Will Thomas – 04230760 04/05/2012

“Mixing with a mouse?”

An Investigation into the working practices of the modern mixing engineer

by Will Thomas - 04230760

Introduction

With an increasing number of producers admitting to using software as a

preferable option to using hardware whilst mixing, the question that begs to be

answered is that Is hardware i.e. a mixing console, needed in order to mix to a

professional standard within the studio environment? Mark V states:

Big producers have jumped on board with using software such as Reason. DJ

Khalil, who has produced for Jay Z and 50 Cent, uses Reason, and in the link

provided, he talks about how software has changed his whole beat making

process.

(2008)

For the purpose of this investigation it was decided that audio stems would be

taken and one mix (without mastering as this would defeat the purpose of the

investigation) would be completed using software, whilst one mix would be

completed using hardware. The software in this case would the DAW Logic 9,

whilst the hardware would be the Audient ASP 8024 mixing console.

Throughout this investigation we would explore the limitations of both mixing

methods and discuss the advantages and disadvantages of each.

Will Thomas – 04230760 04/05/2012

In addition to investigating this dilemma first, a questionnaire was handed out to

amateur recording enthusiasts (see Appendix A) to gain their opinions on the

subject.

Aims & Objectives

Below are the stated aims and objectives that hope to be achieved from this

investigation.

Compare a Hardware vs Software Mix

Discuss the working practices and psychology behind the techniques used

for each process

Experimental Procedure

Firstly, audio stems had to be obtained and the song chosen was End of Time by

Beyonce. This song contains 13 individual mono stems with a wide range of

instruments used (the appropriate stems were converted into stereo for the

hardware mix giving a total of 24 tracks). Such a diverse range would allow the

opportunity to apply a variety different mixing methods to the stems.

Prior to mixing, it was decided that on mixing on software that the DAW would

not be treated with the same limitations that would apply to a studio using

primarily hardware i.e. unlimited effects units could be used as long as the

system could handle it.

Will Thomas – 04230760 04/05/2012

The procedure would be to upload the stems on to individual channels and mix

the song only using available effects plug-ins, dynamic processing and

automation.

Once content with the mix, a similar mix would be done using the Audient

ASP8024, but this time being aware of the limitations in hardware equipment

that would be available within a strictly hardware environment.

Due to this experiment not being about the recording process, there was very

little that needed to be done in terms of procedure, minus a preliminary

recognisance of the different working environments.

The software environment included (in terms of what would be actually used on

the mix):

Logic 9 (complete with its accompanying plug-ins)

TG12413 2005 Abbey Road Plug-in

Space Designer

iMac

Alesis M1 Mk2 Active Monitors

Audio stems for End of Time by Beyonce

The hardware environment included (in terms of what would be actually used on

the mix):

RADAR

Audient ASP8024

Alesis MidiVerb

Will Thomas – 04230760 04/05/2012

C1 Dual Valve Compressor

Joe Meek SC 2.2 Photo Optical Stereo Compressor

Genelec Monitors

Audio stems for End of Time by Beyonce

Results

The difference between the two mixes was great. The two different methods and

mixing, as well as the different environments had led to two different styles of

mixing. Each mix took approximately 3 hours.

Software Mix

Fig. 1.1 shows the overall mix settings for the software mix of End of Time by

Beyonce. As it can be seen, each channel has been given its own Gain and EQ

(much like that would be available on a hardware mixer).

Will Thomas – 04230760 04/05/2012

Fig.1.1. End of Time by Beyonce mix settings in Logic Studio 9

As this track, is an R’n’B track and its rhythm is based heavily on the beat and

does little to change that fact, I thought a good place to start would be to deal

with the kick drum and make that sound a fat as possible. Unfortunately this

sound would be compromised as all the drums (minus the Marching Snare) had

been placed onto one stem. Below are the EQ settings for the drums in Fig. 1.2.

Fig. 1.2. Drum EQ settings in Logic Studio 9. This EQ desires to capture the low-

end thud of the Kick drum whilst making room in the low and high mids for Bass

and Brass.

Knowing that there was an Optical compressor with the hardware studio

environment, it was decided that a comparison between that and Logic’s own

Opto-Compressor. Below are the Opto settings for the drums in Fig. 1.3.

Will Thomas – 04230760 04/05/2012

Fig. 1.3. Drum Opto settings in Logic Studio 9. These settings aim to capture the

attack of the kick drum and to really give the track a sense of movement

especially as the sound of the kick drum is so dominant and vital to the song.

The key to this song was make the bass and drums a constant (more so then

many other songs) due to the lack of melody. It was decided to add FET (A tube

emulating compressor) on the bass to give it a warm sound that was lacking

from its original stem. This is shown below in Fig 1.4.

Fig. 1.4. Bass FET settings in Logic Studio 9. These settings aim to capture the

warmth of given by tubes. This a quality that is lost in most digital based music.

Will Thomas – 04230760 04/05/2012

In truth, the vocal stems were already mixed with a touch of reverb on and

needed very little doing to them, minus appropriate automation. Unlike like the

background “whooshing” effect at 0.35, which was increased using a flanger. It

was felt that this effect really needed to be made dominant, as it was a key

introduction to the main body of the song. The settings are shown below in

Fig.1.5.

Will Thomas – 04230760 04/05/2012

Fig.1.5. Top, Flanger effect, middle Channel EQ, and bottom TG12413 2005

limiter. A combination of these a loud, yet controlled introduction to the main

body of the song.

In summation, Ballard (2000, p23) states ‘what we sometimes do in the studio is

we spend 90 percent of our time on stuff that’s worth about 10 percent.’

The brass parts were dominant and just needed there levels sorted much like the

marching snare stem.

In reflection, it seems that once the main rhythm section of the song was sorted,

it was just a case of finding room for the other stems in the mix. This was greatly

helped through panning and controlled use of reverb.

Will Thomas – 04230760 04/05/2012

Hardware Mix

When using the hardware environment, it was pre-decided during the software

mix what elements of the track had priority to effects and processing due to the

limitation of equipment available. This again was primarily drums, bass and

vocals.

The advantage though of this environment was being to mix with our hands and

ears, rather then with a mouse, but again had to be a lot more precise with the

EQ as this available on every track. This of EQ allowed all the tracks to sit

correctly, and therefore resulting in a better mix as the desk was a visual

reminder to what had been done.

All track/mark up sheets can be seen in Appendix B.

Discussion of Results

Prior to committing to this investigation there was curious to what other peoples

preferred mixing environment was, and that way after the experiment it would

be possible to compare my findings with theirs, and then see if there was any

correlation between the sets of results.

This part of the investigation primarily took place in terms of a questionnaire

that was passed round my colleagues with a couple of selected interviews from

professional mix engineers.

Will Thomas – 04230760 04/05/2012

The results from my colleagues were overwhelmingly in favour of using a

software DAW, though the explanations why did differ. Some suggested mainly

as it is the cheaper option whilst others felt that the only limits of the DAW was

one’s imagination which proves to be an interesting point.

Seamlessly, yes, the only limits of the DAW are as limited as the mix engineer’s

creativity (as well as providing said DAW has enough memory), but this

treatment of the DAW is indeed a double-edged sword.

Although it is fantastic to have ‘unlimited’ limitations whilst mixing, the engineer

has to be mature enough to not let this all go to his/her head. Working with a

DAW can become a less disciplined environment when dealing with other artist’s

material especially with advocating the use of such programs like Sound Designer

where literally any varying degree of reverb is available to the user.

Though this is potentially a good thing to an amateur mixer, this wide spectrum

of choice just becomes a selection of trial and error that could result in an

uncalculated, and possibly be an immature and unwise final choice of effect.

This is without mentioning the fact that whether this choice is for creative or

constructive purposes. Huber states:

These systems don’t pretend to be the answer to all your mixing needs.

Rather, they are meant to operate in conjunction with other MIDI and

hardware misers to provide a powerful environment for mixing and

automating audio that has been recorded onto hard disk.

(1995, p162)

Will Thomas – 04230760 04/05/2012

But how true is this? DAW packages are readily available at a variety of prices on

different formats with an unlimited amount of plug-ins that can be obtained

providing that the money is available. Also, as previously mentioned, many

amateur engineers do prefer the ease-of-use that comes with using a DAW

package. Huber is convinced that a hybrid of hardware and software should

ultimately be used to obtain the best possible mix, which is arguably true, but

when you consider external factors like time and cost that is required when

using hardware, many amateur engineers see hardware as a waste of effort,

finances and energy when they can have potentially an infinitive number of

tracks and effects on their DAW.

On the technical side, White states his objections to this reliance on software

mixers:

While analogue headroom is the ability to handle higher voltage signals

without clipping, digital headroom means having a signal path with

enough bits to handle the large binary numbers that are generated when

numerous 24-bit signals are EQ'd, boosted in level and mixed. In practice,

this means having a 32-bit data pathway inside the mixer. Even so, the

width of the data pathway doesn't tell you everything about how the

mathematics of mixing are handled, and because a software mixer relies

on the host processor for everything, the designers are more likely to take

processor-efficient shortcuts than the designers of hardware digital

mixers who can apply all their DSP resources to the task in hand.

(2001)

Will Thomas – 04230760 04/05/2012

So, is there too much of a reliance on software mixers? Is there a genuine lack of

understanding of what is actually happening within the context of the mixing

process?

One of my selected interviews was with professional engineer, Jason Harris (see

Appendix C) and he suggests:

The quantity of plugins only presents an issue when it becomes 'all the

gear and no idea' Recently coming across a plugin that models monitors

for headphone users makes me cross in so far as the experience chase can

without foundation be used to tick an aspirational target which I think

devalues not only the technology behind it but also the end user. That's

the key term here 'end user' because these are the people who ultimately

surf audio in the hope of catching a big one but when the wave is man

made and on the deck of a ship it is unlikely that the surfer will ever be

thrown to the sea to experience the true force of nature and its influence.

(2012)

There is no doubt in that the quality of DAW’s is constantly increasing. The

convenience of use and availability is all well and good, but if the engineer has

little idea of what is actually going on the all the equipment in the world isn’t

going to make the song a good mix. Yes, the mix could contain good effects or

interesting ideas, not to say that the engineer isn’t creative or original, but the

fundamentals could be lacking.

Will Thomas – 04230760 04/05/2012

Admittedly when working on the software mix for this investigation discipline

was greatly needed in that it was felt that the software mixer had to be treated

like a hardware mixer e.g. Gain and EQ controls on each of the channels, but

when it came down to using effects, the only objection was seemingly “Why not?”

which for an amateur engineer would mean that any variety and amount of effect

could be added to such an extent that it could take over lose the basic essence of

the song in question. Therefore the added challenge in mixing in such an

environment was to be sensible and keeping mind what the purpose of this mix

was i.e. remain true to the song (as the handling of other peoples materials is a

very delicate and intimate matter).

This is where hardware seemingly has the advantage, as it’s a constant reminded

of its own limitations e.g. the number of hardware effect units available, are the

number effects available in total.

When using hardware, there is more at risk. Edits become less easy to do.

Engineers must become braver and more committed to there choices. It becomes

infinitely easier to lose files, effects and even settings unless the engineer has a

competent understanding of what he/she is doing. The ‘Undo’ option is taken for

granted in the software domain. Mixing with a mouse can allow for a wider

margin of error. Files can be backed up with and clients worked saved. The

advantages to software are endless.

However, aesthetically and nostalgically the mixing console is recognized

globally as the nerve centre of the studio. White also mentions:

Will Thomas – 04230760 04/05/2012

It allows you to connect additional playback and recording machines and

to route signals between them. At the push of a button you can play a CD

through your studio monitors for reference, or you can copy a mix to

cassette to play in the car. There's a control for adjusting the monitoring

level, there's a headphone output, and there's a system of pre-fade aux

sends that make it very easy to set up a monitor mix.

(2001)

It is this ability to use the mixing console in a tactile manner that will always give

it a home within the studio environment. Yes, they are expensive, and yes they

can be bulky, but there is a true beauty in having the physical ability to control

exactly what is needed for a perfectly tailored mix.

This argument continues beyond just the mixing console. It also applies to each

individual effect unit, pre-amp, DI box, microphone, etc, in that the engineer will,

and should learn, each piece of equipment inside out rather then taking

technology for granted. When this is achieved, only then can true effects of the

simulated software can be understood.

This argument though is completely subjective and similar in the sense of

comparing vinyl to CD, where CD is clearly technically better, but vinyl even for

modern generations holds a place in people’s hearts. It is the imperfections and

the added warmth created by analogue equipment that adds an unexplainable

yet familiar quality to the mixing process, and is this, no matter how good

technology becomes, that cannot be simulated or replaced.

Will Thomas – 04230760 04/05/2012

Fundamentally, this is the key difference between amateur and professional mix

engineers. Professional mix engineer Dan Armstrong (see Appendix C) argues

that the choice between hardware and software is simply a choice of economics.

He states:

If the budget allows for hardware (which invariably means the budget is

bigger), then that is the option to go for. I have now spent a great many

years mixing ITB (in the box) and OTB (out the box), and sonically, if you

want high quality mixing, you cannot look at plugins. They just aren’t

anywhere near their hardware equivalents.

(2012)

However, there must be some level of sonic comparability between hardware

and software emulations, as these plug-ins are so commonly used. Armstrong

continues:

Where the lines get a little blurred are when looking at low to mid-priced

hardware compared to plugins. The quality IS comparable in my honest

opinion.

The top end though (API, Neve, SSL, Pultec, Massenburg) can’t be touched

by plugs. Even the AUD and Waves stuff. Even the SSL Duende. It just

doesn’t sound the same as the hardware.

This is also down to the DAW & associated D/A conversion though – each

bit of “real” kit has its own sonic signature that cannot be replicated by an

all-in-one ProTools 192 box or Focusrite Sapphire.

(2012)

Will Thomas – 04230760 04/05/2012

Conclusion

In conclusion, both hardware and software have there right of place in the studio

environment and any wise engineer would use a hybrid of the two systems, even

in the most professional of studios, but it is maintained that the experience of the

hardware can only encourage a discipline and understanding that should be a

requirement from any mix engineer who strives for a professional career as its

not just the use of the console, but the understanding of the consoles required

place in the recording chain and its relationship to the rest of the studio

equipment that is important to understand.

Additionally, removing economics from the equation most engineers would opt

for the hardware rather then an software emulation as each piece contains its

own charms, however as with most things it is the engineers budget that will

fundamentally control the final choice purchases for their studio environment.

Will Thomas – 04230760 04/05/2012

References

Ballard, G cited in Massey, H (2000). Behind the Glass: Top Record

Producers Tell How They Craft The Hits. San Francisco: Backbeat Books.

p23.

Huber, D. M (1995). Hard Disk Recording for Musicians. 2nd ed. New York:

Amsco Publications. p162.

Mark V. (2008). Hardware Vs Software: 8 Reasons to pick software.

Available: http://hiphopmakers.com/hardware-vs-software-8-reasons-

to-pick-software. Last accessed 4th May 2012.

White, P. (2001). Pros & Cons Of Software & Hardware Mixers. Available:

http://www.soundonsound.com/sos/mar01/articles/whoneedsmixers.a

sp. Last accessed 4th May 2012.

Will Thomas – 04230760 04/05/2012

Appendix C

Dated: Tuesday 1st May 2012 at 20:13pm

Jason Harris Hey Will, all is well with me and I guess a chocolate cake will be on its way

for the reply;-)As a mix engineer I have to adopt the hybrid approach. As will these things they are the spanners in your toolbox. Hardware always maintains an ergonomic advantage in that even with software equivalents you have to spend time programming disassociated controller form factors with little visual or character feedback from said piece of equipment. The quantity of plugins only presents an issue when it becomes 'all the gear and no idea' Recently coming across a plugin that models monitors for headphone users makes me cross in so far as the experience chase can without foundation be used to tick an aspirational target which I think devalues not only the technology behind it but also the end user. That's the key term here 'end user' because these are the people who ultimately surf audio in the hope of catching a big one but when the wave is man made and on the deck of a ship it is unlikely that the surfer will ever be thrown to the sea to experience the true force of nature and its influence. It could be that as we consider this continued plastic evolution we are nothing but Kens and Barbies that will eventually get thrown to the bottom of the box.

Hope this little rant helps:-)

Dated: Friday 4th May 2012 at 19:10pm

Dan Armstrong

As a mix engineer, the argument about hard vs software is becoming a simple case of economics. If the budget allows for hardware (which invariably means the budget is bigger), then that is the option to go for.

I have now spent a great many years mixing ITB (in the box) and OTB (out the box), and sonically, if you want high quality mixing, you cannot look at plugins. They just aren’t anywhere near their hardware equivalents.

This has nothing to do with nostalgia from a sound perspective, however, there IS something “nice” about being able to use a piece of outboard in a tactile manner.

Where the lines get a little blurred are when looking at low to mid-priced hardware compared to plugins. The quality IS comparable imho.The top end though (API, Neve, SSL, Pultec, Massenburg) can’t be touched by plugs. Even the AUD and Waves stuff. Even the SSL Duende. It just doesn’t sound the same as the hardware.This is also down to the DAW & associated D/A conversion though – each

Will Thomas – 04230760 04/05/2012

bit of “real” kit has its own sonic signature that cannot be replicated by an all-in-one ProTools 192 box or Focusrite Sapphire.

Interestingly enough I have just been undertaking a (not very scientific) test of dynamics, eqs and effects within the ITB domain – comparing Logic’s standard plugs to the likes of API, SSL, Focusrite and Lexicon plugs.In a blind test, the Logic plugs all came last in comparison to the same sound sources through the other plugs. So the plug-equivalents ARE an improvement, but not as good as the real thing.

The “freedom” aspect you talk of is down to experience and creativity – plugins more so offer immediacy (which is good when facing time constraints) rather than freedom. The automation side is useful, and time-saving, but invariably, the signal flow/routing experience of hardware is still required to achieve the results.

As for my personal preference, when mixing, I want the automatability of an ITB plugin, but in the hardware domain. Hence out of choice, I would be using a hardware console (SSL XL9000 or Duality, if I’m honest) with a healthy (expensive!) selection of mic pres, eqs and dynamics, along with a DAW. The best of all worlds.

Appendix B – Track/Mark Up Sheets

Will Thomas – 04230760 04/05/2012

Appendix A - Questionnaires