# 9 Common Mixing Mistakes



## Walid F. (Aug 7, 2016)

Hey!

Here's an article I wrote on some common mixing mistakes I thought some of you guys might want to read. I'd love to hear what you think of them, if you agree on the solutions, or any other comments!

The article is right here: 9 Mixing Mistakes And How To Avoid Them

Cheers,

W.


----------



## Rodney Money (Aug 7, 2016)

I enjoyed the read, and especially the advice on the use of a limiter. And although I have only been using a DAW for about a year, your article has reassured me that I may be on the right path after all.


----------



## Walid F. (Aug 7, 2016)

Rodney Money said:


> I enjoyed the read, and especially the advice of the use of a limiter. And although I have only been using a DAW for about a year, your article has reassured me that I may be on the right path after all.



Yes, limiters are really useful!

W.


----------



## David Stiles (Aug 7, 2016)

It's a good article, and I agree with all your tips. The one thing that bothers me is that I think mistake #3 and mistake #8 would be better presented as a single mistake about unnecessary sonic elements. Mistake #3 really seems to just be a subset of mistake #8, so I'm not sure why they can't be combined. But that's a minor complaint - great work overall!


----------



## OleJoergensen (Aug 7, 2016)

Thank you for sharing, very inspiring.


----------



## pmountford (Aug 7, 2016)

All good stuff but just wondering about #8 - absolutely agree on removing unnecessary low end but 'eq away' the high end of double basses? Not so sure thats something I would do. But hey if it works, then great. Will try.


----------



## trumpoz (Aug 7, 2016)

Good article. Id actually put orchestration first in the article if nothing else - if the orchestration is not good you will be polishing s*** the whole time in the mixing process.


----------



## pixel (Aug 7, 2016)

pmountford said:


> All good stuff but just wondering about #8 - absolutely agree on removing unnecessary low end but 'eq away' the high end of double basses? Not so sure thats something I would do. But hey if it works, then great. Will try.



I agree. Point #8 collide a little bit with point #1. Actually there's no much need to cut higher frequencies as these doesn't have as much energy as these on lower end of the spectrum. It should be done only if they clash with higher freqs of another instrument but still I would prefer to EQ it with peak filter instead of low passing it. 
But at the end.. it's all depend on source


----------



## gsilbers (Aug 7, 2016)

very well written and great presentation. keep 'em coming!


----------



## Walid F. (Aug 7, 2016)

David Stiles said:


> It's a good article, and I agree with all your tips. The one thing that bothers me is that I think mistake #3 and mistake #8 would be better presented as a single mistake about unnecessary sonic elements. Mistake #3 really seems to just be a subset of mistake #8, so I'm not sure why they can't be combined. But that's a minor complaint - great work overall!



The main reason is that the low end is a high focus area in pretty much all genres. It's tricky to mix properly - especially for beginners. So I wanted to make #3 its own point, while #8 is an overall philosophy on the entire spectrum, not necessarily focusing on the low end. Thank you, David!



OleJoergensen said:


> Thank you for sharing, very inspiring.


Cheers! 



pmountford said:


> All good stuff but just wondering about #8 - absolutely agree on removing unnecessary low end but 'eq away' the high end of double basses? Not so sure thats something I would do. But hey if it works, then great. Will try.



That's a really good point. Sometimes keeping high end works nicely in orchestral contexts, but I find that if you want a cleaner, and at the same time _warmer_ mix, you can take away some of the highs from double basses. But I changed it in the actual article a bit thanks to your post! Cheers.



trumpoz said:


> Good article. Id actually put orchestration first in the article if nothing else - if the orchestration is not good you will be polishing s*** the whole time in the mixing process.



Exactly! I actually put it last because it's such an important thing that people should leave the article thinking about it. Orchestration is what makes up the entire thing - it's the actual sound choices and it determines how everything else sounds after it. Right on.



pixel said:


> I agree. Point #8 collide a little bit with point #1. Actually there's no much need to cut higher frequencies as these doesn't have as much energy as these on lower end of the spectrum. It should be done only if they clash with higher freqs of another instrument but still I would prefer to EQ it with peak filter instead of low passing it.
> But at the end.. it's all depend on source



The reason #8 resonates with #1, in my opinion, is that you should ALWAYS mix reactively and if the mix actually sounds better with the high end - you should *definitely* keep it. If you just remove sounds just because, the mix will end up odd. I did change #8 slightly though to correct myself a bit! Thank you for the critique - much appreciated! 



gsilbers said:


> very well written and great presentation. keep 'em coming!



Thank you! Cheers. 

Thanks for all the comments and critiques, I *really* appreciate it. Makes me become a better writer, a better producer and overall learn to become a better mediator. Cheers, guys.

W.


----------



## Ashermusic (Aug 7, 2016)

I mostly agree except that I have heard people ruin the sound of lovely libraries by cutting out too much of the low stuff. You want to be absolutely sure that you are only cutting out what needs to be cut out. The Hippocratic Oath-"First, do no harm" -applies.

And always when dealing with sound, be wary of the word "always."


----------



## dgburns (Aug 7, 2016)

Some thoughts on things you didn't talk about but maybe should have.

-keep your listening level at the exact same volume once set.(otherwise you're just fooling yourself)
-maintain proper gain staging throughout.(otherwise your gain staging is gonna bite you in the ass going through those plugins etc)
-arrange the shit out of your music.(well,you know this is the one thing many can't bring themselves to do)
-use volume rides to get you there.(before eq/comp or other fixes,just try volume rides,it's what the old farts know to do)
-fix the sounds at the source first before turning to eq/comp/whatever.
-don't turn down the bass sissy,make sure it's in PHASE!(and mono in the very low end)
-brighten up those dull mixes ,especially with them sample libs (live players almost always have way more vibe/life to them)
-back off that verb on those English sample libraries from you know where.
-if you really need a loud master,make it that way at the very end.Turn off all that master channel plugin goo until the mix is happening and you're ready to deal with the final stage.
-and if you're getting to a more advanced stage,start to use side-chaining to create space and movement with the instruments.
-Mix with emotion,get into the intent of the music,push it out further by seeing how far out there you can pull elements to bring interest.
-Try to create unexpected events,once the listener can anticipate where you're going,they start to lose interest.(ok,that's more of a writin thing)


----------



## Arbee (Aug 7, 2016)

dgburns said:


> -if you really need a loud master,make it that way at the very end.Turn off all that master channel plugin goo until the mix is happening and you're ready to deal with the final stage.


Great thread and great post. This point though is a view I've held until more recently, but I'm now trying to give more thought to preparing the mix for a loud master by more careful EQ and compression sculpting on individual tracks, the theory being the final mastering limiter step isn't then so brutal. I keep some mastering plugins on the mix master bus just to "try out" the loudness for later.


----------



## dgburns (Aug 7, 2016)

Arbee said:


> Great thread and great post. This point though is a view I've held until more recently, but I'm now trying to give more thought to preparing the mix for a loud master by more careful EQ and compression sculpting on individual tracks, the theory being the final mastering limiter step isn't then so brutal. I keep some mastering plugins on the mix master bus just to "try out" the loudness for later.



yep,good point.


----------



## Walid F. (Aug 9, 2016)

Ashermusic said:


> I mostly agree except that I have heard people ruin the sound of lovely libraries by cutting out too much of the low stuff. You want to be absolutely sure that you are only cutting out what needs to be cut out. The Hippocratic Oath-"First, do no harm" -applies.
> 
> And always when dealing with sound, be wary of the word "always."



Yeah you're right! It is exactly why I disclaim in the beginning to never ever do anything without listening to it. Always mix reactively, listen to your mix and then apply what you think it might need and see if it actually sounds better or not - not just apply processes blindly!  Thanks for the tip!



dgburns said:


> Some thoughts on things you didn't talk about but maybe should have.
> 
> -keep your listening level at the exact same volume once set.(otherwise you're just fooling yourself)
> -maintain proper gain staging throughout.(otherwise your gain staging is gonna bite you in the ass going through those plugins etc)
> ...



Brilliant tips, thank you for that. Will keep them in mind for the future.  Thanks again, dgburns!

Awesome comments and feedback I've gotten on this, many things that I am learning as well from producers more professional than myself. Good stuff!

Cheers,
W.


----------



## mikehamm123 (Aug 10, 2016)

9 Common Mixing Mistakes & How To Avoid Them--#8 will shock you! 

this is great stuff, and a great discussion. I have a weird question--I don't have a great sound system, and can't play loud where I live. If I were to book studio time to do my final mixes (i.e. bring my laptop with Logic Pro fired up) what would I ask for?


----------



## AR (Aug 11, 2016)

Not so long ago the great Alan Meyers said: Use more panning and stereo width in film music (with delays and doublers) since the dialog's always in the center and you don't wanna disturb that one.


----------



## Replicant (Aug 11, 2016)

Glad to see mistake #1 is "orchestration"

because it really is the biggest, most common mistake.

Great article!


----------



## Gabriel Oliveira (Aug 11, 2016)

AR said:


> Alan Meyers



+ "on"


----------



## afterlight82 (Aug 12, 2016)

no. 3 is only partially true. Theoretically a 32 bit floating point based DAW has huge headroom above and beyond what is displayed on the channel VU meters (up to ~1500db, though that is very debatable in one sense). The quality of the plugins you use doesn't really affect things - there are some cheap plugins that implement this efficiently and some expensive ones that don't. You should mix quieter in terms of your listening level (which you should calibrate properly) and you should make sure your master buss is nowhere near topping out especially if printing audio, but on individual channels you can have decent signal levels, but the reality is that most DAWs and plugins can handle reasonable signal levels. I've watched people deliver files that were super quiet "because they sound better"...actually, they don't. You really have to blitz some plugins (eg fabfilter) before they actually clip internally. The other thing is most DAW faders have considerably better resolution the closer they get to unity, so you want to use the "pre" - the pre fader gain - to set the audio such that the approximate location you will have the fader is around unity. Then you will have much finer control on detailed, 1-3db rides to finesse things. If your faders are down towards the bottom of the run a tiny move will make much bigger changes and your rides will be less smooth.

Calibrate your monitor levels properly and you really shouldn't have a problem even if you have your channels running warm...if they're lit up like Vegas, yeah, back off unless you want that David Guetta sound (he clips everything, basically), but if you're doing that enough that you're introducing distortion in a floating point system well then, you're probably a doing a lot of other things wrong that you should consider first!


----------



## afterlight82 (Aug 12, 2016)

by the way, you shouldn't just throw low passes everything that doesn't have bass because all eq plugins and filtering processes introduce phase issues, which are very small but do add up after a while. Clean off mud, sure, if it's there, but make sure you're hearing it. Sometimes you should not trust the visuals...fabfilter's visual display is good, but it's not perfect. Listen, don't look. You'll find a lot of orchestral mixers don't touch eq once they've recorded orchestra (certainly not on their orchestra tracks). If you are strongly eq'ing orchestra tracks - other than if you are going for a specific effect - you're probably compensating for something you should have fixed another way.


----------



## Ashermusic (Aug 12, 2016)

afterlight82 said:


> by the way, you shouldn't just throw low passes everything that doesn't have bass because all eq plugins and filtering processes introduce phase issues, which are very small but do add up after a while. Clean off mud, sure, if it's there, but make sure you're hearing it. Sometimes you should not trust the visuals...fabfilter's visual display is good, but it's not perfect. Listen, don't look. You'll find a lot of orchestral mixers don't touch eq once they've recorded orchestra (certainly not on their orchestra tracks). If you are strongly eq'ing orchestra tracks - other than if you are going for a specific effect - you're probably compensating for something you should have fixed another way.




Exactly! This is what I keep talking about to the "always do this on every instrument" advocates.


----------



## dannymc (Aug 15, 2016)

nice article Walid thanks for posting. it was also nice to know that i follow rules 1 to 9 already except for orchestration which i am still learning . just on point 5 regarding reverb. you don't say always to use reverb as a send rather than an insert, is this a rule you would not always necessarily follow? if so in what circumstances would reverb as an insert work better than as a send? also would you send a final mix audio output channel to another reverb or perhaps this is where a reverb as an insert would be applied? i have found that my mixes have got muddy when i put too much on the output channel so i tend to just keep it to a limiter. also is it right to send instruments to multiple different reverbs or should you keep the number to a minimum for example all brass sent to one reverb all strings to another all perc to another etc? lastly i've seen some videos where composers seem to connect two reverb's in series, first reverb maybe sent to something like space designer followed by a convolution reverb like spaces. what is this set up aiming to achieve?

Danny


----------



## Beat Kaufmann (Aug 16, 2016)

dannymc said:


> ...if so in what circumstances would reverb as an insert work better than as a send? also would you send a final mix audio output channel to another reverb or perhaps this is where a reverb as an insert would be applied?...
> 
> Danny



Hi Danny
_In general _
The advantage of the "reverb-send-concept" mainly is to save CPU-power because you normally do not need more than 1...2 instances.
Each of us works - sooner or later - with its own reverb concept. The one below will describe how I use it. It finally only counts the result in the end. Sometimes the CPU can limit your dreams or other circumstances... so there are no really rules...


I use the "send-concept" more for music played by bands (light music etc.).

The reverb as insert I use for mixing more classical music with an orchestra (created with samples). With those music we often need very different depths because a choir sounds much more farther away as the violins when you are going to simulate a "3rd-row-listening-situation". So I often create 2-4 different depths each in a so called "groupe-channel/bus-channel". I also use EQs or other effects in those channels just for optimizing each "depth".
The advantage is that one can adjust very defined distances for several sections of instruments. Finally I install a reverb (just for a tail over all) in the output channel. Beside the tail it also glues the instrument sections together so that they finally sound in one room.
If you would use the send-concept you would not reach the same result because you also would adjust the reverb and not only the depth/distance...

If I have combinations of an orchestra and a band I use https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uMAkPT9ggtg (both systems)...

Beat


----------



## Ashermusic (Aug 16, 2016)

Really Beat? I have great respect for you and you have forgotten more about samples than I will ever know, but I was always taught that the _main_ reason for using verbs on sends was to put the sampled players in the same ambience, because real players sit or stand and perform in the same ambience. And we then use other plug-in to cretae the sense of depth. Saving CPU is of course a nice plus.

Also, do you mix and match libraries from different developers or are you all VSL? Does that play a role in your choices?

Please understand, not challenging you at all, only looking to learn from you.


----------



## Beat Kaufmann (Aug 16, 2016)

Ashermusic said:


> ...I was always taught that the _main_ reason for using verbs on sends was to put the sampled players in the same ambience...


Yes, of coarse you are right you will have all the players in the same ambiance. This process suggests more and more depth and a "farther away position" the more send you have but it probaly also can go with a lot of a more and more dull reverb in the mean time.

When I produce so called "depths" I try to keep them as "dry" as possible (just distance) - also for the farthest instruments. So distance + a littel of "tail over all" let the instruments appear more transparent even if the are playing far away. Dry depths? Example...

_Different Libraries_
Mixining samples with integrated room and depth together with so called "dry samples" (as we have it for example with VSL) is a real challange. For getting natural results you need to adapt them to each other. If you are able to use instruments from one developper for a whole section you could shorten the adapting process.

_Proposal _
This threat is called "9 common mixing mistakes"
If you would discuss more about reverb and depth search for these terms - there are 100ds of answers around here or start a new thread please.

Beat


----------



## Ashermusic (Aug 16, 2016)

Thanks, Beat. Even after all these years of doing this, I am always happy to rethink my conclusions and you have given me some food for thought.


----------



## Beat Kaufmann (Aug 16, 2016)

Ashermusic said:


> ... some food for thought...


... and listening (see thread above: added an "Example"


----------



## Ashermusic (Aug 17, 2016)

Beat Kaufmann said:


> ... and listening (see thread above: added an "Example"




Unfortunately, YouTube does not nice things to the sound, but I can hear that yoiu did ineed achieve a wonderful sense of depth.


----------



## emid (Aug 17, 2016)

Ashermusic said:


> Unfortunately, YouTube does not nice things to the sound, but I can hear that yoiu did ineed achieve a wonderful sense of depth.



Jay not YT, there is a track in his post number 26.


----------



## Beat Kaufmann (Aug 17, 2016)

Ashermusic said:


> Unfortunately, YouTube does not nice things to the sound, but I can hear that yoiu did ineed achieve a wonderful sense of depth.


If you like it: Here is the newest file - not compressed: Tonstudio_Createc_DormaBain_mit_Samples_24_Bit.wav (85MB!!)http://www.musik-produktion-createc.ch/Tonstudio_Createc_DormaBain_mit_Samples_24_Bit.wav
and if you like it as well, the mixer layout: Tonstudio_Createc_Dormabain_mit_Samples_Mixer.jpg

I tried to make as little as possible of the upper mixing mistakes...
Have fun
Beat

Dormabain is a lullaby from Switzerland. The choir shows it in the first part.


----------



## higgs (Aug 17, 2016)

@dgburns brings up some great points!

In my mind, however, #1 or # 10 should be "Don't be Afraid to Trust Your Ears." I most certainly would not have continued down this path if I didn't allow myself the occasional respite of confidence.


----------



## Ashermusic (Aug 18, 2016)

Beat Kaufmann said:


> If you like it: Here is the newest file - not compressed: Tonstudio_Createc_DormaBain_mit_Samples_24_Bit.wav (85MB!!)
> and if you like it as well, the mixer layout: Tonstudio_Createc_Dormabain_mit_Samples_Mixer.jpg
> 
> I tried to make as little as possible of the upper mixing mistakes...
> ...




Thanks you Beat. I will try to get past that ugly Cubase mixer


----------



## adamsample (Aug 19, 2016)

very good blog post thanks for the tips


----------



## afterlight82 (Aug 23, 2016)

It should probably be re-stated - the only reasons for putting reverbs on sends vs inserts in a digital, DAW environment are:

1) CPU saving (send many channels to a single instance, but sacrifice stem bussing)
2) easier to add eq or other plugins to send/return buss
3) bussing of stems/mix structure in terms of what you need printed separately and where 

Unless there is input-based non linearity or modulation that is randomized between instances and in terms of the time base, such that playing a hotter signal through it (or at a different point in the modulation timescale) yields a different result.......otherwise if the relative levels are set right the results of two (or any number of tracks) with reverbs on inserts vs a single send buss are mathematically identical. Reverb units aren't rooms, they aren't acoustic spaces, merely mathematical simulations of them and whilst it is tempting to think of multiple things being sent to a single reverb getting "glued" it's not accurate. The signals are all getting processed the same way regardless of what other signals are on the buss. Moreover even with the exception...unless the modulation is particularly strong (rare in orch reverb, even with random hall algorithms), or the non-linear response hugely so...or barring dynamics processing on the return...the audible difference is basically negligible.




Ashermusic said:


> Really Beat? I have great respect for you and you have forgotten more about samples than I will ever know, but I was always taught that the _main_ reason for using verbs on sends was to put the sampled players in the same ambience, because real players sit or stand and perform in the same ambience. And we then use other plug-in to cretae the sense of depth. Saving CPU is of course a nice plus.
> 
> Also, do you mix and match libraries from different developers or are you all VSL? Does that play a role in your choices?
> 
> Please understand, not challenging you at all, only looking to learn from you.


----------



## Ashermusic (Aug 23, 2016)

Well, I was talking primarily about the difference between using fewer reverb settings to give the impression of being in the same space rather than a different setting on each one. If I use e.g. QL Spaces, all five of my orchestra sections are going to go to settings that use e.g. Southern California Hall, rather than 1 going to Southern California Hall, one going to Northwest Orchestral Hall, another to Santa Barbara Temple, etc. Do you disagree, afterlight82?

If you have e.g. 60 tracks and five reverbs on busses, and bunches of tracks are going to variant settings of the same hall, it will achieve that more than if you had 60 reverbs, with a plethora of different hall snapshots (convolution) or algorithms (like Lexicons). And obviously there is little argument to be made, if you were only choosing 5, to put one on each track and try to control the 60 settings. Sure, with careful choosing you could probably achieve almost exactly the same sound without an audible difference, but it would be a ton of work and not better.

Not to mention that when you decided to change the properties of your acoustic room simulation, you would have to do it to 60 rather than 5


----------



## afterlight82 (Aug 24, 2016)

Ashermusic said:


> Well, I was talking primarily about the difference between using fewer reverb settings to give the impression of being in the same space rather than a different setting on each one. If I use e.g. QL Spaces, all five of my orchestra sections are going to go to settings that use e.g. Southern California Hall, rather than 1 going to Southern California Hall, one going to Northwest Orchestral Hall, another to Santa Barbara Temple, etc. Do you disagree, afterlight82?
> 
> If you have e.g. 60 tracks and five reverbs on busses, and bunches of tracks are going to variant settings of the same hall, it will achieve that more than if you had 60 reverbs, with a plethora of different hall snapshots (convolution) or algorithms (like Lexicons). And obviously there is little argument to be made, if you were only choosing 5, to put one on each track and try to control the 60 settings. Sure, with careful choosing you could probably achieve almost exactly the same sound without an audible difference, but it would be a ton of work and not better.
> 
> Not to mention that when you decided to change the properties of your acoustic room simulation, you would have to do it to 60 rather than 5




That's true - my point is that from a DAW standpoint in terms of design, unless there is specific induced non-linearity in the plugin itself or in the return path, that there is mathematically no difference between insert/send. The only reason is if you want to buss it differently, use different algorithms for different items, and so on. It's purely a bussing/routing issue. Some people do seem to believe that if you buss lots of things to a send vs using the same plugin instantiated on inserts, it sounds different - it simply doesn't!


----------



## Ashermusic (Aug 24, 2016)

Agreed, but without the bussing, it would take an _incredible_ amount of work to make it sound the same.


----------



## afterlight82 (Aug 27, 2016)

Ashermusic said:


> Agreed, but without the bussing, it would take an _incredible_ amount of work to make it sound the same.



Depends on the context. Four tracks with four reverbs insets at unity vs four sends to one reverb send at unity, all being equal, should be the same...depending entirely on architecture of course. The point is it is all about what you want where within the limits of your processing power; that should always be the overriding concern.


----------



## waveheavy (Sep 10, 2016)

Pretty good article.

I would add:

1. Only use a limiter on the master out during mixing JUST to handle the occasional 'over'. Good idea to bypass it during the mix every once in a while to make sure track levels aren't too hot. When using a limiter for mastering, rely on your ears more than the gadget. A limiter can... distort if hit hard enough, even though it may be called a 'brick wall limiter'.

2. Phase correction - the reason about 1/3 of mixes sound muddy. This won't be as much a problem with sample libraries, but mainly with things you've recorded. 

3. EQing a library sample is sometimes needed, just as most things recorded with a mic often need it, since the type of mic can impart unnatural dynamics or frequencies to the recording. Most violin samples are little hot in the upper mids.

4. For orchestra mix, start with high pitch instruments and work downwards. Don't mix in Solo mode. Check your mix in Mono at the end to make sure nothing drops out because of a phase issue.


----------



## afterlight82 (Sep 22, 2016)

one has to be careful of intersample peaks when peak limiting, obviously. don't trust your daw meters. they aren't gospel...

I'd generally mix up from the bottom end myself, rather than top down (as the lows are the hardest thing to get balanced)...but there's no rules!


----------



## dannymc (Sep 25, 2016)

> 1. Only use a limiter on the master out during mixing JUST to handle the occasional 'over'. Good idea to bypass it during the mix every once in a while to make sure track levels aren't too hot. When using a limiter for mastering, rely on your ears more than the gadget. A limiter can... distort if hit hard enough, even though it may be called a 'brick wall limiter'.



yes i had noticed this. a limiter is not a fire and forget it can destroy a mix. would stick a limiter on my track for volume only to start hearing distortion and couldn't understand where it was coming from and why i couldn't hear it without the limiter. so its a fine balance it seems.



> 3. EQing a library sample is sometimes needed, just as most things recorded with a mic often need it, since the type of mic can impart unnatural dynamics or frequencies to the recording. Most violin samples are little hot in the upper mids.



this is something i wondered about. in terms of the very high end sample libraries i would of thought that they are mixed to perfection by guys with golden ears and that eq'ing is only gonna make things worse or distort the natural sound of the instrument. whats your opinion on this? also i struggle with making my percussion sit in the mix seems to get crowded out in that low to mid low especially when there are bass elements in my track. how do you deal with this? would you keep eq'ing here or would you just change out the percussion instrument in question and instead replace with a drum thats sits better with the bass ?



> 4. For orchestra mix, start with high pitch instruments and work downwards.



interesting. i'm surprised by this. since the frequency range that results in the must mud is the low end instruments such as percussion drums and bass i would of thought it was more important to start there and make sure they are tight and work up the frequency band from there. whats your reasons for working from high to low?

Danny


----------



## sleepy hollow (Sep 25, 2016)

afterlight82 said:


> one has to be careful of intersample peaks when peak limiting


For anyone who's interested, SSL offers a free inter-sample peak meter:

http://solid-state-logic.co.jp/music/X-ISM/index.html


----------



## peksi (Oct 21, 2016)

Thanks a lot. This is golden stuff.


----------



## fritzmartinbass (Oct 21, 2016)

dgburns said:


> Try to create unexpected events,once the listener can anticipate where you're going,they start to lose interest.(ok,that's more of a writin thing



Amen to this!


----------



## LML88 (Oct 23, 2016)

Walid F. said:


> Hey!
> 
> Here's an article I wrote on some common mixing mistakes I thought some of you guys might want to read. I'd love to hear what you think of them, if you agree on the solutions, or any other comments!
> 
> ...



Excellent article, thank you.


----------



## Svyato (Oct 26, 2016)

the best advice is always the same: learn to listen


----------



## Walid F. (Oct 27, 2016)

Cheers, guys! 

Best,
W.


----------



## Jaybee (Oct 31, 2016)

sleepy hollow said:


> For anyone who's interested, SSL offers a free inter-sample peak meter:
> 
> http://solid-state-logic.co.jp/music/X-ISM/index.html



Just a heads-up. This now leads to a page which leads to a download page which leads to a 404 error. Can't find the X-ISM anywhere on the SSL site. Shame.


----------

