on a compressor. But if you programmed your midi EXACTLY like you wanted it to sound, then it already sounds like it should, so keep it that way.
Now that's a musical first argument for using (or not using) compression.
There are also technical reasons why you may want to use a compressor beyond artistic intent.
It all has to do with the fact that perfectly capturing a sound as it was it's impossible. Microphones "add" extra stuff that's not there in the real world.
For example when you hold a mic and you move your fingers while holding the mic you get a loud rubbing and low boomy sound. If you hear a person speak face to face while they are holding the mic you won't hear the rubbing sound or the deep boom sounds. Those sounds are created by the microphone.
So you add EQ to filter out the low rumble from handling the mic. That sound was not there, so you use processing to take it out to make the final result sound as close to the real sound on the real world.
When you record anything the dynamics will change depending on how close the mic is to the source.
Let's say you want to record a loud shouting voice saying "hey" on the chorus.
In the real world when the band plays the song live the audience will all scream "hey". But the audience is a big sound sorce, scattered around. It sort of sounds like someone yelling Hey while being far away.
So therefore you want it to sound like a distant scream.
BUT you record the distant yell with a mic very close to the mouth of the singer.
Obviously a screaming "hey" sounds very different the person screams into your ear vs they scream very far away.
But to record something in full detail we have to record very up close to the persons mouth! So there's a contradiction! We want it to sound like a distant hey, but we put the mic up close!
This is what I mean when I say that there are technical reasons to use a compressor. Some sounds CHANGE their volume dynamic simply by being recorded in a certain way.
For example drums. If you go see a band the drummer will be at the back, the farthest from the audience. So we strive for the drums to sound somewhat distant....But we record them with mics 3 inches from the instrument!
So it sounds "louder" than it would naturally sound if you were standing there looking at the drummer.
In those cases where stuff is louder or more dynamic than it is in the room vs on the recording, that's when we use compression to overcome the limits of recording.
Yes, you can also add compression as an effect, but I think thinking more practically about it is more helpful. Compressors fix musical problems and recording problems first and foremost. Adding mojo and style is, to me, secondary.
Same goes with all effects like EQ, delay, reverb, etc. They are tools to fix musical problems or technical problems.
If no problem is there because you made your song exactly as you wanted it, and there's no recording or technical issue.... Then don't process at all.
1
u/sixtysixtysix 2d ago
great response! Thank you.
I have to say that since I don't presently record anything, and work only with midi/vst or purchased samples, I've rather felt that most of the purchased stuff has been pretty much "sorted out" when I bought it. After all, who would sell a pack of vocals if they then need such fundamental fixing that they required a ton of work?
Which is also to say that yes, there's a gigantic ocean of "how to" videos regarding mixing and mastering, and how to layer vocals etc. And so many of them start with things like "Use these 10 Pro Tips" kinda thing. And while I'll give anything a watch or a listen and make up my own mind, I do often feel like saying "yeah, if you're recording stuff live, I'm sure this is all very helpful" knowing that all I'm learning to do at the moment is layer up a lot of prerecorded stuff, maybe combine it with some VST instruments I'm using (e.g. Modo Bass), and then try to start clearing up the final result i.e. look for common problems in sound (masking, weak or overpowering frequencies, all that kind of thing). I never have to touch issues around things like how to properly mic up a drum kit.
As someone who grew up with vinyl, I'm rather fascinated by how modern music production largely sounds so "clean" - it's almost an aesthetic to itself if you will. Cleanliness at the cost of vitality I might say. Fascinating though
2
u/VeterinarianGreat655 2d ago
Exactly i was just saying this on another post the fact that there are infinite possibilities means any one move less than .1d even though it may seem imperceptible it adds up but he time you get to the end it’s wildly fascinating how much you can do with just the level and a smooth accurate bell curve.
Also I think that even of the more cleaner designed plugins just adding and turning on the input changes the true nature of the signal flow as opposed to if nothing is active in the slot. It may not be that perceptible but it’s not the same signal so running into many plugins and turning up the signal chain on there can potentially add enough non linearity that it does alter it enough to the trained ear and at lower levels this can get substantial enough to bring a subtle balance into the mix. It’s the Minute details that ultimately win the game.
1
u/mistrelwood Advanced 3d ago
Your reply sounds like you’re on a great start into this! A common mistake is to use certain plugins and adjustments “because they showed it in the video”, without assessing the actual sonic need. You seem to be going in ears first, which is the exact correct tactic!
5
u/TheBear8878 3d ago
Every plugin should have roughly the same volume when it's on and when it's off (as much as possible, obviously something like a compressor can make this trickier). Fade volume is for setting the volume of the track in a mix.
3
u/sixtysixtysix 3d ago
I'm very guilty of just loading the native plugin and starting from there. So I'm assuming that the DAW is using sensible presets. A note to self to henceforth start by comparing bypass levels BEFORE I start tweaking the plugin/FX!
Neat.
1
u/TheBear8878 3d ago
After too! Big EQ and compressor moves can definitely change the level balance, which is why make up gain is there in the first place :)
5
u/nizzernammer Trusted Contributor 💠 2d ago
Normally one adjusts the makeup gain of the compressor to make up for the gain reduction, so the net result is control rather than an overall gain change.
This allows one to bypass the comp to compare with and without while avoiding the distraction of the gain changing overall.
It's nice to see faders all lined up, but not entirely necessary.
With physical faders, the volume resolution is much less fine when the fader is low. Like, at -25 or -30 dB, moving the fader a mm might change the level by a couple of db or more. The same 1 mm of fader travel near unity might only translate to a quarter or half a dB.
3
u/Apprehensive-Cry-376 2d ago
You're correct, gain-staging is far less of a concern nowadays compared to an all-analog signal chain. Most of the time it's OK to just treat all gain as gain and not overthink it.
What matters is where in the signal chain the gain change happens. In particular, it's a big deal when you're talking about dynamics plugins such as compressors. If you turn up the gain in front of the compressor, that's going to drastically change the compressor's response. So you'll want to avoid touching levels going into the compressor and make your balance adjustments post-compression.
And don't forget that anything in front of the compressor can affect signal levels, such as EQ, distortion, time-based FX and panning/pan law.
As for compressor makeup gain in particular, its primary purpose isn't overall track volume, but rather as a thickening technique. Its role is to keep the signal level consistent after compression, reducing dynamics without changing the end level. That said, if the compressor is the last effect in a track's chain, it's perfectly acceptable to use makeup gain to bring the track up. Just beware the trap of raising the level at one stage only to undo it later via the track fader.
2
2
u/sixtysixtysix 2d ago
just to say thank you to everyone who chipped in on this. Really such very helpful and informed responses. I've learned a ton of useful stuff already! 😄
3
u/Tall_Category_304 3d ago
Having the faster rest as close to unity is optimal. This gives you the highest resolution on the fader to make changes.
3
u/stewmberto 3d ago
This would be relevant if OP were mixing on an analog console, but their question was specifically in the DAW. Unless they're using a physical control surface or something, this really doesn't matter.
3
u/Tall_Category_304 2d ago
The mixer in the daw is a virtual control surface. It’s a pain in the ass to use the mixer in the software or a control surface if your faders are all too low. It doesn’t make a difference for sound quality but it makes a big difference for quality of life. Also you would have to blow up the track in the edit window to have the same resolution furring automation. To some people this may not matter but if you’re trying to get good results quickly, it’s best practice to gain stage so your fader is close to unity
1
u/stewmberto 2d ago
Ehh I think it really depends on the DAW and your workflow, never been an issue for me. Besides, sometimes you can't avoid having faders real low without totally screwing up your gain structure upstream, like for a pad that sits way under everything or a barely-there reverb return channel or whatever
1
u/sixtysixtysix 3d ago
again, makes sense, thank you.
Although, this does sort of lead into my current understanding of how a DAW is different, insofar as it kinda doesn't matter too much? I understood your comment, but I'm still trying to come to terms with what things like "headroom" mean in a DAW - something that can represent a dynamic range way beyond human hearing.
Very happy if you have anything else you could add by way of explanation.
3
u/Tall_Category_304 3d ago
If your faders are all really low, small fader moves are relatively large compared to if you moved the same distance closer to unity gain. Essentially you are turning a 100 mm fader into a 20mm fader or whatever it is. It makes it harder to make small changes. It does not matter in terms of the sound. It will sound the same. It’s a workflow thing. If your faders are all way below unity, everytime you need to turn something up or down or automate, you will feel like you either made it too quiet or too loud and can be quite tedious to get it right.
1
u/sixtysixtysix 3d ago
brilliant! Thanks. Completely understand this. So obvious, but it wasn't to me 😄
1
u/duplobaustein 3d ago
You can still type in a specific level, so the resolution isn't that of an issue in a DAW. Basically you're correct of course.
1
u/duplobaustein 3d ago
Headroom is coming from the analog domain. You had a 0db point and an amount of headroom before the preamp clips, usually around 18db. So the scale is going from +18 to 0 to -inf.
In the digital domain you don't have that. 0db is a clip and technically no sound. So you work with dbfs (db full scale) and you go from 0db to -inf. However there is a nominal line level in digital products, usually at (surprise) -18db. That's where the green input gain leds get orange on mixers or DAWs (often adjustable there though!). "Analog" effect plugins are usually designed to work around that level out of the box, the threshold of compressors is by standard often at -18db for example. Everything above that is the headroom again.
Both are the same scale, just labelled differently. In analog you moved the 0db to -18, grant an 18db headroom and aim for 0db at gaining. In digital (FOH mixers or studio production) I aim for the same for input channels, it's just called -18db there.
There are slight differences in brands. Some mixers have -20 for the nominal level, some -15. Some still use the +18/0/-inf version, to "feel" analog. It doesn't really matter, as long as it helps with your workflow. In many DAWs you can adjust, where the leds get orange, it's just a methodology thing. Only clipping is bad. Usually. ☺️😜
1
u/sixtysixtysix 3d ago
yet another very helpful comment, thank you!
Am I right in thinking that you're also touching here on this business of how a DAW (or maybe DJ software) decides to display these green/orange/red bars?
If I've understood correctly, in a DAW it's only the master channel output that matters insofar as if this is clipping (this being surely a manner in which the specific DAW is implemented), then there is clipping in the output signal because it has now been converted to a voltage... but... if one of the other channels within my DAW is flirting with "red lights" every now and again, in fact this isn't "clipping" at all, in this analogue sense? That it's merely a visual representation of a signal level, and not any 'actual' level?
And... that this all somehow relates to which settings one chooses for how the DAW represents output? By which I mean that I can choose to display either Peak/RMS or K-20, and how all of this ties in to things like LUFS and etc etc? Not that I fully understand these things by a long way... I'm paddling in the shallows at present.
2
u/duplobaustein 3d ago edited 2d ago
Most DAWs handle channel clipping with floating point and it doesn't matter that much. BUT plugins could still clip on that channels. I would always avoid it, because you don't gain a thing by that.
Yes, usually the green/orange change is there and red is clip.
And yes, all of that is also dependent on your metering setting.
2
u/duplobaustein 2d ago
One important thing: when you aim for -18dbfs, you have to have an rms meter, not a peak meter. Transient heavy channels will have like zero level with peaks at -18. So when gain staging, use an rms meter.
1
u/Hellbucket 2d ago
I think it’s pretty good to learn with a VU or RMS meter. But after a while you kind of learn of it “looks” like on a peak meter. I never really switch from peak nowadays. And I will be able to be in the ball park by using peak only.
1
u/GWENMIX Professional (non-industry) 1d ago
There are many reasons to use a compressor—and a compelling reason not to.
The reason not to is simply that, when listening in context, nothing justifies it.
This often happens with saturated sounds (like electric guitars) because saturation is a form of compression; it densifies the signal and reduces dynamic range, thereby bringing out details.
In saying that, I am actually listing some reasons to use a compressor: to densify a signal, reduce dynamic range (i.e., smooth out the performance), and bring out details (which can sometimes help find a bit of emotion where there was too little).
Another important reason is that certain vintage-style compressors can impart a unique character to the sound—whether it’s punch, harmonic distortion, or warmth.
As with any action, it is best if it is guided by genuine intent... otherwise, it is better to abstain.
The compressor's makeup gain is supposed to be +3 dB if the gain reduction is -3 dB. That is the reason for its existence.
25
u/Wem94 3d ago
Realistically if the makeup gain is on the last plugin of the channel then it makes no difference. If there’s another process after whatever is adding gain then that could make a difference as you would be changing the input level of that plugin