Focal press mixing audio concepts practices and tools jan 2008 ISBN 0240520688 pdf

Mixing Audio


This page intentionally left blank


Mixing Audio
Concepts, Practices and Tools

Roey Izhaki

AMSTERDAM • BOSTON • HEIDELBERG • LONDON
NEW YORK • OXFORD • PARIS • SAN DIEGO
SAN FRANCISCO • SINGAPORE • SYDNEY • TOKYO
Focal Press is an imprint of Elsevier


Focal Press is an imprint of Elsevier
Linacre House, Jordan Hill, Oxford OX2 8DP, UK
30 Corporate Drive, Suite 400, Burlington, MA 01803, USA
Copyright © 2008, Roey Izhaki, Published by Elsevier, Ltd. All rights reserved.
The right of Roey Izhaki to be identified as the author of this work has been asserted in accordance
with the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988
No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in
any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise,
without the prior written permission of the publisher.
Permissions may be sought directly from Elsevier’s Science & Technology Rights
Department in Oxford, UK: phone: (+44) 1865 843830, fax: (+44) 1865 853333,
E-mail: You may also complete your request online
via the Elsevier homepage (), by selecting “Support & Contact”

then “Copyright and Permission” and then “Obtaining Permissions.”
Recognizing the importance of preserving what has been written, Elsevier prints its books on
acid-free paper whenever possible.
British Library Cataloguing-in-Publication Data
A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library.
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data
A catalogue record for this book is available from the Library of Congress.
ISBN: 978-0-240-52068-1
For information on all Focal Press publications visit
our website at www.books.elsevier.com
08 09 10 11

5 4 3 2 1

Printed and bound in Great Britain
Front cover design by Roey Izhaki.
Reflection image:
SSL XL 9000K console @ The Hit Factory, courtesy of Solid State Logic.
Picture credits:
Line illustrations by Roey Izhaki, apart from 14.5 – Carlos Lellis Ferreira.
Figures 7.2, 7.3, 9.21, 9.35, 16.3, 23.4 – photos by Matthias Postel

Working together to grow
libraries in developing countries
www.elsevier.com | www.bookaid.org | www.sabre.org


Contents

Acknowledgments

xi

Introduction

xiii

Symbols and formats used

xvii

Part I

Concepts and Practices

1 Music and mixing
Music – An extremely short introduction
The perfect mix

1
3
3
7

2 Some axioms and other gems
Louder perceived better
Percussives weigh less
Importance
Natural vs. artificial

12
12
14
15
16

3 Learning to mix
What makes a great mixing engineer?
Methods of learning
Mixing analysis
Reference tracks

18
18
22
24
25

4 The process of mixing
Mixing and the production chain
The mix as a composite
Where to start?
Deadlocks
Milestones
Finalizing and stabilizing the mix

28
28
32
33

39
40
41

5 Related issues
How long does it take?
Breaks
Using solos
Mono listening
Bouncing
Housekeeping
Mix edits
Mastering

44
44
45
45
46
48
53
53
55

6 Mixing domains and objectives
Mixing objectives
Frequency domain

58
58

60
v


vi

Contents

Level domain
Stereo domain
Depth

Part II

Tools

64
67
71
75

7 Monitoring
How did we get here?
Choosing monitors
The room factor
Positioning monitors

77
77
81

84
88

8 Meters
Amplitude vs. level
Mechanical and bar meters
Peak meters
Average meters
Phase meters

93
93
94
95
95
98

9 Mixing consoles
Buses
Processors vs. effects
Basic signal flow
The importance of signal flow diagrams
Groups
In-line consoles
The monitor section
Solos
Correct gain structure
The digital console

99

100
100
102
108
117
124
128
131
135
137

10 Software mixers
Tracks and Mixer Strips
Routing
The internal architecture

140
141
146
149

11 Phase
What is phase?
Problems
Tricks

163
163
165
168

12 Faders
Types
Scales
Working with faders

177
177
179
181

13 Panning
How stereo works?
Pan controls
Types of tracks

184
184
186
194


Contents

vii

Panning techniques
Beyond pan pots

198

203

14 Equalizers
Applications
The frequency spectrum
Types and controls
In practice
Equalizing various instruments

205
206
209
214
232
249

15 Introduction to dynamic range processors
Dynamic range
Dynamics
Dynamic range processors in a nutshell

262
262
264
265

16 Compressors
The course of history
The sound of compressors
Principle of operation and core controls

Additional controls
Controls in practice
Applications
Tricks
More on compressors

270
271
273
274
287
295
312
322
327

17 Limiters

335

18 Gates
Controls
Applications
In practice
Tricks

338
339
351
355

358

19 Expanders
Controls
In practice
Upward expanders

365
366
368
371

20 Duckers
Operation and controls
Applications

374
374
377

21 Delays
Delay basics
Types
In practice
Applications

380
380
384
389

393

22 Other modulation tools
Vibrato
ADT

397
397
398


viii

Contents

Chorus
Flanging
Phasing
Tremolo

399
401
402
404

23 Reverbs
What is reverb?
Applications
Types
Reverb programs

Reverb properties and parameters
Reverbs and stereo
Other reverb types
Reverbs in practice

405
405
405
410
418
421
434
437
443

24 Distortion
Background
Distortion basics
Ways to generate distortion
Amp simulators

451
451
451
454
457

25 Drum triggering
Methods of drum triggering

460
461

26 Other tools
MS
Pitch shifters and harmonizers
Exciters and enhancers
Transient designers

465
465
470
471
473

27 Automation
Automation engines
The automation process
Automation alternatives
Control surfaces

475
476
476
479
480

Part III

Sample Mixes

483

28 Hero (Rock)
Drums
Bass
Rhythm guitar
Distorted guitars
Lead guitar
Vocals

485
486
491
492
493
495
495

29 It’s temps Pt. II (Hip Hop/Urban/Grime)
Beat
Bass
Other tracks
Vocals

499
499
502
503
507

Contents

ix

30 Donna Pomini (Techno)
Ambiance reverb
Beat
Sound FX
Bass
Vocal
Other elements

513
513
514
519
520
521
521

31 The Hustle (DnB)
Ambiance reverb
Drums
Motif elements
Pads
Horns and brass
Risers
Strings

526
527
527
532
535
536
537
539

Appendix A

Notes to frequencies chart

540

Appendix B

Delay time chart

541

Index

551


This page intentionally left blank

Acknowledgments

Carlos Lellis Ferreira for reviewing early drafts of this book and his invaluable comments
on these drafts. Paul Frindle for keenly sharing his priceless knowledge on compressors
and other mixing tools. Kelly Howard-Garde, Laura Marr and Chris Zane for their essential
help during the proposal phase of this book.
Charlotte Dawson from Digidesign UK, Colin McDowell and Aja Sorensen from McDSP,
Jim Cooper from MOTU, Antoni O˙zynski,
´
Mateusz Wo´zniak and Hubert Pietrzykowski
from PSP, Nathan Eames from Sonnox, Angus Baigent from Steinberg, Andreas Sundgren
from Toontrack.
Catharine Steers, David Bowers, Vijaisarath Parthasarathy and all other Focal Press personnel who have been involved with this book.
Luca Barassi, Amir Dotan, Preben Hansen, Guy Katsav, Mandy Parnell and Matthias Postel.
My family and friends for their support.

Contributors
Some of the leading companies in the industry supported the production of the audio
material that accompanies this book. I would like to thank:
Audioease for Altiverb.
www.audioease.com
Digidesign for their Music Production Toolkit and many other plugins presented in this
book.
www.digidesign.com
McDSP for the full range of their plugins.
www.mcdsp.com
MOTU for Digital Performer 5.
www.motu.com
PSP for the full range of their plugins.
www.PSPaudioware.com

xi


xii

Acknowledgments

Sonnox for the full range of their plugins.
www.sonnoxplugins.com
Steinberg for Cubase 4.
www.steinberg.net
Toontrack for dfh SUPERIOR and dfh EZdrummer with its full expansion libraries.
www.toontrack.com
Universal Audio for their UAD-1e card and their plugins.
www.uaudio.com

Sample mixes
The following artists contributed their productions for the sample mixes presented in
Part III.
Hero
By AutoZero (Dan Bradley, Lish Lee and Lee Ray Smith).
www.autozero.co.uk
It’s Temps Pt. II
By Brendon ‘Octave’ Harding and Temps.
www.myspace.com/octaveproductions
www.myspace.com/temps14
Donna Pomini
By TheSwine.
www.theswine.co.uk
The Hustle

By Dan ‘Samurai’ Havers and Tom ‘Dash’ Petais.
www.dc-breaks.co.uk


Introduction

Not so often a new form of art is born; where or when the art of mixing exactly formed
is not an easy question. We can look at the instrumentation of orchestral pieces as a
very primitive way of mixing – different instruments played together and could mask one
another; composers knew this and took it into account. In the early days of recordings,
before multitrack recorders came about, a producer would place musicians in a room so the
final recording would make sense in terms of levels and depth. Equalizers, compressors
and reverb emulators were not even invented; there were no mixing engineers either,
but the idea of combining various instruments into an appealing master was already a
sought-after practice.
Like many other new forms of arts that emerged in the twentieth century, mixing was
bound to technology innovations. It was the multitrack tape machine, which dawned during
the 1960s, that kick-started mixing as we know it today. Yes, there were times when
the ability to record eight instruments separately was a dream coming true. Multitracks
gave us the ability to play, time and again, the recorded material before committing sonic
treatment – essentially, our mix. Equalizers, compressors and reverb emulators soon
became familiar residents in studios; audio consoles grew in size to accommodate more
tracks and facilities; the 8 became 16, then 24 tracks. We had more sonic control over
individual tracks and over the final master. Mixing was in bloom. Music sounded better.
It was the 1990s that reshaped much of the way music is made, produced, recorded,
mixed and even distributed – computers prevailed. Realtime audio plugins were first
introduced with the release of Pro Tools III back in 1994; however, these could only
run on a dedicated DSP card. It was Steinberg and its 1996 release of Cubase VST
that pioneered the audio plugins as we know them at present – a piece of software
that can perform realtime audio calculations using the computer’s CPU. The term project

studio was coined, mainly due to affordable computers and adequate technologies. For
the first time, multitrack recording and mixing did not require the hiring of expensive
studios. Still, the processing power of computers in the 1990s could not compete with
the quality and quantity of mixing devices found in a professional studio. Things have
changed since – running 10 quality reverbs simultaneously on a modern DAW has long
been a dream coming true. The quality and quantity of audio plugins is getting better
by the day, and new technologies, like convolution, could hint an even brighter future.
Professional studios will always have some advantages over project studios, if not only
for their acoustic superiority. However, DAWs offer an outstanding value for money with
constantly improving quality and wider possibilities.
So is everything green in the realm of mixing? Not quite so. Thanks to computers, which
extended mixing from expensive studios into bedrooms, many more people are mixing
xiii


xiv

Introduction

nowadays, but only a few can be said to be true mixing engineers. Mixing used to be done
by experienced engineers, who long learned a familiar studio and the relatively small set
of expensive devices within it. Mixing was their daily job – to many, life itself. In contrast,
project studio owners do much more than just mixing – for many it is just another stage
in an independent production chain. So how can these people become better in mixing?
Despite the profound importance of mixing, resources have always been lacking. The
many magazine articles and the handful of books on the topic provide a less-thancomprehensive clutter of information that would require some involvement from those
who wish to learn the true concepts and techniques of this fascinating field. This book
was conceived to fill this gap.

I would like, at this opening text, to reveal the greatest misconception about mixing –

some take our work as a technical service; some even go as far as saying that mixing
is the outcome of imperfect recordings. No doubt, mixing entails technical aspects –
a problematic level balance, uncontrolled dynamics and deficient frequency response are
just a few issues we resolve technically. I argue that with the right amount of effort, every
person could master the technical aspects of mixing – once one compresses 100 vocal
tracks one should get the idea. Technical skills can be acquired, and although important,
the true essence of mixing is not in these skills. Many mixes are technically great, but they
are nothing more than that; and then, many mixes are not technically perfect, but they
still offer an immense listening experience. It is for sheer creative reasons that some
mixing engineers are held as sonic visioners; it is least of all for technical aspects that
some mixes are highly acclaimed.
The sonic qualities of music are inseparable from the music itself – the Motown sound,
the NEVE sound, the Wallace sound and so forth. Mixing, to large extent, entails crafting the sonic aspects of music. We shape sounds, crystallize soundscapes, establish sonic
harmony between instruments and fabricate sonic impact – all are the outcome of many
artistic and creative decisions we make, all are down to the talent and vision of each
individual, all have a profound influence on how the music is perceived. It is in the equalization we dial, in the reverb we choose, in the attack we set on the compressor, to name
a mere few. There simply isn’t just one correct way of doing things – a kick, an acoustic
guitar or any other instrument can be mixed in hundred different ways; all could be considered technically correct, but some would be more breathtaking than others. A mix is a
sonic portrait of the music. Same like different portraits of the same person can be very
different and project a unique impression each, different mixes can convey the essence
of the music in remarkably distinguished ways. We are, by all means, mixing artists.
I hope that by the time you finish reading this book, you would have far better knowledge,
understanding and auditory skill to craft better mixes. But above all I wish that this
fundamental idea would still echo in your head:
Mixing is an art.


A Friendly Hazard
It would not make sense for wine tasters to sip boiling oil, just as it would not
make sense for mixing engineers to stick sharp needles into their eardrum. While

I am yet to meet engineers who fancy needles in their eardrum, very loud levels
can be equally harmful. As opposed to needle-sticking, the hearing damage caused
by loud levels is misleadingly often not immediate, whether involving short or long
exposures.
Sparing medical terms, with years one might lose the ability to hear high frequencies, and the unlucky of us could also lose substantial hearing ability. Under some
circumstances, very loud levels can cause permanent damage to the eardrum and
even deafness. Most audio engineers, like myself, had one or two level-accidents
in their lives; the majority of us are fine. But a constant 7 kHz tone in your brain is
not a funny affair, especially when it lasts for three days.
The allowance, as they say in Italian, is forte ma non troppo – loud but not too much.
The National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health in the USA recommends
that sound exposure to 85 dBSPL should not exceed 8 hours per day, and half the
time for each 3 dB increase. A quick calculation reveals that it is only safe to listen
to 100 dBSPL for 15 minutes. A screaming child a meter away is roughly 85 dBSPL.
A subway train produces roughly 100 dBSPL when cruising at normal speed a meter
away from the listener.
In the DVD accompanying this book, I have done my best to keep relatively consistent levels. Still, some samples had to be louder than others. Please mind your
monitoring level when listening to these samples, and remember that too quiet can
easily be made louder, but it might be too late turning down levels once too loud.
Why we like loud levels so much is explained as early as Chapter 2. But if we are
all to keep enjoying music, all we have to do is very little – be sensible about the
levels at which we mix and listen to music.
Levels, like alcohol, are best enjoyed responsibly.

xv


This page intentionally left blank

Symbols and formats used

Audio Samples
DVD

Tracks referenced within these boxes are included on the accompanying DVD, organized in a different folder
per chapter. Readers are advised to copy the DVD content to their hard drive before playing these tracks.
Please mind your monitoring level when playing these tracks.

Recommended listening
These boxes include references to commercial tracks, which are not included on the accompanying DVD.

Notes

Tips or other ideas worth remembering

xvii


This page intentionally left blank


Part I

Concepts and Practices


This page intentionally left blank

1

Music and mixing

Music – An extremely short introduction
You love music. All of us are mixing because music is one of our greatest passions, if not
the greatest. Whether started as a songwriter, bedroom producer, performer or a studio
tea-boy, we were all introduced to mixing through our love for music and the craving to
take part in its making.
Modern technology pushed aside some forms of art, like literature, which many of us
replaced for screens – both television and computer ones. For music, however, technology
provided new opportunities, increasing reach and quality prospects. The invention of the
wax cylinder, radio transmission, tapes, CDs, software plugins, all made music more
readily accessed, consumed and made. One of mankind’s most influential inventions –
the Internet – is perhaps today’s music’s greatest catalyst. Nowadays, a mouse is all one
needs to audition new music and purchase it. Music is massive. It is in our living rooms,
cars, malls, television, in our hairdresser saloons. Now that most cellphones integrate an
MP3 player, music seems impossible to escape from.
There is a strong bond between music and mixing (other than the elementary fact that
music is what is being mixed), and to understand it we should start by discussing the
not-far-away past. History teaches us that sacred music roamed the western world for the
majority of history – up until the nineteenth century, compositions were commissioned for
religious services. Secular music has evolved with the years, but took a turn to its current
state around Beethoven’s time, much thanks to Beethoven himself. Beethoven was daring
and authentic, but it was his music and how it made people feel that changed the course
of musical thinking. Ernest Newman once wrote about the Beethoven symphonies:

The music unfolds itself with perfect freedom; but it is so heart-searching
because we know all the time it runs along the quickest nerves of our life,
our struggles & aspirations & sufferings & exaltations.1

1
Allis, Michael (2004). Elgar, Lytton, and The Piano Quintet, Op. 84. Music & Letters, Vol. 85 No. 2,
pp. 198–238. Oxford University Press. Originally a Letter from Newman to Elgar, 30 January 1919.

3


4

Mixing Audio

We can easily identify with these ideas when we come to think about modern music –
there is no doubt that music can have a huge impact on us. Following Beethoven, music
became an affair between two individuals, the artist and the listener, fueled by what is
today an inseparable part of music – emotions.
At present, music rarely comes without a dose of emotions – all but a few pieces of
music have some sort of mental or physical function on us. Killing in the Name by Rage
Against the Machine can trigger a sense of rage or rebellious anger. Many find it hard to
remain stationary when hearing Hey Ya! by OutKast, and for some this tune can turn a
bad morning into a good one. Music can also trigger sad or happy memories, and so the
same good morning can turn into an awful afternoon if at midday one hears Albinoni’s
Adagio for Strings and Organ in G Major (which goes to show that even purely instrumental
music moves us). In many cases, our response to music is subconscious, but sometimes
we deliberately listen to music in order to incite a certain mood – some listen to ABBA
as a warm up for a night out, others to Sepultura. Motion-picture music directors know
well how profound our response to music is – they use music to help induce the desired
emotional response from viewers. We all know what kind of music to expect when a
couple falls in love or when the shark is about to attack. It would take an awfully good
reason to have YMCA playing along a funeral scene.

As mixing engineers, one of the greatest abilities, which is in fact our responsibility, is
to help deliver the emotional context of a musical piece. From the general mix plan to
the smallest reverb nuances, the tools we use – and the way we use them – can all
sharpen or even create power, aggression, softness, melancholia, psychedelia and many
other emotions or moods that the original music entails. It would make little sense to
distort the drums on a mellow love song, just like it would not be right to soften the beat
of a hip-hop production. When approaching a new mix, we should ask ourselves a few
questions:
•
•
•
•
•

What is this song about?
What emotions are involved?
What message is the artist trying to convey?
How can I support and enhance its vibe?
How should the listener respond to this piece of music?

As trivial this idea might seem, it is imperative to comprehend – the mix is dependent on
the music, and mixing is not just a set of technical challenges. What is more, the questions
above lay the foundation for an ever so important quality of the mixing engineer – a mixing
vision.
A mix can, and should enhance the music, its mood, the emotions it
entails, and the response it should incite.

The role and importance of the mix
Trying to explain to the layman what mixing is, the following definition can be given: a
process in which multitrack material – whether recorded, sampled or synthesized – is

balanced, treated and combined into a multichannel format, most commonly two-channel


Music and mixing

5

stereo. But a less technical definition – one that does justice to music – is that a mix is
a sonic presentation of emotions, creative ideas and performance.
Even for the layman, sonic quality does matter. Taking the cellphone, for example, people
often get annoyed, sometimes even angry, when background noise masks the other
party. Intelligibility is the most elementary requirement of sonic quality, but it goes far
beyond that. Some new cellphone models with integrated speakerphone are by no means
better than playback systems we had in the 1950s. There is no wonder why people prefer
listening to music via their kitchen’s mini-system, and – if there is one – through the
separate Hi-Fi system in their living room. What point would it be in spending a small
fortune on a Hi-Fi system if all the mixes in the world would exhibit the same quality of a
cellphone’s speakerphone?
Sonic quality is also a powerful selling point. It was a major contributor to the rise of
the CD and the fall of compact cassettes. Less literate classical music listeners buy
new recordings rather than the older, monophonic, subordinate ones, no matter how
acclaimed the performance on these early recordings is. Many record companies issue
digitally remastered versions of classic albums, which alleged to sound better than their
older counterparts. The popular iPod owns much of its existence to the MP3 format – no
other lossy compression format managed to produce audio files as small, yet provide an
acceptable sonic quality.
The majority of people appreciate sonic quality more than they will
ever care to imagine.

So it is our responsibility as mixing engineers to craft the sonic aspects of the final mix.

Then, we also control the quality of the individual instruments that constitute the mix.
Let us consider for a moment the differences between studio and live recordings: During
a live concert, there is no second chance to rectify problems such as bad performance
or a buzz from a faulty DI box. Both the recording equipment and the environment are
inferior compared to the ones found in most studios – it would be unreasonable to place
Madonna in front of a U87 and a pop shield during a live gig. When a live recording is
mixed on location, there is also a smaller and cheaper arsenal of mixing equipment. All
of these result in different instruments suffering from masking, poor definition, slovenly
dynamics, deficient frequency response, to name a mere few of possible problems. Audio
terms aside, these can translate into a barely audible bass guitar, honky lead vocals that
come and go, a kick that lacks power and cymbals that lack spark. The combination of all
these makes a live recording less appealing. A studio recording is not immune to these
problems, but in most cases it provides much better raw material to work with, and in
turn better mixes. With all this in mind, the true art of mixing is far reaching than just
making things sound right
Many people are familiar with Kurt Cobain, Dave Grohl and Krist Novoselic as the band
members of Nirvana, who back in 1991 changed the face of alternative rock with the
release of Nevermind. The name Butch Vig might ring a bell for some, but the general
public knows nothing about Andy Wallace. The front cover of my Kill Bill DVD makes it
extremely hard to blink at Tarantino’s writer and director credits. Seldom a front albumcover credits the producer, let alone the mixing engineer. Arguably, the production of
Dr Dre can be just as important as the artists he produces, and perhaps Nevermind would


6

Mixing Audio

have never gained such an enormous success had it not been Andy Wallace mixing it.
Nevertheless, record labels see very little marketing potential in production figures. The
irony is that many times major record companies do write fat checks to have a specific

engineer mixing an album – a certificate to what every record company knows:
A mix can play a huge role in an album success.

To understand why, one should listen to the four versions of Smells Like Teen Spirit
mentioned below. The link between the sonic quality of a sound recording and its ability
to excite us makes it fair to assume that the listed order would also make the appealing
listening order – having the rehearsal demo as the least appealing listening, and the album
version as the most appealing one. As per our recent discussion, it should be clear why
most people find both the rehearsal demo and the live recording less satisfactory listening
when compared to the studio versions. But comparing Vig’s and Wallace’s mixes gives us
a great insight into what mixing is truly about, and what a huge difference a mix can make.

Smells Like Teen Spirit (rehearsal demo, track 10 on CD2)
Nirvana. With the Lights Out [3CD+DVD]. Geffen Records, 2004.
Smells Like Teen Spirit (live version)
Nirvana. From the Muddy Banks of the Wishkah [CD]. Geffen Records, 1996.
Smells Like Teen Spirit (Butch Vig mix, track 20 on CD2)
Nirvana. With the Lights Out [3CD+DVD]. Geffen Records, 2004.
Smells Like Teen Spirit (album version)
Nirvana. Nevermind [CD]. Geffen Records, 1991.

Both Vig and Wallace used the same raw tracks; yet, their mixes are distinctively different.
Vig’s mix suffers from an unbalanced frequency spectrum that involves some masking and
the absence of spark; a few mixing elements, like the snare reverb, are highly discernible.
Wallace’s mix is polished and balanced; it exhibits high definition and perfect separation
between instruments; the ambiance is present, but like many other mixing elements it
is fairly transparent. Perhaps the most important difference between the two mixes is
that Vig’s mix sounds more natural (more like a live performance), while Wallace’s mix
sounds more artificial. It is not equipment, time spent or magic tricks that made these two
mixes so dissimilar – it is simply the different sonic vision of Vig and Wallace. Wallace, in

nearly an alchemist fashion, managed to paint every aspect of this powerful song into an
extremely appealing portrait of sounds. Like many other listeners, Gary Gersh – Geffen
Records, A&R – liked it better.
Straight after recording Nevermind, it was Vig that started mixing the album. Tight schedule and some artistic disagreements he had with Cobain left everyone feeling (including
Vig) that it would be wise to bring fresh ears to mix the album. From the bottom of
prospective engineers list, Cobain chose Wallace, much for his Slayer mixing credits.
Despite the fact that Nirvana approved the mixes, following Nevermind’s extraordinary
success, Cobain complained that the overall sound of Nevermind was too slick – perhaps