This sample library was carefully crafted in our studio using quality industry standard hardware gear and plugins. SSL Console, UAD Audio interface with one of the best converters to retain the quality of the recording or processing, Tube Mastering EQ, M/S Master Processing for stereo imaging and character, Beautiful Plugins well known as hardware emulations. Using quality connections, converters, passion, musicians and talented artists to craft all this beautiful ready to use sound pack.

Back in 1933, two researchers at Bell Labs, Harvey Fletcher and W.A. Munson, conducted one of the most significant experiments in psychoacoustics. Their experiment was based on a serious of tests taken by a group of listeners. Each test involved playing a test frequency followed by a reference tone of 1 kHz. The listener simply had to choose which of the two was louder. Successive tests involved either a different test frequency, or different levels. Essentially, what Fletcher and Munson tried to conclude is how louder or softer different frequencies had to be in order to be perceived as loud as 1 kHz. They compiled their results and charted a graph known as the Fletcher?Munson Curves. A chart based on the original Fletcher?Munson study is shown in Figure 2.1. I dare to present it upside-down, as it promotes similarity to the familiar frequency-response graphs like those we see on some equalizers. A similar experiment was conducted after two decades by Robinson and Dadson (resulting in the Robinson?Dadson Counters), and today we use the ISO 226 standard (which was last revised only a few years ago). The formal name for the outcome of these studies is termed equal-loudness counters. Each curve in Figure 2.1 is known as a phon curve, and is titled based on the level of the 1kHz reference. To give one example how this graph is read, we can follow the 20-phon curve to see that if 1 kHz is played at 20 dBSPL, 100 Hz would need to be played at 50 dBSPL in order to appear equally loud (a 30 dB difference, which is by no means marginal). The graph also teaches us that our frequency perception has a bump around 3.5 kHz ? a fact contributed to the resonance frequency of our ear canal. Some claim that it is not by chance that within this bump falls the center frequency of a baby?s cry.

Beginnings can be hard when learning something new ? most guitar players experienced some frustration before they could change chords quickly enough or produce a clean sound. It is not fun to work on a single verse for a whole day and still be unhappy with the mix at the end. As experience accumulates, it takes less time to choose tools and utilize them to achieve the desired sound. Also, our mixing visions become sharper and we can crystallize them quickly. Altogether, each task takes less time, which leaves more time to elevate the mix or experiment. Needless to say, the ability to work fast is essential for hired mixing engineers, who work under busy schedules and strict deadlines.

Watching other people mix is another way to learn mixing. Many young people choose to work in a studio so they can learn from the experienced. Listening to others while they craft their mix is great, but it comes with two cautions. First, it is impossible to enter people?s minds ? while watching them mixing it might be possible to understand what they are doing, but not why they do it. Mixing vision and experience are non- transferable. Second, if we take into account the tricks and tips already published, what is left to learn from these experienced people is mostly their own unique techniques rather than mixing as a whole. True, learning the secret techniques of top-of-the-line mixing engineers is great, but only if these are used in the right context later. There is some belief that the greatest mixing engineers craft amazing mixes because of secret techniques. In practice, these amazing mixes are the outcome of extensive understanding of, and experience in basic techniques. Most of the individual?s secret techniques often only add some degree of polish and a distinguished sonic stamp.

This is the only hands-on, active approach. Without a shadow of a doubt, the best way to learn mixing is simply by doing it. Most of the critical skills and qualities of a great mixing engineer can all be acquired through the practice mixing. While mixing we learn to evaluate sounds and devices, use our equipment in the best way, work faster and articulate our mixing vision quicker. Combined with good theoretical background there is very little to stop anyone from becoming a constantly improving mixing engineer. There is a direct link between mixing-miles and the final quality of the mix. By and large, mixing is the best way to learn mixing.

Mixing analysis is great, but it is impractical to learn hundreds of mixes thoroughly, or carry them around just in case we want to refer to them. It is better to focus on a few selected mixes, learn them inside out, analyze them to the smallest detail of every mixing aspect and have them readily accessible when needed.Some mixing engineers carry a CD compilation with a few reference tracks (mostly their own past mixes) and upon the occasion refer to them. The novice might refer to his reference tracks on a more frequent basis. MP3 players are also used, often with the music stored in a lossless format. When mixing at home or in ones? studio, some have a specific folder on the hard drive with selected mixes.

The production process of sequenced music (Figure 4.2) is very different in nature to that of recorded music. In a way, it is a mishmash between songwriting, arranging and mixing ? altogether regarded as producing. This affects mixing in two principal ways. First, today?s DAWs, on which most sequenced music is produced, make it easy to mix as-you-go. The mix is an integral part of the project file, unlike a console mix which is stored separately from the multitrack. Second, producers commonly select samples or new sounds while the mix is playing along; unconsciously, they choose sounds based on how well they fit into the existing mix. A specific bass preset might be dismissed if it lacks definition in the mix, and a lead synth might be chosen based on the reverb that comes along with it. Some harmonies and melodies might be transposed so they blend better into the mix. The overall outcome of this is that sequenced music arrives to the mixing stage partly mixed. Production Mixing Mastering Figure 4.2 Common production chain for sequenced music. As natural and positive this practice may seem, it promotes a few mixing problems which are typical to sequenced music. First, synthesizer manufacturer and sample-library pub- lishers often add reverb (or delay) to presets in order to make them sound bigger. These reverbs are ironclad into the multitrack submission and have restricted depth, stereo image and frequency spectrum that might not integrate well with the mix. Generally speaking, dry synthesized sounds and mono samples give more possibilities during mix- down. Second, producers sometimes get attached to a specific mixing treatment they have applied, like the limiting of a snare drum, and leave these treatments intact. Very often the processing is done using inferior plugins, in a relatively short time, and with very little attention to how the processing affects the overall mix. Flat dynamics due to over-compression or ear-piercing highs are just two issues that might have to be rectified during the separate mixing stage. Sequenced music often arrives to the mixing stage partly mixed ? a fact which many times incur a threat rather than an opportunity.

Mixing analysis is great, but it is impractical to learn hundreds of mixes thoroughly, or carry them around just in case we want to refer to them. It is better to focus on a few selected mixes, learn them inside out, analyze them to the smallest detail of every mixing aspect and have them readily accessible when needed.Some mixing engineers carry a CD compilation with a few reference tracks (mostly their own past mixes) and upon the occasion refer to them. The novice might refer to his reference tracks on a more frequent basis. MP3 players are also used, often with the music stored in a lossless format. When mixing at home or in ones? studio, some have a specific folder on the hard drive with selected mixes.

The arrangement (or instrumentation) largely determines which instruments play, when and how. Mixing-wise, the most relevant factor of the arrangement is its density. A sparse arrangement (Figure 4.3a) will call for a mix that fills various gaps in the frequency, stereo and time domains. An example for this would be an arrangement based solely on an acoustic guitar and one vocal track. The mixing engineer?s role in such a case is to create something out of very little. On the other extreme is a busy arrangement (Figure 4.3b), where the challenge is to create a space in the mix for each instrument. It is harder to protrude a specific instrument, or emphasize fine details in a busy mix. Technically speaking, masking is the cause.

Do individual elements constitute the mix, or does the mix consist of individual elements? Those who believe that individual elements constitute the mix might give more attention to how the individual elements sound, but those who think that the mix consist of individual elements would care about how the sound of individual elements contribute to the overall mix. It is worth remembering that the mix ? as a whole ? is the final product. This is not to say that the sound of individual elements is not important, but the overall mix has a priority. A few examples would be appropriate here. It is extremely common to apply a high-pass fil- ter on vocals in order to remove muddiness and increase their definition. This type of treat- ment, which is done to various degrees, can sometimes make the vocals sound utterly unnatural, especially when soloed. However, this unnatural sound often works extremely well in mix context. Another example: Vocals can be compressed while soloed, but the compression can only be perfected when the rest of the mix is playing as well ? level varia- tions might become more noticeable with the mix as a reference. Overheads compression should also be evaluated against the general dynamics and intensity of the mix. It even goes into the realm of psychoacoustics ? our brain can separate one sound from a group of sounds. So for example, while equalizing a kick we can isolate it from the rest of the mix in our heads. However, we can just as well listen to the whole mix while equalizing a kick, and by that improving the likelihood of the kick sounding better in mix context. This might seem a bit abstract and unnatural ? while we manipulate something we seek to clearly hear the effect. The temptation to focus on the manipulated element always exists, but there?s a benefit in listening to how the manipulation affects the mix as a whole.

There is a difference between mixing in a commercial studio and mixing at home. Studio engineers are normally restricted by deadlines. But there is very little to restrict the home producer from mixing one production for a whole month, especially if the production is to become a decisive demo for a record label. The question is: what can be done in a month that cannot be done it two weeks? The answer is: a lot. Many engineers agree that mixing is an endless process ? there is always something to improve, always a chance to spell more excitement or impact. Many say that it is all about jumping from the carousel at the right moment. It is also important to remember that unlike the veteran, the novice is walking the path of a long and intense learning journey ? while the veteran is fluent with his equipment and mixing environment, the novice has an enormous amount of knowledge to acquire. The veteran may choose and compress lead vocals in a matter of seconds (having done so for years on a daily basis). The novice might have to spend time going through different compressors, trying them in isolation, then with the mix, perhaps while also checking the manual. But there is some magic in being a novice. If you remember the first time you managed to whistle, you might acknowledge that succeeding in learning can give great satisfaction. How satisfied are you today from whistling? Discovering mixing and constantly coming up with better mixes can give the novice great satisfaction. For the veteran, mixing is an occupation ? a daily job that might involve projects he is not fond of, busy schedules and annoying clients. But the beauty of mixing is that every project differs from its 44 Related issues 45 predecessors, and a veteran would lie saying that there is nothing to learn, even after 30 years of mixing. In fact, even after 30 years there is still a lot to learn. Some people might question how professional engineers can spend 8 hours a day mixing. Most of them do not ? the music industry is so demanding that it is very common for a mixing engineer to be working the excess of 12, 15, sometimes even 18 hours a day. This might seem inconceivable for beginners who after just a few hours can find themselves ?unable to hear anything anymore?. Ear-fatigue is usually the first cause for this state, but even when monitoring levels are kept low, the brain can simply get tired after a long period of active and attentive listening. Luckily, with time our brain is exercised to handle longer mixing periods, and an 18-hour mixing sessions are (relatively) easily handled.

Sometimes the process of mixing can be so enjoyable that time flies by and we feel no need taking breaks, but it is hard to imagine a continuous 8-hour mixing session being effective. Mixing is a brain- and ear-demanding process that requires attentive listening, which can be hard to retain for long periods without breaks. Breaks help us forgetting recent mixing actions and by that provide an opportunity to move the mix forward. After a break there is also an opportunity to bring down the monitoring level in case it was brought up earlier ? doing so after a break seems somewhat easier than bringing the level down in the middle of the process. Probably the most important break, for the novice anyway, is the critical break ? a day or two without listening to the mix after completing it. Having such a long break can clear our mind from individual treatments we have applied and neutralize our brain. This way, the next time we listen to the mix we do so without any sonic prejudice.

Solo buttons let us listen in isolation to specific tracks. The solo function can very easily be misused, especially by the novice who might spend too much time mixing isolated tracks. We have already established that the mix is a composite and how it can be beneficial to adapt a mix-perspective approach. Using solos results in exactly the opposite since it promotes element-perspective approach. No doubt, soloing a track makes changes easier to discern, but there is also no doubt that it can lead to a treatment that is out of mix context. One of the problems in using solos is that we lose a reference to the mix. An example already given would be compressing vocals when soloed ? they might sound balanced in isolation, but not appear so with the rest of the mix. When soloed, nothing acts as a reference to the loudness of the vocals. Soloing additional tracks, say the acoustic guitar, can give such reference. But as other instruments might affect the perceived loudness of the vocals, only compressing them with the rest of the mix ensures solid compression. 46 Mixing Audio On the same basis, panning or depth positioning is pointless unless done in respect to the rest of the mix. There are situations where using solos is very sensible, like when trying to filter out the buzz from a guitar track. Also, sometimes it is hard to focus on a very specific component of the sound with the whole mix playing along, e.g., the resonance frequency of a snare. While it can be useful to look for such frequency while the snare is soloed, it could be pointless keeping the solo once the frequency has been found. Nonetheless, solos should be used, without any assertions, whenever we manipulate sounds with relation to themselves. For example, while applying EQ automation on vocals in order to balance out frequency changes caused by the proximity effect. Solos should be used with caution since they promote an element-perspective approach.

Mastering engineers have more roles than meets the eye. When assembling an album together, they remove extraneous sounds, arrange the tracks in the most compelling order, create smooth fades and natural pauses, and they balance both the frequency spectrum and the level of the various tracks so the album sounds like a coherent piece rather than a collection of unrelated songs. Once a master is completed and approved by the client, they produce a high-quality copy that complies with the requirements of manufacturing plants. Perhaps, their most important role is to bring the sonic aspects of an album to the highest, most appealing state. If the mixes are good, they can make diamonds out of gold. The individual pieces of equipment used in a professional mastering studio usually cost more compared to those found in mixing facilities, and the listening environment is optimized to rectify any possible problems, mostly acoustic ones. It is common, for example, to find mastering studios with nothing that could cause combfiltering (including a desk) between the full- range monitors and the listening position. Theoretically, mastering engineers might have to amend the mixes very little if the mixing engineer did the job right. But rarely mixing engineers have the environment or tools to achieve the critical quality that mastering engineers can. It should be clear why mastering is so significant ? once the finished master leaves the mastering studio, any imperfections will be heard by many and will potentially damage commercial success, sales and most importantly ? the joy of listening. Simply put, mastering is an art and science reserved for the experts. Some mixing engineers are tempted to submit mixes that have some stereo treatment, mostly compression. But common sense has it that whatever a mixing engineer can do on a stereo mix, a mastering engineer can do better. Why would you try to fix your company?s car, if your company will pay a professional mechanic to do so for you? Mastering engineers charge a fair amount of money for their valuable job. In cases where such expenditure is not justified (e.g., non-commercial project), a DIY approach can be taken. This mostly involves the utilization of a limiter or a propriety loudness maximizer, a high-quality equalizer and perhaps a sonic enhancer. These tools are used in the mastering process very similarly ? yet very differently ? to how they are used in mixing.

The mood objective is concerned with reflecting the emotional context of the music in the mix. Much of the creative aspects of mixing establish themselves through this core objective. It is what makes a difference between a good mix and a good-congruous mix. Heavy compression, aggressive equalization, dirty distortion and a loud punchy snare are very likely to defeat any emotional content of a mellow jazz song. Likewise, sweet reverberant vocals, sympathetic drum mix and quiet guitars will destroy an angry heavy- metal song. Mixing engineers that only specialize in one genre can find the task of mixing a different genre as hard as eating a soup with a fork ? they might try to apply their techniques and very familiar sonic vision to a mix with very different needs. Balance We normally seek for balance in three domains ? frequency balance, stereo image balance and level balance (relative and absolute as soon explained). For example, a shortfall off high-mids can make a mix sound muddy, blurry and distant. With regards to depth, we usually seek for coherency, not balance. An in-your-face kick with an in-your-neighbor?s- house snare would create a very distorted depth image for drums. There are usually two things we trade balance with ? a creative effect and interest. For example, in a few sections of the Delgados? The Past That Suits You Best, Dave Fridmann chose to pan the drums and vocal to one channel only, creating an imbalanced stereo image but an engaging effect. An interest imbalanced is mostly momentary ? rolling off some low frequencies during the break section of a dance tune is one of many examples. Definition Primarily, definition stands for how distinct and recognizable sounds are. Mostly we associate definition with instruments, but we can also talk about the definition of a reverb. Not every mix element requires high degree of definition. In fact, some mix elements are intentionally hidden, like a low-frequency pad that fills a missing frequency range, but does not play any important musical role. A subset of definition also deals with how well each instrument is presented in relation to its timbre ? can you hear the plucking on the double bass, or is it pure low energy? Interest On an exceptionally cold evening, late in 1806, a certain young man sat at the Theatre an der Wien in Vienna, awaiting the premier of Beethoven?s violin concerto in D major. Shortly after the concert begun, a set of four dissonant D-sharps were played by the first violin section and an answering phrase came from the orchestra. This affair repeated itself once again; only this time it was the second violin section, also accompanied by the violas, playing the same D-sharps. This later occurrence appeared to shift to the center of the orchestra and had a slightly different tonality. ?Interesting!? thought to himself the young man. We have already established that our ears settle-in very quickly to sounds, and unless there are some changes, we can get bored and lose interest. The verse-chorus-verse structure, double-tracking, arrangement changes and many other production techniques all result in variations that draw the attention of the listener. It is important to understand that even subtle changes give a sense of development, of something happening, even though most listeners are unconscious of that. Even when played in the background, some types of music can distract our attention ? most people would find it easier study- ing for an exam with classical music playing along rather than, say, death metal. Part of mixing is concerned with accommodating inherent interest in productions. For exam- ple, we might apply automation to adapt to a new instrument introduced during the chorus. A mix has to accommodate and enforce inherent interest in productions.

What is a good relative level balance is worth discussing. Some mixing engineers are experienced enough to create a mix where all the instruments sound as loud. But only a few, mostly sparse mixes might benefit from such an approach. All other mixes usually call for some variety of relative levels. In fact, trying to make everything as loud is often a self-defeating habit that novice engineers adopt ? it can be both impractical and terribly inappropriate. It is worth remembering that the relative level balance of a mastered mix is likely to be tighter ? raw mixes usually have greater relative levels variety. Setting relative balance between the various instruments is usually determined by their importance. For example, the kick in a dance track is more important than any pads. Vocals are usually the most important instrument in rock and pop music (a very common question is: ?is there anything louder than the vocals??). Maintaining sensible relative levels usually involves gain-rides. As our song progresses, the importance of various instruments might change; like in the case of a lead guitar which is made louder during the solo section.

If we consider a dance track, for example, the level of the kick is tightly related to how well the music might affect us ? a quiet kick will fail to move people in a club. If a loud piano competes with the vocals in a jazz song, we might overlook the emotional message of the lyrics or the beauty of the melody. We should always ask ourselves what is the emotional function of each instrument and how can it enhance or damage the mood of a song, then set the levels respectively. But in mixing there are always alternative ways ? not always the first thing that comes to mind is the best one. For example, a novice way to create power and aggression in a mix is to have very loud, distorted guitars. But the same degree of power and aggression can be achieved using other strategies, which will enable to bring down the level of the masking guitars, and create a better mix altogether. Definition and levels are linked, where the louder an instrument is the more defined it is. However, an instrument with frequency deficiencies might not benefit from a level boost ? it might still be undefined, just louder. We should also remember that bringing up the level of a specific instrument can cause the loss of definition to another.

There are a few people to whom the realization that a mix involves a front?back perspective came as a surprise. Various mixing tools, notably reverbs, let us to create a sense of depth in our mix ? a vital extension to our sound stage, and our ability to position instruments within it. One magical thing about depth in a mix is that some spatial cue is still preserved even when we listen at random points across the room. DVD This track involves three instruments in a spatial arrangement. The lead is dry and foremost, the congas are positioned behind it, and the flute-like synth is placed way at the back. The depth perception in this track should be maintained whether listening on the central plan between the speakers, at random points in the room, or even outside the door. This track involves the previous arrangement, only this time excluding mix elements that contributed to depth perception. All depth considerations are relative. We never talk about how many meters away ? we talk about in front or behind another instrument. The depth axis of our mix starts with the closest sound and ends at the farthest sound. A mix where instruments are very close can be considered tight, and a mix that has an extended depth can be considered spacious. This is used to reflect the mood of the musical piece.

What is a good relative level balance is worth discussing. Some mixing engineers are experienced enough to create a mix where all the instruments sound as loud. But only a few, mostly sparse mixes might benefit from such an approach. All other mixes usually call for some variety of relative levels. In fact, trying to make everything as loud is often a self-defeating habit that novice engineers adopt ? it can be both impractical and terribly inappropriate. It is worth remembering that the relative level balance of a mastered mix is likely to be tighter ? raw mixes usually have greater relative levels variety. Setting relative balance between the various instruments is usually determined by their importance. For example, the kick in a dance track is more important than any pads. Vocals are usually the most important instrument in rock and pop music (a very common question is: ?is there anything louder than the vocals??). Maintaining sensible relative levels usually involves gain-rides. As our song progresses, the importance of various instruments might change; like in the case of a lead guitar which is made louder during the solo section.

You can?t just add a load of 100Hz and expect your bass to sound rich ? the key is to get each area balanced with every other, so that all the instruments complement each other, and don?t fight. This may even mean cutting out some frequencies to stop them clashing with other instruments ? you can probably lose everything below 1kHz on a hi-hat mic, for example. Balancing the mids ? roughly 200 Hz to 2 kHz ? is particularly important, since the 2K area is the most sensitive region of the ear, and getting the mid-range right is essential for things to sound warm, natural and real. Some crucial EQ bands and what they sound like 50-60 Hz Thump in a kick drum Boom in a bassline Essential in dub, dubstep and reggae ! Too much and you?ll have flapping speakers and a flabby mix Too little, and the mix will never have enough weight or depth 100-200 Hz This EQ band adds punch in a snare Gives richness or ?bloom? to almost anything Too much makes things boomy or woolly Too little sounds thin and cold 200-500 Hz Crucial for warmth and weight in guitars, piano and vocals Too much makes things sound muddy or congested Too little makes them thin and weak 500-1000 Hz One of the trickiest areas Gives body and tone to many instruments Too much sounds hollow, nasal or honky Too little sounds thin and harsh 2 kHz Gives edge and bite to guitars and vocals Adds aggression and clarity Too much is painful! Too little will sound soft or muted 5-10 kHz Adds clarity, open-ness and life Important for the top end of drums, especially snare Too much sounds gritty or scratchy Too little will lack presence and energy 16 kHz Can add air, space or sparkle Almost too high to hear Too much will sound artificial, hyped or fizzy Too little will sound dull and stifled

World-class mixing engineers might charge for a single album twice as the yearly minimum wage in their country. Some mixing engineers also ask for points ? a percentage from album sale revenue. Across both sides of the Atlantic, a mixing engineer can make a yearly figure of 6 digits. These people are not being paid for nothing ? the amount of knowledge, experience and talent they have is immense. Record labels reward them for that, and in exchange see higher sales. Being a separate stage in the production chain, it is clear why mixing might be done by a specialized person. Yet, mixing is such a huge area that there is no wonder why some people choose to devote themselves solely for it ? the amount of knowledge and practice required to make a great mixing engineer is enough to fill a whole life span.

It might be hard to get the feel of the mix at the very early stages. To be sure, it is impossible to write a plan that includes each and every step that should be performed. Moreover, such a detailed plan can limit creativity and chance, which are important aspects of mixing. Therefore, instead of one big plan it can be easier to work using small plans ? whenever a small plan is finished, a new evaluation of the mix takes place and a new plan is established. Here is a real-life example of a partial task list from a late mixing stage: ? Kick sounds flat ? Snare too far during the chorus ? replace with triggers (chorus only) ? Stereo imbalance for the pads ? amend panning ? The "Drop" is not impressive enough ? Automate snare reverbs Not all mixing engineers approach mixing with a detailed plan, some do it unknowingly in their heads. Yet, there is always some methodology, some procedure being followed. Mixing is rarely an affair of ?whatever seems right next?. Have a plan, and make sure to identify what?s important.

Levels and balance What is a good relative level balance is worth discussing. Some mixing engineers are experienced enough to create a mix where all the instruments sound as loud. But only a few, mostly sparse mixes might benefit from such an approach. All other mixes usually call for some variety of relative levels. In fact, trying to make everything as loud is often a self-defeating habit that novice engineers adopt ? it can be both impractical and terribly inappropriate. It is worth remembering that the relative level balance of a mastered mix is likely to be tighter ? raw mixes usually have greater relative levels variety. Setting relative balance between the various instruments is usually determined by their importance. For example, the kick in a dance track is more important than any pads. Vocals are usually the most important instrument in rock and pop music (a very common question is: ?is there anything louder than the vocals??). Maintaining sensible relative levels usually involves gain-rides. As our song progresses, the importance of various instruments might change; like in the case of a lead guitar which is made louder during the solo section.