Before I call a track finished - before the mix, before the bounce - I solo every single track and listen all the way through  with the metronome on . No skipping. No guessing. Just me, the grid, and every stem laid bare against the pulse of the metronome. Finishing Tracks – Check Against the Metronome: The Final Check This is where I catch everything: clicks, pops, bad edits, late hits, tails that don’t fade right. The metronome never lies. So I solo each stem and run it start to finish . If it doesn’t feel tight, I fix it. DC Offset – The Quiet Saboteur One thing I always check for here is DC offset . It’s subtle, but it can really mess with your mix and master. DC offset is when the waveform isn’t centred around the zero line - it’s shifted slightly up or down. You might not hear it as a sound, but you’ll feel it in how your processors behave. Compressors don’t react properly. Faders behave strangely. You get clicks, phasing issues, and worst of all: reduced headroom . It can even cause clicks at the start or end of files - stuff you maybe don’t catch until this very step. It shows up more often than you think - especially when using hardware or resampling external gear. But I’ve had it appear even when working fully in the box. So I always run a quick DC offset removal pass if something looks or feels off. Check the waveform. If it’s floating high above the zero line or hugging the bottom? That’s a flag. Hardware or In-the-Box? Still Matters If I’ve used hardware, checking against the metronome is essential. Tiny timing drifts, glitches, or noise can creep in - especially if you’re recording longer takes or syncing gear manually. But even with a purely digital setup, things like DC offset or poor edits can still slip through. Nothing’s bulletproof. No Shortcut (Unless You’ve Got Help) There’s no hack for this. Unless you’ve got an assistant going stem-by-stem, this is on you. And yeah, it takes time - but it saves  time later. When the mix starts, everything just works. No weird problems hiding under the surface. It Gets You Over the Line Once the metronome check is done, I know the track’s solid. I trust what I’m mixing. I’m not second-guessing transients or chasing phantom clicks in the master. It feels clean because it is clean - all the way through. That’s how I finish tracks. This process is a core part of how I approach finishing tracks – check against the metronome  is more than a tip—it’s the process that gets results. Check against the metronome. Listen all the way through. Every stem. Clean it up. No shortcuts.

In electronic music, the choice between a major key  and a minor key  does more than set the scale – it defines the emotional pull of your track. Major keys  can bring a sense of openness, euphoria, and release. In underground contexts, they work well when you want to lift the energy without tipping into obvious festival tropes. Minor keys  tend to feel more introspective, tense, or mysterious – perfect for deep, late-night tracks where atmosphere matters as much as rhythm. Why the Choice Matters Our ears naturally associate major with brightness and minor with moodiness, but context changes everything. A major progression over a dark, textural pad can feel uneasy. A minor melody with open voicings can feel hopeful. It’s not about choosing “happy” or “sad” – it’s about controlling the shade  of emotion your track gives off. Beyond Major & Minor – Scales and Modes Once you’ve got a feel for major vs minor, the next step is exploring modes  – alternate scales that tweak just one or two notes but completely change the emotional character. Dorian  – Minor feel but slightly brighter. Great for deep house or breakbeat that needs mood without being too dark. Phrygian  – Dark and tense, often with a hypnotic or exotic edge. Works well in techno and psytrance. Mixolydian  – Major feel but with a slightly unsettled twist. Perfect for groove-driven tracks that still feel warm. Lydian  – Dreamy, floating, and bright with a surreal quality. Fits ambient, cinematic, or melodic techno. By pulling from these, you can blur the line between happy and sad, open and closed, light and dark – giving your tracks a distinct flavour without relying on standard major/minor moods. Producer Tips Contrast layers  – Use melodic elements in one key against pads or bass in another to add tension. Modal flavour  – Borrow notes from modes to avoid predictable moods. Arrangement shifts  – Move between major and minor sections to create emotional lift or drop without touching tempo. Major vs minor is a starting point, not a box. Once you know how each feels in context – and start exploring the colours in between – you can shape your track’s mood with much more precision. Free PDF Download If you liked this post, it’s actually just a small part of a bigger module I wrote on [Understanding Musical Keys for the Electronic Producer] . You can grab the full PDF below – it’s the same one I originally made for Patreon, now free for anyone who’s into this kind of thing.

Here’s the truth: you spend hours, days, months crafting a track… only to give it away for life? Why? Owning your music has never been more important. Your catalog is leverage. It’s freedom, future income, and your creative legacy. Once it’s gone, it’s almost impossible to get back. Think Long-Term If you’re serious about making music your career, think about future you —20 or 30 years from now. Picture yourself with a catalog that’s grown alongside you. Your life’s work, still in your control, generating income for decades. In today’s fast-moving world, it’s easier than ever to build your own independent empire. Distribution, marketing, and direct-to-fan tools are in your hands. This level of control was unimaginable a generation ago. The Reality of Going It Alone Releasing independently is empowering: Full creative control. Full revenue share. Immediate decision-making power. The trade-off? Noise. Millions of tracks hit platforms every week. Cutting through takes time, strategy, and money. Many artists spend as much time running their “label” as they do making music. Why a Good Label Still Matters The right label can change everything: Reach:  Established fanbase and distribution. Resources:  Marketing, press, playlisting, sync opportunities. Team:  A community of artists that can elevate each other. A strong label sticks to the contract—royalty statements every six months, timely payments, and transparency. Where Deals Go Wrong Too many artists sign without reading the fine print. No questions. No strategy. The result? Deals that lock your music in for life, stripping away control—while culture treats music as disposable. Don’t let that happen to your art. Here’s the good news: It’s easier than ever to understand what you’re signing. You can drop a contract into GPT or a similar AI tool and get a clear, plain-English summary in seconds. Gone are the days when your only option was paying hefty legal fees just to check you weren’t being taken advantage of. Term Length: The Silent Killer One word matters more than most: perpetuity . If you see it, your music is gone forever. Fair terms vary, but here’s the baseline: 15 years  is reasonable for a label to market and monetize your work. Some artist-friendly deals run 5–10 years. Reversion is key.  After the term, rights revert to you—or you choose to re-sign. The Sweet Spot: Do Both Balance is powerful: Build your own imprint.  Keep control and long-term revenue. Sign smart.  Work with a label that respects your vision and treats your music like you do. The more you own, the stronger your position when opportunity comes. Before You Sign, Ask These 6 Questions Who owns the masters—and for how long? What’s the royalty split? Does the label support creative freedom? How often do they pay and report? What’s the term length—and can you re-sign? Does ownership revert back? Final Word Music doesn’t have to be disposable. Your art matters. Protect it. Build with intention. And if you do sign, make sure it’s with people who share your vision—not just your revenue. Your music is your legacy—treat it that way.

I think I can finally say it: the Lexicon 224 reverb  is the one . The sound I’ve been chasing for decades of making and mixing music. People often say Lexicon reverbs don’t sit on top of the sound–they extend it into the space. That’s exactly how I’ve always heard them. But even after trying different Lexicons through the years, I was never fully satisfied. I could hear the shape of what I wanted, but the picture never came into focus. Then I tried UAD’s Lexicon 224 . Immediately, it hit me: this was different. I heard the familiar Lexicon character–but this time it had an extra gloss, a fullness, a richness I instantly recognised. And the more I used it, the more I realised something: I already knew this sound. This wasn’t a new discovery–it was recognition. The Lexicon 224 had been with me all along. I’d heard it on the records I grew up with, the mixes that felt larger than life but never artificial. I’d heard it on classic tracks where the reverb didn’t pull you away from the music, it pulled you deeper in. It had been shaping my ears and my taste subconsciously for years. Why the Lexicon 224 Reverb Stands Apart Part of what makes the 224 legendary is its algorithms . Unlike natural rooms, the Lexicon was designed to create an idealised  space–something better than reality. Concert Hall  – Smooth, lush, and deep. This is the sound that defined so many ’80s ballads and film scores. Plate  – Bright and present, with a tone that gives vocals and snares that shimmering edge. Chamber  – Denser and more lively, a tighter space with personality. Room  – Natural, but still with that Lexicon polish. The UAD emulation doesn’t just recreate these algorithms–it captures the quirks of the original 1978 hardware, right down to the modulation and the grain in the tails. That’s why it feels alive, not sterile. The Recognition Moment That’s why using the 224 didn’t just sound good–it felt familiar . The reverb sat in the mix exactly as I remembered hearing it on records since childhood. It was the same sound I’d admired without ever naming it. I’ve used plenty of other reverbs over the years. The Bettermaker BM 60 , inspired by the PCM 60, does a brilliant job of integrating sound into a mix. And the Bricasti M7  is still on my dream list–something I’d love to own one day. But the 224 has something different. Something unmistakable. With UAD’s Lexicon 224 reverb , it feels like the long search is finally over–or at least, I’ve found the core sound I’ve been chasing all along. The Bricasti still calls to me, but for now, I’m more than happy living inside the 224’s space.

It’s a classic story:  you’re deep into a mix, everything’s sounding solid  on your main monitors, but after a while, your ears get tired  and details start to blur . That’s why I’ve been using a mono Avantone Mixcube  for over a decade. When I switch to it, everything feels clearer - issues in the mids, vocal balance, and low-end  stand out in a way they didn’t before. I fix it here, and when I go back to my NS10s or Adams , the mix sounds fresher, tighter, and more balanced . It’s not about making a mix sound good - it’s about making it work everywhere . And that’s exactly why Auratones , and their modern counterparts like the Mixcube , have been essential in studios for decades. Why the Avantone Mixcube? The Mixcube is basically a modern take on the Auratone 5C , the tiny but brutally honest speaker that engineers swore by in the ‘70s and ‘80s. It’s a single-driver, full-range speaker with no hyped lows or extended highs. Just midrange - the part of the mix that actually translates across all systems. Because there’s nothing flattering about it, you’re forced to make better decisions. If the vocal is too loud, you hear it. If the bass is masking everything, you hear it. If your snare isn’t cutting through, you hear it. No sub frequencies to lean on, no fancy stereo imaging to get lost in - just the cold, hard truth. The Legacy of the Auratone 5C Before the Mixcube, the Auratone 5C was everywhere . These little boxes sat on consoles in studios working on some of the biggest records ever made. Quincy Jones , Bob Clearmountain , Bruce Swedien - these guys mixed using Auratones to make sure their tracks worked outside the studio . Michael Jackson’s Thriller , Fleetwood Mac’s Rumours - all checked and refined on these speakers. The idea was simple: if a mix sounded good on an Auratone , it would sound good anywhere - from car radios to TVs to cheap home speakers. They weren’t designed to sound great. They were designed to tell the truth. Modern Applications The Auratone 5C eventually disappeared for a while, but the concept never died. Avantone brought it back with the Mixcube, keeping the same philosophy: simplicity, clarity, and translation . And honestly, it’s still one of the best tools for checking a mix. I start on my full-range monitors, get the mix feeling right, then flip to the Mixcube in mono. That’s where the real work happens. Once I’ve made adjustments there, going back to full-range speakers feels like taking the weights off . The mix just opens up. Virtual Auratone: The Slate VSX Surprise When I switched to the Auratone emulation  in Slate’s Virtual Monitoring system , I was blown away - it felt exactly  like my Mixcube  in my room. Same focus, same punch, same ability  to make the mix fall apart in all the right ways . Now, I actually use the virtual version  more than my real Mixcube . It does the same job—exposing flaws - without needing to be patched in or physically switched over . It just works. Final Thoughts Whether it’s a real Auratone 5C , an Avantone Mixcube , or a virtual emulation , a mono, full-range speaker like this is an essential tool. It forces you to make better mixing decisions, exposes weaknesses, and helps you create tracks that sound great everywhere - not just in the studio. If you’re not using one yet, maybe you haven’t felt the need for it—or just haven’t pulled the trigger on one. But it’s one of the simplest ways to make your mixes translate better. Podcast Version Bonus: How to Make a Mono Summing Cable for Your Mixcube If you’re using a single Avantone Mixcube  in mono and need to sum your left and right outputs safely, you’ll need a simple passive summing cable . Without it, you risk distortion, phase issues, or even damaging your audio source. Here’s how you can build one: What You Need: • Two 1/4” TS or TRS plugs   (for the left and right outputs) • One 1/4” TS plug   (for an unbalanced Mixcube input)   or   One XLR male connector   (for a balanced input) • Two matching resistors   (1kΩ to 4.7kΩ) • Soldering iron & heat shrink tubing How to Wire It: 1. Solder a resistor to each signal wire   (Tip of Left & Tip of Right) . 2. Join the ends of both resistors  and connect them to: • The Tip  of the TS plug (for an unbalanced input) • XLR Pin 2 (Hot/Signal)   (for a balanced input) 3. Connect the ground wires  from both stereo cables together and solder them to: • The Sleeve  of the TS plug (for an unbalanced input) • XLR Pin 1 & Pin 3 (Ground & Cold)   (for a balanced input) 4. Insulate everything  with heat shrink tubing to prevent shorts. Why Use Resistors? Without them, directly summing left and right can cause distortion and signal degradation. The resistors help prevent overloading and ensure a balanced mix. If you prefer a cleaner setup, you can build a passive summing box  with a stereo input and a mono output using the same resistor network inside a small enclosure. The Resistors Need to Be Matched • Prevents phase shifts  – If the resistors aren’t equal, the left and right signals won’t sum evenly, which can cause phase issues. • Keeps the mix centred  – Uneven resistance can make one side louder, shifting the summed signal off-centre. • Maintains proper impedance  – Matching resistors ensure both signals are attenuated equally, preventing distortion or level imbalances. What Value Should You Use? • Lower values (1kΩ)  give a stronger summed signal. • Higher values (4.7kΩ or more)  reduce the summed level slightly but provide better isolation.

This all started with the Pultec . I knew its filters were set at 12 dB per octave , and I’ve always loved the way they shape tone – enough to clean up, but never harsh. Then I noticed Kirchhoff EQ  also defaults to 12 dB/oct . That’s when I started asking myself: why this number? Is it just a coincidence? Turns out, it’s not. The Pull of 12 dB/oct 12 dB/oct  sits in that sweet middle ground – steep enough to remove what you don’t need, gentle enough to keep the source sounding real. It doesn’t introduce excessive phase rotation, so transients and tone stay intact. Technically, it’s a second-order Butterworth curve** – flat in the passband with a –3 dB point right at the cutoff. The phase rotation it introduces is gentle and predictable , so the transition between “kept” and “cut” frequencies feels smooth rather than abrupt. Steeper filters rotate phase more aggressively , which can smear transients or make the filter’s action more obvious. At 12 dB/oct , the balance between control and transparency is just right — which is why it feels so musical. Once you notice it, you see it everywhere. After some research… Here’s what I found when digging into well-known hardware and modern EQs: SSL 4000 E  – HPF: 18 dB/oct  (16–350 Hz), LPF: 12 dB/oct  (3–20 kHz) 9000 J/K  – HPF: 18 dB/oct  (20–500 Hz), LPF: 12 dB/oct  (3–20 kHz) Duality/AWS  – HPF: 18 dB/oct  (20–400 Hz), LPF: 12 dB/oct  (3–22 kHz) That 18 dB/oct HPF  choice comes from console workflow – stronger low-frequency rejection for live and mic’d sources in busy sessions. Neve 80-series (1073/1084)  – HPF: 12 dB/oct  (stepped), no LPF (high shelf instead) VR-series  – HPF: 12 dB/oct  (31–400 Hz), LPF: 12 dB/oct  (3–18 kHz) 88R / 88RS  – HPF: 12 dB/oct  (31–400 Hz), LPF: 12 dB/oct  (3–18 kHz) Neve keeps it symmetrical – smooth, natural, and forgiving. Focusrite Studio Console  – HPF: 18 dB/oct  (20–315 Hz), LPF: 12 dB/oct  (3–18 kHz) ISA 110  – HPF: 18 dB/oct  (16–315 Hz), LPF: 12 dB/oct  (3–18 kHz) Steeper HPFs for precision, gentle LPFs for tone. Harrison 32C  – HPF: 12 dB/oct  (25–400 Hz), LPF: 12 dB/oct  (3–20 kHz) Series 10/12  – HPF: 12 dB/oct  (25–400 Hz), LPF: 12 dB/oct  (3–20 kHz) Harrison stays in the Pultec/Neve camp – broad, musical shaping. Pultec → Kirchhoff → FabFilter Pultec EQP-1A  – Fixed at 12 dB/oct  for both HPF and LPF Kirchhoff EQ  – Defaults to 12 dB/oct , adjustable FabFilter Pro-Q 4  – Defaults to 12 dB/oct  for HPF and LPF It’s not just legacy hardware – modern “do-anything” EQs start here because it works in most musical situations before you even tweak it. The Pattern LPFs  (top end) – almost always 12 dB/oct  to avoid closing in the sound or making the presence/air region phasey. HPFs  (low end) – split between 12 dB/oct  (musical) and 18 dB/oct  (tighter and faster cleanup). 12 dB/oct HPF  → vocals, acoustic sources, busses – anything you want to keep open. 18 dB/oct HPF  → drums, bass, dense mixes – when you need the low end gone quickly. 12 dB/oct LPF  → almost everything. “A 12 dB/oct filter is the Goldilocks curve – flat and predictable in the passband, gentle enough to keep tone intact, and steep enough to clean without cutting the life out of the sound.” FAQ: EQ Filter Slopes & Musicality Q: Why do most low-pass filters use a 12 dB/oct slope? A: It’s gentle enough to roll off highs without making a source sound closed in, and avoids phase issues in the presence/air region. Q: When should I use a 12 dB/oct HPF instead of 18 dB/oct? A: Use 12 dB/oct when you want to clean low-end without losing warmth – ideal for vocals, acoustic instruments, and busses. Q: Why do SSL consoles use an 18 dB/oct HPF? A: The steeper slope gives stronger low-end control, perfect for clearing space in dense mixes and live/mic’d sources. Q: Is the Pultec’s 12 dB/oct slope still relevant? A: Absolutely – many modern EQs like Kirchhoff and FabFilter still default to 12 dB/oct because it just works. Q: Does a steeper slope cause more phase shift? A: Yes — for a given filter type, each additional “pole” (6 dB/oct) adds about 90°  of phase rotation at the steepest point. Steeper slopes rotate phase more, which can subtly change transients and low-end punch. 6 dB/oct  → ~90° 12 dB/oct  → ~180° 18 dB/oct  → ~270° 24 dB/oct  → ~360° …and so on. Q: Can I change the slope in digital EQs? A: Most modern EQs let you. If unsure, start at 12 dB/oct – it’s safe and musical – then adjust if you need more control. ** A second-order Butterworth curve  is basically the technical name for what most people in mixing just call a 12 dB/oct filter . Here’s the breakdown in plain terms: Order = number of filter “stages” (or poles) First-order filter  = 1 pole → slope of 6 dB/oct Second-order filter  = 2 poles → slope of 12 dB/oct Each pole adds 6 dB of attenuation per octave  and 90° of phase shift  at the steepest point. Butterworth = filter shape choice Named after British engineer Stephen Butterworth (1930). Designed for maximally flat passband  – meaning no bumps, dips, or ripples before the cutoff. Gives you a smooth, predictable drop-off without weird resonances. At the cutoff frequency, the signal is down by exactly –3 dB  (half power).

I’ve been using IK Multimedia’s ARC system since version 1–well over a decade now–and every version has delivered. I’m currently on ARC 3. It’s not about hype or flashy features; it’s about trusting what you hear, especially in rooms that aren’t acoustically perfect. For me, ARC has become a quiet constant in my setup–something I rely on without thinking. What Is ARC? ARC (Advanced Room Correction) is IK Multimedia’s software-based acoustic correction system . You use a calibrated mic to measure your room, and ARC builds a custom EQ profile that compensates for the unique flaws in your space–whether that’s excessive bass build-up, comb filtering, or odd frequency dips. Once you have your profile, you load ARC as the final plugin on your master bus (not printed to your export), and it “corrects” the sound coming through your monitors–flattening the response and giving you a more neutral listening environment. Why I Still Use It I’ve been in the same space with the same monitors for years–and ARC has been a constant. I’ve used every version since ARC 1, and each update has added more clarity and control. ARC 3 is the most refined yet for me. It doesn’t replace acoustic treatment, but it smooths out the issues that even well-placed treatment can’t always handle–especially in home environments where perfect acoustics aren’t realistic. What ARC really gives me is trust . Trust that my low-end decisions aren’t guesswork. Trust that the mids aren’t being coloured by the room. And trust that the mix I’m hearing will translate outside the studio–whether it’s headphones, car, or club system. How It Fits in My Setup ARC isn’t the only thing I use to check my mix–but it’s always on  when I’m dialling things in. I treat it as one of several monitoring perspectives: ARC 3 for a flattened, neutral room response My raw monitors for how the room really  sounds Headphones (open and closed) VSX Consumer speakers or Bluetooth devices Car checks, phone tests, etc. ARC just slides into that system. It’s not flashy–but it’s effective. It gives me confidence, especially when working late or in less-than-ideal conditions. What ARC 3 Does Well Bass clarity:  Especially below 100Hz, where most home rooms lie to you. Stereo balance:  Subtle image corrections that help pans and centre placements feel right. Mix translation:  Your mixes survive better across different systems. Non-destructive workflow:  Easy to bypass for referencing, and never prints to your master. A Few Things to Know You’ll want a proper measurement mic.  The one IK provides is good, but any calibrated mic will do. Use it responsibly.  Don’t rely on it to “fix” bad mixes–it helps you hear better, not mix better. Bypass it when referencing.  Commercial tracks can sound dull or flat through ARC. I always bypass it when checking reference tracks. Final Thoughts If you’ve already got decent monitors but a less-than-perfect room, ARC might still be one of the smartest upgrades you can make. For me, it’s been over a decade of steady, unassuming help–a tool that’s always there, always reliable, and still part of every mix I do. ARC 4 has been out for a while now , and I’m aware it brings some solid refinements–like faster calibration and improved room modelling. I’ll likely upgrade at some point. But even now, ARC 3 hasn’t once felt like it’s holding me back . It’s accurate, dependable, and fully integrated into how I work. When I do move to ARC 4, it’ll be an evolution–not because ARC 3 is lacking, but because I trust what ARC has always done well.

If you’re after that final polish and loudness boost on your master bus, the CGII plugin by Metric Halo (created with Chris Gehringer) definitely brings something special . I’ve been using it on recent mixes, and while it adds undeniable weight and sheen, I’ve also run into a few unexpected artefacts worth noting. Here’s a balanced take based on real-world use. What Is the CGII Plugin? CGII is a mastering dynamics processor designed to sit on your mix bus. It offers two main dials– Loudness  and Density –plus a built-in True Peak Limiter . Together, they aim to make your track sound cohesive, loud, and radio-ready in just a few moves. How I Use CGII on the Master Bus In my typical chain: True Peak mode  is always on, with a ceiling at −0.1 dB. The Loudness  dial can be pushed fairly far–surprisingly clean, even at higher levels. Density  adds harmonic fullness and a sense of glued-togetherness across the mix. At its best, the plugin makes a track feel finished  in seconds. The Artefacts I’ve Heard Lately Here’s the honest bit: on recent sessions, I started to hear subtle glitchy artefacts–almost like a denoiser or clipper struggling–particularly in the stereo sides . They weren’t loud, but once I noticed them, I couldn’t un hear them. They sounded like faint digital jitter or granular tearing. It’s worth mentioning that this didn’t happen every time–it seemed to crop up more when pushing the Density  dial past 10 o’clock. Still, it was enough for me to pull the original blog post temporarily. That said, on the latest track, I used only the Loudness  control–and heard no artefacts at all. Why I Still Use It Despite the occasional artefacts, I found myself reaching for CGII again. It just works. The plugin adds that last 10% of polish–especially when you’re on a tight deadline or chasing modern loudness without smashing your transients. If you keep the Density in check , the artefacts don’t show up, and the mix gains energy, weight, and focus. When used responsibly, CGII still earns its spot on my master chain. Quick Specs & Features True Peak Limiter with ceiling control Loudness control for level increases Density for harmonic saturation Up to 16x oversampling Vintage-style nixie tube meters (LUFS + True Peak) Final Thoughts CGII is one of those rare plugins that makes a track feel done –fast. But like anything powerful, it demands attention. Push it too far, and the polish starts to flake. Stay within its sweet spot, and it’s a serious asset for mix bus or mastering work. If you’re okay with its quirks, it might just become your new secret weapon.

Compression is one of those tools that most mixes lean on. It controls dynamics, glues things together, and holds sounds in place. But here’s the thing– too much compression can kill the vibe . It flattens everything, takes away the air, and suddenly your track feels sterile. The fix? The mix knob. It’s become an essential control for me over the years. It lets you pull back some of that original signal and bring the life back into your sound–whether it’s a vocal, a drum bus, or the whole mix. Why Compression Can Suck the Life Out When you hit something hard with a compressor: The peaks get squashed. Micro-dynamics disappear. The tone changes, and not always in a good way. What you’re left with is control, sure–but at the cost of character. That raw energy and movement you loved? Gone. This is where blending in the dry signal changes everything. It doesn’t take much–sometimes just the smallest amount brings the life back and puts your sound right where it belongs. It’s that perfect balance: full control with just the right feel. Why the Mix Knob on a Compressor Is Essential for Modern Mixing  The mix knob on a compressor (or wet/dry blend) is basically parallel compression without the extra routing . Here’s why it matters: You keep the control and glue  from compression. You bring back the punch and vibe  from the original. The result? A sound that sits right and still feels alive . On Individual Tracks Crushing a vocal for control? Or smashing drums for punch? Cool–but don’t leave it 100% wet. Blend some dry signal back in and listen to the difference. The sound suddenly has space to breathe. On the Mix Bus This is huge on the mix bus. A little compression glues things together, but slam it too hard and you flatten the entire track. Pull back with the mix knob and everything opens up again–depth, movement, life. Why This Matters Compression isn’t just a technical thing–it shapes the emotion  of a track. Overdo it and it sounds robotic. Get the balance right and it feels human. That’s why the mix knob has become such a big deal for me. It’s the difference between something that just sits there and something that moves, breathes, and connects. Final Thought Next time you compress, don’t just set it and forget it. Twist that mix knob. Find the sweet spot where control meets character. That’s where the magic happens. FAQs About the Mix Knob on a Compressor 1. What does the mix knob on a compressor do? The mix knob controls how much of the compressed signal is blended with the original dry signal. This feature lets you keep the benefits of compression while restoring natural dynamics and tone. 2. Why not just lower the compression instead of using the mix knob? Reducing compression lowers control and punch. The mix knob allows you to apply strong compression for impact and glue while blending back the original signal for life and character. 3. Is using the mix knob the same as parallel compression? Yes. The mix knob is essentially built-in parallel compression. It removes the need for extra buses and routing, giving you a simple wet/dry blend option. 4. Should I use the mix knob on the mix bus? Yes, and it’s often a lifesaver. Heavy compression on the mix bus can make a track feel flat. Blending the dry signal restores openness and depth while keeping everything glued together. 5. How much dry signal should I blend back in? There’s no exact rule. Start with 70% compressed / 30% dry  and adjust by ear. Sometimes, even a small amount of dry signal can bring back energy and vibe. As always, drop a comment if you have questions or want to know more about this topic.

Back when I was teaching at Sheffield College of Music , one of the most memorable references I used in class was The Art of Mixing  by David Gibson . It’s not your typical textbook. What drew me in – and what landed with students – was the visual language . Gibson uses colourful 3D shapes and stereo diagrams to explain mixing like a painter works with space. You don’t just hear the kick drum –you see  it, low and centre. The vocals float just above. Synths stretch out sideways. Reverbs create cloudy halos in the distance. It turns the mix into a living, breathing sculpture. Then there’s the video . If you’ve seen it, you’ll know: it’s wild. The edits are vintage-90s psychedelic – awkward zooms, surreal cuts, and Gibson’s narration hovering somewhere between science teacher and metaphysical guide. But somehow, it works . It’s like going on a mild visual trip while learning EQ, panning, and stereo placement . “It’s like you’ve had a trip while learning the art. I guess it may be a good way for the information to go in.” 😄 Even now, decades later, it holds up as a teaching tool. It’s especially powerful for visual learners  or anyone trying to bridge the gap between what they hear  and where it fits in the mix . 📚 What Is The Art of Mixing? Originally published in 1997 , The Art of Mixing  is a book and video combo by engineer and educator David Gibson , designed to help you see  audio. Each sound in a mix is represented as a floating sphere in 3D space. Changes to EQ, volume, pan, and reverb affect its shape, placement, and “shine.” It’s a totally unique, visual-first method of understanding mix balance. Gibson breaks down different genres – from jazz and hip-hop to metal and electronic – demonstrating how elements occupy space differently depending on the style. 🎬 The Video: Legendary, Lo-Fi, and Still Relevant The accompanying video series (still circulating online) is iconic for its surreal production and quirky narration. Despite its dated visuals, many producers swear by it: “Visually explains how a mix works… best video to help a beginner understand the concept of mixing as art.” – Jim Fogle, Cakewalk Forums “The Art of Mixing is the best video that visually shows what you should be hearing.” – Reddit: r/audiophile It’s even been called “like going to a really good audio engineering school in a couple of hours”  ( TAXI.com ). If you’re curious, search YouTube for “David Gibson The Art of Mixing Part 1” –it’s free to watch and still incredibly valuable. 🔍 Why It Still Works Intuitive learning  – The visual metaphors help bridge the gap between abstract audio concepts and real-world perception. Volume first  – Gibson emphasises faders before effects— balance over tricks . Creative mindset  – His style encourages experimentation over rules, helping mixers develop their own sound. Genre-aware  – It teaches not just mixing principles, but how they shift across styles. 🎓 Who’s It For? Beginner and intermediate mixers Visual learners who think in shapes and space Teachers looking to explain mixing in a new way Anyone burned out by technical manuals 📘 Want to Check It Out? Book : Available on Amazon  (various editions, including a 2019 reprint) Video : Find the full series on YouTube Reviews & Articles : TAXI.com review Dangerous Minds article Reddit Discussion In short:   The Art of Mixing  transforms mixing from a technical exercise into a spatial, artistic experience. It’s fun, foundational, and still worth your time – especially if you want your mixes to look as good as they sound.

There’s a reason why so many people describe music from the ’60s, ’70s, and ’80s as having a certain warmth, character, or punch - even before they know anything about tape machines, transformers, or vinyl mastering. That classic sound isn’t just nostalgia. It’s physics, chemistry, and production workflows baked into the medium itself. And if you’re working in a modern DAW, it helps to know what gave those earlier recordings their vibe - and how you can recreate it today. The Tape Factor: Natural Compression and Harmonics Before digital, music was recorded to magnetic tape - typically 1/2”, 1”, or 2” wide reels - depending on the number of tracks. Tape isn’t neutral. It adds: Soft clipping and compression  when signals push into saturation Even-order harmonics  that add musical warmth A gentle high-frequency roll-off  that smooths harsh transients Subtle modulation (wow/flutter)  that creates motion Frequency Response: Most pro tape machines captured from ~30 Hz to 15–20 kHz, with a slight top-end roll-off. This bandwidth helped tame harshness naturally - even cymbals and vocals sounded smoother. Top Tape Emulations Today: UAD Studer A800 SPL Machine Head Softube Tape ToTape7 Waves J37 (based on Abbey Road’s machine) Slate VTM (Virtual Tape Machines) Chow Tape To recreate tape: Push tape plugins gently - don’t max the input, let it glue. Try 15 IPS (inches per second) for more warmth, 30 IPS for clarity. Add tape before the mixbus for subtle compression, or after for final sheen. Vinyl: Physical Mastering for the Real World Most music before the ‘90s was cut to vinyl . That meant every mix was adapted to survive physical limitations: Low-end summed to mono  to avoid stylus jumps Sibilance and extreme highs carefully tamed Dynamic range manually adjusted  for groove width The result? More intentional mixes  - and often less extreme EQ curves. Want that vinyl feel? Use a mid-side EQ to mono the lows below 120 Hz Soften harsh transients with transient shapers or analog EQ curves (like Pultecs or Maag EQ4) Add subtle crackle, warp, or low rumble with plugins like RC-20 , iZotope Vinyl , or SketchCassette Analog Gear: Transformers, Tubes, and Consoles Tape was just the start. Most studios tracked and mixed through hardware filled with transformers , vacuum tubes , and discrete components . These added tone: Transformers (like in Neve, API)  added low-end heft and harmonic detail Tubes (Fairchild, LA-2A)  introduced gentle saturation and roundness Discrete Class A circuits  had clarity with musical colouration Even simple gain staging added character. To simulate this: Use preamp emulation plugins  (e.g. Waves NLS , Soundtoys Radiator , UAD 610 , or Kazrog True Iron ) Add gentle console summing  plugins for cumulative harmonic layering Saturate subtly - warmth comes from subtle stacking, not one extreme effect Workflow Differences: Limitations Led to Clarity Tracks were often limited to 8, 16, or 24 channels - forcing better arrangement decisions Commitment during tracking  (EQ, compression, effects) created a focused sound Fewer edits  = more natural timing and groove You can emulate this today by: Limiting yourself to 24–32 tracks Printing effects early Avoiding endless takes and edits Prioritising groove over perfection Frequency and Perception: Less Top-End, More Balance A big part of the sound was simply less top-end information  - not because engineers lacked skill, but because tape, vinyl, and analog gear naturally rolled off extreme highs. That’s why modern tracks can sound brittle in comparison. Want the vibe? Use gentle high shelving EQ to mimic the natural roll-off  (~12kHz and above) Control transients with saturation, not just compressors Monitor at low volumes to match how vinyl was enjoyed Final Thoughts: It’s Not About Nostalgia - It’s About Feel Pre-’90s music sounds the way it does because of the tools, the mediums, and the mindset . You don’t need to go fully analog to get there - but understanding what shaped those sounds lets you shape your own. So next time your mix sounds a little cold or brittle, don’t just reach for eq. Ask: “What would this sound like if it had passed through tape, tubes, and vinyl?” Then make it feel that way - one subtle, warm layer at a time.

Hardware or Software The debate between hardware and software in music production  has been ongoing for decades. As someone who’s been on the full journey , I’ve seen it from all angles-starting with hardware, moving fully in the box, going back to an all-hardware setup, and now landing in a semi-hybrid  workflow in 2025. The short answer: No.  Not for most things—and definitely not to make great music. But in certain cases, it can still offer something unique. The Evolution of Hardware vs. Software Early Days – All Hardware Back when I started, hardware was the only option . Everything from synths to compressors and reverbs had to be outboard gear . The feel of turning knobs, pushing faders, and tweaking sounds in real-time was part of the experience . The Move Into the Box As software improved, I moved mainly in the box -while it was convenient, something felt missing. Plugins could emulate the sound of hardware, but they didn’t fully capture the feel . The Return to Hardware I later went full hardware again, realising that there was still a difference . Hardware synths, compressors, and reverbs still had a certain depth, warmth, and interaction  that made them unique. 2025 – The Semi-Hybrid Era Now, I work in a semi-hybrid setup , and I’ve reached a conclusion: ✔️ Hardware still has a role.  The difference may be subtle, but it’s there. ✔️ Plugins now sound incredible.  Some modern software feels indistinguishable from hardware. ✔️ Interaction and creativity matter.  The way we engage with gear affects the music we create. What Still Sounds Better in Hardware? 🎛️ Synths  – A real Prophet 5  still doesn’t compare to a plugin version. It’s not just the sound -it’s the feel, the movement, and the life  in the analog signal. 🌊 Reverbs – In-the-box reverbs have come a long way. With improvements in processing power , oversampling , and high-resolution algorithms , their clarity and depth now rival hardware. While some producers have been using them for years, advancements in technology have made them a truly viable option for those who once preferred outboard units. UAD's Lexicon 224 being a prime example. 🌀 Timbre & Playability  – Hardware synths encourage playing and experimenting  in a way that plugins don’t always replicate. The physical interaction  leads to unexpected creative moments . Where Software Has Completely Caught Up 🔊 Compression  – For me, in-the-box compressors work 100%.  Whether it’s an LA-2A, 1176, or SSL bus compressor , the modern plugin emulations  are pretty much indistinguishable from hardware. 🎚️ Mixing & Mastering  – Andrew Scheps moving entirely in the box  was a turning point for me. If a Grammy-winning mix engineer  could do it, it was clear the technology was there. In 2025, I can confidently say mixing in the box sounds just as good. 💾 Workflow & Convenience  – Recall-ability, automation, and efficiency  make plugins a game-changer . The ability to instantly tweak settings, save presets, and work on multiple projects  without patching cables is a huge advantage . Hardware Sequencers vs. DAW Sequencing One of the biggest differences between hardware and software  is how we sequence music . DAWs like Ableton Live, Logic, and Cubase  are powerful and flexible , but hardware sequencers like the MPC, BeatStep Pro, and Cirklon  offer a different creative experience . 🎛️ MPC Series  – The MPC workflow  is legendary. The tactile, hands-on sampling and sequencing  bring a groove and swing  that DAWs sometimes struggle to replicate. ⚡ BeatStep Pro  – A great step sequencer for modular and analog setups , giving a performance-based workflow  that encourages jamming and improvisation. 🔄 Cirklon  – The gold standard for hardware sequencing , offering deep control, tight timing, and a workflow that feels different from a DAW’s piano roll . While DAWs allow more flexibility , hardware sequencers bring a human touch , pushing producers into unexpected creative directions . It’s why many still prefer the MPC swing or the Cirklon’s rock-solid timing over a mouse and MIDI grid. Final Thoughts: Is Hardware Still Worth It? ✅ Yes, if you love the feel of hardware. ✅ Yes, if you want hands-on interaction. ✅ Yes, if you want slightly richer timbre and movement. ✅ But for mixing? The difference is now negligible. For years, people have been working entirely in the box -even as far back as 2004, when StoneBridge was writing and mixing wholly in the box . It’s taken a long time, but now, in 2025 , the difference in software vs. hardware mixing is nearly indistinguishable . So, do you need  hardware? No.  But does hardware still bring something special to the creative process? Absolutely.