Behind The Mixer

Learn Church Audio Artistry | Church Sound

Topics: , , ,

Audio mixer channel gain can be set in three ways.  Someone reading that last sentence just went ballistic.  Is there only one right method for setting the channel gain?  Let’s explore.

Follow the signal

Typically, the audio that comes into a channel from the stage is coming in via a mono balanced connection.  The signal comes in at microphone level (a few millivolts), gain is applied, and the result is boosted to line level (a couple of volts) via the channel preamp.  Though we talk of these levels generically, there is some fluctuation of the signal strength such as 5 to 50 mV for a microphone level signal.  For example, if a vocalist sings softly, they will send a weaker signal compared to if they were singing loudly.

The gain (a.k.a. trim) control allows the FOH tech to allow for more or less of the signal to come into the console.  For example, a hot signal from an instrument would need less of that signal to come into the console.  It would be like turning a faucet valve so less water comes out although the water pressure behind the valve stays the same.

Some signals come into the console so strong they can still be heard with the gain at zero.  When this is the case, the Pad option should be used.  It cuts 20 dB from the signal and places it into a manageable range.

Mixer needs

The signal sent to the console needs to be a strong clear signal.  This is why vocalists need to put their mic to their mouth.  It’s also why a guitarist needs to turn up the volume on their guitar.  Otherwise noise can be heard.

Noise can be picked up within the signal path either via interferences on instrument cables or any time the signal goes through a connection.  Noise also comes from microphones as even air particles hitting the diaphragm will produce a sound. Turn on the audio system and open a mic channel.  Hear the small noise hum.

The mixer needs a strong CLEAR signal for optimal mixing.  This happens with a high signal-to-noise (S/N) ratio which means the true source (guitar, vocal, etc.) is so strong in the audio signal that natural noise is overpowered.

One more point on the S/N.  Equipment can be set up so the signal from the stage first goes into a rack component or other off-board processor and that equipment has gain control.  If there’s an initial low S/N, by the time the signal reaches the mixer, that noise can sound substantial in relationship to the desired sound.  This is another reason you should get a high S/N as soon as possible.

Ideally, you want strong signals with a high signal-to-noise ratio where the signals are all in close relativity to each other.  This enables precise volume mixing on the faders.

Gain-Before-Feedback

One aspect of gain setting is gain-before-feedback.  The microphone properties, the speaker properties, and the room properties all contribute to the level in which the audio system can produce sound without producing feedback caused when the reverberation field crosses over into the microphone field.

This is why floor monitor placement, microphone type, and microphone placement are so critical.  The best sound is the strongest one produced at the source and contains the greatest amount of the source as possible.  A keyboard routed directly into the system is 99.99% pure keyboard.  A vocal microphone, not so much, but the microphone’s proximity to the singer’s mouth along with the strength of the singer’s voice plays into that percentage.

How to Set Gain

There are three primary ways to set the gain and much has to do with the audio environment because of how the faders come into play.

In a studio environment, it’s all about having the clearest cleanest sound possible.  In the live environment, the highest level of fidelity can’t be appreciated because of the nature of the environment itself.

In studio work, gain is set and then hours are spent on EQ and effects manipulation with a little fader manipulation tossed in.  In the live environment, the gain is set and then fader adjustments are frequently made.  This will be an important consideration in two of the methods of setting gain.

Role of the fader

When a channel fader is set at unity, the console is neither boosting nor cutting the signal.  Using studio gain theory, the fader location (fader is post-gain) isn’t critical as long as it allows for good granular volume control.  That was an overly-simplified statement but it gets the point across.  It’s also where opinions start to fly.

A quick note on clipping, the process of clipping off the signal when it gets too high.  Occasional clipping is ok – that’s why the console has the clipping process.  However, excessive clipping is a sign of an incorrect gain setting.

Method #1

The first method of gain setting follows the studio mentality and says the fader should start at the infinity position (at the bottom) and the gain is increased until the input meter reads almost to the red while allowing for signal increases without distorting, such as when a vocalist sing a lot louder for a passage or a chorus or a single line.  Then, the fader is raised to the point where the volume is right in the room.

Some people use this method but aim for the 0 dB level on the channel’s metering.

Be aware, every two channels at the same output level will create a louder combined sound by around 3 dB.  Therefore, while the main fader would initially be at unity, after setting all gains, it’s possible to have a hotter output than you’d expect.  If I correctly recall, on my typical weekend setup, I see about an extra 6 dB overall.

The result of this method is the strongest signal in each channel and with faders all over the place.  They may or may not end up at unity.  This can depend somewhat with what’s happening on stage and how the system is configured regarding the amplifiers.

Method #2

The second method of gain setting, the one I use, follows a live environment mentality which says the volume balance (channel volumes in relation to each other) for one song are often different in the next song and therefore, fader control is very important and it helps to have a BASELINE balance.

To use this method, set the fader to unity and increase the gain until the volume level sounds right for the room and for a general mix.  The result is faders all set at unity with a general volume balance between channels.  For example, lead vocal always on top.  Therefore, when moving from one song mix to the next, subtle volume changes can easily be made with the most granular control (remember fader controls are logarithmic).  Is it the strongest signal?  Maybe, maybe not.  Will it be a noticeable strength difference and produce a sub-par mix?  I’m saying no, with one exception.

There are times when we have little-to-no control over the source.  For example, someone hands you a CD they burned from a file they made after they did who-knows-what to it.  In such cases, set the gain for the strongest signal and then set the fader.  You don’t have to ride a fader for a backing track or for the audio from a DVD.  Well, you shouldn’t.

The key to making method #2 work is using proper microphone selection and usage for the cleanest strongest signal from the stage.

Method #3

The third method of gain setting goes a completely different route and uses the location of the faders to indicate where the channel should sit in the mix.  For example, the lead vocal channel fader is higher in relation to all other channels.  A lead guitar fader would be lower than the lead vocal but higher than the keyboard.  By looking at the faders, you are seeing where everything sits in the mix.  You’re seeing the volume balance.  Only then do you increase the gain.

Of these three methods, I’ve seen professional live FOH engineers use all three.  They use a method they were taught or what they found works best, such as with the third method.

It comes down to getting the best signal from the source and that’s the area where I see churches doing it wrong because of incorrect microphone selection or usage.

The Next Step

Mic selection and usage is critical for setting good gain so check out this post on microphone properties. It’s also got links to even more posts on mic usage and vocal mixing.

Reader Interactions

Thought? Questions? Comments?

Notify me of followup comments via e-mail. You can also subscribe without commenting.

Comments

  2. When setting your gains by the meter, it’s important to know where your mixer’s reference level is as “0” on the meter will be the reference level. Most analog mixers have a +4dBu reference level. When the signal hits “0” on the meter, the output of the source is +4dBu (0.775 Vrms being 0dBu, the signal output is +4dBu above this, or 1.23Vrms).

    Mackie mixers are a bit different as they use 0dBu as the reference level (0dB on the meter = 0dBu). Thus on a Mackie, you would set your target gain for “4” on the meter as “4” on the meter is +4dBu.

    On digital mixers, however, their meters measure dBFS, or “Decibels Full Scale”. All values are negative while 0 is the maximum output. Meters on these mixers essentially tell you how many dB below the maximum rated output you are. Thus, the reference level on a digital mixer is the mixer’s maximum rated output. This means that the meter indication that yields +4dbu of output per channel will vary based on the digital mixer’s maximum rated output.

    On something like a Behringer X-Air XR-18, where the maximum output is +16dBu, “0” on the meter is +16dBu, which makes -16dBFS equal to 0dBu. For a target level of +4dBu, you would set your gain for an average meter indication of -12dBFS. On digital mixers with a +22dBu maximum output level, 0dBu would be at -22dBFS. Thus an average meter indication of -18dBFS would place your level at +4dBu.

    Reply

  3. I prefer method #1 personally. This ensures maximum clean signal from each audio source. By the time the signal reaches the main output, you have maximum clean signal available overall, and as far above the noise floor as you can get it. Most mixers will output anywhere from +16dBu to +28dBu. Most live power amplifiers, with the input level knobs turned all the way up, have an input sensitivity rating of +4dBu. This forces you to have to turn down the input attenuators on the amplifiers, thereby dropping the noise floor as low as you can get it. This maximizes your S/N ratio and will always get you the cleanest clearest sound.

    Try it along with the other methods and you will always fall back to this method as it literally sounds like you’ve just removed a blanket from your speakers.

    Reply

  4. I’m surprised and confused. Seems like not much difference in the three methods: If you set the gain per method 1, using a meter, making all signals equal level on meter, then the faders won’t be “all over the place”, they would look like method 3, the lead vocal would be the highest, etc. and all instruments would be about the same volume if all faders are at unity, except for volume differences caused in the EQ stage of the mixer…. Am I wrong?

    Reply

    • They “could” look like method 3. Where it’s gets sticky is when you listen to the sound in the house via on headphones as would represent a recorded or livestreamed service. If you have gain problems that might be overlooked in the house sound, they would likely be evident in the recording.

      Reply

    • No they would not because what the meter sees is not what your ears will hear. While everything that can be heard can be measured, not everything that can be measured can be heard. While you’ve matched the voltage levels of all of your signal sources with the gain setting, you will set the faders for what your ears want more or less of. Some mixes are guitar dominant while other mixes may be rhythm section dominant. It all depends on where you want your sources to sit in the mix.

      Reply

    • Yes, it’s a good mixer. If the gain is at 0, you shouldn’t hear anything in the channel. You might have a hot signal coming in. In that case, use the channel PAD option that applies roughly a 20dB cut to the incoming signal level. Then set the gain.

      Reply

  6. Hey, at what level should you record to get the best playback before you start adding gain??? I’m using a keyboard straight into the interface. No microphones. I use (studio one 3 pro)

    Reply

  7. Thanks for your article Chris,

    Question, I have been mixing for many years with setting good input gain before driving fader for volume. I find this way to be more responsive and allow me a greater headroom for monitor sends mixing FIH and monitors and also sends to audio records.

    Mixing channels at unity and then setting gain for the room never allows me sufficient headroom for monitor sends, records etc.

    Mixing one console for FOH, monitors and records pushes me towards method 1, channel fader at bottom then gain set, then volume drive, makes for a messy high maintenance mix but allows me ample headroom to send off to monitors, records.

    Any advice, seem to be stuck in my ways but open to advancing my mix and balancing gain more fairly for the system,

    P.s,

    A lot of the time I am in a conference environment using Shure 412s lectern mics and Shure UR4D units with Beta 58 heads, RX outputs run line level .

    Appreciate your time and input,

    Yours Loudly,
    Matt….

    Reply

    • Do what works for you. You might try splitting the inputs so you can route one to each, FOH mixer and a second monitor mixer for gain control. Outside of that, do what you can.

      Reply

  8. I have a few questions first one, I have an allen and heath GL2400 I plug in sm58 tried 3 different channels and I have to turn the gain up just about all the way to get a strong signal,, am I missing signal strength somewhere or might there be another problem, second question I’m trying to hook up my board to my interface and work out of the box but I’m having trouble tracking from the play back to the board on that specific Channel, would appreciate any ideas and any answers appreciated guys thank you

    Reply

    • Did you try moving the cable into the mixer to three different channels or did you plug in the mic to three different stage jacks. usually signal problems like that are due to a bad cable. Also make sure you aren’t accidentally padding the channels and cutting the signal.

      We’d need more details on the other problem.

      Reply

  9. Great article! I’ve been experimenting lately and tried setting the gain to a 0 dB signal strength while keeping the faders at unity. It did not go well. Everything was too loud and muddy. I’m going to try these three methods now too. I’m leaning toward method 2 as I prefer my faders to start at unity for better control. Method one appeals to me as well. I’m not sure I’ll like method 3, but I’ll give it a fair shake too. Thanks!

    Reply

    • Hello Tim, so far, which method has worked for you the best? The reason I am asking is because I been getting a lot of feedback (low rumbling) on my mixes.

      Reply

      • I usually start with my faders at unity or ~5dB below unity; this goes for my mains and sub as well. Then I start the pre-rehearsal sound check in the order I have things set up on my board: Drums, Bass, Guitars (usually Electric first), Keys and Piano. I adjust the levels with the gain to ensure I have a solid signal to play with (every bit of processing costs a little bit of signal!).

        I do the same with the vocals, but instead of starting with the Lead Worshiper, I work my stage left to right. It’s how I have my board set, so it’s my “logical” way of setting my gains.

        Once my gains have been set I mute my mains and and set levels on the floor wedges. I mute the mains first, so I don’t run the risk of overpowering the mains with the monitors (Yes, this has happened at our church! I’m the On-call Tech, and I’ve found that techs have done this on more than one occasion). We usually only have one or two wedge monitors: vocals and occasionally guitars (We are trying to get all musicians on board with Allen & Heath ME1 personal in-ear monitors; which work great!). I lower the volume on the wedges to start and work on getting their mix right. Once I have those levels set I can raise the volume to a reasonable level and unmute the mains. It’s only then that I have the band run through part of a song. This is where I begin to get a starting level for each channel in the mains. I fine tune these levels and add EQ’s and effects throughout our full-set rehearsal. I hope this helps!

        Blessings!

        Tim

        Reply

  10. When I went to school for audio engineering 30 years ago we were taught the A. I. O. P. M. mnemonic.
    A – Assign
    I – Input fader
    O- Output
    P – Preamp
    M – Monitors
    I have used this method in studio, FOH, and monitors for 30 years and it has never failed me.

    Reply

  12. Hello,
    If I connect 3 condenser microphones (already with phantom power) to a mixer, with a max gain level of 60 dbs per channel (that is what it says around each knob), will the 60 dbs be divided into the 3 mic channels or each channel will have a max of 60 dbs gain?
    Thank you

    Reply

  13. Method 2 or 3 work best if you are only mixing front of house and not doing both house and monitors from the same console. I have had numerous times where I have used method 2 or 3 and had someone on stage say they want more keyboard or whatever in their monitor. So the Aux send for keys was already turned up about 75% so I turned it up – but it was still not enough. Eventually I had keys Aux send up 100% and still they wanted more. It wasn’t a case of other things being too loud – they said everything else was fine. They just wanted more keyboards. But I could not turn the Aux send up anymore. The only place I could get more level was at the keyboard channel preamp, but to change that would affect the house mix.
    Eventually I changed my method to number 1. I get as much gain as I can without clipping at the preamp on all channels and then set faders wherever they need to be for a channel to sound right in the mix. Most of the time my faders end up between +5 and -5 anyway unless there is a solo or someone is really getting crazy on stage, but who cares what it looks like. It sounds good! I find things sound more dynamic and have more punch this way. Plus I have the added benefit of being able to have strong signals to the monitors that I do not get from method 2 and 3.

    Reply

    • Thank you for this post. I have had a similar experience. Your post tells me I’m on the right track using Method 1. Thank you again.

      Reply

    • Glad you found it helpful. I forgot to mention in my previous comment that the reason you may not be able to get enough signal to the monitors using methods 2 and 3, is because the Keyboard channel AUX send level to the monitors is dependent on the Keyboard channel preamp gain setting. If it is set low for it to sound right in the Main Mix you, you may not be able to get enough level to the monitors. Each channels preamp gain setting is the foundation on which everything else that comes later in the signal path is built. So if you have a good strong signal at the channel preamp you should be able to get good signal to the Aux Sends, or anywhere else you want to send that signal. Using Method 1 ensures that.

      Reply

  14. I’ll be running sound with a group of 4 singers with 3 acoustic ukuleles and a bass fiddle. They want to use their 2 large condenser mics, not my usual set up. In a small hall rehearsal space the mic gains at unity and a non-loud main volume was ok. Worried about enough volume in our larger space with an audience. Come down a bit on mic gain and up the volume to the mains? Leave the gain at unity and up the volume on the mains cautiously? Thank you for your thoughts!

    Reply

  15. All the methods will work, great post by the way, however, I think we forget the most important aspect of gain structure when mixing live, the pre-amp of the desk. Most pre-amps sound a little hold-back when driving them to little. I work with Midas desks a lot (Pro 1 and 2), and find that if the gain is set to almost clipping, the sound is a lot more warm and crisp. Example: when I use method 2 for a kickdrum channel (rocknroll sound, not worship), I get ok attack and decent decay. When using method 1 (mixing on fader), I drive the pre-amp louder and get great attack (punch in the chest style) and great decay. If we look at the technical part of a pre-amp, the pre-amp is designed to amp a signal, just like power amps and the faders are there to control the signal you put thrue the channel. And also for headroom in the dynamic and fx strip it is best to give them good signal before the fader does it’s job. However, a combination of method 1 and 2 is best in live situations. You get good signal to begin with, but won’t end up having a fader near infinity because the gain signal is to hot (20dB swap can be handy). Boosting with faders is less ideal than cutting the signal with a fader, but finding a way in between is best. No method is wrong, but the method can play a role in the sound you will get. Method 1 will work best in rocknroll enviroments, method 2 will work best for worship, jazz and other relaxed, layed back enviroments because method 1 will sound rawer and punchier than method 2 when using good pre-amps. With cheaper equipment, it won’t make a difference that much. Fun fact: the manual of the Midas Pro 1 says “feel free to overdrive the pre-amp, it will give you the award winning, warm Midas sound”. So yeah, the way you drive the pre-amp can make a difference in sound that is noticeble, but I think it depends on the mixing enviroment.

    Reply

  16. I like the second method it has helped create the balance i need in the mix blending the instruments and the vocals
    sometimes all i need to do is to increase the fader levels of the vocals in order to place the vocals up front in the mix

    Reply

  18. Very helpful. Contextualizing the methods in terms of studio vs. live environments really helped clarify the benefits of those two approaches.

    Reply

  21. I have been trained to use method 1, for the reasons given concerning downstream processing and recording. How does one maintain consistency in these functions with the variations in gain inherent in the other methods? I’m thinking particularly of compression here, and the effects on EQ discussed elsewhere with the raising and lowering of audio levels. Does each channel’s compression and EQ get tweaked with every change of gain? Because that’s what would be necessary, is it not?

    Reply

    • Once you set a channel gain at the beginning of the sound check, you shouldn’t have to change it – though there are times when a small change is necessary. A change in compression can cause a decrease in the signal level passed through. It’s for this reason, compressors often have a make up gain control. This enables the increase in gain post-compression.

      Reply

  23. While you are discussing individual channels on a board..I had a disagreement with a sound person on what the main volume sliders need to be set at. He believed that the main volume should be used to fade volume up and down constantly. I had been taught by a big band tech to leave the main volume at 0 and do all adjustments on each individual channel fader..specially since we only have 4 instruments and 4 vocals. What say you?? This would help me as worship leader to lead him to follow my directives without his condesending attitude of I don’t know anything. Our church never had one instance of feedback until this guy started lowering the main volume to a level lower than the faders on each channel…. Appreciate the guidance.

    Reply

    • It depends. Mixing a song requires working at the channel level. The only time I’ll change the main fader is if I want to slightly decrease or increase the sound of the whole band. For example, if it’s the last song and the last chorus, I might push the main fader up a bit. I’m not sure about the feedback part because the physical position of the main fader doesn’t related to the physical location of channel faders. I’d look for anyone in the area that offers training and pay for him to go.

      Reply

  25. Hi there this is Gebeyehu asress audiovisual technician. I have a great interest to be live soundman.
    please send me any thing which is essential for soundman trainer
    Best regards.

    Reply

  26. i guess there is a fourth method. the acoustics and placement of our walls is horrible. I normally try to give as much gain without picking up the instruments.

    that is a hard task when we have 3 singers on one mic and no one is up close to the mic.

    we have alot of room for growth. we are currently working on our infrastructure. I.e electrical, snake run and the multiple speaker runs. we are having a wonderful (sarcastic) time trying to locate our random electrical leakage. I believe it to be the musicians mixer.

    Pray for me as i pray for everyone.

    Reply

  27. A good walk-thru for the most critical element of any mix… getting the gain right.

    I usually begin using method 1 “gain to feedback or gain to clipping”. I encourage each player or vocalist to give me the loudest passage they expect to use today. “Please get close to the mic and sing from the diaphragm.”
    This way I am reasonably certain to not overload their channel during worship. Once we have a basic gain setting the band will begin to rehearse and I can work on the mix. If I get the gain right, most of my faders will sit close to +/- 5 db and I will be able to hear every part. If I have to pull someone down 15db to sit them in the mix, they probably turned up their instrument so I may need to trim the gain again.

    I set drums individually and then send the whole kit to a sub mix for better control. Drums are the one element that can easily overpower the whole worship band in our church if an enthusiastic player forgets to listen to their stage volume and balance.

    Reply

  28. Great article. I mostly mixed FOH on analog consoles and switched to digital in the last few years. I always set my gains based similar to your method #1. how does the migration from analog to digital effect the method of setting gain structure?

    Reply

    • Every console is different but with digital consoles, it’s best to go the gain-before-feedback route as you’ll also likely be feeding multi-track recordings and possible livestream so you want as strong of a signal as possible.

      Reply

  30. Great article. Would you say one of these methods is preferable to the others if you have a rotation of volunteer sound guys, with various levels of experience and some with better ears than others? Not an ideal situation but it’s what we’ve got. Basically, minimal sound check, so the more “set” things are from week to week, the better.

    We have in ear monitors, so the sound guy doesn’t need to control those mixes.

    Reply

  31. I have found that a lot of church engineers in my country hear what they are mixing but they are not listening to what they are mixing. a lot of time the flag is blowing the breeze Everything else is louder than the lead

    Reply

  32. I use 1 & 3. I use the trim to get optimal signal coming in for every channel, then ride theblead vocal fader up to about +5 db and adjust the other channels so that the faders generally look how the mix sounds. I then adjust the main fader to give me the overall levels I want for the room.

    I want good signal coming into the board so that dynamics have a good signal to latch onto. This also gives a high S/N ratio going into the FX busses.

    Reply

  34. I’ve always been more of a “method 1” guy, on both analog and digital boards. Mostly b/c I almost always have aux sends from the board feeding all the various monitors and so on. Even now when we have the luxury of Avioms for the instrumentalists, I stick with method 1 b/c many of their in-ear channels are direct outs from their channel on the board. In our main sanctuary, the stage box has gain control for both the FOH board and the broadcast/recording board, so it’s essential that I have a nice strong gain structure to ensure both boards have enough to work with. Better for the broadcast board to have to use the digital attenuator to reduce signal level a bit than to have to add gain on the backend and increase noise in the environment that is most sensitive to it.

    Great write-up, though! It’s always good to see different ways to do stuff – that’s how I learn best! LOVE the water faucet analogy, btw. Have used that one several times myself to help explain signal flow to new folks!

    Reply

  35. Most helpful to someone adapting to a new team. My first goal has been to figure out how much these folks know and what they are accustomed to doing.

    Only after I have established my creds can I show them how to include the bottom half of the piano and EQ the pastor.

    Being reminded of these three techniques helps me avoid sounding like I’m saying “It needs more cowbell.”

    Reply

    • Neal, it’s not always easy for an experienced skill tech to come in make suggestions. A lot of time the quality of your mix will speak volumes and they will be open to suggestion.

      Reply

      • Thanks for the reassurance. It seemed the wisest choice. Glad to hear the discussion about Digital boards and memorized scenes. I find them a curse and a blessing. Default settings let lots of people rotate through the booth, but I had to cringe when I was told “we don’t touch the EQs. They were set by the consultant two years ago.”

        Reply

  36. The comments from Tim and Matthew are spot on. In the digital world where one console is feeding multiple zones, montitors, IEMs, recordings, etc., maximum gain on each channel is essential! In the analog world where the mix was isolated, Method #2 was best. However, that’s not the case anymore. Great explanation on all the methods, though, Chris!

    Reply

    • Michael, there are still so many analog houses out there…I mixed at one a few months ago and after setting the mix for a song, I reached for the (non-existent) save-scene button. However, I think you and others raise the point that digital consoles are commonplace enough that future articles need to have sections highlighting differences where appropriate. Where will technology be in ten years!?!

      Reply

  37. There’s another method that seems to better fit certain digital consoles, especially when iso-recording for later post-production: using the digital attenuator.

    The theory is that we want to be mixing between -5 and +5 dB on the channel strip. If everything else is properly set, 10 dB is a lot of room to work.

    In addition, we want to make sure we have as much signal as possible going to our recording system.

    Lastly, with digital, we want to have as much signal as possible coming into the analog to digital converter. The reason for this is that every digital console is really just a computer doing math (very quickly, of course). The more input (or 1s and 0s as someone once put it) we have, the more information for the computer/sound console to work with, and the “cleaner” the output ultimately becomes. This is a similar reason that super high def video is important in the production process if there are to be a lot of visual effects: there is more information for the post-production artists to work with.

    The method is actually somewhat easy, as long as you can get to all the controls on your specific console. There are some similarities to methods 1and 3 here, too.

    Step 1. During sound check, figure out the highest level you will be receiving on the channel (this is actually the hard part), and set the gain or head amp accordingly. The goal is to get as much input as possible without clipping.

    Step 2. Grab the digital attenuator and turn it down at least 20 dB. We want to make sure we are not blowing speakers as soon as the channel is turned on.

    Step 3. With the fader at infinity (lowest level), turn on the channel and slowly bring it to 0 dB, turning down the attenuator as needed to keep a lower level.

    Step 4. Adjust the digital attenuator so that you have an appropriate around level. For me, at infinity, this is the solo/leader level.

    Set this way, you have +-5 dB to work with, and it is the part of the fader where you can actually make meaningful adjustments.

    It also gives the maximum level possible to recording gear, and hopefully keeps you from needing to adjust the gain or head amp, as this will likely change levels in Aviom or other stage monitoring.

    Reply

    • Matthew, that’s an excellent write-up on digital attenuators, thanks. It’s nice to have that type of control to get the best S/N while still keeping you in the +/-5dB range. The more digital consoles grow in functionality, the more fine-tuning we can do.

      Reply

  38. Wow talk about timing. I was just thinking about the whole element of gain structure in live mixing today and how there seems to be several different schools of thought as to how to set gain. I personally follow method 1 which I find usually results in resembling method 3 anyway, although I understand the arguments made for method 2 in providing more granular fader control.

    One thing to factor in though is that if you are running monitors and FOH from the same board, that gain is being shared for both your FOH and pre-fader monitor sends. So method 1 has the advantage in that your gain level is optimised for both, and you are less likely to have the problem of running out of level to send for a given channel’s aux send output.

    All that said I completely agree that whatever works and sounds good, is good. I also agree that there are usually much bigger issues at hand then trying to squeeze that last bit of signal to noise advantage in a live scenario.

    Reply

  39. If you have the luxury of a sound check, then method 2 is probably the best. However, in a festival situation where all you get is a line check, a combination of 1 and 3 works. Set the gains as detailed in method 1 but don’t then put the faders to 0db, set them as a visual representation of where you want the mix as shown in method 3. That way you can have an acceptable mix from the second the band starts playing which you can quickly refine as they play.

    Reply