I told my lil' supersaw to drink a glass of milk everyday so he would grow of big.

Worked for me.

Do you sport with it? Because I showel a bottle of milk down my supersaw's throat every single day and it doesn't get bigger. It gets fatter, lazier, depressed about bass being more strong and punchy, but it just won't get bigger.

I see a fair few producers use stereo separation for a lot of jobs where panning will well and truly suffice. It starts to make your track very difficult to mix if you overdo this effect, especially because phase issues and phase cancellation start cropping up a lot.

Yup. I have the same feeling. Panning for the win! ...also physically you have just one space to fill, so no matter how many plugins you use, if you fill it with one huge supersaw, naturally your ear will loose track about position of other elements. If you overuse this, you ears will simply give up on figuring out the stereo image. It's a fact, it's a mistake and it's called "big mono". There's great article about it in Mixing Engineer's Handbook by Bobby Owsinsky.

Warp wobbles the amplitude a little. Turn off your warping and the track will be back on -0.2 maximum...

(Caution, really nerdy topic comming...)

Ok few days back I was struggling with few mixdowns. It's like a circle, it always comes to part when I like the sound on it's own, but it's muddy in comparison with profi stuff. So I usually go back and cut more and more low midrange from different elements until it's a bit comparable.

...but recently, I was listening to some really old music and noticed pretty similar muddy sound. Such old recordings are often used as a proof of oldschool analogue mixing being superior to digital as it sounds less "digital" and more "warm". So the theory is: Isn't this difference caused just by different "styles" of mixing? Isn't this just a biproduct of today's loudness war forcing us to make low mids weaker and stuff over 2k louder?

Now you probably say: "Dude doesn't know what he's talking about. There's way more to analogue warmth than frequency response." And you're right, but is there really such a magical difference? If you AB straight digital and analog, you find combination of three differences. Effects you might say. Saturation, pitch inconsistency and altered frequency response. But more pricey the studio equipment was back then, less of these problems were there anyway . Also apply any tape-sim on a track and make a dip in low mids. Yup, you get some new harmonics making highend a bit richer, but you probably wouln't call it "warm" anymore.

How much you guys "praise" analog wamness? Isn't it possible that some of it might have been caused just by a mixing style back then?

I wanted to find some really bad, so I've tried almost all of them and... I found out that whatever they do It's possible to make by having two slightly detuned saws routed into a distorted filter with high resonance and right envelope. ...on almost any synth. (It needs to have decent filter distortion though.) It's definitelly not 100% authentic, but I feel like that's something listener won't notice unles he's realy nerdy about this. Good trade for possibilities that rest of the features of any given synth add.

Also dunno how you, but programming the step sequencer on a faithful 303 emulation is really cumbersome for me. :/

^ This. It's a good practise to try to limit your processing to minimum when you know your samples are processed already, so just a small EQ cuts, not so much compression... (with lowcutting for everything that's not kick being an exception to this rule on some packs)

Or as manducator said. You can get unprocessed one and go crazy yourself.

What's the difference between using an imager or a mid/side EQ to make anything below around 100hz mono? Does the EQ just have more control?

Yeah, AFAIK that's essentialy it. Q/Resonancy control comes to mind, but I don't think it makes a big difference unless you plan something really crazy with it.

Part of why internet addiction is such a big problem is that basically everything on the internet is designed to provide instant gratification. Web- and software-designers, in so many words, are actually trained to provide this instant gratification...
...
Forums are nice because you don't get immediate gratification. You write your message, then you have to go away for a while and come back because you know nobody will respond instantly. Going away for a while makes it harder for you to get sucked in. Another positive side-effect of this is that people on forums write better, more thoughtful responses, because we all understand that there's this lag: you have more time to write, which also means more time to read.

Ok I was about to jump in with "HELL YEAH!" post, but this is actually pretty solid reason not to. Didn't think of it that way. It makes sense.