also consider that you can reference or analyze 10 different tracks that have seen "professional" success and find that they all have different mix characteristics. you'd drive yourself nuts trying to chase this "sound" that doesn't have a clear definition to begin with.

I believe tracks mixed by professional studio engineers have been categorized with a vocabulary that allows them to communicate succinctly with other engineers. Restated - given the degrees of freedom allowed by each technique, there exist configurations that have been named. Knowledge of these configurations allows studio engineers to apply them to mixes deliberately and consistently. Only after learning these configurations, and observing how they are typically applied to music (e.g. common mixing styles in a genre), can one then form their own values and apply precise technique to their own mixes.

To make another comparison to software engineering: Software Design Pattern
No secrets, no magic. Not winging it. Definitely not foolproof. Repeatable, industry respected techniques? Yes.

Sorry mate, you're still treating this as if it were some kind of RPG where you can learn spells and level up, that's just not how it works. If you are having trouble dealing with ambiguity, I can respect that and deal with; I have friends who are on the autism spectrum and face similar problems. What I cannot do is change reality so that it conforms to your expectations.

The approach that works consistently is

1. identify problem
2. solve problem and remember how you did it
3. if still not happy with it, identify another problem and goto 2.
4. call it finished

The types of problems and possible solutions are too plentiful to create a manual for every situation, and the problems themselves are so specific to the material that there can be no one-size-fits-all solution. I'm telling you that what you want to do is not possible.

I see you are passionate about your opinions. Your list seems deliberately over-simplified. Perhaps you think I'm looking for a list of similar length with technical specifics? I am not. I'm not looking for a one-size-fits-all solution. I see that you are experiencing the reality you have chosen for yourself. I hope your methods for deciding what's not possible are useful to you.

This forum is already a resource for elementary technique. We have threads in many areas: Understanding Compressors, Multi-Band Compressors, Pink Noise Mixing, Equal Loudness Contours, Sub Bass, Stereo Separation, Clipping, Headroom... and each of them definitely deserves the attention they are receiving. Where these topics are "deep" in discussion, I am trying to make a resource that's "wide"... with a gracious nod to the "depth" in the other topics.

I think you missed that 'lil bit... but no worries.

There's no difference between "pro" techniques that will take an amateur's efforts to release-ready levels on the one side, and "regular" techniques that can easily be found and performed by novices on the other.

Ok, that's my fault. I apologize for not articulating that well.

I'm trying set aside the people that would "thicken it up with flour & a 'lil butter" and speak with those who would "prepare a roux."

Does that help a little? I don't think the actual physical action is "pro", or "regular", or requires some special dexterity or mental gymnastics only available to those anointed with the blessing of institutionalized education.

There's no [...] way of talking about the mix that, if only you could be taught it, would make you a "top-level producer". It's only through [...] identifying problems [...] and solving them in any way that works that your output will consistently improve.

I disagree. Accredited institutions would not exist if this were true. "The Sound Reinforcement Handbook" by Gary Davis would probably not exist if this were true. Trial and error is not the only way to improve.

If you'll allow me to derail our back & forth on this single point... I'd like to ask you a few questions. Have you taken any courses in audio engineering? Have you attended a specialized school for any specific discipline? I'm not attempting to devalue your perspective by suggesting lack of experience invalidates it. I'm only trying to understand how you have acquired this perspective.

Also, thanks for being respectful. +1

Nobody said you can't learn stuff from books and courses, they're super good to find techniques to try, habits to form, and so on; I say you cannot learn from them about the specific material you are working on, because there hasn't been anything quite like it yet. A solid education will give you solid defaults, but it will not give you a magic bullet. How do you think the people who write the books and courses have arrived at their knowledge? Education-directed trial and error is certainly quicker, but it's not qualitatively different from self-learning, and the absence of formal or otherwise outside-facilitated education doesn't preclude anyone from good results or knowledge in the field.

Yay! Well said! +2 That's probably the greatest thing I've read on this forum to date! Perhaps you've heard of American film & television composer Danny Elfman (Batman, Edward Scissorhands, Beetlejuice, Sleepy Hollow, Mission Impossible, The Simpsons and others, also the lead singer of the band Oingo Boingo). He's one of my personal heroes and is well known as an autodidact (self-taught) musician.

Thanks for your advice and contribution!

I feel much of your rebuttal is based on psychological projection. "Set aside" doesn't mean "put down" to me, but to you it does. You think I'm looking for simple solution, because (at one time) you were looking for a simple solution. You have not found resources fitting a vague description and insist they aren't around. In reality, mixing theory, the aesthetics of various mixing technique, and frameworks (visual & vocabulary) for the discussion of mixing theory are published in books. The blowback from this devil's advocate, clickbait, incendiary topic tells me very few have read them.

Now I can't help but think: has everyone on TPF been teaching themselves? Is TPF made better by 5 different topics on pink mixing and more about compressors? I guess creative people are scared to death of being pigeonholed... fear always trumps logic. Why would a Classically trained mixing engineer be on an Internet forum anyway?

I hope all the "Honor" I've been giving people stays when I delete this topic.

And the most valuable lesson they've taught me so far is how important it is to shut up and just do the work.

It's the same with programming. No matter how much theory you consume, it doesn't present itself as useful until you code and see first-hand where the pitfalls addressed in that theory show up in an actual workflow. Still, that structure allows you to quickly identify those areas and sidestep them by applying the personal values you've developed from learning it.

As someone attending an accredited institution who is studying music production, I can assure you that it is not true. Engineering/Production schools do not teach you the things that you are asking for - they provide a structure to guide you through the process of learning it yourself, like wayfinder said.
...
I don't need this school to teach me the stuff that I'm learning. I own books that have all the knowledge my teachers will give over the next couple of years, and I have enough equipment that I can probably putz around until I figure it out. What this school provides is a chance to network with my peers and with professionals in the industry, a chance to focus on building a portfolio of work, and a mentored learning experience.

If you're talking about what wayfinder said about "defaults", I'm not sure that's the same thing as "structure" due to the language barrier he mentioned. Would you provide a specific example of the "structure" you're speaking of? What are some of the names and authors of the textbooks used at the institution you're currently attending? What's its name? What program, course, or curriculum have you've chosen? How long have you been attending?

Thanks for your contribution! Your post/honor ratio needs a hand +2

The "structure" I'm talking about is a class syllabus - if you've ever taken a class at any school or through any educational program ever, I guarantee you know what kind of structure wayfinder and I are talking about with regards to getting a scholastic education in music. If you need textbooks, I suggest amazon or Chegg. I promise you any book on music theory and any book on the technical aspects of audio engineering will have all the same information as the ones assigned by my university. ... it's everything that gets talked about on this forum. It's just a matter of doing the legwork yourself.

And you're asking me to reveal a lot of very personal information online without really even knowing who I am at all, so I don't really feel comfortable sharing it. It's not really an appropriate line of questioning to give to a complete stranger.

Woah woah! Chill out, man! I'm sorry if I offended you. Seriously, consider removing the name of your university, your name, and pictures of yourself from your twitter account... or link a different account to TPF.

A class syllabus is a schedule... an outline of the contents of a curriculum. That's not the same (as I suspected) as "defaults" to a discipline. I thought you might mention structure something like:
"The six main elements to a great mix: Balance, Frequency range, Panorama, Dimension, Dynamics, Interest" ... taken from Bobby Owsinski's "The Mixing Engineers Handbook

If you were gonna start stalking my social media profiles (super creepy, by the way - you went back like six months to find a picture of me), why'd you even bother asking? But yea, if someone's gonna get all weird about it like you maybe I should make my twitter less informative.

And what do you mean by "defaults" to a discipline? What exactly is different between your list and my professors putting all of that same stuff on a syllabus and talking about each one in a specific sequence? What is it exactly you're trying to get at? What is your expected result of this discussion?

I clicked two links (and scrolled twice). Now I'm afraid you'll find a way to dislike whatever I reply. I bothered because I thought you might be proud to mention your achievements. Whops! I'm making an effort to understand what wayfinder meant by "A solid education will give you solid defaults, but it will not give you a magic bullet." To me, "defaults" meant rudimentary guidelines to follow when approaching a new task (e.g. use a 1:4 ratio & a max of 6dB of gain reduction on compressors until you develop your own ideals). Does "default" mean something different to you?

The difference in mentioning "structure" and a school syllabus is very slim indeed... but apparently includes your reluctance to type and the money you paid. I understand, that can be an insurmountable barrier for some. I hate it when people get for free what I had to pay for. Everyone should do their own legwork and suffer through the trials I did... jk, that's silly.

Initially, I made a devil's advocate post (sentiment I don't agree with... but still logical) to see if anyone would slip into a discussion of mixing theory without a "Post your armchair Mixing Theory crap here" topic. Not even close... all the replies have been very defensive. People seem to insist the point of TPF is to condescendingly answer questions, pet each other's egos, and spam for feedback. I didn't want to make another place for people to "fix the n00bs"... but it happened anyway. To me, this forum has been a lackluster resource... very little information is actually here... it's a bunch of cookbook recipes and links to other recipes. Not to say it's been all bad. Someone actually posted a link to an illegal download of the book mentioned below... and yes, it's available for legal purchase on Amazon.

What was I expecting. Instant rebuttal... yes, a bit.. hence the clickbait title. I was hoping to be pleasantly surprised by at least one person. It would have been really cool to see something new.

Maybe a correlation between something like this (public domain) image from Wikipedia and the "6 Levels of Volume" as detailed in David Gibson's "The Art of Mixing: A Visual Guide to Recording, Engineering, and Production"

No, nothing like that... those things definitely don't exist. By all means, continue posting tips and tricks. I'll mostly be just a lurker in the future.

to see if anyone would slip into a discussion of mixing theory without a "Post your armchair Mixing Theory crap here" topic.

here is the root of the problem. there is no difference between "mixing theory" and what you interpret to be "armchair mixing theory crap". this is why everyone replies to tell you that there are no "secret" or "magic" techniques. because despite your continual protest, you are either seeking techniques or discussion that is no different than the rest of the discussion on the boards, or you seek something that doesn't exist.

sure, you can discuss audio theory as it pertains to the proofs and formulas and empirical data that fills up textbooks. but when it comes to the PRACTICAL application of audio techniques in mixing, the school and textbook information ultimately boils down to the same "armchair mixing theory crap" that you are shunning. and the engineers who have been doing this for decades are using the same language that is commonly used on forums like these (hell, many of those engineers even hang out on forums)

Maybe a correlation between something like this (public domain) image from Wikipedia and the "6 Levels of Volume" as detailed in David Gibson's "The Art of Mixing: A Visual Guide to Recording, Engineering, and Production"

No, nothing like that... those things definitely don't exist. By all means, continue posting tips and tricks. I'll mostly be just a lurker in the future.

please, enlighten us, and explain how this information could practically be applied to your mixing process. when you're setting your levels or setting note velocity, are you really going to reach for a graph before you just set it by ear? and do you honestly think professional mix engineers are sharing stuff like this to communicate? it looks like you're just trying to sound intellectual for the sake of it. which is why this thread has been a trainwreck.