I've never even listened to anything recorded at 192kHz, so I can't even know what the difference would be between that and 24 bit (wouldn't it be just more "air"?). In post, HD is delivered as 24 Bit 48kHz. 48kHz sounds much better than 44.1kHz, in my opinion, but music just isn't delivered that way, for obvious reasons. I think an average song at 24 Bit 44.1kHz is something like 43MB. It's too big, as you said. I think a 320kbps mp3 is approximately 8MB, but can't remember for sure. That's much more manageable, and the tone of your mix will be "correct", and it also will be fairly close in 256kbps. I think the absolute lowest acceptable mp3 quality is 256kbps, and the old iTunes stuff was all 192kbps, which just shaves the forehead off of the high end and cuts the feet off the low end). I think new iTunes stuff might be 320kbps, but it's possible it could be 256kbps (I refuse to buy anything off of iTunes, because of their proprietary file extension). I think Amazon's stuff is also 256kbps, but I could be wrong. A 320kbps mp3 is probably the closest you will ever be able to get a 24 Bit 44.1kHz .wav mix to the consumer other than CD, which I think is mastered at 24 Bit 44.1kHz, though it could be 16 Bit still. I do know that iTunes used to want a 16 Bit 44.1kHz .wav to be sent to them. I personally like to make all flavors of .wav files and mp3s, so I can know what it will sound like at the various compression rates, and to make sure the delivery is what I expect, as opposed to a potentially subpar compression made in some batch software.

Wow, that helped a bunch actually - I was really curious how hard it would be to try to pick up freelance work outside of strictly music recording/mixing. Especially if you have zero credits in this world to your name (well I guess I have one on a friend's short film for their graduate thesis).

I'm familiar w/ the LKFS and LUFS metering, waves makes a decent meter that reports on those scales i believe, however the standard ranges for say someting like "dialogue should fall w/i the range of xdB-ydB" etc, things like that, I'm not familiar with and I would have to read up on it to even be able to turn in something that had a chance of being accepted.

Intuitively I have no clue how my abilities would stand as far as being able to offer something another Post mixer wouldnt. In constrast, with music I know there are things I can achieve with a mix that another engineer may not do - whether it be something as simple as balance or some other creative aspect outside the scope of a textbook mix that might set me apart from someone else. In other words, I can more easily see my value in one field over the other, which is one of the other reasons I was asking about your history and experience

That said I'm relatively fresh to the industry as far as credits are concerned. My friend whose studio i work out of is well beyond me in abilities/experience and credit, but we have a somewhat different ear when it comes to balance and/or aesthetic so i think it creates an interesting complement.

I appreciate the response man You offered a lot of insight into the field reading beyond my question (appropriately so), so thank you very much for taking the time to type that.

I guess one other question I might have is how much time do you spend doing any kind of sample substitution/replacement ie. you get dialogue and sound fx track for a 10 minute sequence - the one sound effect for someone dropping a bag on the floor just sounded ridiculous, do you ever have to work out any foley related sounds on your own? Or similarly, do you get the option to alter or request changes if a recording isnt up to snuff or there's an error in the audio you receive, or do you simply have to deal with what's in front of you at this point and make it work?

Yeah 192kHz is this format that Neil Young is pushing I believe its called "Pono Sound". I'm just baffled at why 192 playback sample rate when 99% of music these days is not even recorded at 192.

Ive heard strings/orchestral stuff recorded at 192. top end and "air" is exactly what changes. You pretty much nail it - you dont actually "hear" (or rather you CANT hear above ~20kHz say), however that information above what is in the realm of human hearing does inform stuff below it. In the same way that cutting off all sound right below the fundamental say might make room in a mix, it can still take away from the sound itself in many occassions (kick drums for example may have a fundamental at 55Hz, but 20Hz, 35Hz and 40Hz are all still VERY important frequencies for its final overall sound).

So if stuff isnt recorded at 192, upsampling it to 192 will pretty much do nothing for it. That said, most DAWs, even the prosumer ones, will still output at 24-bit and having listened to many hours of audio pre and post master (wherein a track is finally dithered down to 16 bit 44.1 for CD or digital release) there is a definite and pointed difference to it. I guess to sort of ground that last statement - "definite difference" would be obvious to anyone involved in Mixing/Mastering if they were to A/B the sounds once they were level matched. As far as an average listener is concerned, philosophically I want to posit that there is, on a subconscious level, a difference. I guess to offer a simple syllogism - nobody is born w/ the resolution of hearing required for this industry, we all develop it (maybe some folks are just ear prodigies say), but regardless its not an undevelop-able ability, it is something that takes time and effort to become consciously aware of.

It makes me wish I knew how to code, because I'd definitely try to start a small tech company that would try to deliver a manageable compression format for 24 bit audio that didnt increase file size by too great a %. You dont have to sell the consumer on 24 bit audio w/ bigger file sizes*, you have to sell the companies that store these files and the increased costs associated w/ having to house larger files for everything.

Apples compression format for example - they use AAC i think - what is rated at 256Kbps AAC is apparently equal to a 320Kbps in the standard LAME format.

* Not once has the computer industry been forced to hard sell or soft sell larger file sizes. Look at OS for example - they've grown in space requirements with pretty much every release, not once was that mentioned. Same with pretty much all software - be it games what have you - files sizes increase and the understanding on the consumer end is newer is bigger, but the cost of space has dropped and continues to do so.

Cool, glad it helped. If you're looking for a potentially simple (lol) way of breaking into post, I suggest working on short films (the equivalent of post-production hell). They pay you almost nothing, and expect the world. You can find lots on mandy.com. If you can get good at making those people happy, while not losing your sanity, it's a good way to cut your teeth. Working on short films is also the closest you will likely get to old school ways of working (ballpark levels are fine), and you actually have to often be creative and choose sound effects yourself. The audio might also be a disaster, so you'd probably have to spend a ton of time trying to make it passable. Every time I work on a short film, I regret it, but I still occasionally do them.

Probably the best looking LKFS/LUFS meter I've seen is iZotope's Insight, but it's part of a bundle that I'm not willing to spend that kind of money on. The Waves one would probably be my third choice, while the NuGen version would be my second (or first depending on when I need it). If you're looking for a down and dirty version (like the one I have), try the V-Sonics V-Meters plug-in. When I bought it, it was $75, and it is a very good value. It also has K-Meters (Bob Katz's ripoff of Dorroughs), which is helpful in a lot of ways. Good post mixes (and better music mixes) come from a good understand of RMS metering, and making sure your room is calibrated as well as it can be for the type of content you're working on. My big "trick" is using the Waves Dorrough meters. I cannot live without that, because it allows me to work at a "standard" without proper calibration of various systems. Once you understand how to use that meter, it's very easy to get it close to the LKFS or LUFS spec. If you don't hit the Dorrough hard, you'll be within +/- 2dB, and would have to do a very minor adjustment to your overall mix to get in spec when measuring with a LKFS/LUFS meter. The reason I like the Dorrough Meter is because it's really easy to see what you're doing to the sound (compression), and it's been a film standard for a zillion years (hardware version). It's pretty much considered obsolete today, with the current specs, but I can still use it very well, knowing what to do. I only went through about 15 years of my career without ever using that (all of the facilities I worked at were too cheap to have any version of it), and after doing some measurements of some TV mixes I did without Dorrough meters, it was clear why the things that were happening on air were happening the way they were. I like the Insight meter, because it's perfectly visual, and it's how I want to see a meter like that act, as opposed to just showing me some number.

Relationships (in a facility this would just be how you interact with everyone including clients), correct deliveries, and being able to troubleshoot exceptionally well are skills that are much more important than being a good mixer (there are a lot of great mixers who are unemployed, and a lot of terrible mixers who have great full time jobs). Since mixing is so subjective, the "fake it til you make it" strategy is employed far more often than you'd think, and the vast majority of movie directors I've worked with are only as good as their mixers (meaning all will let subtle problems go through, because it doesn't matter to them, or they can't tell). If you consistently make mistakes (small or big), or bumble around when you're supposed to be knowledgeable about what you're bumbling, you'll have problems. The number 1 recommendation I have is finding people who like your work, and work on making your stuff as good as possible for them. Life's too short to work with people who don't appreciate what you do. Symbiotic relationships are the best thing ever. When you have that, you're working to the best of your ability (or as well as the product allows), and your clients are basically letting you be you while steering the car they way they want it to go when what you deliver isn't exactly what they're looking for.

Good tweakers are the best thing ever (meaning being very tweaky but almost always having "good" notes), while bad tweakers are right around the worst thing ever (tweaking every tiny thing that won't matter to anyone but them). I'm sure you've already witnessed both types. Complementary relationships are the best.

You bet.

This is tricky to answer. It has meant a lot of different things across different eras. In the OMF era, almost everything is "done" for me now on what I work on. That means that all of the dialog comes to me as is, all the music as is, and all the sound effects as is. Watch a typical reality show, and listen closely to the dialog editing (if you want to torture yourself, the Kardashian show is a good one). You will hear that dialog is hacked together like the Frankenstein Monster. There are a ton of mixers who absolutely do not try to fix any of that stuff. My goal (I'm a dialog specialist) is to try to make it so that you don't hear any edits in the dialog, despite there being tons. That demands very high skill, and some things you just can't fix. Producers and Editors are often far too ambitious with their choices. For sound effects, sometimes editors choose bad sound effects. Before the OMF, sound effects choosing was a major part of any b-level (think sub-network, sub-movie) re-recording mixer's job. Now, I have to have a compelling reason to change out a sound effect even if I don't like it (it's been approved by a client, and they might not like the change you did, and that's a no no). Other than dialog, music is often the biggest issue. On nearly everything I work on, there are lots of bad music edits, and there isn't a damn thing I can do about them, other than try to massage them. In the pre-OMF era, I would be doing all the music editing, but that doesn't happen anymore, and stuff is cut to the music, meaning you can't move it.

So, for "good" mixers today's world is being an absolute every person that was in the post sound field. The best care about improving what they're given (fixing bad dialog edits by actually fixing the cadence, etc.). They make logical choices when choosing whether to use the boom or LAV mic (and ask about stuff that seems wrong, as opposed to just "working" with it, and trust me this is a big problem many mediocre mixers have, they can't identify certain 101 problems). They do intricate surgery, and deal with massive amounts of problems. If you're a person who doesn't go over every element with a fine toothed comb, you'll never be near the top of the field. It's easy to make a fundamentally decent mix, but it's really hard to give it the level of detail needed to take it to the next set of levels on the budgets most people allow.

Think of it like this. There are levels to mixing. Level 1 is putting the faders up and trying to make it sound balanced. Level 2 is using compression to give it style. Level 3 is use of EQ to create a style. Level 4 is going over every element in the mix to get it to sound as good your ability allows (putting your imprint on the mix, despite not being given the chance to be particularly creative by what you were given). Level 5 is doing intricate detail work in trying to fix as many problems as you can (bad dialog edits, bad music edits, and noise reduction). Part of the reason I tend to stand out (if I do) is because I place almost my entire focus on the dialog process. I'm a firm believer that if the dialog isn't the way you want it, the rest of the mix will never be as good as it could be. Dialog is the anchor in almost everything, and should be treated as the most important thing at all times. If your dialog mix is solid, you can do a very weak music and effects mix and still have a pretty good mix. If the dialog is dealt with poorly, you have to work extra hard on the music and sound effects to create a good mix. In the best of all worlds, you are giving all of the disciplines 100 percent attention, but when you can't, always give dialog your most attention (most don't, and it's a mistake). To relate it to music for you, think of dialog as the kick, bass, and snare of the mix. If you get those three right, you can get away with almost anything else.

In nearly everything I work on, ADR doesn't happen. You are given what you're given, and people hope for miracles. I have the tools to perform most miracles, but not everything fixes everything. And some things just can't be fixed.

So, what it comes down to (and what separates the levels of mixers) is how many of those things I listed above they can get done on the budget they've been allotted (level 3 is what I consider to be average work, and I know a lot of people who stop at very low basic level 3 type work, meaning hi-pass/lo-pass, dat's it, which I would consider below average). I've worked at a lot of places where I've been given 8 hours to mix a 30 minute show start to finish. Most people can't do much other than broad stroke stuff, and tend to go about it wrong. My style has always been that I'm able to give what is essentially 11 hours worth of work for most people in 8 hours (mostly because of strong methodology, organization, and understanding what's a priority in a given amount of time). These days, I'm on my own, and I work on a flat rate system. That doesn't mean my style of working has changed for the negative, or that I'm cutting corners. It's actually enhanced, including things that the other facilities I worked at didn't even give as options (yes, I can do better work now on my own than I could in any facility I've worked...lol). The only thing I worry about is the deadline. Otherwise, I work at my own pace, doing as much as I possibly can in the amount of time until the deadline.

At every traditional facility I ever worked at, I was considered one of the fastest mixers they'd seen. At the last one I worked at (which was clueless about traditional post), they would consistently say I wasn't fast enough for their taste. That's solely because they didn't know any better, and that I was routinely doing high quality stuff in 10 hours that most traditional post facilities would take 24 to do. When you're being expected to work at such an incredible pace that you can't pay attention to basic details, it's not you that's the problem, it's the company.

Long story short about your question is that the kinds of things you mention are exactly what happen on short films. Sometimes you can get ADR, sometimes you can't. I am always pulling sound effects from Sounddogs, when it's required. I still don't have a real sound effects library, because it's only the short films and weird one off projects that expect me to do any sound design. I'm not going to spend thousands of dollars on something I'll rarely ever use. Still, noise reduction is an important part of becoming a good mixer, and it costs major moolah to get good stuff (I probably have nearly $6k worth of various problem fixers, with my star being the CEDAR DNS One).

That ended up being way longer than I expected, but hopefully there's something useful in there.

I have four letters for you: SACD. How did that turn out? The music industry often makes extremely bad decisions that have very little practical use. Charging $1200 a day (12 hour lockout) for great studios that had million dollar SSL consoles in them is an example. In my "prime" my 8 hour room rate (my rate not included) was $2400 (or $300 per hour). Nothing I worked on came even close to being worth 1 meeellllyun dollars. No wonder all those big studios shuttered, and every time you see a moderate musician working in a recording studio on TV it's just some room with an 87 and something like a C24 with Pro Tools. That's a good business model, but music's suffered over the lack of quality in the stuff that's not the biggest. Still, 192kHz is always going to be irrelevant except for a tiny amount of the population. It will never be wide scale adopted, and I can imagine that the downcompression to 48kHz or 44.1kHz would be a nightmare, but who knows?

Do you have access to a Neve 1081 EQ, or the Waves V-EQ4? If so, I'll show you what true "air" is. You can do it in two stages (turn analog off if you're using the plug-ins). Go to 15kHz on the shelf. Find a keyboard that sounds pretty decent with a relatively full range. Now crank up the 15kHz shelf (be aggressive). What that shelf is doing is opening up the "feel" of the frequencies at or above 20kHz, if it's in the material. It won't do any good to do that on something like bass, but in some instances it is interesting. Experiment with that, and it becomes manipulating sets of frequencies to get the feel of the sound you're trying to accomplish. It's fun.

I frequently change 16 Bit material to 24 Bit, but am not sure if it makes much of a difference, and it doesn't really matter. I can see no benefit to upsampling something to 192kHz, but maybe I'm just short sighted. It reminds me of the BetacamSP, which was an industry standard for shooting documentaries. Many people weren't even aware that there was such a thing called Hi-Fi tracks, which were Hi-Fi copies of Ch.1&2 put on Ch.3&4. It basically sounded pretty clean, and Ch.1&2 generally sounded like s****y analog. When everyone moved to Digibeta for shooting, they opened all kinds of sound problems on the world. The noise floor became ridiculous, because the Hi-Fi tracks were adding a very nice Dolby noise reduction that would eliminate stuff like camera noise. So, with more resolution, the problem becomes that you hear more problems usually, not more detail....lol.

If you have access to Pro Tools, here's a suggestion I'd like for you to try as an A/B test. Take a mix you've done. Export it as a 24 Bit 44.1kHz .wav file. Then take that same mix and export it as a 16 Bit 44.1kHz .wav. Don't go through any extra processing, and print the mix inside the box. That's the proper way to do a true A/B of 16 and 24 Bit, because I think your overselling of the difference is likely due to it going through outside processing. If I had to go through an analog chain, I would be certain that 24 Bit would sound noticeably better than 16 Bit, but in a pure digital inside the box situation, I think it's really subtle, and comes down to a slight bit more openness, if that makes sense. It's not changing any of the tone or feel of my mix, and in some cases I even prefer the slightly tighter feel of the 16 Bit version.

That's probably already a holy grail. Most companies basically have figured out that 320kbps is a version of mp3 that most listeners will think sounds great, while not being as great as a .wav file. You could double the quality, and still be under 15MB for an individual song. I think that's a reasonable size, and the consumer wouldn't notice unless they had a huge library. They would notice the massive quality jump, though, and that's the whole point of putting advances in front of the consumer. It was easy to tell the difference between VHS and DVD just as it is between HD and SD. It's not easy to tell the difference between 16 Bit and 24 Bit, and the consumer won't pay more for something that's not a tangible quality difference. So really they should come up with a 640kbps mp3 (I think a 24 Bit .wav file is 2460kbps or something like that). I already said that I don't mind the sound of my mixes at 320kbps, and 640kbps would make me mind the differences half as much...lol.

Interesting, I did not know that. Just today I made a 320kbps AAC file to get it under 1GB, so I wonder what that compression is.

There is literally no reason why better quality can't be done, other than having to redo back catalogs on all of the various music buying sites, which would be an excessive amount of work. Since people will still buy the lower quality, times ain't gonna change.

The last concert I saw was Verve in 1994 in L.A. (can't remember which larger club it was at, but one of the ones in West Hollywood on Sunset). I went to a couple of pretty low impact small club shows of my cousin-in-law after that, but Verve was my last concert. Concerts are just too damn loud, and I won't put my ears through that...lol.

The best concert I ever saw was PJ Harvey at TT the Bear's Place in Boston in 1992. I saw her walking through the crowd before the show, and no one had a clue who she was (the guy engineering the show looked like a bumbling idiot for various reasons, but the show sounded great and I told him so, after it looked like he had a really rough night). Her debut album was the only one I liked, but I stopped listening to most of that music in 1996.

At most concerts I went to, I was almost always disappointed by how bad they were live. If you listen to Verve's early singles compilation, the drummer seemed like he was really cool with his syncopated play. When I saw them in concert, he was literally in deep concentration visibly counting...lol. It kind of ruined the experience of listening to the records.