How to get more precision on Reasons Mixer Board Slider

[fungames]

The main mixer, not the 14:2 channel one you can right click to make. How do I get more precision when adjust levels? I want to move it by .05 or .1 at a time, but it seems even with the shift key held, it jumps in bigger numbers at a time, like .5db or .25 db, I just want more precision, I have super sensitive ears. Is there a key I can press? will a mixing board controller allow me to get more precision? or do I have to create an automation lane and type it in?

Thanks

[deeplink]

Damn i wish I had your super sensitive ears that could noticably worry about a 0.05db in gain.

Anyway, perhaps te automatation lane and typing it in is your best bet.

[okaino]

Check the selig gain youll get more increments

[stillifegaijin]

The automation lane suggestion is probably the way to go for more minute adjustments. It moves .03 to .04 per increment. But I very much think the sensitivity is more in your eyes than your ears.

[syncanonymous]

Yes, humans notice a doubling of decibels;
...that is a 3dB change; less than that is imperceptible
bearing in mind, of course, no two humans hear exactly the same thing (which is more freq and spacial dependent)

this is a physical condition similar to the frame rate of the human eye
which is 25 frames per second;
in essence; in a live situation, we miss a lot (consider a golf swing, where 10,000fps can reveal a lot slowed down be perceptible to our 25 fps condition)

similar to human hearing of audio resolution, essentially 96KHz

the Reason res used to annoy me; but it does work fine as jumpy as it is

all that said, machines can notice the minute differences. For example, when I process Noise Reduction, there is a noticeable difference between a 16 bit source and a 24 bit source; Acon Restoration Suite algorithms deliver better results on 24 bit files IME

[friday]

A good advice I took home from my visit at https://mixmastering.de is to increase and decrease channel volumes in Steps of 1 / 3 / 6dB and then adjust in between of this ranges in 0.5dB steps.

In the last detail tasks you maybe have to adjust something in the range of 0.2db. But these days I am pretty sure that steps of 0.1dB and less, are only psychological, and can't be heard in the whole Mix and even less after Mastering.

That helped me so much, to not loose to much time on things no one will hear and also to get my self not going crazy on such small decisions.

[mcatalao]

(...)

similar to human hearing of audio resolution, essentially 96KHz

the Reason res used to annoy me; but it does work fine as jumpy as it is

all that said, machines can notice the minute differences. For example, when I process Noise Reduction, there is a noticeable difference between a 16 bit source and a 24 bit source; Acon Restoration Suite algorithms deliver better results on 24 bit files IME

Man you couldn't be more wrong, by default about the eyes and by excess about the ears...
We can perceive frames higher than 50 fps, just get in a room with leds that are prone to fliker at 50 Hz and you can see it. TV's and games are working at the rate of 50 to 100 Hz, using algorithms to fill the gap in 30 fps images so you have have a more fluid experience.

As for audio, there is no proof till now anyone can sense any frequency above 20 Khz (or a smaller than 1 db difference in absolute level). What people perceive at lower rates are problems as aliasing and other stuff that happens in badly implemented DACs, or poorly coded EQ that create more phasing or aliasing than they should. But problems with dac's are so few today that an entry grade DAC is so effective.

Also, we don't hear in "blocks" or dots as most of the images in the internet show. If you try and understand a bit of the process, the original analogue audio is reconstructed and your ear is not exposed to blocks of audio with degrees, you are exposed to an audio wave generated by a diaphragm (a monitor our some headphones) that pass analogue sound. And what makes that reconstruction possible is the DAC that applies the inverse of the Nyquist–Shannon converting it to a complete analogue reconstructed signal.

The fidelity of your audio is more altered by the way it is captioned, modified by you in the mixing and mastering processes, and the outboard gear you use than from recording it at anything higher than 16 bit 44 kHz and TBH anything higher than 24/96 kHz is dum dum even for pro audio (24bit 96 kHz is useful if you are using effects that don't upsample internally, and they end up limiting audible bandwitch. But that, as I said, is a badly coded effect, because if it needs more bandwidth than the original audio it should upsample).

If you're interested in knowing what I'm talking about, this video sums all what has to be said:

[mcatalao]

PS.:

Most if not all people, can't perceive a 1 db change, or a 0.5 so stressing about 0.05 changes is a bit overkill, specially in the context of a mix (even in the context of a single audio file it's overkill because it fails at so many levels from).

That being said, if you want/need more control over faders, use shift while changing the fader with your mouse and you'll get lower than 0,1 changes on the fader (you also might need to slow down your mouse cursor).

[selig]

A good advice I took home from my visit at https://mixmastering.de is to increase and decrease channel volumes in Steps of 1 / 3 / 6dB and then adjust in between of this ranges in 0.5dB steps.

In the last detail tasks you maybe have to adjust something in the range of 0.2db. But these days I am pretty sure that steps of 0.1dB and less, are only psychological, and can't be heard in the whole Mix and even less after Mastering.

That helped me so much, to not loose to much time on things no one will hear and also to get my self not going crazy on such small decisions.

That's interesting, as it's something I've been doing intuitively ever since we COULD adjust precise levels (the early 1990s for me). I figured learning the "sound" of 1, 3, and 6 dB changes would be good ear training. I'm also in the camp that believes changes of 0.5 dB are the smallest I need to bother with, and in most cases I'm happy to admit I cannot be 100% sure I can hear the difference with 0.5 dB changes.* That being said, I gave Selig Gain 0.1 dB steps from the fader and 0.01 dB steps when typing in values, though you won't see the changes on the edit window (need to fix that, I guess, for the pixel peepers out there!).
All that being said, I learned and watched some world class engineers make amazing records with more "traditional" consoles, meaning faders that do not give you any indication of what level they are adjusting. So I know that fantastic mixes can be made without knowing how much you are changing a level and that's proof enough for me it is not required to make great mixes. I've also talked to fellow engineers that admit since DAWs entered the world they obsess over getting "even" increments on their faders for "visual satisfaction" with nothing to do with whether or not they can hear the changes!
Always good to remember we are visual humans first ("seeing is believing", even when your ears tell you different), and what we see can often outright contradict what we hear. Ever turn a knob to adjust fine level, only to find out later the device itself is bypassed? That is the "bully sense" in action - you are moving the know so you MUST be hearing the change. The more experienced engineers have this happen just as much as the beginners, sometimes even more because they are often working with smaller increments of a dB or so (or apparently even smaller, in some cases).

*When I've done simple tests in the past, I find it difficult to accurately and reliably pick out which audio example is louder/softer (let alone by how much) when differences are smaller than 1 dB, and it is how I determined I don't need 0.01 dB precision for my work. I can only assume everyone who cares about these things have done similar tests to accurately determine what level of "detail" is actually perceptible in their work?

[Billy+]

Use shift to get smaller increments, also make sure your mouse is not causing problems.
Use automation, you can set the default.
Use selig gain.

But like other have said, I'm fairly certain your not going to need to be so precise.

[syncanonymous]

(...)

similar to human hearing of audio resolution, essentially 96KHz

the Reason res used to annoy me; but it does work fine as jumpy as it is

all that said, machines can notice the minute differences. For example, when I process Noise Reduction, there is a noticeable difference between a 16 bit source and a 24 bit source; Acon Restoration Suite algorithms deliver better results on 24 bit files IME

Man you couldn't be more wrong, by default about the eyes and by excess about the ears...
We can perceive frames higher than 50 fps, just get in a room with leds that are prone to fliker at 50 Hz and you can see it. TV's and games are working at the rate of 50 to 100 Hz, using algorithms to fill the gap in 30 fps images so you have have a more fluid experience.

As for audio, there is no proof till now anyone can sense any frequency above 20 Khz (or a smaller than 1 db difference in absolute level). What people perceive at lower rates are problems as aliasing and other stuff that happens in badly implemented DACs, or poorly coded EQ that create more phasing or aliasing than they should. But problems with dac's are so few today that an entry grade DAC is so effective.

Also, we don't hear in "blocks" or dots as most of the images in the internet show. If you try and understand a bit of the process, the original analogue audio is reconstructed and your ear is not exposed to blocks of audio with degrees, you are exposed to an audio wave generated by a diaphragm (a monitor our some headphones) that pass analogue sound. And what makes that reconstruction possible is the DAC that applies the inverse of the Nyquist–Shannon converting it to a complete analogue reconstructed signal.

The fidelity of your audio is more altered by the way it is captioned, modified by you in the mixing and mastering processes, and the outboard gear you use than from recording it at anything higher than 16 bit 44 kHz and TBH anything higher than 24/96 kHz is dum dum even for pro audio (24bit 96 kHz is useful if you are using effects that don't upsample internally, and they end up limiting audible bandwitch. But that, as I said, is a badly coded effect, because if it needs more bandwidth than the original audio it should upsample).

If you're interested in knowing what I'm talking about, this video sums all what has to be said:

I've been meaning to respond for over month...oh well

yes, you are right....I got some numbers wrong....the concept of visual and audio sample rate is still valid, tho...I just got the frame rate and sample rate values wrong based on outdated thinking/ information

That is a great video; very revealing and informative. I have reposted on other forums, so thanks for that. I did not know about the stepped representation and feel empowered with that info, thanks again!

One thing in that video which completely validates my experience in performing NR on human voice spoken recordings is bit depth. When performing NR using Acon Restoration Suite , I find the algorithms are much more effective at 24 bit than at 16 bit. Now I know why. I've been doing this for several years (extensively the past 9 years) and there is a clear improvement at 24 bit. You quoted me specifically on that so I felt it needs to be clarified.

Personally, I've never recorded anything at 96K. My company's films are delivered at 48/16; industry standard for DVD. Highest sample rate I work in is 48KHz, as it is a professional equipment standard; whereas 44.1KHz was originally consumer grade equipment.

As far as the sample rate of the human ear being equivalent to 96KHz; I read that in Sound On Sound back in, like, 2000...Maybe that is wrong; I am happy to reframe.

Also, you said "The fidelity of your audio is more altered by the way it is captioned, modified by you in the mixing and mastering processes"
Captioned? is that a newfangled process I am not privy to as well? or just another typo? ;-P

[mcatalao]

(...)
Captioned? is that a newfangled process I am not privy to as well? or just another typo? ;-P

Yep, typo. I meant captured, as in recorded... I understand captioned is more related to creating captions for a movie.