The Art of Producing - Part 3 - Mixing & Mastering

In this last of three episodes on the art of producing, I talk about my process for mixing. It is all part of the concept of a song from the beginning. Mixing is where everything comes together to create the version of the song that the artist and I have had.

As an over-simplification, my approach is to turn up the things I like and turn down, or mute, the things I don’t like. But the details are much more complex than that and I explain what I do and why.

I combine the mastering process with mixing. The result is ready for distribution, whether it is in a digital format or for a vinyl record.

The album used in this example is “Time To Be Brave,” by Corrie Lynn Green. You can listen for free to an mp3 version of all the songs at Native DSD, and purchase a download of the album in a variety of digital formats.

https://www.nativedsd.com/label/outer-marker-records/

And learn more about our record label, Outer Marker, at:

https://www.outermarkerrecords.com/

email: dwfearn@dwfearn.com
www.youtube.com/c/DWFearn
https://dwfearn.com/

Transcript

Episode 96           Producing – Part 3 – Mixing/Mastering                                  September 22, 2024

 I’m Doug Fearn and this is My Take on Music Recording

 In part one of this three-part series on how I go about producing and recording an album, I talked about the role of the producer. And in part two, I went into more detail about where I put musicians in the studio, and what mics I like to use on each instrument.

In this episode, I talk about my approach to mixing.

By the way, the album I use as an example in this series, “Time To Be Brave” by Corrie Lynn Green is now available on Outer Marker Records, distributed by Native DSD. Links are in the description.

Outer Marker was founded about a year and a half ago by George and Geoff Hazelrigg and me. We all felt strongly that we wanted complete control over the music we put out, and that we would restrict distribution to downloads or physical products only. No streaming. You can listen to all the songs on the albums in mp3 format for free, and the download versions are available for purchase in formats ranging from DSD to wav to FLAC.

I have mentioned this in previous episodes, but I think I need to say it again in this context: when I started recording music, and for at least another couple of decades, it was customary for the engineer who recorded the tracks to also be the mix engineer. The idea of a separate mixing engineer came later. I continue with that classic approach. I have a vision for the what the final product should sound like, even from the very beginning of the process. That might change slightly as we add parts, but my notion of how the song should sound tends to stay consistent throughout.

A great mixing engineer can bring a song to life and make it competitive in the market, and that’s a good option for many people. However, I want to preserve my sense of what the song needs. It is easiest for me to achieve that if I also do the mix.

After the basic tracks are recorded, along with a final vocal and banjo that we will record the next day, I will make a mix for me, and for Corrie Lynn Green, the artist I am using as an example of my process. That mix will also go to anyone who will be adding parts later.

It is important to get that mix to reflect the goals I have in mind, so I usually to spend a couple of hours on it.

After I get a good general balance, I pick a reverb program that fits the song. That choice will probably change throughout the recording process, but it gives me a better idea of the final version.

I also may mute certain instruments in places, if I feel they are not compatible with the song. I don’t have to do much of that, since the studio muscians I use for the basic tracks have a great sense of what the song needs. However, I may have overdubs in mind that will create a conflict with the original parts. I want whoever is doing the overdub to feel like they have the space to do something where needed. I don’t want a previous part to be a distraction, or to inhibit their creativity.

I usually incorporate some basic level automation at this point. Often, I will erase all the automation and start over as the song is built, but the automation makes it easier to hear how the final version will sound.

Early in my career, I was criticized by some producers I worked with for being too subtle in my mixes. They wanted more bombast. And often, they were right. There are occasions when you need some part to suddenly blast away everything else. After many years, I think I have learned the best compromise between being too subtle and being too heavy-handed. My tendency is for subtlety, however.

My philosophy has always been, in highly-simplified terms, to turn up the things I like and turn down the things I don’t like. That works as a general rule, but the details are more subtle than that.

There may be a part that I am skeptical of from the start, but I will leave it in for a while and see if it works with additional parts, or if it can be used at low level. Often, however, I do not use the part at all, or only use it in places.

I am always looking at how every part fulfills its job. And, as another general rule, less is more. There are times when you need a dense sound, but on Corrie’s music, that is not usually necessary. An open feel works best. Other projects with a different artist would probably require a different approach.

I keep reminding myself that this mix is not for me. It’s not for the artist. It’s for the listener. I want to enhance the experience of the listener as much as I can.

But what fans like is only a part of the calculation. If you only went by what fans liked, you would be making the same song over and over. I like to push the boundaries on everything we do.

After so many years of being involved with recorded music, I have a somewhat disturbing ability to hear a song the way a given individual will hear it. That can be very discouraging, but other times it is an exciting experience. I use what I learn when playing something for someone else, to give me a new perspective on the music.

But I do not have the taste of the masses. I will never be good at producing pop records. I can appreciate those records, and respect the smart people that made them, but as a general rule, that’s not my kind of music. That’s why I gravitate to the artists who are not mainstream and are unlikely to ever have a monster hit.

Now for some details.

My standard mixing setup includes a D.W. Fearn VT-7 Compressor and VT-5 Stereo Equalizer on the mix bus, and I will use those also on the reference mixes. Those tools are part of my style.

In other words, the reference mixes at all stages are as close as possible to a final mix. This has several advantages for me, and, to some extent, the players. First, I can start to refine the mix and see what works best for the song. Second, if the reference mix sounds really good, the musicians who will be adding parts will likely be more inspired. And third, I want to provide Corrie with a polished-sounding mix so she can hear how our vision of the song is coming along.

Actually, she and I have talked about the song quite a bit before we record. But things change with the creative input of the musicians. I want to make sure that I don’t do something that takes the song in the wrong direction. In reality, this is seldom an issue. But I want to make sure.

Typically, on an overdub, I have the musician play more than I will use. I would rather have it and then not use it than to miss some great ideas that will enhance the song. In the reference mix, except for segments that are obviously not usable, I leave in everything that might end up in the final mix. It is almost always too much, but I want to get Corrie’s feedback on what she likes and doesn’t like. She has an excellent, intuitive sense of what works and what doesn’t belong.

I don’t do many overdubs on Corrie’s songs. They are clean and open songs, in a style that is very eclectic and original. Space is important in her music. Dynamics are important. Contrasts are important.

We might add cello, electric guitar, piano, or mandolin overdubs while the players are still in the studio. That’s not always possible, depending on their schedule. If they cannot stay to do those parts that day, I will schedule another day for them to come in. Sometimes it is better if they have some time to listen to the reference mix and think about what they will play, rather than recording their overdubs right away. On the other hand, they may be really into the song during the tracking session and will do their best overdub that day.

Typical overdubs on Corrie’s song might be electric or acoustic guitar parts, violins, and background vocals. Not all songs have those, but many do.

Making a decent mix after each overdub session helps keep things in perspective. And I can refine the mix at each step.

I rarely do edits to assemble a version from various takes. I rarely fly in parts from other takes or from the take used for the mix. If I do, it is probably to repair some error in an otherwise perfect take.

When everything is recorded and it’s time to do the final mix, much of the work is already done. But with every mix, I like to start as if it is a puzzle. I have a lot of pieces to put in place. But I also have my concept of the final product, and that is like the picture on the box of a jigsaw puzzle.

There is an optimum way that all the pieces fit together to form the final picture. But unlike a jigsaw puzzle, there can be multiple ways some pieces can be arranged. I have to avoid being limited to the original picture I had in mind, and be open to other solutions.

That might sound daunting, but my basic concept of how songs should sound has not changed over the decades. That’s my style. Someone else would undoubtedly put the pieces together differently. I am open to those ideas, but I have to say, I am really only comfortable with the mix if it conforms to certain style rules that are a part of me.

However, I try not to be trapped into the mix I have lived with and refined. I may use automation, especially on vocals, to be sure that the balance is consistent with the instruments, or to make sure certain words are not getting lost.

The dynamics played and sung have to match. The musicians are usually very good at that, but sometimes I can add drama when necessary, or back off when it suits the lyrics. I will start doing that automation during the reference mixes, but I often find that by the time I get to the final mix, much of that automation is no longer necessary. As the song evolves, many of those level problems will disappear.

On some of Corrie’s song, there is an intrinsic flow from high to low intensity in places in the song. I like to emphasize those. There are places where I pull out almost every instrument, for that dramatic effect.

I also have to keep in mind how parts of the song may disappear for a listener who is in a noisy environment, or listening at a low level. I could change the levels to keep the loudness more consistent, but I am never comfortable with that. Corrie’s music needs a listener to pay attention and get involved in the story. If we lose some listeners because they are not really paying attention, then so be it. There is no mix that will satisfy every listener and every situation, so I go for what serves the song best.

That results in some major changes in loudness. That’s not likely to be competitive in a world of loud music, but it is what Corrie’s songs deserve.

I would make a different decision with a different artists and genre. As always, the music tells you what it needs. You just have to listen.

I do not use a physical fader for the automation. I can do that, but most of the time it does not have the precision I want. Almost always, I draw the automation using points where things need to change. That works best for me, but I know other people are more comfortable with faders. Or by varying the gain of the clips as necessary. Those are also valid approaches.

My current approach is a bit ironic, since half of my recording career was spent mixing in real time with an analog console without automation. Mixes often required several people, to make the necessary changes throughout the mix. There would often be multiple grease pencil marks on the faders for changes that had to be made.

In that method of mixing, it might take many passes before all the refinements were determined and everyone knew their movements. Each pass was a performance. Sometimes the final version would be pieced together by editing the various mix takes.

Today, with digital recording with automation, the fader movements can be much more precise, and each time through the mix will be the same. It is a better system, in my view.

One trap, however, is getting too fixated on the computer screen. Watching the cursor through the song, or keeping an eye on the automation information, may transfix you, but it’s bad for your perception of the mix. Mute the screens or close your eyes when you want to know what the mix really sounds like. It is amazing how different it will be without the visual distraction.

There are some projects I have done that require no level changes at all. A group that plays together all the time and understands the dynamics of the music, generally do not need any level manipulation. The mixing, in effect, has already been done.

Normally I only automate level changes. But in digital, you can automate almost anything. I do not find a need to do that very often, but I may automate reverb sends and panning on occasion. Reverb can be a powerful mood changer when used properly. And sometimes an overdubbed part benefits from a change in its position in the stereo image, in different parts of the song, especially if it conflicts with another part. I never pan things as an effect, but that can be useful in some musical styles.

I prefer to get all my tracks sounding the way I want them at the recording stage, so I do not use equalization or compression on individual tracks during the mix. There may be exceptions, especially if there is a conflict in a frequency range between two instruments. If I do need equalization, I can patch in an outboard eq as a channel insert. I do not use eq from a plug-in. I never find that it does what I want. I have several VT-4 (single channel) and VT-5 (stereo) equalizers that I designed and match what I think an equalizer should do. That’s what I use.

My control room monitors are PMC Two-Two-Sixes, which are small and there isn’t much of the lowest octave. Otherwise, they sound very good and I feel comfortable with them. The internal amplifiers lack headroom, so you cannot turn them up very loud, but I never monitor at loud levels.

My control room is too small to really sound good unless you are right on top of the near-field monitors. I usually use a combination of the PMC monitors and headphones for mixing. I rarely use headphones when tracking.

I have a 4-in, 4-out monitor controller using vacuum tubes that I designed and built about 20 years ago. It does everything I need.

For headphones, I use a vacuum tube headphone amplifier I built around 25 years ago. My usual headphones are a Beyer-dynamic T1 pair that I have had for many years.

Many engineers use a variety of speaker systems, headphones, and ear buds to evaluate their mixes. Many also check the mix on the speakers in a phone, or listen in their car. The mix will sound drastically different on each of those reproducing systems. I find that confusing and not useful. After many years of doing this, I have a pretty good idea of how the mix is going to sound in a variety of circumstances. If it sounds good in my control room, and sounds good on my headphones, I know it will translate well anywhere. It will never be perfect everywhere, but it will still be effective.

However, there is one thing I always do on music that has a vocal. After getting the mix to a point where I think it is sounding right, I check the vocal level using a technique I developed over the years. It works well for me.

I play the mix back at very low level through my studio monitors. I leave the control room and go out into my shop slash isolation booth, which reasonably emulates a typical home listening environment. The control room door is open, but there is no direct sound from the speakers reaching me. That eliminates all the details.

I can barely hear the music. I want to determine if I can understand all the words. The words in Corrie’s songs are important. Then I listen for what else I can hear. Is there at least a hint of the beat? Are featured instruments at the right level? Solos generally need to be at about the same subjective level as the lead vocal. Do I have a good sense of the chords?

Generally, everything is in good balance, except perhaps the vocal. Can’t hear the words? I turn it up in the mix. More often I find that I can bring the vocal level down a bit. I re-check it and adjust as needed.

I find this method ensures that the words will always be heard, but the vocal level is no higher than it needs to be. That provides more room to hear the instruments. This translates very well in almost any situation. On tiny speakers, like on a phone, the vocal will be too loud, but it will sound fine in headphones or earbuds. Speakers in phones sound amazing for their size, but they will always sound tinny and small to me, on any music.

For reverb, I have a Quantec 2496 and Bricasti M7 digital devices. They fulfill my needs for almost anything, although for some projects we have used the excellent EMT 140 stereo plate reverb in Obie O’Brien’s studio, which is just a short distance away.

Between my Quantec and Bricasti outboard reverbs, I can almost always find something that works best for the song. One of the program classes I find most useful are plates. There are about 10 variations of that classic sound between the two reverbs.

Or I might use a concert hall, or a church reverb. Whatever the music suggests to me. Sometimes I prefer an acoustic echo chamber sound. They are very good at adding a solid fullness to a track.

On Corrie’s albums, I usually use different reverbs on each song. I use what sounds right. There are other albums where a consistent reverb sound makes sense.

But I never use very much reverb of any kind. The reverb should be an enhancement, not a distraction, in the music I most often record. My check for that is to mute the reverb and listen to how it changes the feel of the song. I determine the level for the reverb return that is least amount of reverb that still enhances the feel. There may be exceptions, but that is usually optimum for my style.

I have never listened to a mix I did months or years ago and wished I had used more reverb. A little goes a long way.

Usually, the stock reverb settings are pretty good. But sometimes I need to tweak the reverb parameters to make the reverb optimum for the song. Reverb time is an obvious adjustment that I find useful. But dig more deeply into what else you can modify and you might be surprised at the results.

I use reverb sends on all tracks that need reverb, and an overall return. I can add just the right amount for each instrument or voice. I prefer the sound of a cohesive reverb return in the mix, as opposed to individual reverbs on each track. On occasion, however, I may use a distinct reverb on a particular instrument or vocal.

Since my studio is relatively dead, I often use a reverb program that simulates real studio acoustics. I want those nice first reflections that help our hearing get a sense of the space. It is very subtle, but it makes a difference.

And occasionally I will use some off-the-wall reverb, usually an ambience program, emulating some unusual acoustic space. These are included in the hardware reverbs primarily for video production. Often they are the best sound to create the effect I want.

Sometimes I need a delay effect. I use it very sparingly, and most people would not even consciously notice it. But it adds a sense of space that can be useful.

I have yet to find a plug-in delay that sounds good to me. Instead, I simply make a duplicate of the track I need delay on and then offset it in time as needed. If I do this, I usually use two different delay times, panned left and right.

There have been times when I have scrapped all my previous hardware inserts and automation before I start the final mix. Sometimes that is the best way for me to get what I want. It makes a lot of additional work, but it is a way to get a fresh approach.

Usually, however, I build upon the existing mix, making refinements as needed.

I have the bus compression and equalization inserted while refining the mix, since that processing will change the feel. I have tried parallel compression and other dynamic effects that sound great on some music, but I never found that to feel right for me.

My use of processing is minimal. I never go above 3db of compression on peaks with the VT-7. In many songs, there is no compression at all through many sections. That’s because Corrie’s songs tend to have a lot of dynamic contrast between various verses and choruses.

And for the bus eq, I generally simply roll-off the extreme lows a couple of dB, and boost the highs by a about the same amount. Since I use mainly ribbon mics, that low-Q boost around 10kHz brightens up the mix to make it more compatible in the market where most songs are recorded with condenser mics.

I almost always have a Flux Elixir plug-in limiter as the last thing in the chain. I do not use it to increase loudness, but just to catch the occasional peak that would reduce the overall level. It rarely goes above 3dB of limiting, and that only maybe once or twice in the song.

The Elixir plugin has always sounded best to me for this purpose. I find most of the plug-in limiters have too much distortion for my taste.

I realize that making a mix competitively loud is a practical necessity. It is important for people listening in their car, or other noisy environment. It is challenging with Corrie’s songs, due to their wide dynamic range.

Most of what I do to keep the level up is through automation. I do not want to depend on compression and limiting for that.

The measured loudness of my mixes tends to be in the -15 to -14dB LUFS. That sounds loud enough without feeling overly dense and fatiguing to listen to.

If I go back to analog recordings I did in the 1970s, they are in that same range. If I measure the loudness on the vinyl version, it is usually a dB or two louder, due to the limiting used in the disc mastering process. That’s true of most comparable music from back then. It was loud enough then, and it still is today.

Digital audio is quiet enough that you can have very quiet parts that are totally noise-free. You couldn’t do that with tape.

If the overall loudness does not match a listener’s preference, they can always turn it up. I do not like the sound of recordings made with extreme compression. They are fatiguing to listen to and do not promote contemplative listening, which is necessary for many of the artists I produce.

That does not apply to all genres. Sometimes you need that loud, dense sound. With some music it is imperative to keep the energy level up and consistent. I know how to do that when it is necessary.

Anything on the radio these days is extremely compressed, limited, and clipped. That will ruin any dynamics in the song, but that’s what radio stations do. Not all stations have this over-the-top processing, however, but all have some limiting that will affect how your mix sounds. Radio is not a major outlet for exposing new music, like it was 20 years ago and prior, when that was the only way listeners learned about new music. The need to mix for the radio is over.

Corrie’s songs may start out at -20 or even -25dB LUFS, which is pretty quiet. There may be sections where the loudness is -11. Integrated over the entire song, the loudness is likely to be around -14.

Any louder than that sounds bad to me, at least on acoustic music. I know I can make the mix as loud as -11 or even louder, but it sounds awful to my ear.

It can be challenging to make the quiet first part of the song loud enough to be heard well in noisy listening conditions. Using automation to do that is tricky because I want to keep the original dynamics of the song intact. It is easy to accidentally make the level changes obvious. I will sacrifice the loudness for the proper feel every time. I know this is counter to typical practice these days.

I combine the mixing and mastering process into one. When I am finished with the mix, it is ready for distribution.

There are many excellent mastering engineers out there that are great at getting the most out of your mix. But I like doing it myself. It’s all part of my vision for the final product.

The concept of a mastering engineer goes back to the days of vinyl, when it was an art to translate the mix into something that worked well on a vinyl record. The people who did this well were “masters” at making effective records. That’s still true for cutting lacquer masters for vinyl today.

There are great mastering engineers that can do wonders with even a poorly-recorded song. They are worth the cost. I would rather do the mastering part myself as part of the mixing process. A couple of decades of cutting lacquer discs helped me to understand that, and much of what I learned is applicable to digital recordings today. You may find it easier to have an expert master your song.

As I mentioned before, the DSD format is extremely limited in what you can do. I think of it like a tape machine where what you put in is basically what you get out. You cannot do anything to the sound within the tape machine. A separate mixer was needed to adjust the levels from a tape machine, and the same is true of a DSD digital recording.

For simple projects, it is feasible to mix the song in analog. I do this on some projects with just a handful of tracks, where the levels are pretty much set and forget.

Recently, we built a passive mixer with 8 in and 2 out for mixing smaller track-count projects. It uses a VT-2 mic preamp as the summing amp. It is entirely transparent. We may expand that concept to more inputs, but once a project gets above 8 tracks, the mix usually becomes too complicated for a simple mixer.

However, most of the time I am forced to convert the tracks from DSD to PCM for mixing in a DAW. That sacrifices some of the beauty of DSD recording, but it seems that the improved quality of the DSD capture is maintained to a large degree through the conversion, even down to a mp3 or similar. That makes DSD worth it to me. I realize that it is not a good solution for most people.

I convert the tracks to high-resolution PCM, for mixing. I use the highest resolution PCM format if the album is going to be distributed in DSD.

I would much prefer to avoid the PCM mixing, but the goal is to provide the best possible experience for the listener, and that often requires automation and other processing that cannot be done in DSD.

The songs mixed in analog and those mixed in PCM do sound different. I find the sound of the solid-state mixer or console to add distortion, especially on transients. I don’t think most listeners would notice that, but I do. The passive mixer is much better, but limited to simple projects.

Some of our projects have been mixed in Dolby Atmos. I was initially skeptical of immersive formats, but after hearing what can be done with it, at least in the hands of a skilled Atmos mixer, I was convinced that it does add something unique to the way we listen to music, even when heard in conventional stereo. My control room is not set up for Atmos mixing, and it is too small to really work well that way. I am happy to have a great mixer convert my concept into an effective immersive mix.

I question the long-term viability of immersive audio, with the complex system required for listeners to enjoy It. But there is a benefit to the psychoacoustic enhancement provided by the Atmos process that could prove to be valuable to anyone listening in simple stereo.

One thing that immediately struck me hearing a song I worked on mixed in Atmos is how much more distinct each instrument becomes. And it’s not just by spreading them around the listener. It’s true in a stereo fold-down, too. The best analogy I can make is that it approaches the level of detail you can hear when you solo an individual track.

And my final thought is that nebulous concept of how a song makes the listener feel. For the producer, that starts from the earliest concept of a song, and continues through each step of the process up until the song gets to the listener. Everything you do makes a difference. I have to understand the song and translate that understanding to the musicians and into every technical approach I use. And ultimately to the mixing and mastering stage. Even the distribution format has to be considered.

And what about the equipment and recording format? This is controversial, especially to those who rely on test equipment to define audio quality. Does it really matter how wonderful your recording sounds if the ultimate listener is never going to hear it in its full beauty? This has been a problem since the beginning of recorded music, even though we now have the technology for just about anyone to hear our recordings in the same format as we recorded them.

I will not sacrifice the emotional experience of listening to a song for technical perfection. I would love to be able to mix in DSD, but at our current level of technology, that is not possible, at least in a way that fills my needs. But technical perfection will always be a goal for me.

I find PCM recordings to often be irritating, in an almost subliminal way. I think this is due to the low-level artifacts inherent in that digital format. The popularity of mid-range eq scooping is evidence of that. I used to do that all the time when I recorded in PCM. I rarely did that when using tape. And I never feel the need when recording in DSD.

Does this affect the typical listener? I think it does. They may like a song, but after a couple of plays, they may never go back to it. Why? There could be many explanations, but perhaps they are made slightly uncomfortable by the sound.

And why would you want to irritate someone listening to a beautiful song? After years of doing this, I believe that those subtle irritants affect the listener in ways that we do not understand. But the perception is real.

In my own experience over the years, I may work on a song all day long, tracking or mixing. At the end of that day, I am exhausted and have no desire to hear that song again – maybe ever. But when I record in DSD, even when mixed in PCM, I often go home and listen to the song again, even after the most tiring day of mixing. It still sounds great to me and I want to hear it again and again.

Eventually I may get tired of it and ready to move on to something new. But that impulse to listen multiple times may persist. I think that is one of the powerful aspects of DSD. It makes the cumbersome format worth it to me.

If that happens to me, does that apply to the listener as well? I would like to think that it does.

Another aspect of producing that I think is important is how the songs on an album fit together. There are many different ways to do this, but I think most collections of songs will evolve into the right sequence after a while. I am usually pretty sure which songs I want to start and end the album. It is the ones in between that can be difficult.

On Corrie’s latest album, there are only 7 songs. It falls somewhere in between an EP and a full album. She wrote all the songs in a 4-month period and they form an arc of an overall story of family, struggles, and relationships. There is one song with just vocal and banjo, and another with just vocal, piano, guitar, and double bass. Others are pretty dense with lots going on.

I like the contrast of an intense song followed by something that brings the energy level way down, but is still a compelling story that is a logical continuation.

Another thing to consider is how the songs will work if the album is going to vinyl. The last song on a side is always lower fidelity on an LP. The linear speed in the groove slows down from the first cut to the last. The disc mastering process compensates for that somewhat, but you can’t get around the physics of it. That fact may influence the sequence.

I go back to the days when everything I recorded ended up on vinyl, as either an LP album or a 45 single. The requirements for a good-sounding vinyl record are very different from digital distribution. In digital you can get away with almost anything. But vinyl has many deficiencies. Those can be compensated for in the recording and mixing process. I won’t go into those details here.

There is a limit to length on each side of a 12-inch vinyl LP. Ideally, there should not be more than 20 minutes on a side. That may require a change in the sequence if the song lengths make your ideal order impractical for vinyl.

On this album, most of the songs are from 3.5 to 4.5 minutes, so there is some flexibility.

Since the album only has about 30 minutes of music, it is possible to cut it at 45RPM rather than the usual 33-1/3. That reduces the time per side to a maximum of 15 minutes. The advantage is that the higher rotational speed improves the playback quality. We will press the album as a 45RPM, 12-inch disc on heavy audiophile vinyl.  have not heard vinyl sound as good as it does on Corrie’s album.

Another consideration is whether the album format makes sense in these days of streaming. People tend to listen to individual songs, not the entire album. But because Corrie’s album will never be streamed, it is not a consideration.

There seems to be a return to the album format for many artists. Sometimes it is just a collection of unrelated songs, but other times there is a definite theme through the songs that makes sense. Does anyone have the time to listen to 30 to 60 minutes of music at one sitting? Perhaps not. But if they truly love an artist, it may work, on vinyl or on streaming or as a download.

And does vinyl make sense? It’s expensive, and difficult to do well, and few people own turntables anymore. But vinyl sales exceed CD sales these days, although that’s not a very high bar. Listeners like to have a physical product to hold in their hands, and the LP jacket has lots of space for photos and notes. It is a format that is appropriate for some of our Outer Marker projects.

We record everything for our Outer Marker label in DSD. For many of the releases, the listener can hear a bit-for-bit DSD copy of the master recording.

Obviously, this has appeal primarily to people who appreciate a fine quality recording.

But anyone can play a wav file, even one that is higher-resolution than CD format.

Most our sales are through downloads. Vinyl sales are a distant second, but still add to the exposure and sales. We may also make CDs, since they are useful to the artist to sell at gigs. Fans buy CDs, or vinyl, to show their loyalty and support of an artist. Many of these people own neither a CD player nor a turntable.

I have mixed all of the Outer Marker releases, usually in collaboration with the Hazelriggs. We receive a modest income from our efforts, which could change as we gain traction. But money is not our primary objective. We want to make the best recordings we can, using equipment I designed and we manufacture, with artists that we feel are superlative.

We want to please ourselves with great music and recording. The artists we work with share that philosophy.

That approach drives the way I produce and record.

You can listen to all of the Outer Marker releases at our distributor’s web site. The link is in the description.

This concludes this series on producing. Your comments are always appreciated.

You can reach me at dwfearn@dwfearn.com

This is My Take on Music Recording. I’m Doug Fearn. See you next time.