Parent Sliders Higher Than Child Sliders?

[cutaia]

In the few recording resources I've read, I notice that they consistently advise against having child sliders at higher levels than their parents.  Or any sliders above the master slider.

However, I'm curious if this advise still applies as much when it comes to digital studios?  Or is that one of those things that doesn't really matter as much these days, but that we still just do out of habit?

 

Does anyone have any links to any resources addressing this topic, because I'm apparently not doing a good job of googling myself an answer...

[cutaia]

I don't think a mixer's track/channel fader setting, per se, is a relevant concern.  What matters is the .db level of the signal in that channel, and the channel's fader setting is just one factor that determines that .db level, and the fader setting need not, and often doesn't, correspond to the level of the signal.

 

Ok, thanks for the answer.  To be completely thorough, I went through my book and found the exact quote that lead to my question.  Since I'm obviously not doing a good job asking it, I'll just let the author speak for me.  lol

 

 

Subgroups

Many engineers like to group certain instruments together because it’s easier to control the level of one fader than many at the same time. Some engineers prefer groups (where the faders are all linked together), while others prefer subgroups (where the output of the certain individual channels are fed into a dedicated subgroup channel) or even combinations of both.

While all of these stages were slightly tweakable, one rule exists in the analog world that aptly applies to the digital as well.

The level of the channel faders should always stay below the subgroup or master fader. This means that the level of the master fader should always be placed higher than each of the channel faders (see Figures 11.18, 11.19, and 11.20). While it might be okay if one or two channels are slightly above the master (it’s almost inevitable in every mix), just a single channel with big chunks of EQ (like +10 of a frequency band) or an insert with an effects plug-in with a level that’s maxed can destroy any semblance of a good-sounding mix.

 

 

Because many large analog consoles have sufficient headroom these days, this rule hasn’t always been religiously followed, but it has been a golden rule since day one of modern consoles. Not following it is the main reason why many mixes, especially those done in the box, lose fidelity. The master buss is overloaded!

 

Owsinski (2013-04-09). The Mixing Engineer's Handbook, 3rd ed. (Kindle Locations 3425-3427). Cengage Learning PTR. Kindle Edition.

 

[john]

Hey

It is less important than it used to be, but it is a useful approach for managing headroom.

One thing not mentioned is the amount of easy control during mix down... Yet again within the realm of automated consoles and software mixers it is less of an issue.

Let me explain:

Often group controls are used to allow the engineer to control the overall volume of a group with ease. A perfect example would be a drum mix. There are multiple microphones involved. The engineer tweaks all levels to get an drum mix, complete with stereo positioning... But then how to control an 8 mic drum mix fade in or out?

Back in the day engineers played their consoles like instruments, riding the faders during mix down. So it made mixes much easier to assign channels to group controls, and then control the overall volume of the group with one simple control.

White high channel volumes and a lower group you can achieve an easy mix of the channels, but during the crucial group control the fader would have less available travel, therefore more margin of error, less resolution during mix down.

For example, if channel A is set to output -6db, and channel B is set to output at -8db in order to get a good relative mix of A and B, but the group fader sets the group volume at -20db to achieve a good balance within the overall mix, then the group control has a far shorter range of travel during mix down...

If instead of using a log scale for db we use a simple 0 as faders at -infinity and faders at 10 means +6db, then channel A would be set at 7, channel B would be set at 6 and the group fader at 4. This means that during mix down the overall range of movement for the group fader is only 0 -> 4. If during mix down you accidentally move the group fader to 3.5, that in reality can mean a difference of 5 db in this example. Pretty big! Not ideal when you are managing a 32 track desk with 16 aux and 16 groups!

If however you set up your channel A as 4, channel B as 3.5 and the group at 7 to achieve exactly the same output volume, you can see that now the group control has a range of travel from 0 -> 7 representing the exact same volume range. This means the margin of error is less, the available control is finer... In fader terms we have almost doubled the amount of fader movement, meaning group adjustments are more fine. Make sense?

For live or mix down management of headroom this can be critical. Less time wasted during mixdown and control of the overall mix is far better.

Riding the faders was always fun. It really brought creativity to mixes. Mixes were a performance. With big desks some controls would be assigned to assistant engineers and the producer, and mixes would be rehearsed!

Ah the good old days! Lol

Cheers

John

[cutaia]

This has all given me some insight as to potential reasoning behind this advice.  Really helps me out.  Thanks guys!

 

Edit:  I'll probably still keep trying to follow this "rule" but at least now I'll feel less bad when I find something above the master bus.  What Hobo said made sense, so I'll just make sure everything is sounding good and not overloading for the most part.  

Also, I used to have to ride the faders on an old Boss BR-8 when I was putting songs onto a CD, and can confirm that it's pretty fun.  Although, I'm happy to have a digital workstation where I can do far more precise automations now!  

Edited July 22, 2015 by cutaia