Referencing:
Find some pro-recorded material and play it in Windows Media Player with the bar graph visual showing....it's a spectrum...low to high frequency, in the general range of human hearing. [or you can load the stereo file onto your DAW, and play the track through a parametric EQ or other display that will show you a more detailed graphic picture of the frequency spectrum].
Look at the picture as the work plays. Some para eq functions let you freeze the line a dozen or so times, to give an 'average' line. That's what a good recording should generally 'look' like. And the ear hears it as 'normal' generally.
The rule of thumb is that above 500Hz, the average frequency spectrum should decline to between -6db to -9db as it approaches 20kHz. The former is what is known as the '3db rolloff'; the latter, the '6db rolloff'. The former is an indicator of a 'hot' recording...the latter, an industry standard.
Below 500Hz, the transients [momentary energy bursts] should top off ...not average....along the same line, extended leftward above the 0db line...as the average of bass range is difficult to average, where drums are included. Just an easier way to analyze the visual.
Your mastered recordings should look the same way, in large part, to sound 'correct'. A pre-mastered mixdown should run parallel to the average line -3 to -6db down.
If you have some organic experience recording, you'll find that the freq specs of your mixed tracks will find their spec in that ballpark....and you have not much work to do to fix the soup.
Now, your last mix:
On Windows Media, I can see the bar graph as it plays. Right off the bat, I see weak, muddy bottom end: the graph is way low, and their's not much in the way of transient spikes when the bass drum or snare hits. No punch in the kit.
The midrange is way low....and that's where the power of a recording is. It's usually a problem having too much of it there, but on your piece, you've maybe over-compensated, and carved out the energy from the thing. The 4K range is hot: that buzzing thing. Then the 'air' frequencies roll off drastically...and you need those to let the HF componants of instruments complete the sonic realism of their broadcast sound.
So I started twiddling the EQ sliders of your record to visually normalize the freq spec on WMP:
31Hz +9
62Hz +4
125Hz +6
250Hz +11
500Hz +10
1K +8
2K -6
4K -6
8K +1
16K +9
That puts the freq spec visually in the ballbark of most pro records. It sounds a lot better, too. But it also throws the sounds of individual instruments out of whack because the fixes are so radically large.
But with this rough norming, you can start to hear things like the swimming ambiance on the lower drum kit filling all the space in the bottom end, etc. It lets you hear things that are killing the mix.
The way to begin fixing the recording is looking at the freq specs of each individual track, and EQ carving so as to assign roughly indivualized chunks of range ..that sound good. Mix them, and tweak to place the overall average freq spec in that reference area. You know what instruments will give you a bump here or there. Experience is the only way to get the knack in the bones. [1/2 rule: EQ carve a track to taste...then apply HALF the medicine. Overcompensation is a real hassle, early in mixing trials. Still a headache for me.]
And I think part of the problem you're having is that you're completing the mix including the vocal. Maybe?? Try mixing the band first, if you are. Get that right, then add the vox. Vox generally sound heavily in the 300 to 700Hz mids. There's a nice notch in your 'band mix' where a vocxal could feature itself. But your vox is buzzing in higher ranges. A good plan might be to kill off some of the 4K bump in the vox, and use that space lower to sit it in??
So try messing with the WMP EQ sliders. A good tool for roughing out EQ plans.
Hope this helps.
And , yeah...some EQ functions really suck. The best I've used is Ozone Izatope's Para EQ. Very organic. Some of my Cakewalk plugins and other EQ tools are just whack....never use them...confusing...unfriendly.
ps..I know some might feel that using a freq spec average to assay a work is not 'artistic'. But considering it, then deviating to produce hotter, colder, pumpinger, or anything new and 'artistic' in the sound, is a lot like figuring out where you are before you glide to where you want to be. Flying blind is not necessarily productive with subjective, tired ears.