About GAIN automation...

[Buffalo Bill]

Hi guys!
I want to made my first question, and is about automatize volume.

Recently I had learned that if you want automatize a volume track, is better DONT do it using the track fader.
You must use some kind of GAIN control in the pre-fader side. This way you always can later adjust the overall relative volume in the mix using the main track fader without affect the automation itself.
Ok, that sounds sense...

In FL Studio I used some plugin like "Fruity Balance" or "Maximus".
Now in Cubase, when I add an automation on the track, this works directly in the gain pre-filter.


(picture taked from the web)

Is ok use this in this way? Or should be better use a dedicated/specific plugin in a insert slot? Pros/cons?
What do you think?

At same time, is correct to use the default EQ module (the one in the pic in the EQUALIZER tab) or should be better use a specific EQ module as an insert?
Meybe a specific module will give us more control/quality?

Thoughts?
Many thanks!

Click to read more...

 

[Wasteland]

there must be others, but if i do use Gain automation in Cubase i will use;

Blue Cat's Gain Suite

This plug-in suite is a series of gain utilities which let you control the volume of one or several audio tracks simultaneously, in real time.The interest of these plug-ins resides in their particular features: First, they include advanced automation MIDI control capabilities (all response...

www.bluecataudio.com

it is free, by the.

the pre-grain, is well, pre-grain, and not just before the fader, after the effects/strip.

if you use the pre-grain, the signal will be lower or harder and will influence the sound if you use effects that are 'sensitive' for it.

with a Gain tool, you can decide where the gain will be automated.

and indeed, well it is not forbidden, but automation for the fader is not recommmended, if you want afterwards to change the value, it can be done, but not just by adjusting the fader.

an oversight in Cubase, a gain tool. (or it is my oversight..)

EDIT:

At same time, is correct to use the default EQ module (the one in the pic in the EQUALIZER tab) or should be better use a specific EQ module as an insert?
Meybe a specific module will give us more control/quality?

personal preferences, the default EQ module is good, very good. if you need more bands, or a dynamic EQ, etc. use another. but is perfectly good EQ.
and Cubase comes with more EQ's, like Frequenz, which has all the goodies, of more bands, lineair, dynamic, more steep slopes, etc.

 

[Akoustecx]

The Gain plugin in the free Kilohearts collection is my choice, and there's no good reason to not at least try the other 29!

Kilohearts Essentials - Over 30 FREE Effects Plugins

Kilohearts Essentials is a free collection of over thirty extremely useful effects plugins and Snapins. Create a Kilohearts account for immediate access.

kilohearts.com

 

[Buffalo Bill]

but if i do use Gain automation in Cubase

You dont use gain automations usually? How do you deal with the volume envelope? Maybe another technica?

if you use the pre-grain, the signal will be lower or harder and will influence the sound if you use effects that are 'sensitive' for it.

with a Gain tool, you can decide where the gain will be automated.

So with the pre-gain filter, the gain always will be affected in the pre-fade side at a certain position. But with a dedicated tool, you can arrange where you want to work with the gain in the insert slots chain, correct?
So this is more versatile, indeed.

personal preferences, the default EQ module is good, very good. if you need more bands, or a dynamic EQ, etc. use another. but is perfectly good EQ.
and Cubase comes with more EQ's, like Frequenz, which has all the goodies, of more bands, lineair, dynamic, more steep slopes, etc.

I think that is always is better to keep the things as simple as possible. To maximice workflows and workload in the computer. All the added plugins always have an impact in the performance of the proyect. So if you dont need, dont use it.
Thats becasue Im asking about...

I will take a look at the Blue Cat's. Many thanks!

The Gain plugin in the free Kilohearts collection is my choice, and there's no good reason to not at least try the other 29!

Kilohearts Essentials - Over 30 FREE Effects Plugins

Kilohearts Essentials is a free collection of over thirty extremely useful effects plugins and Snapins. Create a Kilohearts account for immediate access.

kilohearts.com

Awesome simple and minimalist! I love it!
I will try. Many thanks!

 

[Akoustecx]

Awesome simple and minimalist! I love it!
I will try. Many thanks!

You're welcome.

 

[Mark III]

https://aom-factory.jp/products/triple-fader/

I find this one great for the job as you get 3 faders all with configurable ranges.

Cheers.

 

[Buffalo Bill]

https://aom-factory.jp/products/triple-fader/

I find this one great for the job as you get 3 faders all with configurable ranges.

Cheers.

Many thanks! I will take a look!

 

[cloudbuster]

There's a couple excellent and affordable Hornet tools (gain staging, auto leveling, metering, ...) that can make life a lot easier.

Well worth a look or two ...

HoRNet mixing and production tools

Our plugins are perfect for every production task, with these you can work even faster and get the sound you are after

www.hornetplugins.com

 

[xepocal]

I just use whatever plugin's the most lightweight while still having parameter smoothing.

 

[wing]

I understand the logic behind this approach, and I will do it sometimes if I know for a specific track the gain needs to change a lot or will have excessive automation such as a tremolo effect (and then I can use the fader to adjust the overall).

However for simple automation I still use volume, and then either scale it up/down accordingly, or mix using VCAs to control overall relative volumes. Works just fine for most things without the extra step or insert.

 

[Jeremy Spencer]

Recently I had learned that if you want automatize a volume track, is better DONT do it using the track fader.

Perhaps it's pure laziness, but I've been doing it that way for years. If it has to be more precise, I'll draw it in, but other than that just record the fader movement.

 

[fakemaxwell]

Why wouldn't this be done in reverse? Automate the track fader and then use a gain plugin (or the sampler gain) to adjust the relative volume.

I've never seen anybody automate a gain plugin as a first resort in a regular mixing scenario. Way overthinking "turn track volume up or down."

 

[MLaudio]

I keep a gain plug-in at the start of the chain (pre) and one at the end of the chain (post). I usually automate the fader when needed, and use the post gain plug-in for overall mix volume changes.

Bluecat and Kilohearts are two I use. When working in Logic I just use the stock gain plug-in.

 

[wst3]

I do my very best to avoid gain automation, unless it is just mis-named?

Gain amplifies a signal, you can have negative gain, which attenuates the signal, and in a DAW it is probably the same as a level control, which "starts" at max level and attenuates from there.

In the bad old days it was really important to place any gain elements and level controls carefully to minimize noise buildup. It's the same today, just not quite as picky.

The first trick to using level (gain?) automation is to know where in the signal path you are making changes... before or after the inserts, before or after the sends, before or after any built in EQ or dynamics, before or after the assignment matrix, and so on. Oh yeah, and before or after the fader.

It is a deep subject, so I'll stop there for a moment...

 

[Buffalo Bill]

I understand the logic behind this approach, and I will do it sometimes if I know for a specific track the gain needs to change a lot or will have excessive automation such as a tremolo effect (and then I can use the fader to adjust the overall).

However for simple automation I still use volume, and then either scale it up/down accordingly, or mix using VCAs to control overall relative volumes. Works just fine for most things without the extra step or insert.

So I see there is differents approachs regarding the environment. If you need to make a lot of adjustments, is better use a dedicated pluging.
But if you only need some basic level modifications, as a ambient intro drone/pad part, for example that you only need to appear and dissapear, just working in the faders is easy and simple as you will have only 4 or 6 points in the envelope. Yes?

Perhaps it's pure laziness, but I've been doing it that way for years. If it has to be more precise, I'll draw it in, but other than that just record the fader movement.

If you need later to adjust the overall volume of the track in this case, what do you use? A gain plugin in the post fader?

I keep a gain plug-in at the start of the chain (pre) and one at the end of the chain (post). I usually automate the fader when needed, and use the post gain plug-in for overall mix volume changes.

Bluecat and Kilohearts are two I use. When working in Logic I just use the stock gain plug-in.

Just curious, why not use the pre gain plugin to adjust and remove the post? Why both?

Why wouldn't this be done in reverse? Automate the track fader and then use a gain plugin (or the sampler gain) to adjust the relative volume.

I've never seen anybody automate a gain plugin as a first resort in a regular mixing scenario. Way overthinking "turn track volume up or down."

I not have enought experience about, but sounds equally right. Could be exactly the same?

I do my very best to avoid gain automation, unless it is just mis-named?

Maybe I had expressed in a incorrect way. Im talking about change the volume level over the time. For example, in a intro pad/drone ambient part. Just to let the sound appears smoothly by a fade-in efffect and fade-out at a certain point.
That what I see is that you need to think carefully where use some plugins/effects in the whole chain as the place could change the results. This makes things a little complicated...

 

[emokeez]

I usually do it the other way around. It’s just a little bit easier (in Logic at least) to automate volume directly as it’s the default parameter so there is less messing about required.

If it want to scale it afterwards I can easily trim the entire automation lane in Logic. If that’s not enough (it’s not always possible to trim enough) and I need to adjust a track individually of the others that’s when I’ll insert a gain plugin. It’s easy to add lots of already adjusted gain plugins by option dragging from one channel strip to another. If I need to adjust multiple tracks like this it’s often easier to use a buss or track stack (which is effectively the same thing). And it’s easy to drag the gain plugin to where it will work best, before or after any inserts. You could also turn down the output of one of the insert fx too if that’s more convenient. Adding an extra lane of automation makes tweaking later on easier as you can still do it all in the tracks window without having to open plugin windows.

I find putting in all the work at the beginning ‘just in case’ doesn’t fit with the way my brain is wired. I much prefer doing it the other way around.

But it doesn’t matter either way — the results are the same. Gain=volume after all.

I can see why being free to move the volume faders at the end might suit one better. But by the time I’m actually automating the volume faders that job has pretty much already been done. I tend to leave mix automation until the very end when I’m pretty much finished already. And the gain plugin will easily come to my rescue if required at this stage.

 

[MLaudio]

Just curious, why not use the pre gain plugin to adjust and remove the post? Why both?

Automating pre gain, or any gain parameter at the start of the chain will effect the plugins following it. A compressor being a good example.

 

[SupremeFist]

If it want to scale it afterwards I can easily trim the entire automation lane in Logic. If that’s not enough (it’s not always possible to trim enough)

Did you know that Logic has a second volume automation parameter called "relative", which adds or subtracts from the existing main volume automation ("absolute")? Very handy for this.

 

[emokeez]

Did you know that Logic has a second volume automation parameter called "relative", which adds or subtracts from the existing main volume automation ("absolute")? Very handy for this.

Thanks, yes I knew that. I find that one useful when I’m using mainly region based automation. Say I draw in a fake sidechain curve on a region, then using track automation I can draw in a fade, for example, using relative volume over the top.

I prefer using Logic’s region automation to things like shaperbox; I use a separate track and can then loop the region that only contains automation. And then I can actually see where the volume points are in relation to the timeline. I can save a few empty regions with the automation already drawn in for quick shaperbox time automations then copy them to where I want them. Works great for auto pan and gating fx too. Again seeing the automation on the timeline can be useful to make sure you hit the right spot with the automation.

 

[SupremeFist]

I prefer using Logic’s region automation to things like shaperbox; I use a separate track and can then loop the region that only contains automation. And then I can actually see where the volume points are in relation to the timeline. I can save a few empty regions with the automation already drawn in for quick shaperbox time automations then copy them to where I want them. Works great for auto pan and gating fx too. Again seeing the automation on the timeline can be useful to make sure you hit the right spot with the automation.

Ooh nice ideas! (But I'm lazy so normally I just use StepFX for that kind of thing.)