What aren't I doing wrong?

[Monkey Allen]

The rhythm guitar does not sound as good as it was in your original mix or even as good as the original in the plug-less one. What did you do to it?

Your initial post said that when you listen to your mixes on OTHER SYSTEMS they suck, which is why I asked how you are moving the files.

Well I think the rhythm guitar sounds better in the new mix. I thought it sounded terrible in the original. What I did to it was take off a whack of reverb that was on it and take treble off. It's a bit tighter, less effected with fx and it's more simple now. I think the whole new mix is more unified, more together and not trying to make every sound the lead. OTHER SYSTEMS means...different listening situations....the 7 sets of headphones, the 5 inch speakers, the 8 inch speakers, the phone, the laptop...there's no file moving. The headphones can be plugged right into my DAW. Everything else, like the phone, I play soundcloud.

 

[LazerBeakShiek]

Well I think the rhythm guitar sounds better in the new mix.. I think the whole new mix is more unified, more together and not trying to make every sound the lead. OTHER SYSTEMS means...different listening situations....the 7 sets of headphones, the 5 inch speakers, the 8 inch speakers, the phone, the laptop.

Ever notice how prerecorded example tracks and samples sound fine device to device? What do they do to them to normalize so well.

The mix is busy, but I think it sounds pretty good. I hear no bleeding. No voice becoming a gravel machine. There is a bunch of ideas going on in it. You sound highly talented here. You must be a host for a wonderful homerecording skill set. You will do better.

 

[rob aylestone]

I listened to every track one, by one - and a few things very quickly congealed in my head.

Your musicianship is fine. I'd play with you happily. Your voice does have a 'niche' - with the right songs it works fine. The actual sound of the tracks seems to always fall into two categories. The ones I like have a solid bass line, decent drum sounds and a voice that sits well and the guitars don;t leap out or make me wonder what happened. The others are spectrally sitting in the middle - two very different sounds. The very first track I wondered if it was a lightweight bass, or maybe you'd played up an octave - there was just nothing there in the bottom couple of octaves. Others have a well chosen sound in the bass and it works fine. The playing is not bad at all - and in the style for the songs. I actually liked the no plug in version.

I wonder if you are applying the plugins to improve the sound when it's not working without them, or if you have them, so load em up and use them even if not needed.

I have always done my rough balance mix with no EQ and no processing at all. Once I've heard the whole thing and set a balance of instruments and vocal, that's when I go back and EQ. Then I will set up reverb for the things that need it normally. I have my favourites, so if it's X genre at Y tempo I have too perhaps pick from just 3 or four reverb plugins - and sometimes they all get one or another, in separate instances with separate tweaks. Then if it doesn't quite gel, that is where dynamic processing gets added but rarely much more than that. When it comes to compressors, I know the rough settings for each instrument that needs it almost by heart. It is ALWAYS subtle, never overt, because I really hate over compression.

I think you need to accept your musicianship and control are quite good, and my view is you're getting carried away with plugins which harden the sound, and you don't spend long enough on musical EQ.

 

[Monkey Allen]

I listened to every track one, by one - and a few things very quickly congealed in my head.

Your musicianship is fine. I'd play with you happily. Your voice does have a 'niche' - with the right songs it works fine. The actual sound of the tracks seems to always fall into two categories. The ones I like have a solid bass line, decent drum sounds and a voice that sits well and the guitars don;t leap out or make me wonder what happened. The others are spectrally sitting in the middle - two very different sounds. The very first track I wondered if it was a lightweight bass, or maybe you'd played up an octave - there was just nothing there in the bottom couple of octaves. Others have a well chosen sound in the bass and it works fine. The playing is not bad at all - and in the style for the songs. I actually liked the no plug in version.

I wonder if you are applying the plugins to improve the sound when it's not working without them, or if you have them, so load em up and use them even if not needed.

I have always done my rough balance mix with no EQ and no processing at all. Once I've heard the whole thing and set a balance of instruments and vocal, that's when I go back and EQ. Then I will set up reverb for the things that need it normally. I have my favourites, so if it's X genre at Y tempo I have too perhaps pick from just 3 or four reverb plugins - and sometimes they all get one or another, in separate instances with separate tweaks. Then if it doesn't quite gel, that is where dynamic processing gets added but rarely much more than that. When it comes to compressors, I know the rough settings for each instrument that needs it almost by heart. It is ALWAYS subtle, never overt, because I really hate over compression.

I think you need to accept your musicianship and control are quite good, and my view is you're getting carried away with plugins which harden the sound, and you don't spend long enough on musical EQ.

Yeah, I hear what you're saying and I agree. But in the final mix I really didn't slam plugins into it. There's nothing on the master bus but a limiter. (and I'm going out to a Daking stereo comp to shave off a couple of db and to raise overall vol) There's only really reverb on the vocal (the electric guitars had reverb baked in light). The bass has compression. The drums a bit of compression and the vocal. Other tracks have eq just trying to eliminate superfluous weight.

What I was saying in the opening post about musicianship was that I'm prepared to cop it that I might not be good enough in terms of musicianship if that's what the consensus is. I don't mean to say I think I am bad...I can certainly play alright.

I think the final mix is way closer to how I think it should sound. Though people do say that my mixes are busy...or that there's a lot going on. I often get this but I'm not one of these guys who have a million things playing at once. Usually it's just very standard, drums, bass, vocal, guitar with a lick or two or an organ coming in. So I think it must come back to my mixing in the low mid area? That's a problematic region because so many instruments/ sounds occupy that spot...and as an inexperienced mixing guy it must be real easy to stuff that area up in a mix. So maybe that's why things sound busy. So I need to learn how to handle that area...and need to make sure I can actually hear what's going on in that area and then implement skills to deal with it.

Another possibility is that I'm going for too much gain overall...I'm boosting the volume too much , turning what were pretty clear sounds into more of a congealed ball of crap. The chase for loudness might need to be brought back 2 or 3db or whatever. I dunno.

Thanks for the advice everyone. I am much happier with the final mix. I think the zero plugins had a certain charm maybe because each instrument was untouched and more natural sounding. The initial mix was just a wall of trash.

 

[grimtraveller]

people do say that my mixes are busy...or that there's a lot going on

I personally never find busyness a problem per se. It really depends on how the busyness is managed. This is something I've had to learn over the years. Initially, my songs were so busy at times, that you'd be doing well to identify the actual song in there ! I've often made the point that in my early mixes, if I started playing at any random point in a song, I wouldn't know which song it was or where I was in that song !
But yeah, a mix can be busy, but if every part in the song is in support of the song, so what ? I think that part of the problem is that in modern western music, some of our tastes and the way we approach music a lot of the time is so standardized and predictable. Often, the idea of 2 counter-melodies or cross rhythms or something like that is anathema. When one takes in music from all over the world {and from many different eras and genres}, one realizes that some really great stuff is pretty busy in construction, and it's how this is managed in a mix that makes such a difference.

 

[Monkey Allen]

I personally never find busyness a problem per se. It really depends on how the busyness is managed. This is something I've had to learn over the years. Initially, my songs were so busy at times, that you'd be doing well to identify the actual song in there ! I've often made the point that in my early mixes, if I started playing at any random point in a song, I wouldn't know which song it was or where I was in that song !
But yeah, a mix can be busy, but if every part in the song is in support of the song, so what ? I think that part of the problem is that in modern western music, some of our tastes and the way we approach music a lot of the time is so standardized and predictable. Often, the idea of 2 counter-melodies or cross rhythms or something like that is anathema. When one takes in music from all over the world {and from many different eras and genres}, one realizes that some really great stuff is pretty busy in construction, and it's how this is managed in a mix that makes such a difference.

It's been pointed out in another thread that one of the problems with this particular song is that there's too many instruments trying to play the lead roll all at the same time in too many parts of the song. There's too many bass licks trying to steal the show right in the way of the vocal or in the way of a guitar lick. The last mix I did, before I even had this suggested to me, I found myself just deleting/ removing all these electric guitar licks that I thought were so cool. Just got rid of them. Prior to that, my mindset was to keep them in at all costs...turn them up even. Meanwhile, underneath those guitar licks, the bass was doing a flashy flurry of some sort, the vocal was going off, the acoustic guitars were strumming away and the drums were in the mix too.

In other words...I think my mixes will improve if I improve the arrangement. I need to listen properly to pro songs and learn to have parts combine to serve the song.

To this point, I sit down with my rhythm guitar, play that to the drums...then pick up the bass and try to make the bass as cool (busy) as I can...then I'm trying to play electric guitar fills...too many of them...over the top of 'cool' bass licks...then I'll play an organ part...trying to make it the star of that part of the song...without stopping to realise I already have the bass, rhythm, licks etc all trying to doing something amazing.

That's why it's hard to mix. And I'm just not the world's greatest singer, guitar player, bass player, organ player...but I'm trying above my skill set to jam in as much 'cool' stuff as I can, all the time. I need to simplify, learn from the masters and learn how to arrange better. I think it's as simple as that. Simplify!

 

[rob aylestone]

I think you've kind of stumbled onto the thing that causes bands aggravation in studio time - everyone wants to play from bar one to the end, when in most decent songs, some players come in, do something then drop out again. Brass players sort of seem immune to this. they're used to standing playing nothing then coming in a with tight bada bap-bada, then shutting up again. The guy on piano and maybe one strummy guitar might play through, but look at what the guitar plays on songs that are not solid walls of sound - it's very rarely the same old strumming. I'm old but followed Status Quo from my teens. Two loud distorted guitars that everyone casually listening thinks play through, but mostly one does solid play through and the other does lighter bits with shabby loud bits and the inevitable lead lines. Most bands who have two guitars - thin them out. Add organ - and that's another big hit on the spectrum, so while an organist could play solo lines with the right hand and chords with the left, do they actually need to? Does the guitarist need to hit all six strings every strum? Does the bass player need to keep doing those high twiddly bits - if that bit of spectrum has somebody else in it? The bands with good producers get directed into what will work and what won't. Without a producer everyone goes for it. If you take on the role of sole musician, then you do exactly the same. I know I do, but at least you end up editing just yourself - but so much of what you record is pointless. Get your core continuous tracks done, then on the other sounds, just play what is needed. If you don't, then you've got a huge wash of sound, and you spend ages tweaking EQs, reverbs, processing and then struggling to get things to cut through.

 

[LazerBeakShiek]

If you take on the role of sole musician, then

What if you are a Soul Musician?

 

[Monkey Allen]

I think you've kind of stumbled onto the thing that causes bands aggravation in studio time - everyone wants to play from bar one to the end, when in most decent songs, some players come in, do something then drop out again. Brass players sort of seem immune to this. they're used to standing playing nothing then coming in a with tight bada bap-bada, then shutting up again. The guy on piano and maybe one strummy guitar might play through, but look at what the guitar plays on songs that are not solid walls of sound - it's very rarely the same old strumming. I'm old but followed Status Quo from my teens. Two loud distorted guitars that everyone casually listening thinks play through, but mostly one does solid play through and the other does lighter bits with shabby loud bits and the inevitable lead lines. Most bands who have two guitars - thin them out. Add organ - and that's another big hit on the spectrum, so while an organist could play solo lines with the right hand and chords with the left, do they actually need to? Does the guitarist need to hit all six strings every strum? Does the bass player need to keep doing those high twiddly bits - if that bit of spectrum has somebody else in it? The bands with good producers get directed into what will work and what won't. Without a producer everyone goes for it. If you take on the role of sole musician, then you do exactly the same. I know I do, but at least you end up editing just yourself - but so much of what you record is pointless. Get your core continuous tracks done, then on the other sounds, just play what is needed. If you don't, then you've got a huge wash of sound, and you spend ages tweaking EQs, reverbs, processing and then struggling to get things to cut through.

Spot on. I have a lot to learn!

 

[rob aylestone]

Ah - but when you get to my age, you realise that it took a bloody long time to realise much of this stuff. I'd have been so much better had I worked this out 30 years ago!

 

[grimtraveller]

Management of the mix follows directly on from arrangement of the song. Everything is song dependent. Once the song has been arranged, whether it's sparse or busy doesn't matter. It depends on the song.

 

[grimtraveller]

so much of what you record is pointless

I avoid this like the plague. Sometimes, I will delete something I've recorded, but because I try to work hard on the arrangement, I try to ensure that each part, regardless of where it comes in and goes out, is playing a role in support of the song. I hate it when a part doesn't work and has to go !
Until it's gone.

 

[LazerBeakShiek]

Everything is song dependent. It depends on the song.

1. Everything is song dependent.
2. It depends on the song.
3. The song depends on the song.
4 It depends on what is dependent.
5...

 

[Mr. ROUSH]

I'm with Mike on this one. I don't think any of the mixes sound bad at all. They may not be in the higher echelon of home recordings, but other than the things mjb pointed out about levels {and they may just be subjective to me}, the way you describe your mixes is way out of kilter from how they sound to me.

Well, precisely. That's why conversations like these are always going to be fraught with difficulty.

While that seems logical, and is true in some cases, it presupposes there being some universal standard to which everyone subscribes. And that simply doesn't exist. I'd say most people that mix songs have an approximate idea of what sounds terrible. But the scope of "right" is pretty wide.

As you said, it's subjective.
Ever since recordings were first made, there has been variable quality in terms of mixing.
But who determines what sounds good or right ? How does one square a "good" punk rock mix to a classical buff that thinks it's all noise ?
I love the Rolling Stones 60s work, but I think they're pretty poorly mixed. It doesn't stop me listening to them but compared to even the Pretty Things, they're surprisingly crummy.

Yes and no.
This comes back to subjectivity again. You might detest my mix because I've panned the drums hard left, the bass hard right and the lead vocal at 2 o'clock. Or you might like your bass light and feathery, but dislike my mix because I like my bass heavy and dominant. In either case, does this make a bad mix ? Is a mix bad just because 2 million people don't like it ?

Fair enough, but how and what determines that the life is being sucked out of it ? What if the mixer actually wants the mix sounding that way ? Why should your determination of "good" have pre-eminence over that of the mixer ?

I agree. The key word here is "Beginners."

Unless you were deliberately jesting, I don't think you have rightly understood the point I made or the analogy I used to illustrate it.
My question to you was about the fixed and inanimate against the dynamic and living. The spectrum analyser and the online test represent the fixed, inanimate and cold that do not engage in an alive way with the living. Your ears and your view of the wife represent the real time, living, thinking human being.
If you thought a piece of music or a mix sounded good, it matters not one jot if the analyser "tells" you that it's not aggressive enough or too aggressive.
I remember back in 2001 when my wife and I had our first child. The "manual" that the NHS sent us told us to not have the room we were in more than 18° as this would be harmful for the baby and could lead to cot death. Well, our son was born in December, and December in London is flaming cold ! The thermometer never went below 20° and even at that, we were freezing our butts off. After a couple of days, we said 'stuff this !' and put the heating on so the room was hot and our son is now 19 and alive and well ! We didn't need an inanimate object telling us we should be warm enough when we were cold....and if a mix sounds good to you, then it shouldn't need all the jiggery pokery to correct your impression.
Now, that said, it's a common occurrence to many of us to think something sounds good/right/great and then to come back to it a while later and it doesn't sound good at all. But it's the individual making that assessment, not some machine. Your correction of my analogy actually, unwittingly, made my point for me; in realizing your wife was shallow after 25 years, you've reached that decision yourself, through living with her, not because some online test {frequency analyser} you filled out told you that this is how she must be.

While much of mixing is subjective, there is a science and hard math to it as well. I certainly feel that the best practice is to mix with your ears at the end of the day. However, if your ears have never had a true reference for comparison, then there's a lot of uneducated guessing and assuming that tends to ensue. I think most of us agree that it's best to learn the rules before breaking them. In my opinion, a hybrid approach is best, especially when you're having a difficult time achieving the results you expect, like the OP. Hell, like most of us here. A frequency analyzer can tell you a lot, and it can certainly provide a visual reference for confirmation of things you suspect based on what your ears are hearing. When used effectively, they essentially help to train your ears by associating common problems with common frequency ranges where they exist. One of the most obvious benefits of visual analysis is identifying elements that are occupying too much of the same space. It takes any guessing right out of it.

Honestly, I don't think you're making a strong argument against frequency analyzers. They exist because they're very useful. Many experts rely on them in every mix to some degree or another. They're just smart. They shouldn't discourage anyone from stepping out of the box or be considered the end all be all. But, I don't think it's useful to make these anecdotal comparisons based, in part, on some logical fallacies. No, you shouldn't need anything to tell you if you are hot or cold enough. Nobody suggested that. But, you appreciate having a thermostat that you can set at a temperature that you know will keep you comfortable.

 

[rob aylestone]

Arrangements. Hmm. There seem to be two trains of thought, or process here. My real musician, concert piano playing colleague does it totally in his head, and we only record what the arrangement requires. I can’t do that, so while I know in my head what I want, very often it changes when the first part is recorded and I realise it wont work. I’m getting better, but often it means that let’s say the guitar is playing an Am chord, at fret five so the bottom note is an A, the bass might be playing A, and the piano might have an A in the left hand AND the right. Too many A’s. Too thick a sound, so maybe the guitarist could maybe play the four highest strings? Maybe the left hand on the piano might be a fifth instead? When you use a DAW and lots of samples and synths it’s often worth looking at fact moving chords in lots of parts together. I might take the strings, the synths and thicker sounds and look, not listen at them. Very often you can see movement up or down that you cannot see in individual parts. You can strip these out into separate tracks sort of creating melodies you didn’t know they were there, and these can then become harmonies for voices or solo instruments. My clever colleague hears this in his head before playing a note!

arranging is often thought of as simply chopping a song up and moving it around. It isnt.

 

[Mr. ROUSH]

I think this is what I am good at doing. I have a reasonably ok recording. The playing is fair enough...but when mixing I am very good at sucking the life out of the song. I think the advice on this thread has already been very good. I think I need to:

a) listen to and study pro recordings on my monitors
b) keep things simple...start with a good basic balance

It took me a long time to really identify some mistakes and bad habits that I was making. It's just not always obvious without a true reference to speed up the curve during the learning process. I've always wished I could have a well established expert sitting next to me to point out what I was doing wrong or right. I'm certain there are still plenty of mistakes that I am making. That being said, you figure out little things here and there that lead to some "a-ha" moments. I spent a considerable amount of time struggling with the low end. In the beginning, like most beginners, my intuition was to boost the low end. To my frustration, that was never the whole solution. Once I figured out that I needed to filter out the low end of mid range and some high end elements to give that extra room for the lows, that's one of those moments when something clicked one small thing that really improved my mixes noticeably.

I think your takeaway from this discussion is great advice for everyone. References are pretty critical. It's super helpful to study the songs that most closely represent the results we're trying to achieve. Simple is generally best. A good basic balance is definitely the foundation of any good mix, starting with the source sound and good gain staging practices. Keep at it, man! Best of luck to you!

 

[Monkey Allen]

It took me a long time to really identify some mistakes and bad habits that I was making. It's just not always obvious without a true reference to speed up the curve during the learning process. I've always wished I could have a well established expert sitting next to me to point out what I was doing wrong or right. I'm certain there are still plenty of mistakes that I am making. That being said, you figure out little things here and there that lead to some "a-ha" moments. I spent a considerable amount of time struggling with the low end. In the beginning, like most beginners, my intuition was to boost the low end. To my frustration, that was never the whole solution. Once I figured out that I needed to filter out the low end of mid range and some high end elements to give that extra room for the lows, that's one of those moments when something clicked one small thing that really improved my mixes noticeably.

I think your takeaway from this discussion is great advice for everyone. References are pretty critical. It's super helpful to study the songs that most closely represent the results we're trying to achieve. Simple is generally best. A good basic balance is definitely the foundation of any good mix, starting with the source sound and good gain staging practices. Keep at it, man! Best of luck to you!

You're dead right. I took out a bunch of licks getting in the way for this, I guess, final mix. I also found I had to get rid of a lot of bass freq's out of the actual bass and the kick and the guitars...the acoustics in some earlier mixes had been mangled with eq trying to get them right. In the end it barely sounded like an acoustic guitar. For this last mix all I did was high pass and turn the acoustic guitars down until they fit - goodbye all manner of notches and eq work. Basically, the volume knob did the work.

I kind of liken this mixing caper to something like working on your car's engine. I know next to nothing about car engines. Imagine taking an interest in your car's engine and expecting to produce experienced mechanic work on it by watching some youtube videos - changing timing belts, anything you could imagine. Well, that's just like mixing. I've never sat with anyone, watched anyone or been with anyone when mixing. Youtube videos and books can give you a taste, but you need real-time help, specific to the very material you are working on RIGHT NOW. Videos and books don't get you there.

Some people are naturally talented. Not me. It's a hard graft, this mixing stuff. And many people say that. But they also say that if you persist the rewards will come. I've heard that.

One thing that gets me is that in 2017 I wrote, recorded and mixed this song called Better Me Better You. And I've had people say to me that it's just beautifully mixed. And it's pretty dang good, if you don't mind me saying so myself, ha. And I have no idea how that came about. I recorded about 19 songs in 2017 and all but that one were really sub par mixes. For some reason I fluked that good mix. I've studied the mix and tried to work out why it sounded so good. But I haven't really been able to match it. I remember that it was really easy to mix and everything was just a straight forward decision. There was no wrestling. It was full of instruments...acoustic, drums, bass, vocal, recorder, organ, real piano, electric guitar, lead guitar, shaker, tambourine, a wood block...I mean it had a lot in it but it came together really easily. Maybe the key, the arrangement and the parts played were all just ideal for the song. Maybe a home recording guy like me can't have that level of inspiration all the time...or more than once or twice!

Anyway, mixing for me is a bit like I've been asked to walk into air traffic control and safely land 100 planes. I have no idea where to start!

But I guess even this song about the drums improved over the space of 4 or 5 mixes. So, all is not lost.

If you have any more like, aha moments you wanna share....go right ahead man.

 

[LazerBeakShiek]

, mixing for me is a bit like I've been asked to walk into air traffic control and safely land 100 planes. I have no idea where to start!

Yeah , but you could do it. You are just that kind of people. We find a way. Always. Mixing is no different.

If you have any more like, aha moments you wanna share....

I have Ah-Ha moments all the time. Take on me.

 

[Mr. ROUSH]

You're dead right. I took out a bunch of licks getting in the way for this, I guess, final mix. I also found I had to get rid of a lot of bass freq's out of the actual bass and the kick and the guitars...the acoustics in some earlier mixes had been mangled with eq trying to get them right. In the end it barely sounded like an acoustic guitar. For this last mix all I did was high pass and turn the acoustic guitars down until they fit - goodbye all manner of notches and eq work. Basically, the volume knob did the work.

I kind of liken this mixing caper to something like working on your car's engine. I know next to nothing about car engines. Imagine taking an interest in your car's engine and expecting to produce experienced mechanic work on it by watching some youtube videos - changing timing belts, anything you could imagine. Well, that's just like mixing. I've never sat with anyone, watched anyone or been with anyone when mixing. Youtube videos and books can give you a taste, but you need real-time help, specific to the very material you are working on RIGHT NOW. Videos and books don't get you there.

Some people are naturally talented. Not me. It's a hard graft, this mixing stuff. And many people say that. But they also say that if you persist the rewards will come. I've heard that.

One thing that gets me is that in 2017 I wrote, recorded and mixed this song called Better Me Better You. And I've had people say to me that it's just beautifully mixed. And it's pretty dang good, if you don't mind me saying so myself, ha. And I have no idea how that came about. I recorded about 19 songs in 2017 and all but that one were really sub par mixes. For some reason I fluked that good mix. I've studied the mix and tried to work out why it sounded so good. But I haven't really been able to match it. I remember that it was really easy to mix and everything was just a straight forward decision. There was no wrestling. It was full of instruments...acoustic, drums, bass, vocal, recorder, organ, real piano, electric guitar, lead guitar, shaker, tambourine, a wood block...I mean it had a lot in it but it came together really easily. Maybe the key, the arrangement and the parts played were all just ideal for the song. Maybe a home recording guy like me can't have that level of inspiration all the time...or more than once or twice!

Anyway, mixing for me is a bit like I've been asked to walk into air traffic control and safely land 100 planes. I have no idea where to start!

But I guess even this song about the drums improved over the space of 4 or 5 mixes. So, all is not lost.

If you have any more like, aha moments you wanna share....go right ahead man.

That's a great example of a common technique that isn't obvious to a lot of people. To this day, I always feel a little guilty when I cut lows out of the sub bass and/or kick drums or other low frequency elements. It seems counterintuitive until you come to understand the benefits and carving out space for things. A lot of songs have a high pass on the master cleaning up the low end. A lot of muddy mixes can be blamed on the lack of attention to this situation.

I'd say that working on an engine is probably easier to do than mixing a song. Not to say that it's easy. But, there's pretty much only one right way to do it, and there's a step by step guide out there for every engine. Each song is unique and requires individual attention. There's no great one size fits all template for mixing. While there are some common techniques that will be used in most mixes, there are a lot of very deliberate adjustments that are necessary and unique to each mix. That's the puzzle and the possible combinations of plugins, routing, etc are endless.

I think you hit on an important point regarding the mix you're referring to from 2017. It seemed much easier to get the results you wanted. And, you're likely correct. One thing I noticed is that in a lot of mixes I have studied, the starting mix with no effects already sounded better than the end results I was getting after applying effects, etc. Ouch. But, that just goes to show the importance of the source recording/sound. That's especially important when you're recording live instruments. Judging from the elements in that mix you mentioned, I'd say it was just the right combination of elements to fill up the frequency range just right. Arrangement and sound selection are super important and will determine the need for things like EQ in the mix. I think the most ideal scenario in mixing is when you really don't need to do much and you're just polishing something that was already recorded and arranged well. That's when it's less work and more creative liberty.

Other "a-ha" moments off the top. I would again mention saturation. That was a big one. Another one is oversampling. So many great plugins out there that offer upsampling now, and it can really make a big difference for cleaning up your tracks or making elements stand out, especially when there's a lot of compression and other processing that is amplifying the bad with the good. Parallel processing, mid/side processing, and L/R processing have improved my mixing a lot over the years. Multi-band processors are a great way to fine tune mixes. A lot of things that I read about / learned about by watching videos didn't click right away. I would try certain common techniques, and I wouldn't get the same results that others were. Ultimately, it boils down to really learning what's happening to the signal and how to best apply any given technique. It can be a blessing and a curse. But, just keep at it. Things will click more and more over time!!

 

[Monkey Allen]

The engine thing is just an idea like taking on something from a standpoint of knowing absolutely nothing about what you're doing. Like if I gave a child who'd never seen a car before in his life a screw driver and told him to put a fully dismantled car engine back together...that's mixing.