To clarify why I posted that; the OP asks about how much time is involved in getting good at mixing. And the honest answer is "a lot". However, you could spend a lot of time really ineffectively and still not be any good. As Danny says, the quality of advice on the internet is 1/ variable and 2/ clustered around the low end of the spectrum. That thread is literally the best free mixing education resource on the internet I have ever encountered, and should save any sensible person a *lot* of time.

Bandontherun - very good topic and thread discussion.  Being a one man show, performer, engineer, mixer, mastererer is a formidable endeavor without doubt.   You are aspiring to something that can be learned (mixing) but you already possess something that cannot (talent).   Your mixes are not bad at all as Danny pointed out, a little tweaking here and there and you are golden.  Your performances, on the other hand, are really top notch and that is something that is given to you, not learned.  Sure, you can fine-tune your skills, but without the underlying talent you are just spinning your wheels.  If I were coached by the world's greatest vocal coach, I would still be a horrible singer because I do not possess any vocal talent to build from.  
 
Looking at Performance vs Engineering/Recording, vs Mix and Mastering.   Take for example, the recent post of Queen's "Making of Bohemian Rhapsody" in the Techniques Forum.  Clearly the 4 guys in Queen had tremendous talent, Freddie inparticular.    If you have the 24-track multi-track, available on the Internet,  listen to the individual instruments, they are not great recordings.   The performances are good, but certain aspects of the recordings are pretty bad when they stand alone.  It is the full rendering of the individual performaces into the full song that makes it shine.  The piano sounds like a cheap upright piano when solo'd, the guitar is out of tune and sounds pretty bad solo'd, drums are Ok but Superior Drummer samples are much better, only the Bass and Vocals (particularly Freddy) sound exceptional when solo'd.     Bohemian Rhapsody is a good example that if you have good/great performances, you can create something really exceptional even with mediocre recordings.  In the case of Bohemian Rhapsody, the mix engineer is able to combine these mediocre tracks (except for vocals and bass- they are pretty outstanding solo'd)  into something that has become a masterpiece to some, that has stood the test of time even by todays' technology standards.   I have heard that song a million times since 1975 and I would never have guessed that the piano sounded like my grandmother's 1930's upright piano (slightly out of tune) and the guitar tracks were out of tune in places and sounded like one of my early guitar lessons;)  You just don't hear it in the full recording.  The piano sounds like a Steinway and the guitars sound amazing.  By the standards of the day in 1974/1975, the recordings were well done but anyone with a decent computer, sound card, plug-ins, etc... can acheive the same or better standards at home today.
 
So my point is,  anyone is capable of producing high quality recordings if they have 1) talent, and or, talented collaborators  2) a way to capture the talent and 3) an understand the basics of mixing.   You my friend, already have all these elements, and I would say the most valuable of the elements, talent.  
 
Honestly the best way to learn mixing is to work with someone who is good at it.   I have read a ton of books, trial and errored for years, but learned a lot that I "get" and can "apply" from a recent video that Danny did for me.  Studying some of the multi-tracks availalble on the Internet are also a good way to see and hear how others do it.  I think Radiohead freely distribute their multi-tracks at least to some of their songs.  
 
 
Danny - really nice post.  
 
 
Regards

Good info from Danny. 

I agree 100% on the armchair quarterback issue. Don't listen to people who talk a good game and know the buzz words but never post any work from their studio that proves they know how to apply it.  To me it's a case of put up or shut up when it come to advice. I use this as a measure of whose advice I listen to and whose advice I totally discount.

I was going to suggest the same thing DD did. You obviously know whose mixes you admire, so PM them and see which of them will share their mixing secrets and working paths and methods with you. Perhaps even working with you on a mix.

I also agree that if...when I start on a mix... in the final mixdown stages... all the tracking is done.... time to get it ready to export.... if I spend more than a day on it, I actually begin to over think it and ruin it.  When this begins to occur, I shut off or remove all the plugs and re-evaluate everything in it starting at square one.  Do I have the enveloping right? Now... add plugs one by one as needed. Rebuild the project FX and don't over do it this time. Stop when it sounds great. 

Usually, by doing the "back to square one" I can get the mix ready in an hour or two. The temptation to tweek the mix, with a little more of this cause it sounded good the first time around, and a little of that, and yeah lets throw this plug on the master to widen the whole thing like a football field at the 50 yard line..... is a hard temptation to over come. BUT.... like Clint Eastwood says..... "A man's got to know his limitations" and when to stop mixing and call it done is part of that "knowing". It will never be perfect. I'll bet Bob Katz even has those "Doh" moments every now and then after hearing a mix on the radio.... then again... maybe not.  

My mixing process is simple: Use only what is absolutely needed and error on the side of not enough. 

Most of my tracks are dry (except guitars) and I add verb in the busses for multiple vocal tracks. It would probably surprise a bunch of people here if they could look over my shoulder as I record and mix.... with what I do and do not have in the FX bins. There are of course exceptions, but many of the projects I do have very few FX in them....and I tend to use the same ones every time. 


I think too, that while this is a topic on mixing.... you can not get a good mix no matter what you do, if the tracks are not properly recorded. The tracks are the foundation of the mix. If the tracks are weak or eq'd wrong and printed.... you will pull your hair out trying to "fix it in the mix". 

Working on the final mix starts with the first track that gets recorded. Remember that, and work toward that goal and your mixing will be pretty much effortless and a breeze. 

I hope this was useful. 

sven450


This is an awesome topic, and as much as I love everything Danny mentioned, there is one problem:  for those Hobbiest among us, often the only voices and opinions we DO have are those on the forum!  If it were not for the advice, both good and bad, I have read over the years and applied only to realize it sucks, I would literally have learned nothing.

We can't ignore the voices on this forum.  In my case, I have no friends who are into recording.  I have no contacts.  I have me, and I have this forum, and have the internet, and I have my hobby.   As much as I would love to know when to listen, and to whom I should listen, I don't.  So I listen to everyone, try everything, and then through a very imperfect and aggravating system of trial and error, improve at a snail's pace.  But it is improvement.

The good news is that eventually I will achieve my perfect mix.  The bad news is by the time I do, I may be too hobbled by age and alcoholism to view the piano roll.

Such is the life of a hobbiest.  

Sven, you may have misunderstood me. If so, please allow me to clarify. :) First off, not everyone on here is a pro nor should they be forced to think or act like a pro. Secondly, I wasn't trying to discredit hobbyists. I'm merely saying "be careful who you listen to". However, if you want pro recording/pro mixes, you have to try to do what the pro guys (or at least the people you admire here on the forum) are doing. That's all man. :)
 
John T: That's a link worth its weight in gold. I always liked that Yep guy. Total class act. Just to clarify again...my "link" thing was pretty much for those that drop links and go. They don't explain anything, they don't try to help anyone out, they drop this stuff on people that are really lost to where it looks like a foreign schematic to them. It's like "here, read this and take what you want from it" when in most cases, I can't even understand half the stuff being discussed in it. How on earth will someone that's new at this understand it?
 
That's the type of link posting I'm talking about. Sure, people will read as much or as little as they want, but when I was learning this stuff, I was happy as a pig in mud when someone would just give me a true answer that was helpful other than "Well you just have to keep practicing and stick with it". Yeah...thanks, that really helps a lot. LOL! Put up with that for long enough, and then you can understand why I post novels all the time. :) I hated being that dude that was always asking questions and never receiving answers. :)
 
-Danny

+1 Danny

Your right on target!

Clifford

Thanks you John T. for that link. And even though I don't have the experience yet, it's good to confirm that I've been reading the right material and drawing the right conclusions about the theory. After a couple of years of dabbling in some confusion and at times quite blindly I might add, it's all starting to make sense and feels like I am moving forward. Heck, I don't have to lookup technical terms as much anymore, as I do know what most of them imply/mean. 


@ Danny

What was I saying about you just a little while back? Oh ya..., always enjoyed reading you. There's always something you bring up that makes me think about things a little more closely. But by the truckload? Jeez man, you're killing me! 

Like I said...Danny has a BOOK in there!!!

Danny, Post 3 was freaking epic bro.... nicely put and on the money (so to speak).   For those struggling I would urge you to abide by the info in Danny post.  Improvements in your ability and understanding can be slow and agonizing unless you are "taught" by someone who knows what they are talking about and is the real McCoy even if that knowledge cost you a few bucks I feel it's worthwhile.  I mean how much is 2,3 or 5-10 years of your time doing the trial & error thing worth to you if someone could show you today how to make your mixes clear, clean, and distinct?    I don't get much "free" time so it's valuable to me.

+ 1 to Danny as well.  That is just about the funniest rant that I have read on these forums.  Why, because it is 100% true!!  

My first year at a couple of different forum sites was exactly as described, I listened to everything, everyone had to say, thinking they were experts on the subject.  One guy would tell me it was too much bass, so I would turn it down.  The next guy would come along and say the bass was too low, so I would turn it back up.  Round and round I went.  The straw that broke the camels back for me was when one guy told me that there was no low end in the recording and when I questioned him further, it was not coming across on his laptop speakers, therefore my mix was wrong.  


It took a while, but I learned who's opinions to trust and also learned to trust myself.  I don't knee jerk reaction to any opinion these days. Instead, I often go to the site of the adviser and check out their music and mixes.  As Danny said above, if their work is good, their opinions probably are more weighted.

When Danny writes a book, I'll buy it.  That's one more sale in the bank.  Now that's time well spent.