Gain Staging in DAW's

I haven't read your article Jeff, but to me there is no need to worry about the real world and real world meters if you are staying in the box...I have a simple formula for using and setting the meters in Sonar, and it seems to work. This is all tracks start roughly at -18rms then as the mix takes shape, the tracks which need to be at the front of the mix are lifted closer to 0db rms. Final master Lufs the new standard is always within range, as is the K14meters...this is 0 to +4.
 
From my research, and apparently I am a qualified researcher (hmm Wednesday next week lol), the issue seems to be we have been misunderstanding the medium of both analogue and digital. Neither of which are perfect in regards to being a storage and transmission medium, both have desirable aesthetics. This is one the of dichotomies of the avant-gardes'...they introduce new materials and mediums into the art cannon, but reject the formalist art tradition, which means we don't have a great understanding of the digitized medium. :)
 
The real problem is, and the only reason why you would need to do all the real world calibrations, is if you are going in and out of the box all the time. Something that I now believe is a big no no! Proper gain staging in the box is still paramount, but the digitized medium requires a different mind set to the one originally taught in the early noughties. This is particularly true if you are using the analogue emulation aesthetic. Not so much, if you're using the digitzed medium as a storage only medium ;). What I think analogue audio engineers need to understand is, if they're going to be making an analogue product...then the signal chain has to be quality from tracking to storage to distribution. Whereas if you're making a digital product, then the signal chain has to be lacking character as much as possible. This allows the digital engineer to put the flavour back in as he or she sees fit. What we need to start to do is, separate the sonik creations into digital and analogue...much like a painting...I'm painting an analogue sonik work or I'm painting a digital sonik work. I've actually written a paper for an academic journal (waiting for the outcome) on the topic of the ethereal material of sound, so it might sound funny to use the term 'paint', but sound is a material albeit an etheareal one, and one that can be painted or sculptured. This will be even more apparent when and if augmented reality become the defacto input device for our computers...think about it virtual gloves will allow us to shape sound in our hands and there is even tech coming which will allow us to feel this sound as we shape it in our hands.
 
Ben

I feel there are some differences in regards to gain staging in the digital world but there are also some concepts that carry over rather well from our previous eras. Using VU meters to keep an eye on rms levels is one of them.
 
The type of calibration I am referring to is the type staying all ITB but just making sure all your VU meters agree on the chosen reference.  
 
Going In and OUT of the box to external gear also requires a different form of calibration where a certain ref level will equal an actual AC voltage present at the outputs from your interface.  The interface itself determines what these voltages will be.  But important though.  If you are wanting +4 dBu to leave your interface, you need to know what ref level you have to be at in order to achieve it.
 
 

I prefer to keep the calibration levels constant in all areas. At -20 for example it is easy to track your tracks there. It is also easy to send multiple tracks to a buss but each track will be at some point a bit below unity often. The buss level can also be at -20. Multiple buses can also often be sent to the final mix and for me that ends up at -20 as well.  This keeps the headroom consistent all the way through.  Another reason is if you have hardware VU meters for example if you monitor a track it is just hitting 0 dB VU nicely.  If I monitor a buss the VU will also be just reaching 0 dB VU and when checking a whole mix the VU's will also be hitting 0 dB VU.  Nice consistency for the VU meter too in all these parts of your production.
 
Another good reason for consistent ref levels in your key production points, is for SPL levels too. If you tie your ref level to a specific monitoring SPL level, e.g. 85 dB SPL then when monitoring tracks, buses or the final mix,  you will be hearing each of these at the same SPL level. The tracks sound a little louder at the same ref level but as you are wanting to listen in a little deeper with them it is not a bad thing. Buses are starting to contain a few tracks so the more stuff in there, the slightly lower it may seem in volume. The mix has got everything so when it is producing 85 dB SPL, it all seems at a slightly lower level again in SPL's.  The mix ends up brought back so it is easy to listen to.  All that is going on here is that as you monitor areas with more music present, the SPL levels are being maintained at these points.  It all starts make sense.
 
But no harm in using different calibration levels either. The VU's planted there would need to be re-calibrated.  Not so good for the hardware VU's in my case.  (that prefer to remain on a single cal level at least) The ref level that reduces the headroom will set that headroom from there on. You could work at progressively louder rms levels though from one stage to the other. e.g. tracks at -20, buses at -14 and the final mix at -12. When you mix into something like Waves CLA for example, it is somewhere between a pre mastered mix and a fully mastered mix.  Great for sitting things up at -12 or even up to -10 dB rms.  It is quite good to mix into something like CLA for example. You could print two versions of the mix, one with and the other without CLA.
 
For an album it is good to mix each track to the same rms level. They will then be in good position for mastering.