You are here

MIxing: is it over-rated?

For everything after the recording stage: hardware/software and how you use it.

MIxing: is it over-rated?

Postby Dr Huge Longjohns » Mon Nov 25, 2013 5:16 pm

This is meant to be a deliberately provocative title, but I'm genuinely interested in having the debate.

A friend and I, both keen home recordists (?) were discussing whether all the micro-mixing, etc etc that we constantly read about in interviews and tutorials with modern mix engineers are actually making the music better or more enjoyable? I keep reading SOS features about tracks with 80 instruments to be mixed for a single and the mix engineer spending days tweaking every single one with five or six plugins on each in some cases. Vast numbers of EQ tweaks, compression, effects, tiny automated moves and so on.

And then you see Mike Senior's classic mix reviews where a track that has lasted thirty, forty or fifty years of regular radio play and continuing sales, has been recorded with the minimum of equipment and with a mix that was rattled off in an hour or less.

And the oddest thing of all, to me at least, is that on a station like Radio 2, for example, the brand-new stuff sits perfectly happily alongside the old stuff. So you can hear a Beatles track recorded in 67, an Abba track from 77, and a rap track from 2007 in rapid succession and they all sound great. So why spend so much time and money on micro-mixing?
User avatar
Dr Huge Longjohns
Frequent Poster
Posts: 2257
Joined: Wed Apr 09, 2003 11:00 pm
Location: Gallifrey

A goal without a plan is just a wish


Re: MIxing: is it over-rated?

Postby Hugh Robjohns » Mon Nov 25, 2013 5:28 pm

As technology becomes available people use it, regardless of whether or not it is actually beneficial, often just because it is fashionable, or because they can, or because it alalows them to compensate for deficiencies elsewhere in the process.

Bands used to play together in a room and do retakes until they optimised the performance. Today, people prefer to track individually and use technology to fix performance flaws....

People can now see on their computer screens and fix things that either went unnoticed, or which they were unable to fix in previous decades. The fashion for precise phase alignment of drum mics is an example of fixing something that looks wrong rather than sounding wrong (usually).

Of course, micro-mixing also wasn't possible before the age of the DAW.

It's certainly very clever, but my personal opinion is that I don't think it's necessary or even desirable in most cases, and often some sense of musicality and energy is lost in the process of micro-perfecting perfecting something that might not actually have been that good in the first place. Or perhaps micro-mixing is necessary now because of the perceived need to maximise loudness -- something else that didn't trouble those making music thirty years ago.

H
User avatar
Hugh Robjohns
Moderator
Posts: 16947
Joined: Thu Jul 24, 2003 11:00 pm
Location: Worcestershire, UK

Technical Editor, Sound On Sound


Re: MIxing: is it over-rated?

Postby molecular » Mon Nov 25, 2013 5:43 pm

Well it must genre-specific to a certain extent. I don't know the exact working methods of Mumford and Sons but their songs should be just performed well and mixed with as little faff as possible (IMHO!), and yet they've managed to create something that sounds (IMHO!) bloody awful and is completely over-thought from a technical point of view. But your Pharrell Williams type stuff is very dependent on being highly polished and is built in the studio from the ground up, so sounds great in an appropriate way as a result...
User avatar
molecular
Frequent Poster
Posts: 969
Joined: Sat Dec 13, 2003 12:00 am
Location: The turn off where the main road goes over the river. If you're at the post box you've gone too far.

Anto mo Ninja, Watashi mo Ninja
http://www.hectormacinnes.com


Re: MIxing: is it over-rated?

Postby hollowsun » Mon Nov 25, 2013 6:53 pm

Huge Longjohns wrote:So why spend so much time and money on micro-mixing?
Good question.
User avatar
hollowsun
Frequent Poster
Posts: 2122
Joined: Thu Jan 20, 2005 12:00 am

Re: MIxing: is it over-rated?

Postby shufflebeat » Mon Nov 25, 2013 7:02 pm

molecular wrote:Well it must genre-specific to a certain extent. I don't know the exact working methods of Mumford and Sons but their songs should be just performed well and mixed with as little faff as possible (IMHO!), and yet they've managed to create something that sounds (IMHO!) bloody awful and is completely over-thought from a technical point of view. But your Pharrell Williams type stuff is very dependent on being highly polished and is built in the studio from the ground up, so sounds great in an appropriate way as a result...


Yup.

It's fairly significant that technology fiddling has replaced instrument noodling as well.
shufflebeat
Frequent Poster
Posts: 3353
Joined: Sun Dec 09, 2007 12:00 am
Location: Manchester, UK

I don't know much but I'm happy to share my ignorance with anyone who can use it.


Re: MIxing: is it over-rated?

Postby The Elf » Mon Nov 25, 2013 7:05 pm

I've made hundreds of commercial mixes and not once automated an EQ. TBH if I found myself considering it I'd kick my own backside, go listen to a Simon and Garfunkel album, then come back and print my mix.

The tools we have at our disposal now are very, very liberating, but you don't have to use them for the sake of it.

As for automation - I avoid it like the plague. When I *do* use it I try to confine it to fader moves only. Once you get into automation you can tie yourself in knots and become hopelessly lost - I've seen it happen to others and I never want to go there.

I'm stealing a (mis-)quote, but IMHO I'd say make your mixes sophisticated enough enough to do the job and no more...
User avatar
The Elf
Jedi Poster
Posts: 9970
Joined: Mon Aug 13, 2001 11:00 pm
Location: Sheffield, UK

An Eagle for an Emperor, A Kestrel for a Knave.


Re: MIxing: is it over-rated?

Postby SafeandSound Mastering » Mon Nov 25, 2013 7:10 pm

Huge Longjohns wrote:This is meant to be a deliberately provocative title, but I'm genuinely interested in having the debate.

A friend and I, both keen home recordists (?) were discussing whether all the micro-mixing, etc etc that we constantly read about in interviews and tutorials with modern mix engineers are actually making the music better or more enjoyable? I keep reading SOS features about tracks with 80 instruments to be mixed for a single and the mix engineer spending days tweaking every single one with five or six plugins on each in some cases. Vast numbers of EQ tweaks, compression, effects, tiny automated moves and so on.

And then you see Mike Senior's classic mix reviews where a track that has lasted thirty, forty or fifty years of regular radio play and continuing sales, has been recorded with the minimum of equipment and with a mix that was rattled off in an hour or less.

And the oddest thing of all, to me at least, is that on a station like Radio 2, for example, the brand-new stuff sits perfectly happily alongside the old stuff. So you can hear a Beatles track recorded in 67, an Abba track from 77, and a rap track from 2007 in rapid succession and they all sound great. So why spend so much time and money on micro-mixing?


The reason they sound so great is because the engineer recording did "Micro recording".. the sound was largely nailed in the monitor mix, he was considering the mixing of the track when he or she put mics up.

Further back in time, the days of direct to stereo, something I have done a lot in broadcast the recording was the mix ! I made some shockers when I started but you soon sharpen up cause you don't wanna be cr*p at it for long cause it is embarrassing. Nothing gets you tuning things quick like direct to stereo. Mixing desk familiarity is vital cause the one thing you do not have is time.

Most monitor mixes back then would have been very close to usable, you would have had record and mix engineers who were - shock horror - different people specializing in either discipline and absolutely sh*t hot at it. A good mix is a joint effort, the recording and mix engineer combined.

Now many issues tend to be left later in the process and of course how music is constructed and recorded is rather different and has many more possibilities and workflows.
User avatar
SafeandSound Mastering
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1033
Joined: Sun Mar 23, 2008 12:00 am
Location: London UK

Re: MIxing: is it over-rated?

Postby Richard Graham » Mon Nov 25, 2013 8:35 pm

shufflebeat wrote:
It's fairly significant that technology fiddling has replaced instrument noodling as well.

I'm perfecting the art of doing both. First I noodle, then I fiddle with me noodle!
User avatar
Richard Graham
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1691
Joined: Sun Apr 09, 2006 11:00 pm
"We live in capitalism, its power seems inescapable: but then, so did the divine right of kings. Any human power can be resisted and changed by human beings." - Ursula K. LeGuin

Re: MIxing: is it over-rated?

Postby Richard Graham » Mon Nov 25, 2013 8:47 pm

As someone who has just mixed a recording i made of one of my bands rehearsals a few years ago, I wouldn't be without volume automation: it was essential to make the whole thing sound powerful throughout, because each section needed slightly different levels (3db this way or that makes a lot of difference!) Before I started with the volume automation, I was trying to do a happy medium thing with each track, and the result was that none of the sections other than the one i was currently mixing, sounded right, tempting me to try different EQ and compression settings to compensate... Hopeless. EQ automation? Why not? Roll off the bass from distorted electric guitar until it is completely exposed, then bring it back.
User avatar
Richard Graham
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1691
Joined: Sun Apr 09, 2006 11:00 pm
"We live in capitalism, its power seems inescapable: but then, so did the divine right of kings. Any human power can be resisted and changed by human beings." - Ursula K. LeGuin

Re: MIxing: is it over-rated?

Postby Dr Huge Longjohns » Tue Nov 26, 2013 9:13 am

the sound was largely nailed in the monitor mix, he was considering the mixing of the track when he or she put mics up.


THis was one of the things I was considering when I was composing the OP. But whilst you could argue that engineers/producers took more care getting stuff to tape back then, I'm not sure that lack of care on the way in is always a reason for micro-mixing. I was listening to some old Faces this morning. Some of the sounds are, technically, decidedly iffy by today's standards. Boomy acoustic guitars, scratchy thin snares, boxy toms, strident strings etc etc. But did these impact on my enjoyment of the tracks? Not one jot. The converse of this is, say, a super expensive Nashville production made today. Where every sound is beautifully played, beautifully considered on its way in. Immaculate. Then it's STILL micro-mixed to death. And them micro-mastered using stems FFS!!!
User avatar
Dr Huge Longjohns
Frequent Poster
Posts: 2257
Joined: Wed Apr 09, 2003 11:00 pm
Location: Gallifrey

A goal without a plan is just a wish


Re: MIxing: is it over-rated?

Postby Richie Royale » Tue Nov 26, 2013 9:45 am

I found this quote about getting the right sound before recording, I know this doesn't apply to all recordings, but gives an example of the level some people go to to get the right sound, before any mixing comes into play.

http://www.mansonwiki.com/wiki/Interview:1998/11_Drum!

They started with Fish's Premier kit as a basic setup and began listening to as many drums and cymbals as they could lay their hands on. "We rented every single snare drum in L.A.," Fish remembers. "We went through every rental company - Drum Paradise, Drum Doctors, we brought in snare drums from Matt Sorum from Guns, he has his own collection of drums. We spent three days going through snare drums to find exactly the one perfect drum."


After spending three days testing and tuning drums, experimenting with microphones and heads with Beinhorn and drum tech Rob Coursey, Fish was raring to begin tracking his parts. Then the inevitable happened. "The first day of cutting, I went in and the producer heard a weird sound in the bass drum," Fish says. "None of the mikes had been changed. None of the drums had been changed. I hit it and it sounded the same to me. And he's like, 'I hear a slight overtone and a slight ring.'

"So the tech went in and tried to tune the drum and work on it a little. But the bass drum wasn't cutting it, and they spent ten hours trying to get it to sound the way it did the day before. They totally remiked it, moved it a quarter inch toward the wall. When we did Smells Like Children, we took my tour set that was all beat up from being wrecked all the time - even the front bass drumhead was broken - took the rim off the front head because it was rattling, put a blanket over the front of the drum and then did the whole album in three hours and three days. I listen to it now and I still think it sounds great.

"But back then, I wished that someone would spend the time on my acoustic drums and work with me on my sound. And these guys did it. The only thing that drives me crazy about stuff like that would be when Manson would walk in the room and say, 'What have you done?' 'Oh nothing, we've been spending eight hours trying to get the bass drum to sound good again.' And it's like, 'It's not my fault!' It's just the way it is. We've got to take it slow and get this done. If you start with [ ****** ], you'll end with [ ****** ]. So the drums had to sound amazing."



I expect that the mixing of the album still went to micro levels of tweaking on top of the perfection to get the right sound to start off with.
User avatar
Richie Royale
Jedi Poster
Posts: 4429
Joined: Mon Sep 11, 2006 11:00 pm
Location: Bristol, England.

Re: MIxing: is it over-rated?

Postby Dr Huge Longjohns » Tue Nov 26, 2013 9:52 am

Absurd.
User avatar
Dr Huge Longjohns
Frequent Poster
Posts: 2257
Joined: Wed Apr 09, 2003 11:00 pm
Location: Gallifrey

A goal without a plan is just a wish


Re: MIxing: is it over-rated?

Postby Mixedup » Tue Nov 26, 2013 10:11 am

Some people over-rate it. Some write it off unnecessarily.

1. There seems to be an assumption here that all music is recorded with mics and that all automation is designed to correct mistakes made at this stage. It's not.

2. Remember that some micro-mix stuff is creative, not corrective. Eg automated EQs. I've heard plenty of filter sweeps before they were in the DAW. The old Symetrix noise gate used an automated LPF quite elegantly. Or tweakage of delay or parameters might be done etc.

3. There are plenty of old mixes with tiny level adjustments on lots of channels. They just had to use a lot more hands to do the tweaks in one final pass.

In short... it's not the mixing or the micro mixing — or the lack of it — that makes good or bad tracks. It's why you feel the need/urge to use it and what results you commit to mixdown.

Just the same as you can spot imperfect Photoshop work, but rarely notice the good — unless it's obviously a creative effect.
User avatar
Mixedup
Frequent Poster
Posts: 3937
Joined: Tue Sep 02, 2003 11:00 pm
Location: Laputa

Re: MIxing: is it over-rated?

Postby Sam Inglis » Tue Nov 26, 2013 10:44 am

Huge Longjohns wrote: I was listening to some old Faces this morning. Some of the sounds are, technically, decidedly iffy by today's standards.

When I read your post The Faces was the first band that sprang to mind. Not sure I agree that the engineering is sloppy (it was Glyn Johns after all) but the whole feeling of it is so relaxed by today's standards. It sounds like a band playing together in a room and having a laugh. The tempos are all over the place, there are bum notes and dropped beats, but it's thrilling to listen to in a way that no micro-edited, comped, overdubbed record ever was.
Sam Inglis
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1917
Joined: Fri Dec 15, 2000 12:00 am

Re: MIxing: is it over-rated?

Postby johnny h » Tue Nov 26, 2013 11:06 am

Sam Inglis wrote:
Huge Longjohns wrote: I was listening to some old Faces this morning. Some of the sounds are, technically, decidedly iffy by today's standards.

When I read your post The Faces was the first band that sprang to mind. Not sure I agree that the engineering is sloppy (it was Glyn Johns after all) but the whole feeling of it is so relaxed by today's standards. It sounds like a band playing together in a room and having a laugh. The tempos are all over the place, there are bum notes and dropped beats, but it's thrilling to listen to in a way that no micro-edited, comped, overdubbed record ever was.
That only works if the band can play together! Some musicians these days have become pretty lazy and expect the computer to sort out any deficiencies in their performance. Personally I refuse to use autotune or any crap like that. I just hate the sound of it, and its really not hard for a good singer to sing in tune if they make a bit of effort!
johnny h
Frequent Poster
Posts: 3137
Joined: Sun Jul 23, 2006 11:00 pm

Re: MIxing: is it over-rated?

Postby Dr Huge Longjohns » Tue Nov 26, 2013 11:24 am

I think the general public can generally hear when a singer is badly out of tune. Or at least know that 'something is wrong' with the performance. To me, this is a more legitimate use of technology, to create a performance that just wouldn't make it to the mix without it. Obviously the available technology means this is used a lot more than perhaps it needs to be, to create perfection rather than correct howlers but I actually think that's a bit different than putting sixteen eq notches on an acoustic guitar that's in the background for one verse.
User avatar
Dr Huge Longjohns
Frequent Poster
Posts: 2257
Joined: Wed Apr 09, 2003 11:00 pm
Location: Gallifrey

A goal without a plan is just a wish


Re: MIxing: is it over-rated?

Postby James Perrett » Tue Nov 26, 2013 11:46 am

Mixedup wrote:
3. There are plenty of old mixes with tiny level adjustments on lots of channels. They just had to use a lot more hands to do the tweaks in one final pass.

In the old days, any mixing engineer would know how to ride a vocal level - often making the same micro mixing changes but in a more instinctive and immediate way.

They would also know when to get out the splicing tape and razor blades
James Perrett
Moderator
Posts: 5816
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 11:00 pm
Location: The wilds of Hampshire

JRP Music - Audio Mastering and Restoration.
http://www.jrpmusic.co.uk


Re: MIxing: is it over-rated?

Postby Dr Huge Longjohns » Tue Nov 26, 2013 12:23 pm

in a more instinctive and immediate way


ie in a more musical way
User avatar
Dr Huge Longjohns
Frequent Poster
Posts: 2257
Joined: Wed Apr 09, 2003 11:00 pm
Location: Gallifrey

A goal without a plan is just a wish


Re: MIxing: is it over-rated?

Postby johnny h » Tue Nov 26, 2013 12:43 pm

Huge Longjohns wrote:I think the general public can generally hear when a singer is badly out of tune. Or at least know that 'something is wrong' with the performance. To me, this is a more legitimate use of technology, to create a performance that just wouldn't make it to the mix without it. Obviously the available technology means this is used a lot more than perhaps it needs to be, to create perfection rather than correct howlers but I actually think that's a bit different than putting sixteen eq notches on an acoustic guitar that's in the background for one verse.
No its just laziness on the vocalist's performance. If you can't sing in tune you shouldn't be in the studio, nor if you can't play the guitar properly or hit the drums in time. The blandness of modern productions is that character isn't in the real performances anymore and everything has to be moved, stretched and retuned to sound just about passable.
johnny h
Frequent Poster
Posts: 3137
Joined: Sun Jul 23, 2006 11:00 pm

Re: MIxing: is it over-rated?

Postby Mixedup » Tue Nov 26, 2013 12:55 pm

James Perrett wrote:
Mixedup wrote:
3. There are plenty of old mixes with tiny level adjustments on lots of channels. They just had to use a lot more hands to do the tweaks in one final pass.

In the old days, any mixing engineer would know how to ride a vocal level - often making the same micro mixing changes but in a more instinctive and immediate way.

Yes, that's what I meant. Sometimes on the way in. Sometimes at mixdown. But at the same time as doing a vocal ride at mixdown, you might have an assistant or someone from the band at the other side of the desk ready to 'perform' the essential fader rides or mutes on something else.

James Perrett wrote:They would also know when to get out the splicing tape and razor blades

Yes... although that being a relative PITA to do, there are plenty who only knew when they absolutely *had* to do that... and plenty of 'orrible mistakes that were let through in order not to hold things up. I don't know anyone who wouldn't rather edit in DAW software!
User avatar
Mixedup
Frequent Poster
Posts: 3937
Joined: Tue Sep 02, 2003 11:00 pm
Location: Laputa

Re: MIxing: is it over-rated?

Postby Sam Inglis » Tue Nov 26, 2013 12:55 pm

Re: jonny h, not sure I agree. I think what's changed is perceptions of what is acceptably 'in tune' or 'in time'. By today's standards the Faces or the Stones were often out of tune and out of time. But it didn't matter because they had something that was more important. In the pursuit of precision -- whether by micro-editing and pitch correction, or by endless overdubbing, or playing to click tracks, or whatever -- that something has often been lost in more recent productions.
Sam Inglis
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1917
Joined: Fri Dec 15, 2000 12:00 am

Re: MIxing: is it over-rated?

Postby johnny h » Tue Nov 26, 2013 1:08 pm

Sam Inglis wrote:Re: jonny h, not sure I agree. I think what's changed is perceptions of what is acceptably 'in tune' or 'in time'. By today's standards the Faces or the Stones were often out of tune and out of time. But it didn't matter because they had something that was more important. In the pursuit of precision -- whether by micro-editing and pitch correction, or by endless overdubbing, or playing to click tracks, or whatever -- that something has often been lost in more recent productions.
The pursuit of perfection was still there in the 1970s, but the musicians were the ones who had to practice enough to achieve this. Much of the character is derived from little noises, tonal drifts and shifting of beats (if done well).

A modern drummer has all his beats quantised and drum sounds replaced these days, so what's the point in learning to play with great groove? People are quite lazy by nature and will do just enough to get over the line, and computers make that much easier to achieve. Personally I refuse to install autotune, or work with anyone who won't practice enough to get it right. I'm not a producer of other people's music though, so I have the freedom to choose to work this way.
johnny h
Frequent Poster
Posts: 3137
Joined: Sun Jul 23, 2006 11:00 pm

Re: MIxing: is it over-rated?

Postby Sam Inglis » Tue Nov 26, 2013 1:19 pm

I must say that's not my experience. Of course there will always be lazy musicians, and perhaps the advent of cheap home recording means that lazy musicians get recorded where they previously wouldn't have. However, the better musicians of today have learned to play with remarkably precise pitch and timing, presumably because the benchmarks they're learning from are records that were sequenced, edited, recorded to click tracks and so on. I once recorded a singer who sounded as though she was Auto-Tuned because she'd learned to sing by emulating records with Auto-Tune on them.
Sam Inglis
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1917
Joined: Fri Dec 15, 2000 12:00 am

Re: MIxing: is it over-rated?

Postby Tim Gillett » Tue Nov 26, 2013 1:47 pm

Sam Inglis wrote: I once recorded a singer who sounded as though she was Auto-Tuned because she'd learned to sing by emulating records with Auto-Tune on them.

That made me chuckle...

Tim
Tim Gillett
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1234
Joined: Wed Jan 30, 2013 12:00 am
Location: Perth, Western Australia

Re: MIxing: is it over-rated?

Postby Sam Inglis » Tue Nov 26, 2013 1:50 pm

It gets worse. She was French, and had learned English by listening to the Corrs. So her pronunciation was a truly bizarre French-Irish hybrid.
Sam Inglis
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1917
Joined: Fri Dec 15, 2000 12:00 am

Re: MIxing: is it over-rated?

Postby Jack Ruston » Tue Nov 26, 2013 2:00 pm

I've heard that a lot with young female singers. They tend to mimic the abrupt pitch changes.

J
Jack Ruston
Frequent Poster
Posts: 3478
Joined: Wed Dec 21, 2005 12:00 am

Re: MIxing: is it over-rated?

Postby hollowsun » Tue Nov 26, 2013 2:02 pm

johnny h wrote:If you can't sing in tune you shouldn't be in the studio
Well, that would rule out Bob Dylan, Brian Ferry, David Essex, Steve Harley and many others ...

Which would have been a blessing!
User avatar
hollowsun
Frequent Poster
Posts: 2122
Joined: Thu Jan 20, 2005 12:00 am

Re: MIxing: is it over-rated?

Postby Tim Gillett » Tue Nov 26, 2013 2:02 pm

I'd love to hear her sing and speak. Perhaps for cases like this we need a plugin which makes her sound like she wasnt auto tuned - even though she wasnt auto tuned, if you know what I mean.
Tim Gillett
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1234
Joined: Wed Jan 30, 2013 12:00 am
Location: Perth, Western Australia

Re: MIxing: is it over-rated?

Postby Jack Ruston » Tue Nov 26, 2013 2:19 pm

"Outotune"
Jack Ruston
Frequent Poster
Posts: 3478
Joined: Wed Dec 21, 2005 12:00 am

Re: MIxing: is it over-rated?

Postby fHumble fHingaz » Tue Nov 26, 2013 2:20 pm

Interesting thread...

Through my own recent experiences, I can see a correlation between "micro-mixing" and the (relatively recent) division of labour between tracking and mixing engineers.

Strangely enough, although I started out tracking and mixing my own stuff, I pretty quickly got tasked with mixing songs that had been tracked by other engineers/musicians. I found myself doing a LOT of "micro-mixing" on these projects, in an effort to realise the vision of the artist. In retrospect, it seems clear that a "production disconnect" can quickly develop in this scenario - even more noticeable when it is happening at an "independent/self funded" level, where perhaps those doing the recording are less invested in the project as a whole.

I recently started a project both tracking and mixing an album for a band. It has been an incredible contrast to the "specialist mix engineer" role. The mixes come together very quickly, with little in the way of "micro-mixing" and (thankfully) very few revisions. I find being in the room with the band during tracking instantly puts you right at the heart of the song, so the sound that the final mix needs to have reveals itself unmistakably. Once that sound is in your head, there is much less second guessing on the way to achieving it.

The "older" model of the tracking engineer also taking on the role of the mix engineer has definite advantages in terms of seeing a cohesive vision from inception to completion. As has already been noted, many great tracks were effectively "mix-as-you-go" affairs.

Of course, if a project is tracked and produced by professionals who hand in a highly polished "rough" mix, a mix specialist may of necessity, see micro-mixing as the only real course open to him/her to give their clients value for money.
fHumble fHingaz
Regular
Posts: 132
Joined: Mon Sep 29, 2008 11:00 pm

Next

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: OneWorld and 2 guests