Clear Bass?

I use M/S bass control on my final mixes... it gives things a polish and sense of precision if you listen back on a really nice powerful system.

But, I think what you are asking about can only be solved with suitable arranging.

Listen to the songs where you perceive a clear sounding bass... analyze what you are hearing. My guess is that you begin to consider that songs that have clearly defined bass have room for that bass... and it's not made after the fact with complimentary EQ cutting.

Lots of great songs have obscured bass that you'd only really notice if you muted that one instrument.

So, you may have to come to terms with the idea that each song and it's arrangement has a different potential.


Here's one example of a song I made that features some bass.

http://harmoniccycle.com/...Bass%20First%2006a.mp3



best regards,
mike





spelling

Yes, I figured you knew about arranging... I guess really, I'm just suggesting that not all songs actually have prominent bass... but you'd miss it if it disappeared.

The song I posted will only serve as an example of the arrangement helping... the song itself isn't really noteworthy as a "mix"... it just is what it is.

I'd be curious to hear an example that you wish was different and perhaps an example of what you are comparing it too.

all the best,
mike

I think of bass as having two distinct components, the low frequencies that give it body, and the high frequencies that give it clarity.

If I don't have enough high frequencies in the bass, I tend to overcompensate by turning the instrument up too loud. That causes more problems downstream, such as confusing the master bus limiter.

The trick is to bring the bass out so that you can turn it down. My favorite technique for doing that is distortion, and my favorite weapon is Voxengo Boogex. That, and a little EQ boost around 900-1000 Hz plus a dip somewhere around 100-200Hz. The exact frequency for the dip depends on the bass drum.

Mike. What is M/S and how do I do it, and what do I do with it and does it change everything?
I think I get the concept but, so far, it hasn't done much.
Is it basically, 3 identical stereo mixes panned and processed differently.
Thanks.

Timidi - To sum up what I was reading:

    Something along the lines of using a M/S EQ to EQ the Left and Right sides of your mix and put a HPF on them, thus making your Bass 'even more' mono'er.  The article didn't actually use the word 'mono'er'.  Apparently the author was not as clever as me.

Mike, I'll listen tomorrow.

Thank you for posting examples for discussion.


best regards,
mike

mike_mccue


I use M/S bass control on my final mixes... it gives things a polish and sense of precision if you listen back on a really nice powerful system.

But, I think what you are asking about can only be solved with suitable arranging.

Listen to the songs where you perceive a clear sounding bass... analyze what you are hearing. My guess is that you begin to consider that songs that have clearly defined bass have room for that bass... and it's not made after the fact with complimentary EQ cutting.

Lots of great songs have obscured bass that you'd only really notice if you muted that one instrument.

So, you may have to come to terms with the idea that each song and it's arrangement has a different potential.


Here's one example of a song I made that features some bass.

http://harmoniccycle.com/hc/sounds/mp3/singles/Bass%20First%2006a.mp3



best regards,
mike





spelling

 
    Nice vibe Mike.  This arrangement definately lends intself to a nice clear Bass sound. 
 
 

Your point is/was still valid concerning arrangement.  When someone says there is a problem, it's logical in any field to start from square 1 and figure out what is going wrong.

Hi Lp Mike,

I've been watching this thread for a bit now....wanted to listen to your tunes you posted up as well as see where this thread would be going with the answers you received. If I can give you my take, I'd like to?

To be honest...forget about the Eq in M/S mode. It's not a magic trick if you can't hear the right frequencies bro. Think about it for a second....many incredible mixes have been created over the years without that technique as well as parallel compression...and all these other tricks people are discussing these days.

The key before you try that stuff is to get all the other stuff right. For example, if you were to give me a copy of Sonar and a set of AKG 240 DF headphones...I'd give you a mix back that sounded really decent. I wouldn't have to rely on any tricks or techniques to make it sound good. I think this is where you need to be first before you even consider any techniques.

Now, listening to your songs verses the professionally mixed songs, this is what MY ears hear. I don't hear a bass issue at all in your mixes. Yep, does that surprise you? :) I've listened to it on 3 different systems here and there is no bad low end that I hear. What I DO hear is excessive low mids and mid-mids without the right high end clarity and you're actually missing the good low end you hear in the pro mixes you presented.

Now, on the second tune...you're pretty close to what that other engineer did. But he has good low end definition which is what you are lacking...and you are getting mid range congestion as well. Both of your mixes have this same congestion. For example...forgive me here, but I'm going to talk in syllables lol. But, your snare drum in the good mix has a "pip" type sound. Your snare is more of a "puh" type sound. Say both of those words. Hear how "pip" is brighter, "puh" (like puck) is darker, more congested...like it has a blanket over it?

On the kick drums....his has a nice low end that you can feel as well as hear...yours, you can just kinda hear it. Like you have more beater attack and less "ooom" in yours. Stuff like that tells me 1 of 2 things.

1. Your room and monitors could be giving you false representation. This is the death of all home recording engineers. Trust me when I tell you, fixing this problem fixes your issue 9 out of 10 times.

2. You may just need to be taught what and how to listen for something. Yeah, sometimes we literally need to be taught...which is why I dropped the syllables thing on you....that's how I teach my students. Each one of those goofy words I use represents sound and how it can be sculpted. When we go from "puh" to "pip"....we are removing low mids and sometimes mid mids and adding a little sparkle at maybe 7k- 10k.
 
For your kicks and bass guitar to sound more rounded....the difference between your mix and the pro mix is from 50Hz to 80 Hz. He has a more rounded low end. The kick drum has a force from 50Hz to about 62Hz...his bass is anywhere from 75-85Hz. You don't have any of those frequencies accentuated in your mix that I can hear. So in my opinion, it's not horrible low end on your part...it's the lack of low end and too much mids. Most of the offending low mid frequencies we encounter start at 200 Hz to 375 Hz. These frequencies can add in what can sound like a low end blanket of mud. The mid-mid freqs are usually between 640Hz to about 860Hz. These guys usually give you that warm sound we look for when in the digital realm. Next time you do a mix...pull a little 860Hz out and listen to how it changes. Then put it back...and drop down to 640Hz and remove a little...and listen to the changes. Then try 200 or 250...just experiment and you'll hear what I mean.

It just removes this blanket that prevents us from having the punch and clarity we need. The main thing here though...is to make sure you have the sounds sounding good within the mix. The stuff I mentioned to you above would be a mastering type situation for an entire mix. But what happens is...all these instruments summed together create the blanket. If you make sure that blanket is gone, you won't have much to fix at the mastering stage.

When you don't need certain frequencies in a sound...you remove them totally. For example...we don't need 5k and above in a bass guitar tone unless we are using it for some sort of special effect. Even 4k is pushing it....you just pretty much pick up hiss that your ear thinks is adding high end. It IS to an extent, but it's not good high end in a bass guitar. On guitars...most times, after 12k...you don't need anything in a guitar higher than that. Even 12k is pushing it. For kick drums...it's always going to be different. Believe it or not...though a kick drum is a low instrument...getting the right sound for it can span from 50Hz all the way up to 8K to get a little presence or more of a beater type attack. Stuff like this makes a difference in how you sculpt your sounds though. Just remember those offending low mids and mid mids I mentioned to you. Don't remove them totally, but you definitely want to curb them a bit as that is what I hear more than a low end problem. I'd also stay away from the M/S stuff for now until you can get a grasp on making your sounds come to life on their own without that technique. It's cool, it works for some things...but you should be able to get fantastic results without it FIRST. :)

Hope this helps a bit...good luck man.

LpMike75


Chuck, thanks for the feedback and tip about the Bass amp thing.  200 bucks, I wanted to get a used Bass POD on the cheap but I cant find them anywhere!  Currently I usually go direct or through my guitar line 6 POD for a little but of gate/compression on the way in.

Danny - Wow, thanks for the feedback.  These mixes are a little older but I still suffer from the same underlying dilemma.  I guess it would be the low mids and mid mids you are hearing that seem to be mucking up any clear Bass I might have underneath.

On these mixes I wasnt using a commercial mix for a reference (somehow I didnt learn that trick until after these lol).  But ya, my room is horrible and obviously my ears are not tuned to hear the problem frequencies.  Maybe I shouldnt say I cant hear them but I dont recognize which ones are the problem.

When things start adding up to muck at the final product I like to revisit individual tracks but they seem to be fine, then when its all together I get the muck, I hate to cut frequencies on the master or submaster bus before the mastering phase.  Maybe that would be appropriate though. 

Thanks again for the feedback, I admittedly need to sit down and sweep frequencies so I can identify them easier when they rear their ugly head.

Ok Mike...this is stating to make sense to me now. You said one key thing that opens up a totally new door.
 
You said: I like to revisit individual tracks but they seem to be fine, then when its all together I get the muck
 
Does this mean when you solo up the instruments, they sound good to you? If so...we found part of your problem. Unfortunately, it requires a special ear to be able to solo up instruments to make them work in a mix. Even seasoned engineers can struggle doing it this way and here's why.
 
When we solo up instruments, there is nothing else with them creating additional frequencies. It's always best to try and eq with the rest of the mix going on because if you don't, your ears are going to make each instrument sound fantastic by itself...where in most cases, there are quite a few songs where you'd throw up if you heard what an instrument sounded like on its own. Ok, maybe "throw up" is a bit of an over-statement....but if you have a habit of mixing while instruments are solo'd, this is definitely something you may want to alter.
 
Let's say for example, you do it this way and go through each instrument. You make them all sound good, but wonder why they don't when the mix is all together. The reason is because you accentuated the instruments as individual entities, not team players in the mix, know what I mean? It's like being on a basketball team or hockey team...sometimes the star players have to pass the ball/puck more than they take the shot. If we have stars all over the place...most times, the game play isn't very good. Like in some sports, I'd be willing to bet a normal team would beat a team of all-stars that were hand picked for one game. The reason being is...the weaker links in the chain make the stars come to life in most instances. Meaning, your instruments sometimes have to be "less than stars" when working together (and may not sound too good solo'd up, yet they work in the mix) because they ALL have to work together as a team. If you dress them all up to be perfect entities, the team work isn't there which is why the mix suffers.
 
What I like to do is work with the core of my mix first. That said, I don't set up my mixes like a soundman would at a gig. You know...he'll yell over the mic to the drummer "ok, give me the kick...give me the snare, first rack tom" etc. I like to let my full drum kit and bass guitar play at the same time and work them because these two instruments feed off of and reinforce one another. The kick drum is the drive...the bass guitar enhances it and is an extension of the kick...etc. Once I get that sounding good, I bring in my guitars. Once the guitars come in...you notice you'll have to go back and make a few drum and bass tweaks? See...even when I'm forming "my team" so to speak, I have to re-eq to make room for the new instruments that join the game. If I eq'd each one individually, I'm in for a mess when they all come together like a bunch of great athletes with no coach or direction. The raw talent is there...yet the guidance is not. Make sense at all?
 
As I add another instrument....I may have to go back and tweak something else. BUT...these tweaks most times, are very subtle unless of course you are really having a problem somewhere. One of the things with problem areas is...you must be able to see them at the tracking stage. One major rule that I teach my students here is "there is no such thing as we'll fix it in the mix...you fix it at the tracking stage or don't do it at all." So pinpointing possible problem issues before they are recorded are just as important as the team work of all the instruments. Knowing this can take a few years to grasp but once you do...you never settle for less in a mix. I understand that sometimes you're just stuck with what you're stuck with or may have limited abilities etc...this is ok too because it's good practice. But the problem with that is...we can spend way too much time polishing a turd when the right fix is to retrack it. Like Chuck had mentioned in a post recently....that he had some guitars that just weren't doing anything for him in his mix.
 
It probably took him hours of messing around to come to that conclusion...where as an engineer that has a little more experience may not have tracked those tones at all, understand? That said..Chuck learned from this and will probably NEVER make that particular guitar tone mistake again. This is where the learning is important....but the time it takes to get to that point can sometimes be a nightmare. But if by chance you are trying to solo these instruments up to create your mixes...try it without doing that and see if anything changes. The object at the end of the day is to make each instrument stand out and be an entity in the mix, but it must also get along with the others. The solo button for me is for problem areas. There are times when an instrument just may be a problem child and while all the others are playing, the problem is being masked. Solo it up...fix the problem, but don't try to carve the sound when solo'd up. Some guys can mix this way. I've learned how to do it myself from doing all this stuff for 100 years...lol...but I prefer not to as my mixes come out better when I mix within the song.
 
A note on comparing reference mixes and mastering etc: This isn't a really good way of doing things either. I'll tell you why. The instruments someone uses in their music will always be completely different than what you are doing. It's ok to get a general reference for the over-all timbre...or select instruments that may be playing by themselves in a mix or something...but it is difficult to use a reference mix and get yours to sound like it unless your sounds are close to what you are referencing. What good is it for me to try and get my piccolo snare in my tune to sound like the big marching band snare my reference material may be using? If my guitar tone sounds like Clapton, I'd be wasting my time trying to eq my tone to Eric Gales even though I love the sound of his record and both styles are blues. So when you reference, you really have to pay close attention to what you reference IF you are going to attempt to borrow from that reference.
 
When I teach my engineers here about mastering...as well as explain to clients that come in and say "master me to sound like this" I pull out a program called HAR-BAL take a snap shot of the master they like on the pro album....and apply it to theirs...and guess what, it sounds horrible all the time. You can't make instruments that sound one way, sound like another unless the instrument and the sound are close in how they are played as well as the timbres of those sounds, know what I mean? So just be careful with that stuff even though just about everyone does it. I too have reference material that I listen to...but I never try to cop what I hear...I just check the over-all tone. Are my hats too hissy....vocal sibilence....kick drum forceful enough....guitars cutting too much...or are they too warm? Stuff like that...but try not to cop anything verbatim because it can drive you insane.
 
I'm in a Van Halen tribute band on the side that I have a lot of fun with. We've been recording a bunch of VH tunes for about 6 months now when we have the time. I can reference VH material and try to cop it due to two thngs.
 
1. I tried my best to nail the sounds as accurately as possible before I recorded them.
 
2. I'm literally playing their music and we're all doing our best to play and execute like they did.
 
So it's a bit different in a situation like that. But for all other situations...be careful as to how much time you put into taking from reference mixes. :) 
 
-Danny

I just took a very quick listen... and I agree with Danny's comments about how the difference is primarily that all the extraneous low mids have been cleaned out in the mixes you prefer. That extra work is what lets the bass instruments do their thing.


May I suggest that this sort of conscious approach to mixing, namely, grooming all the tracks that don't really need low frequencies, is actually an extension of the idea of arranging for ensemble playing.

Think of this way... you can pretty much predict which instruments will or will not need to have low frequency response as you select and write the parts for each instrument.

Does that make sense?

The point is, you are fully equipped for this. You have already made the most important decisions by laying out the arrangement.

Now you just need to stick the ball in the goal by EQ'ing out any surplus low frequencies that show up due to room resonance, stacking, effects, etc.

Keep it simple.

Have fun!!!


Often times, the mixers/producers/engineers/techs that get stuck and can't solve the mix are the people who are dealing with a part that was just plastered into a song for a reason that no one can articulate.

If you go to the trouble to know why you arranged a song the way you have then it can be perfectly natural to put the final touch on it with subtractive EQ. Think of it as the final step in arranging and it may all start to seem instinctive and fairly easy.

I hope that is making sense.. and not seeming like a lecture.


all the best,
mike



edit spelling/grammar/etc.

Most of the offending low mid frequencies we encounter start at 200 Hz to 375 Hz. These frequencies can add in what can sound like a low end blanket of mud.

Another really great and useful thread.  Thank you Danny and Mike for your wealth of knowledge.  On my last 2 songs I finally took the advice Danny is offering here with cutting in the 200 Hz to 375 Hz on bass.  In my mind I guess that I kept thinking that this could not be the problem, that my mixes needed more bass and never actually tried carving a little out of this area.  It made a world of difference when I finally did and it has cleared up my Ric bass tones consciderably.  In fact, it actually punctuated that wonderful Ric growl that I love.


As Danny has also mentioned, I pretty much roll off all the very low frequencies and anything over 4-5K, it really helps open up space in the mix, or as Mike has suggested, the arrangement.

LpMike75


Thanks Danny and Mike. 

Danny about the reference mix:
    I learned when you are sitting in a room by yourself listening to 1 song for hours on end while you mix it, you can lose your grasp on reality.  Meaning, you boost a little high's here and like the sound of it.  After a little while your ear gets used to it and you decide you want a little more highs on that guitar.  After several hours your ear have grown used to all those highs you added.  If you were to leave the room and come back in 3 hours, you would probably say "WTF was I thinking?!?!"  A reference mix of a similiar style of music can help keep your perimeters grounded while you are secluded from the world.
    Thanks again for the help and info.

Yep totally agree with you there, Mike. The key for long hours though...is to watch your volume. I always tell people how long I work each day and they wonder how I do it and remain accurate. The key is always being in control of your volume. I listen at a level that is loud enough to allow me to hear all the frequencies the way I'm supposed to. I never jack anything up for long periods of time and I never destroy my ears with loud headphones. You mentioned hours of listening...in reality, 30 minutes of loud and your ears are cooked believe it or not. For every 30 minutes of loud, you need 2 hours break in order to make the right calls.
 
Another reason why I mix at lower volumes is I was taught when I was learning to "listen to a fade out on a mix...can you notice that you always hear everything? When you can hear it all low, you'll hear it all loud". But you DO have to get to a level to where all the frequecies show up to the party. I'm just always careful as to how loud the party is....because in all honestly, loud isn't really a necessity for a mix to sound good....and monitoring loud will not help the mix any either. Unless of course you're going for that super limiter, square box wave file sound. But even there...I can still make the right judgement calls at a lower volume.
 
So make sure you just go as loud as you need to be with this stuff. You see how you mentioned how you can set things one way after working a few hours and you come back the next day and wonder what you were thinking? That doesn't happen to me anymore ever. What I mix is what I have the next day. For the most part...if I need to make changes, it's just about always a level of something being louder or lower within the mix...but my eq's I come up with are 98% accurate at all times.
 
The same thing is true with the mastering jobs I do. As a matter of fact, I can only recall 1 job in all my years of doing this, where someone asked for a redo while allowing me to have full control. Most of the redo's I get (and honest, there haven't been many...less than 8...yeah, I keep track of that stuff lol) come from those that attempt to tell me what to do. I tell them "no you don't want to do that because of this that and this" they ask me to try anyway, I do as they ask and make them my version as well...and they find out I was right from the start.
 
At the end of the day...no matter what you do, someone is going to take your mix and eq it to their liking in their car. No matter who mixes or masters it...it's rare that someone will just put in a CD and not touch anything. (unless you're me. LOL!!! I never touch the eq in my vehicles) So, that puts we the engineers...in a place of allowing this to happen as well as compensating for it. If you over-accentuate something...it's going to be harder for someone to mess with and get good results in their listening environment. If you give them an even, well-balanced mix with slight accentuations in the right areas, they can do whatever they want to it in the car and it will still sound great. This is also why mastering is so important. Real mix engineers don't go crazy and fully illustrate the project. They make it so the balance is there...what needs to punch is punchy etc, and the ME takes it from there to fully illustrate the project and bring it all together.
 
It's all going to be subjective anyway Mike. We all hear differently, have different gear, have different sensitivity in which we hear as well as some hearing loss or missing frequencies....it's tough to really take advice other than if you see the same advice repeated by a few people. There will be people that sign on to this forum and listen to the songs part of this site and give bogus information. Some are not familiar with a genre, some listen on lappy speakers, some listen through headphones, some don't even know what they are talking about. You have to try and separate the helpful stuff from the stuff that appears because we have a place to type. Granted, I know in my heart that most people that comment on songs have the best of intentions and not everyone is going to be thorough or in depth. But when we are really working hard at this and trying to learn, some of those comments can be a bit harsh and even deter us due to us being so close to our "children". There are also some really great people you can learn from on here though and I'm sure you are aware of who they are.
 
Now the other side of that coin is....when a mix is done right, it sounds good everywhere. This is really true. So sometimes, when the right person comments listening on a lappy or headphones...he or she could be giving some credible information. For example, that Living Color tune "Cult of Personality". To me...it matters not what I play that on. Lappy, earbuds, one single mono speaker, Radio Shack Optimus, Altec Lansing, boombox, Logitech, Adam, Events, Rokit, Tannoy, Tascam or....an old set of NS-10's...that freakin' mix just sounds incredible and exactly the same everywhere it gets played. You'll find that is the case with the older mixes that do not use hyper-compression/excessive limiting. So though this will always be a subjective art, there are some credible things you can get out of comments from people using wide arrays of gear...you just have to consider the source that is reporting. :) That's not made to be a bash on anyone...it's just the truth when someone like you is truly learning and is in need of the right information.
 
-Danny

timidi

I pretty much roll off all the very low frequencies and anything over 4-5K,

Wow. that's a little extreme. But, I must admit I've been tempted.
More like 10k for me.

Yeah I saw that too, Tim...but I think MakeShift meant how he handles his bass guitar. If he's getting rid of 4-5k in his mixes...we're going after him! LOL :) I usually get rid of 15k and above for most things unless something needs that extra air. But I'll just about always curb 12k for hissy cymbals and vocal sibs...and add a little 10k back in for a little crispiness IF needed. You know how it is though....always different per project. :)
 
-Danny

MakeShift


Yike's...don't come after me.  LOL.  Yes, I was specifically talking about the bass track.  I don't always roll off all of the highs over 5K, but often it helps clean up the mix a lot and the frequencies above 5K are not really contributing to anything good.  I think I read a long explanation from Yep many years ago explaining that much of the high end of bass is not really needed in mix.

Danny, I have been rolling off highs over 15K and above on most tracks as well.  Some tracks even a little more, like you mention cymbals.  I have taken vocals down to 10K if it sounds better.   About a year ago I was reading some of the Engineers over at Gear Sluts talk about one of the differences between digital and tape analog being how tape handled the highs.  Tape, they said, in addition to adding a little compression naturally to the track, also naturally did not capture the very high frequencies.  They felt like one of the most noticable differences between digital and analog was the over saturation of extreme highs in digital and felt like that was were some of the percieved harshness came from.  I am summarizing all of this of course, the best I can for my limited experience.  Anyway, about a year ago, I started experimenting a little with this and have noticed a little more warmth in my mixes.  

 
 
Yeah I kinda thought you meant bass. I had mentioned that 4-5 k thing in a previous post myself. You're right...for bass, it doesn't really add anything more but what sounds like high end is actually kinda just hiss to an extent. I mean you can hear something going on there...but not like if you were to jack up 2.5k or something on a bass.
 
I think that's a good thing with that "above 15k" stuff, Mike. But sometimes....something doesn't necessarily need to be altered if it doesn't need it. I have this friend of mine who is a pretty savvy engineer. He uses this weird plug that pushes like 24k or something. LOL! Stuff I'd never think of putting in there...but the sparkle it adds...however he does it...is pretty cool. It's one of those things where you can't really hear it dominating...but you can hear when it's not there anymore...if that makes sense?
 
That's also correct on the tape thing. It's not that it didn't handle high end...it colored it, saturated it and warmed it up. See the issue that comes into play is...digital isn't what's causing the harshness like people think. It's only allowing you hear what is really there. Tape colored the sound...so it's really the opposite of what people want to believe. For example...I never have any high end harshness over here. The reason for that is...I don't record sounds that are...well..harsh. LOL!
 
That's really the problem I have with analog these days. I feel it has its place on certain things...but it really does warm things up in a way to me that is....hmmm...kinda dull sounding? Don't get me wrong, I like it...I just think for the music that is out today...that little extra zip you get from digital is a breath of fresh air. And, it's really quite controllable as you have found out just by adjusting the right frequencies. With analog...it's like there is only so much of that "zip" you can get before it starts to sound strange....at least to my ears. But it all has its place. The other night...I had to run some guitars for a client using my 24 track 2 inch machine and of course we had to stripe the tape with SMPTE to sync it up with Sonar. I'll always love what tape does to guitar tracks...and even vocals.
 
Though we have some gizmo's that will make it close like some of the UAD stuff...man, there's something about 30 ips on guitars that just blows me away. Not for everything...but when you get a project in that cries for that type of sound...it's really next to impossible to duplicate it. I tried it on my 16 track 1 inch machine first at 15 ips...and it was cool...but the 24 track 2 inch just turned it into a different animal. Stuff like that works well for classic rock, blues, jazz and of course good ole 80's metal. But to use that on more modern stuff...like the new metal or rock of today....I just don't think it's the right sound. The newer stuff is more sonic...less boxy...less mid range saturated and is a little more crispy. I didn't like that at first...but I really enjoy it now.
 
Dave Grohl has been bragging about the sound on the latest Foo Fighters album....I absolutely hate it because they went the analog route. There are a few cool moments on it...but to me, music like that literally excels when you place it in the right digital domain and in the right hands. I would have actually paid them money to do that album here. I soo know I would have made it kill if given the chance. But they did what they thought was best....I don't have to like it, they do. :) And the fans...most of them can't even tell...so at the end of the day, you do what you do to the best of your ability...and the music will do the rest of the talking for you. That's really what it boils down to. It's just such a subjective field...if you listen to too many people or read too much and let it consume you....you get less work done and sometimes get so confused, you don't know what's going on.
 
I have another rule of thumb I preach here and that is..."if it sounds good to you the creator, it is good and no one else has to like it but you." It's all about the art as well as music being the language of expression. One human being revealing a part of his/her soul to others in song. When you look at it like that...there really is no such thing as a bad mix. It's all art. :) However, within that art...we can come across problem areas. Like for example...I wouldn't call LpMike's mixes problematic...but I would say as I did...try to control the low mids and mids. It's not a deal breaker...it's not bad, it's just what would stop his mixes from being as good as the pro mixes he presented. Sometimes it's best for us to just create and let someone else worry about the other stuff. Other times...it's great to enjoy messing with this stuff on your own. I'm on the fence with that. Sometimes I can totally let someone else push all the buttons and make the calls for me while I just record and do what I gotta do on my own stuff....other times I feel I just need to be more involved. Whatever works, ya know? :)
 
Anyway....it sounds like you're doing things right....but just be careful you don't warm things up too much. It's too easy to remove those high frequencies and then end up with a mix that sounds like it's just dull and lifeless. If you hear hissing like a snake...you know something in the high end needs to be taken care of. If you don't....sometimes you don't have to touch anything at all. :)
 
-Danny