How to equalize patch volumes?

[John Salazar]

I recently got a MODX+ which is great but I find that the patch volumes can vary greatly especially between external libraries and such.  

 

Just wondering what methods you guys use to equalize patch volumes.  Do you go through each one manually and just use your ears, or do you prefer taking the guesswork out of the equation by using a meter of some sort?  I know the MODX specifically has volume meters per part, but a difficulty might be that not all sounds stay at the same uniform volume through the duration played and multiple parts stacked might make it hard to tell where the overall volume should be.  Maybe there are other potential methods as well that I'm missing (besides maybe not giving a care about equalization and making the sound engineer's night a living hell).

[The Real MC]

You can't use peak meters, they will deceive you.

I use good old VU meters.  They are averaging meters and give a more accurate indication of volume.  I don't use my Tascam 246 much anymore but it's the only device I own with VU meters, which have worked very well for leveling patch volumes.

[nursers]

I tend to just use ears and adjust the patch volume accordingly and sav eit to the performance on my MODX

[Anderton]

I use LUFS metering for synth and amp sim presets. That establishes an average baseline level, with the understanding that the level may need to be tweaked by ear, in context.

[mynameisdanno]

I'm usually programming in rehearsals (or on gigs!), and constantly leveling by ear as I go and re-saving patches.

 

It might be instructive to have some VU meters in my live chain just to make sure I'm not clipping.  This is just about the only thing I miss about the various small-format analog mixers I used to submix my rig with vs. the Key Largo I use now.  But generally I think just getting in the neighborhood of equal by ear is fine, and then tweak levels by ear again at a full-band rehearsal or gig when you can hear yourself in ensemble context, re-saving patches as you go.

 

Metering wouldn't be that useful for my approach, as my levels tend to vary a fair bit from song to song depending on the importance of keys to the arrangement.  I don't sandbag FOH at soundcheck, I'll give them the absolute loudest thing to set gains with, and then I'll let them know sometime before the set begins not to worry too much about chasing me around - if I'm quiet, it's probably because I'm supposed to be, and I'll get louder again when I need to be.  When forewarned, they usually seem to appreciate that.

[C.J. Lewis]

This post is exactly what I needed to read, for this issue seems to have alluded me relating to equal-ish volumes from multiple boards and/or virtual instruments.

 

I play in a Journey tribute band, so the variety of patches I send to FOH is quite large.
 

My current rig (that does exceedingly well considering the catalog) is a Kurzweil Forte 7, a KRONOS 6 v2 and various virtual instruments (largely True Pianos, Omnisphere and Roland’s Juno 106).

 

I have the Forte’s sliders set to control volume per zone as follows:

1. Forte 9ft Bright Grand
2. Forte Dyno EP
3. True Pianos
4. KRONOS (ALL)
5. Omnisphere VI
6. Triton VI
7. Juno-106 VI
8. K2600RS (unused right now due to weird MIDI receive issues which may be covered in a future post)

 

Both keyboards (via Mogami TRS-XLRM cables) and all virtual instruments are routed through PreSonus Studio One v6.latest via their Studio 192 interface. Virtually flawless when set up correctly and maintained.

 

One of the challenges I’m running into is that in using “Setlist” mode on the Kronos, every time I change sounds - whether Program or Combi - the volume defaults to whatever the patch was set at, which is generally higher than I want!

I did apply a 0dB limiter on Studio One’s main output bus, but that didn’t seem to make much of (if any) difference to the mixer input.

 

I know that I can simply set the Forte sliders to only send only a % of ‘full’ per zone, thereby getting everything equal output volume from everything…and this seems like the way to go? Anyone have any other thoughts?

[Theo Verelst]

Generally getting patches to sound at equivalent volume is an illusion, even when skipping issues like Equal Loudness Curves and digital sound related mess.

 

How will you play a patch, what's the minimum or required average volume to in a band arrive at sufficient sound levels without having to wreck the keyboard, and, which space are you going to play in, and most of all: what's your P.A. system going to be like, full range, speakers-on-poles, compression and processing in the mixer, limiter at the output, etc.

 

ALl those elements will influence the perceived volume where the audience is and there is strong dependence all over the place. A good way to decide on patch volume equality is a good (full range, neutral sounding) monitoring system used at normal volume, playing the patches as intended. In practice this idea can easily fly out the window in the face of digital harshness taking over almost every other sound aspect, mid frequency max sound level control, and certainly simply sounds being used in a very not-neutral way, such as small speakers projecting too much sound, using all kinds of bass pronouncing sound elements (space resonance instead of a sub) etc.

 

T

[Stokely]

Tough issue.  My band gets a bit frustrated with me and my patches, as do I.  I'm the only one of us that deals with dozens of patches across two items of gear, our guitarist has like 3 sounds.

It's one reason I tend to use the same patches for similar sounds, as I wrote in the "how many patches" thread.  I'm not going to use 10 string patches for 10 songs that need strings, even if "on the record" they are different.  It's more important for me to be volume consistent than it is for me to be patch-accurate.

Also compounding the problem is if, like me, you try to go stereo when you can and mono when you have to.  Some patches dip in volume when going to mono, presumably from phase cancellation.

A problem with using meters or other static method--if the band plays dynamically from song to song.  We won't play "Drift Away" at the same intensity as a driving rock song.  That doesn't mean we crank volumes for those; it means the guitarist has a lighter sound and plays lighter, drummer isn't pounding like a caveman.  So if I play rhodes or strings or organ on a song like that it probably needs to either be a quieter patch (which for an organ might mean pulling back the drawbars) or one where I can use velocity to control volume.   This is where the light keys of my Modx7 do NOT shine, as they don't offer the amount of control that some actions might.

I've started applying some light compression at the board on my keys.  Now, I hate it when sound engineers slap heavy compression or a limiter on my keys--which they will do at the drop of a hat-- and I hear that in my monitor feed (and that's a situation where I try to monitor pre-front of house, but for some of our gigs they expect us to use in-ears--one hands each of us a wireless pack when we reach the stage).   Light compression isn't there to be heard, it's to try to take down the worst offending peaks just a bit.  Talking like 2 or 3:1 ratio and 3-5 db down at max.

What I'm going to do is do some out front recordings using my zoom h2 if I can find it and it still works, buying a similar unit if I can't or it doesn't!    This is not good enough for a demo but it does a good job at letting you know what is popping out of the main speakers and what is getting buried.  My in-ears are very clear but what really counts is out front.

As I say, a tough issue and very important.

I've also had a bit of an issue with purchased MODX libraries being different in volume than my custom patches.  Purgatory Creek rhodes are a bit down compared to my reference patch--which is the CFX main piano I use--and that's a bit of a problem because the part volumes are already maxed  and the live set volume is also at 127.  (I didn't even know until recently that each Live Set slot has a volume setting!)  I either have to go back and turn down all my others or crank up the PC patches internally.  I optioned for the first even though it's more work--I would like to have some headroom and I basically painted myself into a corner   If you are in that situation, what I have done a couple times is go into the Performance/Part(s) and apply something transparent (like an EQ) that essentially serves as a volume boost.   By "reference patch" I mean that the chosen CFX piano is a rough starting point for other Modx patches and my other keyboard.  It is set pretty loud (though as mentioned I did turn it and others down a tad to have some headroom) so certainly nothing should be louder than it is.

[Delaware Dave]

16 hours ago, mynameisdanno said:

I'm usually programming in rehearsals (or on gigs!), and constantly leveling by ear as I go and re-saving patches.

Bingo!

 

When I first got my PC3 the patch volume levels varied.  First thing I did was attempt to level all of them in my studio so that when I switch from patch to patch the volume was consistent.  Then I go to the gig and discover that when you play in a live band with guitars, drums and bass competition in certain tonal frequencies what appeared to be level in my studio isn't leveled live, a guitar might be in the same zone I'm playing in and because of this a certain patch doesn't sound as loud as it did in the studio, or vice versa.  So I readjusted the patch level during the gigs to smooth them out.  Of course now when I come back into the studio those adjusted patches need to be readjusted to be studio volume-leveled. So now I have two versions, studio volume-leveled patches and gig volume-leveled patches and over time I've got them where I'm now happy.  My point is that it isn't a one shot fix, you'll have to tweak the board several times to get the volume leveled to a point that it no longer creates anxiety when patches are switched.  It's a process.

[Anderton]

3 hours ago, Stokely said:

A problem with using meters or other static method--if the band plays dynamically from song to song.  We won't play "Drift Away" at the same intensity as a driving rock song. 

 

Using a static method like measuring with LUFS doesn't solve the problem, but it expedites the solution. If you have a baseline level, then it's easier to nudge levels up and down for live performance (and save the preset at the time for future use).

 

Think of it like the dB. The dB doesn't represent an absolute amount, it's a ratio. But, you need to have a standard against which to measure whether something is + or - a certain number of dB. Similarly, with presets it helps to have a baseline that hits the right level 75% of the time. I can then adjust the remaining 25% accordingly.

[Stokely]

Good info.  I basically do this with my reference patch (piano) but it's highly unscientific, using just my ears  Knowing how loud the piano is sets the other patches, and that "regular rock volume" is nudged down from there for some songs.   Also slightly boosted for solos although as a band we do our best to do this by the other players laying back during a solo. It's mainly guitar vs keys there because we share the mids.

 It's still tricky on those softer songs because the rest of the band is doing the same, using various means that aren't set patches.  (Or if the drummer has patches I don't want to know....)  Even trickier because at most gigs the drum set isn't miked other than kick so I don't have a uniform way to hear drum volume.

And I should also mention that at these smaller gigs with our PA we typically don't have a sound person listening out front, so it's even tougher to ensure a mix for the audience.

[Sean M. H.]

I've struggled with this recently as well...particularly with the rock band.

 

My normal rig is a PC4 on the bottom and a Fantom-0 on top, but sometimes (depending on set length and other factors) I only bring one of the two boards.  I've noticed recently that the Fantom is a lot harder to tame and keep consistent level-wise...

 

I'm not sure there's any shortcuts to be found here, other than meticulously going through, patch by patch and adjusting/re-saving them...and even then, as Dave said, there's no guarantee it will translate to the live gig.

 

Are any of you guys using compression specifically to address this issue?  Specific implementation would vary depending on your setup, but basically having a compressor set up as the last thing in your chain prior to going out to FOH?  Could either be via a hardware compressor or via the master FX on the board(s) itself.  This is not something I've really tried, but I may start experimenting with it.

[Bill H.]

When it comes to my upper board (synth patches) I set levels (and sometimes EQ) on the band's sound system. Synth patches are mostly mine, and I'll often overshoot or undershoot low end here at home or on phones. MIds and highs are sometimes accentuated over compression drivers too.

 

I set it at the patch level, but for me it's never more than two banks of 16. I'm not doing anything complicated. 

[Cabo]

I usually get volumes roughly right in rehearsals.  Then, at a gig, I record the mains using a live mic (I use a Zoom H4n), then make adjustments, and then do it again.  

[EricBarker]

Levels is the keyboardists lifelong uphill battle. There's no magic bullet. Peak Meters are useless, VU Meters are mostly useless, LUFS is slightly closer, but says nothing about how they will fit in the context of the mix. Two different patches may read identical on an LUFS meter, but one will scream through the mix, while they other gets buried by the bass guitar. Is it competing with another instrument on stage, conversely is it sticking out in an otherwise empty frequency range?

Really the only good answer is: Good Monitoring and Use Your Ears. Get a decent sense of the full band's mix + your own sound. Play the music over and over again until you really get a sense of how it all fits. Self Mix as best as you can, and if you have a decent sound guy, let him translate it to FOH (which is inherently different from stage).

The last part is subjective and awful... we play keyboards because we like the sound of keyboards! It's not necessarily ego, but our sonic preference. So it's likely we want them louder in the mix than the guitarist does, who plays guitar because he likes the sound of guitar. Everyone thinks their instrument is the best, it's only natural. Do whatever you need to temper this preference. I'm terrible at it, but it's something to think about. Obviously it greatly depends on the genre. If it's a keyboard-lead band, obviously it makes sense for that to be the focus.

[cphollis]

As others have said, equalizing patch volumes is a process that never ends for me.  I think @ericbarker said it best: good monitoring and use your ears. I prefer to monitor the FOH mix with the keys +3db so I can hear myself, then I do a lot of "listen-adjust-listen-save" during a performance.

 

Thinking I am oh-so-smart to save the program level, it is always misadjusted the next time, but less so

[Stokely]

18 hours ago, Sean M. H. said:

 

Are any of you guys using compression specifically to address this issue?  Specific implementation would vary depending on your setup, but basically having a compressor set up as the last thing in your chain prior to going out to FOH?  Could either be via a hardware compressor or via the master FX on the board(s) itself.  This is not something I've really tried, but I may start experimenting with it.

I mentioned it briefly above I think.  I'm employing some compression on the main mixer (which we use at about say 80% of gigs) on my overall keys feed, which is submixed from two keyboards via a Key Largo.   Talking pretty light stuff, 2 or 3:1 and no more than 3-5db down on the loudest patches.   Not enough to fix a really out of whack patch but maybe enough to tame a few peaks.   Low end can really cause you to hit the threshold so that's another reason I apply a high pass EQ set pretty far down (not that I play in the bass player's domain often anyway!).  Compression of course changes the sound so if it gets to where I can hear it, that's a sign that it's too much (and whatever patch it was that caused the heavier compression should be tweaked.)  I keep an eye on the meters via the mixer app on my ipad to know how much gain reduction is happening.

I also am experimenting a bit with compression on the keyboards themselves.  When I used my Forte live I liked that it had a master compressor, set after and not dependent on patch.  I found it pretty effective and not terrible sounding up to about 9 o clock    On my Modx I'd have to apply it on each performance unless there's a master fx I'm not aware of.  My worry with compression like that would be it's pretty hidden--I might accidentally be squashing things to hell.  It also isn't really addressing the whole problem, which is to help level patches, not compress within a patch.  A quieter patch shouldn't be compressed compared to a louder one. 

I did consider an outboard compressor but the problem for me is that I'm using the Key Largo.  It has balanced outs with DIs built in (one reason I bought it) so if I go out from there to a compressor I'd lose that feature presumably as the compressor will have line outs.   End of the day, I'll use our mixer to try some compression and let the sound companies do what they will for the 10-20% of gigs where we don't supply the PA.

[cphollis]

I use compression extensively for live gigging.  APs and EPs sit better in the mix, organs have more meat and less shrill, symphonic patches don't overwhelm the mix, horn patches sound more natural, and so on.  My weapon of choice is a software multipressor as found in Logic Pro, but a bit of per-program compression will lessen the need for immediate volume adjustments, e.g. you'll get it less wrong more often.

[Stokely]

This also brings up a related idea--reducing some of the dynamics in patches, specifically in how velocity matters.

"Say what?! go back to non-velocity keyboard playing?!!"

Not exactly.  But interestingly I'm finding that my SK Pro non-organ patches are working better in that regard than my Modx ones.  Rhodes, strings, pads.  Not because they sound better--they aren't terrible, but they don't--but because they aren't as dynamic.   Some mono synth patches work much better without velocity at all, no chance of accidentally hitting too loud or soft, and you can control brightness with things like cutoff.

I'm not good enough of a player I guess--and the Modx7 key action doesn't help, being very light and shallow--to avoid playing with big jumps in volume depending on the patch.  What I intend to do is transfer some of those dynamics--which I don't necessarily want to lose--to something like the mod wheel where I can adjust as needed.  Also, maybe adjusting the range if possible.  So that (arbitrarily picking numbers) instead of velocity 40-100 for typical playing, maybe make it where most notes fall 70-90.   Or do the same thing by reducing the impact of velocity on volume in whatever way the program allows.   Within the first day of ownership I changed the velocity curve to help with piano, but the wide range of velocity-to-volume is still there.  In the studio, I'd welcome this (as of course you can easily edit midi notes afterward) but live it can be a problem.

[EricBarker]

For a live setting, for me Compressors are only about tone, not about mix. I'll definitely throw some LA-2A on APs for some nice punchy attack, and they do help a little bit to bring out nuances in a louder mix. However, ONLY do this at the program/patch level, and never put a compressor post master-fader. As I mentioned before, instrument levels are all about being in the right place at the right place. I sometimes shoot up +9 to +12dB during a solo, and GTFO during the verses. Putting a compressor on the master will completely kill your ability to control where you are in the overall mix. Do whatever you want on the individual patch to make it sound good and even it out, that's totally cool. But yeah, NEVER NEVER EVER put a compressor on your master bus, post-fader. I know some may feel otherwise, and maybe it depends upon context, but in an average rock or jazz band, that's a total mix killer. You're likely to get a lot of comments like, "you're too dynamic during the verses" and "where were you during the solo?"... scratch that, no one's that specific, they're gonna just say, "what the hell is wrong with your sound?!"

I don't even think it's a good idea to put a compressor on the master bus pre-fader. I'll often have a synth lead that's designed to be louder than the rest of my sounds because it only comes in during the solo or hook when I'm supposed to be heard.

This brings me to the next workflow idea. There are really 2 approaches to leveling that I can think of. The first is that you set ALL your patches to roughly the same level, then gain up when you need to be heard (like during a solo). The second option is to pre-gain-up your synth leads and all patches that need to cut through more. I do a combination of both.

[mynameisdanno]

5 hours ago, Stokely said:

I did consider an outboard compressor but the problem for me is that I'm using the Key Largo.  It has balanced outs with DIs built in (one reason I bought it) so if I go out from there to a compressor I'd lose that feature presumably as the compressor will have line outs.   End of the day, I'll use our mixer to try some compression and let the sound companies do what they will for the 10-20% of gigs where we don't supply the PA.

 

I've thought about doing this sometimes.  I think the Key Largo's volume pedal send/return basically acts as a stereo insert point just before the main and monitor outs, so you could patch in a stereo compressor (or EQ or whatever) there.  That way you'd keep the Key Largo's output transformers as your last step before FOH, and also your comp/EQ would appear on the monitor outputs of the KL.

 

[Stokely]

Holy cow I didn't even know there WAS a volume pedal send/return on it....and If I would have known, I doubt I'd have ever considered that.

I guess on paper that could work.  For me as I say I get most gigs covered by having compression on the band's mixer.  There's definitely something nice in having it all covered and self-contained.  I don't have the first clue what is out there for relatively inexpensive hardware compression though    And ideally for me it would fit on the same pedalboard as the Key Largo, so something compact and not a rack unit.   Though...I *have* considered using a rack with the KL on a tray, with nice pass-through patch panel for easier connections.  I don't currently use my pedalboard for pedals, it has two headphone amps (one for our Behringer only) and the KL.  So while there's no reason it couldn't go to a rack, there's nothing compelling to make me use one either unless I were to get a rack unit!  

Edit:  hardware compressors are pretty darn expensive, for two channel at least.  

[mynameisdanno]

55 minutes ago, Stokely said:

Holy cow I didn't even know there WAS a volume pedal send/return on it....and If I would have known, I doubt I'd have ever considered that.

I guess on paper that could work.  For me as I say I get most gigs covered by having compression on the band's mixer.  There's definitely something nice in having it all covered and self-contained.  I don't have the first clue what is out there for relatively inexpensive hardware compression though    And ideally for me it would fit on the same pedalboard as the Key Largo, so something compact and not a rack unit.   Though...I *have* considered using a rack with the KL on a tray, with nice pass-through patch panel for easier connections.  I don't currently use my pedalboard for pedals, it has two headphone amps (one for our Behringer only) and the KL.  So while there's no reason it couldn't go to a rack, there's nothing compelling to make me use one either unless I were to get a rack unit!  

Edit:  hardware compressors are pretty darn expensive, for two channel at least.  

 

Yeah, the form factor implications and the cost are the main things that have kept me from seriously considering it.  The cost-benefit ratio doesn't weigh out.  On the gigs where I might care enough to justify the extra cost/schlep, there's generally a FOH engineer that I trust to apply tasteful compression out front.  But my irrational desire to fully utilize gear has always been hunting for a use to put those "volume pedal" jacks to use.  It sure won't be for a master mix volume pedal, LOL... 

[TommyRude]

just catching up.. great thread, super useful.  I think someone mentioned dynamics as an element of all this.  Some things may sound great when you're playing solo or recording, i.e. a very expressive piano / whisper to a scream, but can cause havoc when played in a live band context.  The whisper may get completely lost, and the scream can break the speakers and everyone's eardrums, neither is ideal! 

 

So one solution is to sacrifice some expression for a more consistent volume by adjusting the attack/velo - - and as many have said - all depending on the song and delivering the right parts and the right sounds at the right time at the best volume to support the song.  Not so easy!  But if it was easy... 😁

[Stokely]

It's interesting now that I have an SK Pro with some of the same sounds as my Modx--by default, it's a lot less dynamic.  This isn't necessarily a good thing, and I don't think these "ensemble" sounds are better than the Modx's, but they are simpler to use for sure.   But it does depend on the song.  If I want to play strings on Drift Away, the Sk Pro's strings may come in too strong no matter how lightly I play.  Conversely, a song like Surrender (I play strings on that!) sometimes if I don't really slam the keys on the Modx I drop under the mix.  It's a bit too hard to control on those light keys.

Interesting comments from Eric about compression and solos.  I don't take many (some shows, none) so that hadn't occurred to me.  Our band does try to "make room" especially between keys and guitars but boosting is also part of the equation.   I am employing light compression pre-fader on the main mixer but if I were to raise my volume by the mentioned 10 db it would certainly cause way more compression.  I don't have an easy way to raise volume post-fader.   With that in mind I think going after the velocity dynamics would be better.

[Anderton]

On 1/10/2023 at 8:27 PM, EricBarker said:

LUFS is slightly closer, but says nothing about how they will fit in the context of the mix. Two different patches may read identical on an LUFS meter, but one will scream through the mix, while they other gets buried by the bass guitar. Is it competing with another instrument on stage, conversely is it sticking out in an otherwise empty frequency range?

 

Keyboards are tough because of the extended frequency range. LUFS is meant for program material, so for example, bringing up the bass will create less of a change than boosting ay 4 kHz where the ears are more sensitive. Guitar presets are better-suited to balancing with LUFS, and bass is even better.

 

Maybe the solution for live performance is a box with two footswitches, +2 dB and -2 dB. So, you can call up your LUFS-matched preset, but have an instant tweak. It's like when mastering, I often ask for additional mixes, one with the vocal +1 dB and the other with vocal -1 dB. This helps because mastering can change the apparent balance, depending on how much dynamics processing the artist wants.

 

 

[David Emm]

2 hours ago, Anderton said:

Keyboards are tough because of the extended frequency range. LUFS is meant for program material, so for example, bringing up the bass will create less of a change than boosting ay 4 kHz where the ears are more sensitive. Guitar presets are better-suited to balancing with LUFS, and bass is even better.

 

Maybe the solution for live performance is a box with two footswitches, +2 dB and -2 dB. So, you can call up your LUFS-matched preset, but have an instant tweak. It's like when mastering, I often ask for additional mixes, one with the vocal +1 dB and the other with vocal -1 dB. This helps because mastering can change the apparent balance, depending on how much dynamics processing the artist wants.

 

That's the best explanation of the practical use of a LUFS meter you've posted, to my pointy ears. I've been looking for one because as you say, that BASIC starting point can be mightily helpful. I know when and how to knuckle a resonant peak into place, for example, but I feel pretty sure that a LUFS meter will make my life much easier at mixdown.

[RandyFF]

Excellent thread!  Having so many sound resources brings on these kinds of problems.

 

Am always amazed when the factory presets are not close to being volume equalized, who does the final QC for the finished patches?

 

 

[RandyFF]

2 hours ago, Anderton said:

Maybe the solution for live performance is a box with two footswitches, +2 dB and -2 dB. So, you can call up your LUFS-matched preset, but have an instant tweak.

 

I like Stokely’s idea of mapping volumes to the mod wheel, which would be more controllable than using foot pedals.  But MW, pedal or master volume knob, you’re still trying for a relatively small amount of gain or attenuation, very hard to accurately control.

 

Which is why using a solution like Craig was suggesting, 2db at a time, makes more sense.  But would you have to resort to something like the huge Behringer FCB1010 multi-purpose control pedal?  

 

This is a vexing problem, it’s not inconspicuous to be messing with the volume, esp just as you’re starting to play!

 

[TommyS]

oh yeah,,,,I used to get LOTS of grief from a guitar player about levels... I had many levels  to deal with... he had two: loud and louder.....