Liquid Mix Revisited

Near the end of 2006, Focusrite (a pro audio manufacturer of respected studio doodads) announced the Liquid Mix. This all-in-one super box claimed to emulate 20 classic EQ’s and 40 classic compressors. The unit also touted on board DSP, which meant that while it simulated all of these sought after pieces it wouldn’t bog down your computer with error messages and “memory low” downers.

If something seems too good to be true, it often is. At first, I thought this was the case with the Liquid Mix. It sounded great when I used it on a few tracks. But, when I tried to “go for it” and incorporate the unit into a 24 track mix, my system often crashed…usually when the mix was just starting to get good. Also, on a Pro Tools LE system, there were severe latency issues when using the unit. A latency of 2056 samples was common. Using a delay compensation plug-in solved the problem. But, stopping to insert that on a track was a bit disruptive. It made reaching for normal plug-ins a more fluid choice…an issue of favoring two clicks of a mouse to ten.

Although, recently, after a bit of practice and patience, I’ve found a new passion for this piece of gear. Focusrite worked out many of the bugs and made a Liquid Mix 2.0 version available for download. I didn’t have to pay for the upgrade which was both nice and uncommon. With a 1GB memory upgrade I did on my Mac and the new 2.0 version, the box isn’t as clumsy and it is much more reliable. Last week, for the first time since I purchased it, I felt confident using it in a mixing session. If you’ve ever done for-hire studio work, you know how much of an embarrassment it can be when gear doesn’t work properly.

Another good feature that Focusrite added to the Liquid Mix is the availability of pre-sets. They call these “snapshots.” Although I’ve been doing professional studio work for only a few years, I couldn’t tell you what the sonic difference between a Drawmer compressor and a LA-2A leveling amplifer is. I know why they are different (vacuum tube processing vs. photo-optical processing), but I don’t know what those differences sound like. Knowledge of these differences would dictate the proper application of either piece of gear. The “Vintage Bass” snapshot, for example, dials up the LA-2A setting with a basic EQ setting that many studio engineers would call “a basic vintage bass compression/EQ setting.” Trading out different compressors in the context of this snapshot is quite educational—one can hear why photo-optical processing is preferable to other types of compressors…or not.

I subscribe to Sound on Sound, arguably one of the best how-to recording magazines. Every month, a successful commercial mix is broken down into segments. The mixing engineer often describes, in great detail, the kinds of compression and EQ he or she adds to specific tracks. And, the rationale for each decision is often explained. Last month, Mark Endert broke down his mix of Maroon 5’s “Makes Me Wonder.” The Liquid Mix served as a complete learning tool. As I read the article, I pulled up some of my own tracking and tried applying his settings to my work. Because the Liquid Mix has an emulation of a Tube Tech CL-1B compressor, I was able to hear how this brand of compression suited my voice. With a few exceptions, Liquid Mix emulates most of the outboard gear described in this magazine.

Now, it would be difficult for me to say whether or not Liquid Mix is “just as good” as the real things it strives to emulate. Honestly, I wouldn’t know. Many famous studio engineers have appeared in ads praising the unit. Whether or not one can trust an ad, once you figure out how to use it, it does have its merits. If nothing else, it serves as a great learning tool for not only what compression is, but also how it can be tastefully used to achieve a desired audio outcome. And, at most, you'll have 40 classic compressor emulations and 20 classic EQ emulations at your fingertips. Not bad for under a grand.

Although, as cool as this piece of gear is, outboard compression and EQ should be a secondary, or even tertiary concern in your signal chain. I mean, the best emulated compressor in the world isn’t going to fix a crappy song. Technology like auto-tune and beat detective can help mend poorly performed tracks, but those are often regressions toward a mean…You’ll have perfectly and astoundingly mediocre performances. I’ve found the best consideration to make, after assessing the strength of the song and the performer, is basic mic placement.

If a singer or player knows how to work the mic, compression and EQ isn’t necessary. Why make something smaller if it can exist at its natural dynamic range? Now, most people desire compression on a vocal performance (it’s a modern thing, I guess), so, as a starting point, I often set a compressor to a LIMITING mode (a ratio of 10:1 is nice). I adjust the threshold so that NO MORE than 6 dB of gain reduction occurs at the loudest point in a performance. I set the attack and release times for the compressor to almost as fast as possible. And, the vocal is printed with this undoable amount of dynamic processing. I’ll often apply a second stage of gain reduction (more of a true compression…either an OPTO setting or something with a 4:1 ratio) in mixdown. But, only if the performance needs it.