that isn’t a proper gain stage, it is wrong
Correct. CKK.
Though the request by ZeroZero is also not bad.
Call the feature “Zero Channel” 
Would be a faster way to maintain fader resolution (which is what is really happening)
Faders are logarithmic so you have a better resolution around 0 than -30.
If you could auto set to have track peak at an arbitrary value when the fader is at 0 / unity it could be useful.
Especially so if setting mix starting points on 1000+ tracks.
What am I missing? Gain staging is a variabel process depending on the hottnes level of each track, most of my tracks are different regarding levels.
So gain staging all tracks at once would not be proper gain staging because most tracks will have diffrent peak levels, as I understand is that all tracks are brought to 1 volume level (peaks) approximatly.
Gain staging in this context, as I understand it, is preparing your levels, before you create the tracks as such. It’s getting the tracks to a suitable level (usually not too hot) before you lay the music down. Then, when you have the music, it’s playing back at a generally acceptable level, from there you begin the mixing and automation, which is another layer of level controlling.
Unfortunately, that video is probably not entirely accurate with regard to its description of the EBU Master meters.
Not quite understanding you. You mean setting the levels with a test signal before you record anything?
If you are referring to the video, I agree, some aspects of that video could be a little misleading.
IMO that file is supplied by the EBU to test the integrated reading on a loudness meter which with this file will read -23LUFS (0LU). Not sure this is particularly relevant for gain staging.
Stingray,
No. I hear you. But if you are gain staging with the same level into any effect and the same level out, then you’ve got to calibrate (or at least be aware of) all meters or your gain staging will be irrelevant. For that calibration you need a known trusted source.
Yes, of course, I agree… you need a reliable source. My point remains that that particular source (EBU dual level test signal LM9 for testing integrated level on a loudness meter) is not convenient or helpful for gain staging or input/output level matching of a plug-in effect. IMO the AES -20dBFS sine wave signal you specify is more appropriate for this. But a sine wave may not be particularly useful anyway… depends on what you are trying to achieve and what kind of meters you are using. You might be better off with pink noise.
That’s why I included it! 
The EBU wav is a reference.
We have all experience levels and flavors of mixing reading this forum, those that know and have experience, especially with the big analogue consoles know what to use and how to use it. Those new to Cubase and mixing could benefit from a reference file to understand their meters while calibrating to the other.
if you really want to have a go and get into the merits of calibration and knowing your meters I’m certainly up for it - though I doubt you would find much to nitpick there. Like I said, those that know, know.
For me gain staging and calibration are different processes. Calibration is getting your system in order, whislt gain staging is getting tracks in a project to produce equivalent levels. Loudness does come into it, because the human ear can hear two (or more sounds) as being of the same percieved loudness, when they are of a differing DB.
Anyway, I confess that my understanding IS limited, and I still have not settled on a way to settle down a template with over a thousand MIDI tracks recorded at different studios.
All over the web there is conflicting advice and people contradicting each other.
It’s not an easy subject
Z
You’re on track Z,
Pretty much for everyone gain staging and calibration are different. Though gain staging would typically use your meters, thus knowing and trusting your meters is important to gain staging.
You wouldn’t want a chain of meters, be they analog gear or digital or plugins to be giving you results differently, or even be calibrated differently without knowing it. Your attempt at gain staging would be ineffective. If you have a whole chain adding or subtracting 3db or even fractions thereof, well you get the idea.
As for gain staging by ear, if that was the most effective way we wouldn’t really need meters at all.
But as gain staging is a meters based operation, you really want to understand your meter results to achieve good gain staging.
Still studying this. I think we agree that calibrating is not what we are talking of - so let’s leave this aside. When you have a large template, with lots of tracks ready to roll (let’s think MIDI) some loaded with flutes and some loaded with tubas, and say you load a C major scale run on every track. You would not want to hear everything back at the same level. The human ear would hear the shrillness of a piccolo to be louder than a mid range flute - simply put it cuts through the mix. Similarly a human being might consider a tuba to be louder than a flute, even though DB wise they might be the same. Even so, judging everything by meters (no matter what kind) is not really what is required, what is required is to have the levels of a track so that, for example a Trombone IS louder than a triangle, a trumpet is louder than a harp and so forth - meters dont do this.
This is what puzzles me. For me gain staging is ‘setting the scene’ so that all instruments are proportionally correct, the meter does not know if its a tin whistle or a bass drum (assuming other factors like distance equal)
How to do this? I have not a clue.
Z
That’s basically what i do and it works like charm.
All that does is bring down a hot mix. It has it’s place, but it’s not gain staging.
Z
To be honest ZeroZero, I wouldn’t mix in my composition template. Very rough mix and balance sure, but not mix.
I would use the composition template solely for composing and then output audio tracks for final mix down anyway. For my composing, I would want the least latency, for my mixing I would up the buffers (increasing input latency), then as I added effects, some with lookahead features and loopbacks, latencies would increase again.
This would also allow me to have a composing template that had all my instruments ready to go, with as many tracks as I may possibly need, not wasting my creative inspiration on creating tracks, groups, fx, searching for instruments and loading, tweaking , etc.
This also tends to be the preferred working method for most of the film composers I know, that are not recording orchestras. Like you, they have a template with several hundred, if not over a thousand, depending on the available computer power, of their top instruments and presets ready to go on disabled tracks. Maximizing their inspiration time and minimizing the technicalities with turning it into a work of art.
As for gain staging, some of these definitions are simply what is regularly accepted to be the meaning amongst audio engineers. Some are vague and some are wholly subjective! If you want to call balancing, gain staging, you’re not that far outside the accepted meaning. Really, it’s as broad as working the input and output gain in any audio chain so as to achieve the end result in that chain that you desire without pushing the final out so hard as to undesirably clip or raise noise floors in an undesirable way. Even amongst audio engineers you can get some different definitions between those in live sound and those in a recording studio.
Music is creative and subjective. There are many ways to achieve great results! If you have a way that is working for you, there’s no need to alter your methods! If something isn’t working, there are generally accepted rules or methods that can help you modify your methods to improve the final result. But there is no one right way so that it should only ever be done like that and no other.
The prime rule of any music creation is “does it sound good? Then it is good!”. Regardless of how it is achieved.
In my opinion that is some of the idea, but put simply it’s more about ensuring sufficient headroom between the average level of the signal and 0dBFS at each stage as the signal flows through the channel. It’s about respecting a few basic rules of audio with regard to optimising the signal, avoiding overloads and avoiding too much level on the mix bus.
In my opinion what you say about meters is very pertinent, but with gain staging you are using the meters to get the average level into the appropriate range and ensuring there’s enough headroom on a track by track and insert by insert basis, it’s not about absolute precision. The fine tuning of levels / perceived loudness occurs using the channel faders when you do the final mix.
There’s a lot of misinformation on the internet, on you tube, and in forums (including this one) with regard to gain staging.
***** WARNING *****
the following will intrigue those with the engineering proclivities and bore the holy-bejezus out of everyone else:
so feel free to ignore it!
A little “gain staging” math-e-magics for you to play with!
Let’s say for schits & giggles that we have an audio track with its fader at 0 that max peaks at -2.8db
We’ll choose -2.8 to actually make your brain do some work!
If we want to create a phasey mess for ourselves and we duplicate the original track 12 more times
(13 tracks of the very same audio event in total)
We can actually see the results for each duplication on our Stereo 2 Channel out before we do it and where we need to be to maintain our original -2.8 peak.
I would note that the real magic begins at gain staging the first duplication!
(You can substitute “fader” for “Pre-Gain” if it pleases you)
1 track at 0 fader peaks at -2.8
add a duplicate
2 tracks at 0 fader peaks at -2.8 each and 3.2 St Out 2ch
so I lower both to -6 fader and each peaks at -8.8 and -2.8 St Out 2ch
add a duplicate
3 tracks at -6 fader peaks at -8.8 each and 0.7 St Out 2ch
so I lower all 3 to -9.5 and each peaks at -12.3 and -2.8 St Out 2ch
add a duplicate
4 tracks at -9.5 fader each peaks at -12.3 each and -0.3 St Out 2ch
so I lower all 4 to -12 and each peaks at -14.8 and -2.8 St Out 2ch
add a duplicate
5 tracks at -12 fader each peaks at -14.8 each and -0.9 St Out 2ch
so I lower all 5 to -13.8 and each peaks at -16.6 and -2.8 St Out 2ch
add a duplicate
6 tracks at -13.8 fader each peaks at -16.6 each and -1.1 St Out 2ch
so I lower all 6 to -15.5 and each peaks at -18.3 and -2.8 St Out 2ch
add a duplicate
7 tracks at -15.5 fader each peaks at -18.3 each and -1.4 St Out 2ch
so I lower all 7 to -16.9 and each peaks at -19.7 and -2.8 St Out 2ch
add a duplicate
8 tracks at -16.9 fader each peaks at -19.7 each and -1.7 St Out 2ch
so I lower all 8 to -18 and each peaks at -20.8 and -2.8 St Out 2ch
add a duplicate
9 tracks at -18 fader each peaks at -20.8 each and -1.8 St Out 2ch
so I lower all 9 to -19 and each peaks at -21.8 and -2.8 St Out 2ch
add a duplicate
10 tracks at -19 fader each peaks at -21.8 each and -1.8 St Out 2ch
so I lower all 10 to -20 and each peaks at -22.8 and -2.8 St Out 2ch
add a duplicate
11 tracks at -20 fader each peaks at -22.8 each and -2 St Out 2ch
so I lower all 11 to -20.8 and each peaks at -23.6 and -2.8 St Out 2ch
add a duplicate
12 tracks at -20.8 fader each peaks at -23.6 each and -2.1 St Out 2ch
so I lower all 12 to -21.5 and each peaks at -24.3 and -2.8 St Out 2ch
add a duplicate
13 tracks at -21.5 fader each peaks at -24.1 each and -2.1 St Out 2ch
so I lower all 13 to -22.2 and each peaks at -25 and -2.8 St Out 2ch
There we have it, so on and so forth…
Is knowing any of this actually going to help you make better music, probably not in the slightest!
But you will get a very elementary grasp of one type of gain staging.
Agreed
Z
I think I have got clear about this Gain Staging issue - with the help of this post and Martin.
Most of the confusion is that this is about two different processes - often conflated together when speaking about the matter.
1] The first process is about clipping and bringing the signal into an audible range where there is enough room to apply fx. Typically a good mix would not be recorded to hot.
2] Then there is the mental side of things - this is entirely different and it is to do with our psychological models and our expectations about ‘natural sounds’. Seeing this only in terms of the gain knob ( a somewhat one dimensional view), across an orchestra, we do not expect the triangle to be louder than the bass drum and we do not expect the bass drum to be sounding like it’s sitting next to you in your ‘virtual row’. It’s not a level playing field at all, because it can’t really be considered without knowing that a piccolo cuts through more than a celeste. Harsher more jagged sounds come to the front of the sound stage. It is about the sound stage, yes, but it’s not purely psychological because as soon as you want to alter this (in MIDI) you have to touch a knob.
As soon as the word sound stage is merged into the concept, then you have a bag of variables. Room size, reverb issues, even the quality of the listeners hearing. Then there are the customary “orchestral conventions” - there is no real ‘law’ which states that the flute cannot be behind the listener, or the piano as if it were in a field, both are possible, these are no more than conventions.
Some may think that category 2 is called mixing, and they would be right, but when we talk about gain staging as if it were prepping a template or system all these matters come into it, though possible in a different form. If you gain staged a 4 piece and the guitar sounded like it was slapping you in the face, you would bring it back. Often “careless talk” about purely meter matters, can invoke mental phenomena.
For me, gain staging is then prepping a template so that a tolerable “visage” of sound is at your fingertips. It starts with the meters (set lowish), but it does not end with the meters; it segues into mixing.
Z