Trainwreck is kind of an understatement at this point. OP is [...] so wrapped up their Quest for the Holy Grail of Mixing that they are falling prey to the same mistakes as the knights of the Crusades: The Holy Grail is not an object to acquire, but a philosophical ideal to reach for but never fully attain.

Yeah, this kitchen's on fire! Thanks for your replies... I really do appreciate them! Also, you've been dropping some great insight around the forum. I enjoy your posts.

There are a lot of kids in my classes who will ask questions about mixing and what to do with certain things, and there is one answer that they received: "It depends on the situation, just add what you think it needs." All the terminology you seem to be hunting for is either nonexistent, nonstandard, or mostly subjective (e.g. "bright" means the same general thing, but can be achieved in multiple different ways so it's hard to lock down what is MEANT by bright at times). Yes, we have terms like SMPTE Time Code and Fletcher-Munson Curve and Formants and all that good stuff, but they are not things that apply to the areas you want them to be applied to. There is no set term for "proper headroom" or whatever.

Ok. Can we (TPF members) come up with a term together? Would you, as a student be less or more receptive to: "It depends on the situation, some people use a ____, an ____, or a ______. In EDM, ____ is typical, except remixes of Pop that use _____ (which has a similar sound to ____)." With the understanding that the terms could be looked up, reproduced, understood, altered ("seasoned to taste", if you will), or built upon (adding to the vocabulary)?

An example of adding to an existing vocabulary: the "Wall of Sound" recording / mixing technique created by Phil Spector.

Going back to your OP, you say that it's obvious that there has to be some sort of "standard procedure", yet it's somehow ONLY obvious to you. Now you have multiple people telling you the opposite [...].

I've seen this recently. Here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zQ1QyB-GNAE&feature=youtu.be&t=29s

Woah! Your other post (deleted now) had some really great counter arguments! The post by Mussar you referenced is well worded and a great example of descriptive communication. +2

http://edmprod.com/glossary/

here is what you're looking for. these are most of the term used by producers while discussing mixing techniques and "theory". i would have assumed you are familiar with most of them by now, but the way you continue to insist that we need to re-define our way of communicating makes me think that you've never actually sought out something like this before.

I wish that were it! I do! That's a great resource... like a description of notes, intervals, rhythm, modes, and chords. A simple foundation for discussing higher level topics like strophic and rondo form. Have you found a similar taxonomy for high-level topics in "mixing theory"? I've read a few people who insist it doesn't exist.

you said that, whether or not this language exists, you seek to make our discussions "more efficient". what makes our current form of discussion objectively less "efficient" to you? many producers have learned on their own and have seen vast success, using only the information and discussions readily available on the internet. why are you trying to re-invent the wheel?"

The terms in a folk taxonomy are always more efficient in communication than descriptions of the named concepts. In fact, folk taxonomies often arise from portmanteaus and phonetic combinations of the descriptions they replace. Imagine no musical genres existed and we used descriptions. We'd have to recite some (hopefully succinct) phrase to reference a style. "The fast techno with the drums and bass, and uses that popularly sampled drum fill." Clearly, this is not in accordance with the world around us. I see a similar disconnect in mixing discussions. I'd like to bridge it.

I deleted it because it felt like it was a little bit too on the offensive, but great advice like that is everywhere on this forum and the internet already. which is why everyone here insists that your pursuit seems misguided

It's okay... really. I'm not going to report you to a moderator for anything you say (within reason). It's not like you said something overtly pejorative ... and even if you did, I understand discussion can get a bit rowdy when the participants are passionate. (You too Mussar & wayfinder: it's cool... no hard feelings).

here's a couple more links. there's a lot of overlap but these delve a little further into audio & electrical terminology
https://www.soundonsound.com/information/Glossary.php
http://www.testing1212.co.uk/

it would also help if you could be more specific. i.e. rather than provide a vague fill-in-the-blank example, give a specific problem that you think we lack the proper terminology to solve. i think the vagueness of this thread is what's most frustrating.

Thank you for sharing some of your bookmarks. +1 I'll bet these are visited often by beginners. Maybe you're starting to see what I see? Notice that while they describe useful tools, a few actions, and expand acronyms, they don't describe any mixing aesthetics. Have you found anything depicting what Mussar wrote of in his post... and that recreating the stereo image of a live band is only one possibility of many in some umbrella term?

I think most accomplished musicians do not need to consult charts or graphs while doing their work. these are learning tools, but they do not define the way that people work or communicate when approaching every day, practical applications. the same applies to audio engineering principals and mixing theory.

Exactly! Most accomplished musicians do not need to consult charts or graphs. Are there charts and graphs available for them to consult? Yes. If a musician says, "it's a 1-4-5 in C# major," you know what they mean. By "define," I expect you mean to suggest I think the terms decide actions in advance. There agree with you: no, they typically do not. They can, but very often they simply describe the way people work and are used to communicate when approaching everyday, practical applications. That is their function. The actions come first; theory enables them to be concisely communicated. For newcomers, they provide structure to use until the taxonomy is limiting.

wouldn't the umbrella term just be... panning? under the larger umbrella of stereo image? why is that not sufficient?

i think all of these terms can be used to describe mixing aesthetics, both on a fundamental and an advanced level. and because of that, it is the language shared by beginners and professionals alike (although the professionals are much more likely to use them properly). again, if you can provide an example where it's not sufficient, i'd love to reconsider.

Awesome!

Consider this:
Using formatting to indicate "technical terms" and "theory vocabulary" (making a distinction for the purpose of this discussion) ... all part of the taxonomy of "mixing theory."

An explanation: the stereo field is the interacting sound waves in the area between a pair of stereo monitors. The stereo image is what is perceived by the brain when situated properly in a stereo field. 3D mixing is a method of creating a multi-dimensional stereo image by use of panning, equalization, volume, and effects. Elements may be superimposed (fighting), or blocked by the intensity of another element (masking).

That's really simple... and is covered by simple technical vocabulary. (hopefully in those links)

Establishing theory: Imaging is created by a mixing engineer placing elements of a mix in specific places in the stereo field, thereby creating a deliberate stereo image. (e.g. "Dyro's Foxtrot has amazing imaging!") If elements in a mix have identically opposite placement with respect to each other, the imaging is symmetric in that dimension. If elements are weighted or unbalanced in a dimension, it is asymmetric. When the stereo image replicates that of a live performance, it is transparent... and also has an orientation of either audience or performer. Otherwise it is synthetic.

Using theory in discussion (separate hypothetical statements): Often times, emotional dynamics can be enhanced by using asymmetric imaging to highlight a change in arrangement. I'm going to use the opposite orientation of the original imaging in my remix as an artistic statement. If transparent imaging differs for each genre (as a Rock band sets up differently than a Jazz band), all electronic music must presumably use synthetic imaging. Perhaps one day, synthetic imaging styles in electronic music will be named after influential artists who prefer or originate them... or even their location if a geographic area produces common imaging.

...

With this example we have a simple framework for discussing our preferences, recognizing the methods of others, and can communicate high-level ideas without relegating to descriptions. We can cover more ground, intellectually. Also, and this is important, we include the multitude of actual instances of these terms in our framework (i.e. the many ways to position elements following various descriptions) so that artists with similar but different techniques can readily establish a common ground or distinct separation. By defining the "box" and organizing the ideas "in the box", we also recognize those "outside the box." We even highlight the uncharted area as potential for new creative expression. In evolving a folk taxonomy, we also acknowledge that which is outside it... and eventually expand our framework to accommodate new ideas.

There are no golden rules or methods for mixing professionally, in electronic music anyway.

I'm not a professional by any means but it is quite obvious that in the world of electronic music (atleast in our clippy red world) the "normal" "standard" rules don't really apply. Of course, some basic guidelines will get you a long way but as stated in this thread there are no magic rules or books.

"Trusting your ears" in my opinion shouldnt be taken literally. Of course if youre in a 6m2 square room with a 12" subwoofer your mixes will no doubt sound fucked up. Ok that was a bit over the top but by being aware of your surroundings, situation, gear etc you can make up for those elements which will make your monitoring environment fucked up.

Spectrums and analyzers will most definitely help you mix and analyze stuff but they just can't make up the importance of the aspect of listening. It's fucking music. You can't listen to a painting to see if it's perfect. In my opinion the same goes with music, you can't trust blindly on spectrums and analyzers even though they will help you out.

What you can do however, is to learn to acknowledge the flaws is in ur monitoring setup and trying to overcome these flaws by being aware of whats fucked up, treating your room or anything that will improve the monitoring setup. Spectrums will help but won't make up the importance of listening. As cliche as it sounds: learn your gear and monitoring environment.

This is just my personal view on the matter. I still quite strongly believe that spectrums shouldn't be trusted blindly.