Levelling Presets (again)

[pipelineaudio]

Do you guys have a trick to get you in the ballpark for levelling presets? YouLean Loudness meter with a weighted LUFS gets you really close for similar types of sounds but can be pretty weird when dealing with treble boosted or scooped stuff. I tried doing the trick the dialog mixers use and HPY at 500 and LPF at 1250, but that can really end up with the woofy stuff getting far too loud. Any tricks you have?

 

[jay mitchell]

The only reliable way to level presets is to define the volume range for which you wish them to match and then to use that volume range in the matching process. The quality of the match will inevitably vary with level. For example, a scooped preset that is level-matched to a more neutral one at, say, 95 dBA will sound obviously louder if the comparison is made at sub-80 levels. Remember that human hearing is the most nonlinear element in the signal chain.

 

[quadgear]

TLDR; Use your least compressed, clean preset as a reference point and adjust other presets by ear to match that level using your ears. Use a setting in the preset that is after all blocks that could compress (e.g., drive, compressor, amp). Various meters do not work reliably in general. There's too much going on in how we perceive volume.

The following was posted on another forum. It's a good strategy.

• Turn on the modeler, plug in your guitar (you'll need a cable for this).
• Do not turn on your monitor.
• Select your cleanest, least compressed preset.
• Turn the modeler output level knob _All the way up_ (that's 100%.)
• Play your guitar with the hottest pickup (usually the neck) selected, the guitar controls all the way up, as loud as you can. Strum all six open strings. Play bar chords. Hard.
• Pick a block in the modeler to set your preset levels that is after all blocks that could compress (e..g, drive, compressor, amp).
• Turn up the level, then repeat from 4. above, until the display indicates digital clip. You've still got the level knob all the way up, right?
• Turn down the level parameter in the selected block until you cannot create the clip condition, no matter how hard you play.
• Save the preset.

You now have a reference for setting the levels of your other presets. For the next part, you'll need your monitor turned on, connected to the modeler, with its volume control set so you can hear sound.

• You do not need to set the modeler level control to 100%.
• Listen to the preset you want to adjust.
• Select your reference preset. Listen to it.
• Adjust the level of the other preset to get a match.
• Save it.
• Switch back and forth a few times, play, and compare levels.
• Remember to save the level of the preset you're adjusting before switching back to the reference.
• When they match to your satisfaction, save the preset you were adjusting one more time.
• Repeat as necessary at your convenience.

When matching the level of a dirtier-sounding preset to your clean reference, it may help to do so with your guitar volume backed off a bit, so you're matching a clean(er) level. That gives you a little extra for solos and helps compensate for higher gain sounds cutting less well.

 

[jay mitchell]

TLDR; Use your least compressed, clean preset as a reference point and adjust other presets by ear to match that level using your ears. Use a setting in the preset that is after all blocks that could compress (e.g., drive, compressor, amp). Various meters do not work reliably in general. There's too much going on in how we perceive volume.

The following was posted on another forum,.

By Yours Truly, originally ca. 2015. Repeated here: Gain staging my presets correctly. Repeated often, credited seldom. Also worthy of note: specific to Atomic Amplifire products. The procedure is different in one very important way, for example, with first-gen Axe-Fx devices, most likely others as well.

 

[Sleezy E]

I tweak them at rehearsal, at full volume, by ear.

 

[quadgear]

By Yours Truly, originally ca. 2015. Repeated here: Gain staging my presets correctly. Repeated often, credited seldom. Also worthy of note: specific to Atomic Amplifire products. The procedure is different in one very important way, for example, with first-gen Axe-Fx devices, most likely others as well.

Glad you chimed in. I was going to credit you by name, but for some reason I didn't. I also wanted to include the reference to the OP, but couldn't find the original URL. Such laziness.

I also took some license to make it generic (removed references to Amplifire) and embellished a point or two (e.g., compression).

Out of curiosity, what's the summary of "different in one very important way"?

 

[jay mitchell]

Out of curiosity, what's the summary of "different in one very important way"?

The Amplifire's master level knob controls the signal in the digital domain, whereas the output controls on the Axe-Fx (1st- and 2nd-gen at least) are in the analog (post-DAC) domain. The setting of the Amplifire level control will affect digital clipping; the settings of the controls on the Axe-Fx will not. When maximizing the unclipped level of a clean preset, you've got to set the Amplifire level control to max. With the Axe-Fx (and presumably other modelers) it won't matter. The bottom line is that it's dangerous to generalize instructions like this too much. What works on one modeler may not work on another.

 

[dk_ace]

If I want two sounds to be heard as the same volume, I play a track and adjust the volume of each tone over the same material (that is similar to the music I’ll use the tones for) until they sound and feel the same to me in the track.

I always find that approach to work better than doing it solo,YMMV.

D

 

[pipelineaudio]

If I want two sounds to be heard as the same volume, I play a track and adjust the volume of each tone over the same material (that is similar to the music I’ll use the tones for) until they sound and feel the same to me in the track.

I always find that approach to work better than doing it solo,YMMV.

D

This is the approach, the question in the OP is how to measure the difference between those levels gotten by this approach in a meaningul way to how the audience will hear it.

Although probably technically correct, targeting at a specific volume as suggested upstream is not really that much of an option, as you will have no control over what the soundman does to FOH. I'm thinking there's a way to at least get it close by averaging different weighting methods

 

[dk_ace]

This is the approach, the question in the OP is how to measure the difference between those levels gotten by this approach in a meaningul way to how the audience will hear it.

Although probably technically correct, targeting at a specific volume as suggested upstream is not really that much of an option, as you will have no control over what the soundman does to FOH. I'm thinking there's a way to at least get it close by averaging different weighting methods

Can you help me understand the point of that exercise then? I’m not seeing what it would do for me.

The reason why tone A might need an overall .8Db more than tone C to sound the same volume versus why tone B took 1.4 Db more is obviously a function of the amplitude of certain frequencies and the type and amount of compression in the various tones and how all that fits against the musical material. If you could find a way to predict/model what those differences needed to be in future tones against a given type of material, wouldn’t the analysis and resulting adjustment of tones and validation probably take just as much time as doing it by ear? And how often do you need multiple tones to be the same volume anyway? Presumably the material has changing dynamics where everyone and/or certain instruments are getting louder and quieter.

This seems like one of those things where the juice would never be worth the squeeze, but I must be missing something.

@jay mitchell is right that it needs to be done at the same playback volume as intended for the performance to be ideal. That is rarely practical for me, so I generally do this comparison on both studio monitors and headphones at quiet and loud volumes looking for the thing that works the best across those differences. Then I hope for the best in the real world, it’s usually pretty close. When it’s off a little, it’s usually because I mispredicted where the band dynamics would be for a given part more than the overall volume being higher. Or at least, that’s what I’ve always believed created the difference.

D

 

[pipelineaudio]

Can you help me understand the point of that exercise then? I’m not seeing what it would do for me.

The point is having sounds that are relatively in the same perceived loudness as each other, or in case its truly supposed to be much louder or softer, finding a way to make that the correct level relative to the other

The reason why tone A might need an overall .8Db more than tone C to sound the same volume versus why tone B took 1.4 Db more is obviously a function of the amplitude of certain frequencies and the type and amount of compression in the various tones and how all that fits against the musical material.

I'm thinking I'm really only worrying when the difference would need 3dB of adjustment or more. Less than that probably won't be noticed by the audience so much and are less jarring for FOH and more easily taken care of if a tiny wiggle needs to be done, not a massive input level trim before all of the board and system's dynamics processing

If you could find a way to predict/model what those differences needed to be in future tones against a given type of material, wouldn’t the analysis and resulting adjustment of tones and validation probably take just as much time as doing it by ear?

Maybe, maybe not. I don't really think "by ear" is usually a good test anyway, see the McGurk effect for an extreme example, or see getting it right by ear then going to a stage and finding you were WAY off. I'm hoping to find a way that is objective and repeatable that at least gets you in the ballpark

And how often do you need multiple tones to be the same volume anyway? Presumably the material has changing dynamics where everyone and/or certain instruments are getting louder and quieter.

All the time and at thousands of shows every night just in this country

This seems like one of those things where the juice would never be worth the squeeze, but I must be missing something.

If you are into the type of music that you do a lot of the changes just by turning the volume knob on the guitar, no you aren't missing anything, and I don't think this would be worth it to you. Those types of players can do a hell of a lot with just one sound and if the preset volumes or whatever don't match up, these types can easily and immediately compensate for it

 

[jay mitchell]

The point is having sounds that are relatively in the same perceived loudness as each other, or in case its truly supposed to be much louder or softer, finding a way to make that the correct level relative to the other

There is no robust way to do that. As I pointed out above, matches that are near-perfect in one SPL range will be profoundly different at higher or lower SPL. And that's just a match when you're playing solo. Add in musical context, and you'll find that a match with one set of additional instruments will fall flat on its face with another set of instruments, even at the same SPL.

I'm thinking I'm really only worrying when the difference would need 3dB of adjustment or more. Less than that probably won't be noticed by the audience so much and are less jarring for FOH

So you're talking about mid-song preset changes. First, I strongly recommend that folks find a way to avoid doing that, for reasons that go well beyond level matching. Second, if you're truly equipped for live performance, you'll have an expression pedal set up to control your volume without altering your tone, IOW placed downstream of every nonlinear block in your modeler.

and more easily taken care of if a tiny wiggle needs to be done, not a massive input level trim before all of the board and system's dynamics processing

If your level is jumping that much from one preset to another, you really need to work on that. It doesn't require instrumented testing to completely avoid that.

I don't really think "by ear" is usually a good test anyway,

It's the only test that ever matters. What you're leaving out is that any match will have to be tweaked - by ear - in various gig environments. If you're not able to take care of that yourself, you're missing some essential skills as an electric guitarist.

If you are into the type of music that you do a lot of the changes just by turning the volume knob on the guitar,

Again, an essential skillset, primarily for tweaking the amount of overdrive, somewhat less for controlling volume. That's what the aforementioned expression pedal is for.

no you aren't missing anything, and I don't think this would be worth it to you. Those types of players can do a hell of a lot with just one sound and if the preset volumes or whatever don't match up, these types competent guitar players can easily and immediately compensate for it

Fixed it.

 

[sleewell]

One main preset. 4 snapshots but I pretty much stay on one the whole time.

I only make changes at volume, changes I make at home never work out once I get to be loud. And really it's fight riffs so it's not that tough lol

 

[pipelineaudio]

There is no robust way to do that. As I pointed out above, matches that are near-perfect in one SPL range will be profoundly different at higher or lower SPL. And that's just a match when you're playing solo. Add in musical context, and you'll find that a match with one set of additional instruments will fall flat on its face with another set of instruments, even at the same SPL.

No way *yet* maybe. And yet bands play every single night at different venues at different volumes using the same presets on their USB sticks, so you can definitely get close or every single major touring act playing modern music would be at a standstill, and they aren't

So you're talking about mid-song preset changes. First, I strongly recommend that folks find a way to avoid doing that, for reasons that go well beyond level matching.

You can't possibly be serious. Saying something like this makes me question all of the excellent advice I have gotten from you over the years. Seriously

Have you seen bands outside of 1950's/1960's genres?

Modern music has constant changes throughout the song

Second, if you're truly equipped for live performance, you'll have an expression pedal set up to control your volume without altering your tone, IOW placed downstream of every nonlinear block in your modeler.

That's a good idea, and while it seems like they often do have this volume pedal, many don't and those that do often don't use it for this, their presets are leveled well between them

It's the only test that ever matters. What you're leaving out is that any match will have to be tweaked - by ear - in various gig environments. If you're not able to take care of that yourself, you're missing some essential skills as an electric guitarist.

Food companies used to taste each batch before good measurements were invented, like in the 1600's or something. Technology moves on. The ear is an awful measurement tool as it is attached to the brain.

 

[pipelineaudio]

Fixed it.

No, you are ignoring every type of guitarist who plays something newer than 1960's music. Many (most? certainly all of the modern genre players) use the volume control more as an on off switch, they use the other electronics to determine gain.

You should see a modern show, its pretty crazy how nearly every decision is taken from you. Its seriously a production on train rails, its staying on that track no matter what and every part of the system needs to stay on those tracks