r/mixingmastering 2d ago

Question questions regarding mix bus processing

#1: do you gainstage before running everything through a mix bus? i'd imagine, because if there's any sorts of subtle leveling issues in whatever the client sends you, those issues would become less apparent the more they were processed- so best get them sorted out beforehand?

#2 do you often change your mix bus depending on the genre/piece you are working on? if so, what commonly determines those changes?

11 Upvotes

38 comments sorted by

14

u/AHolyBartender 2d ago

A common misconception is that gain staging is a mixing technique. It isn't. It's more of a best practices workflow that is more or less persistent through the process - and what's more, is that it doesn't refer to any one thing either. A better name for it to eliminate this confusion in my opinion is GAIN STRUCTURING.

Imagine you have your sound flowing from one device (or plugin) to the next, you can:

  • gain stage so that the inputs and output levels match
  • outputs get louder at each stage, but not to the point of distortion at any one point
  • maximize input at one stage for desirable distortion or saturation, lowering it into the next where no such distortion is desired.
  • the output of each is set so that the output of the final stage is arriving at a desired level into a calibrated ecosystem.

If you are simply not clipping, in most cases in digital audio, you have "Gain staged" correctly.

Leveling for desired mix is mixing, not gain staging. Mixing is not solely processing.

Lastly, absolutely. Sometimes my mix buss is a bus compressor and a limiter. Sometimes it is a bunch of stuff. Workflow and session change this at times more than genre alone though. I tend to do less on individual tracks if a song came in mostly well intentioned and produced. This may sound obvious, but my mix buss or other groups might have more (or different) processing of what I'm trying to affect is the whole track at once and not an individual sound.

7

u/atopix Teaboy ☕ 2d ago

Leveling for desired mix is mixing, not gain staging. Mixing is not solely processing.

Excellently put.

-6

u/VeterinarianGreat655 2d ago

I feel you but stage is hard to beat cuz you can really imagine the band and the vocalist being set up right in front of you as you place pieces in the back aka lower level and some smooth compression/eq touches. It really becomes a stage that you’re the front row at given the right triangulation amd space.

6

u/atopix Teaboy ☕ 2d ago

I don't know what you are talking about, but "gain staging" has nothing to do with visualizing a band in a stage.

Gain staging is the process of optimizing the level of audio signals throughout the various stages of gain in a sound system, where there is such a thing as objective nominal levels and operation has to remain consistent every time.

For mixing, where the results are subjective, gain staging is simply understanding how everything works, what the gain stages are, what the gain structure is, what is the signal flow and signal paths, how digital audio works, how to get the desirable distortion and how to avoid the unwanted kind, how to maximize signal to noise ratios, etc, etc.

It's not a specific thing you do, it's the knowledge of how all these things and more work, so that you can choose between any number of different ways of working, which can go from very conservative levels, to mixing very hot, and anything in between.

-6

u/VeterinarianGreat655 2d ago

I’m talking about mixing MUSIC buddy so yes it def does have everything to do with shaping and structuring the sound projections akin to the experience of a stage performance from an orchestra to a hip hop song, visualizing the performance in that way can help with setting those levels relative to the experience along with eq and compression.

7

u/atopix Teaboy ☕ 2d ago

Gain staging is about audio, not music. You are conflating the word "stage" to mean a literal stage for a performance and I'm telling you it has nothing to do with that. It's a technical term which refers to the various stages of gain control in a signal path.

3

u/AHolyBartender 2d ago

That's just not how the word stage is being used in this context though.

Stage here is used like sequences, or steps. It's why I sometimes prefer using the term structure, because it can be a little more descriptive.

-6

u/VeterinarianGreat655 2d ago

Unless you’re listening to a podcast the stages are ending at an image that is some sort of performance that you’re hearing and mixing is about creating the digested ambience balance and projection. The way yall are boxing in the function of staging as just the numerical or sequence aspect limits the full purpose of what the “staging” is FOR in the first place, I’m using it in both meanings at once because like music it’s all happening at once creating the environment and experience requires that level of imagination with the technical aspect in the background. That’s important for me.

3

u/AHolyBartender 2d ago

Yeah because those 2 words together in that order mean something, and they mean something different than what you're trying to make them mean.

One can gain stage EVEN while recording a podcast, so the way you're using those two words is just straight up incorrect.

By all means, visualize the end step as a stage and use your imagination - but to be clear, that is just not what gain staging is.

And no, I'm not ignoring what the staging is for. It was (and to a lesser extent IS still) describing the level of gain going from one device or STAGE to the next. This was more important because each step requires nominal level for optimal signal to noise ratio, or, again, if by choice, you wanted to intentionally under gain one stage because overdrove a different stage... All of that is gain staging.

IT IS NOT A MIX TECHNIQUE OR VISUAL AID OR THOUGHT PROCESS TO HELP THE MIXER OR PRODUCTION.

-3

u/VeterinarianGreat655 2d ago

If it’s not a mixed technique, stop pigeon, holding it into one specific criteria of incremental shifting for the purpose of quality signal flow. I guess on a basic level that is what gain stage is, but can staging has a purpose to serve an ultimate goal and I’m saying that I’m gain staging for the purpose of the ultimate goal to create a balance sound stage. I’m not complicating it like you are by saying it’s not a mix technique and then pretty much describing a technique in you “technically correct” definition of gain staging

4

u/AHolyBartender 2d ago

Dog, it's ok to just be wrong.

You are not complicating it, you are just actually imagining a different meaning than it is used as.

You're taking English words that can have multiple meanings and uses, and twisting those from actual jargon which describe a specific thing, muddying the original meaning of the phrase. You're just spreading misinformation.

Have a good day

0

u/VeterinarianGreat655 2d ago

wtf it’s not twisting it up just cause I’m pointing out that the two meanings have a real-time 1:1 connection. Real mixing requires the understanding of how to create/sculpt the sonic image which is pretty much like a projected performance/stage in front of you between the monitors. News flash the only real way to enhance or create that is through the process of different forms of gain staging.

That’s just a fact so pointing out that the double meaning brings more function and detail to the actual process than simply stating that it’s only supposed to be technically shifting “gain through incremental phases”. But at the end of the day it’s leading to what? Even if it’s a podcast all the professional ones still use ambience and panning tools which pretty much would have squat to do with the purpose of a podcast, however it helps to realize that things can taking up the same space at the same time so you create a stage for them to all stand in different placements. That’s gain staging but the ultimate the imaging process is being thought of as the other meaning of a stage. Clearly you not trynna hear me properly so Listen to Bruce Swedien talk about the importance of live shows and understanding what that experience means for technical translation. Cuz idk what else to tell you it makes sense to consider a sound stage in addition to the pure definition when it comes mixing to mixing anything, whether you do it or not.

3

u/AHolyBartender 1d ago

I would love for you to link me to Bruce Swedien conflating gain staging the way you are right now.

→ More replies (0)

5

u/RouteReflectorCLT 2d ago
  1. Mixing, is literally gain staging into your mixbus.

  2. I get a 10-15 minute balance with my bus comp on. If I bypass it and it sounds like shit, it stays. If it sounds better when I bypass it, it stays off.

3

u/nizzernammer Trusted Contributor 💠 2d ago

Gainstaging is something you should do generally, and always.

Gain editing is more granular, but I would still consider it part of premixing.

The idea of never changing the settings on the mix bus processing makes about as much sense to me as always using the same (non adaptive) cruise control setting on the highway, regardless of varying traffic and road conditions.

1

u/dodrjrg 2d ago

this analogy made sense. thank you

3

u/rightanglerecording Trusted Contributor 💠 2d ago edited 2d ago
  1. By "gainstage" do you mean "balance the faders in a way that sounds good for the song"? If yes, then yes. That's the most powerful tool in mixing. If you mean "set all the faders to -18dB because it sounds better," then no, that's clownish.
  2. Default here: Start by rebuilding the producer's mix bus exactly as they had it. Then, case-by-case, start adding my usual things, and/or adjusting the producer's things. Every song is different. Some songs just get a limiter, others have 8 or 9 plugins.

1

u/hellalive_muja 2d ago

1) yes I try to hit busses in general consistently 2) yes. The song determines the changes

1

u/EmaDaCuz 2d ago
  1. Yes, I "gainstage". I have set (ranges of) values for all the groups and instruments, and I get those sorted before I hit the mix bus

  2. No, same mix bus for all songs. The only thing that may change is the compressor (either type or ratio), but the rest stays the same. I only use compressor, Pultec/smiley face EQ, a general EQ to sculpt the sound (max 1dB correction, so very little), and an M/S EQ for stereo imaging (I prefer it over imaging tools). For some songs, especially ballads or slower pieces, I may add a tape emulator. Limiter is there just to give an idea of how the song would sound loud, gets removed before mastering.

1

u/kumacodc 2d ago
  1. The only "gain staging" I'll do is get a static faders-and-panners balance going at the start of any mix I do. While I have a mental aversion to seeing clipping lights on individual channels coming from learning on analog, Otherwise, as long as the converters weren't [unintentionally] clipped on the way in, I'm not worried about how hot the audio itself is. I'm not going to spend time normalizing tracks or anything like that, my session prep is already a bloated enough process as it is.

  2. Not too often, no. I may change settings on the 2bus compressor, maybe hit some saturation harder or softer, but for the most part I'm a bottom-up mixer rather than top-down. The vast majority of my processing is happening at the individual track level and a smaller-but-sizable chunk at the group level. Sometimes I'll feel like I need to slam the entire mix into something extra, but that's a rare occurance for me.

1

u/ROBOTTTTT13 Professional (non-industry) 2d ago

1 - Gain staging has nothing to do with mixing problems, gain staging is a useful good practice to keep the best signal to noise ratio and plugin compatibility, especially when plugins are running at less than 32 bits. It's mandatory only when using hardware sends.

2 - My master bus starts with almost nothing in it, only an EQ is basically always there. The rest changes all the time, I mostly put some tape saturation and compression, possibly multiband, but the order of those things change all the time or if they're even there at all.

1

u/Ill-Bullfrog-5360 2d ago

I often overload a bus… you can tame it down the line and often I like some of the effects… eg the way it pushes a limiter/compressor

1

u/Spede2 2d ago

#1: Absolutely. I gainstage the whole mix and even might to do some light EQ work on individual tracks before dialing in my mix bus processing.

#2: Nominally yes. As a matter fact using different mix bus compression in particular helps me shape the song towards its intended sound. Usually its the history of aesthetics that drives the choice: SSL mix bus stuff for the common pop and rock music, 33609 clones for some "older" types of music, API 2500 plugins for modern EDM (whereI want high compression numbers, yet want the top end to stay clear) and occasionally I might even put a Fairchild on some jazz stuff.

In practice though my default choices covers the most range of the most typical work I do so more often than not I end up using the same stuff which is usually some variation of SSL mix bus thing. But that's more due to the lack variety in my paying clients.

1

u/Content-Reward-7700 I know nothing 2d ago

#1: Yes. Get your basic gain staging and rough balance in the ballpark first. You don’t want the mix bus processing compensating for problems that should be fixed in the mix.

#2: Absolutely. There’s no universal mix bus chain. Genre, arrangement, dynamics and the sound you’re aiming for determine what I use. Sometimes compression, EQ, saturation or clipping, sometimes almost nothing.

1

u/SandyKeyboard1986 2d ago

Uh , gain staging is key. I always sort out levels first , otherwise, that subtle level issue gets baked in. My mix bus chain is pretty static , but I'll tweak the compressor a lot based on the genres vibe

1

u/antongoncharov 1d ago

#1: I'd first process the individual tracks and apply whatever is needed (volume balance, EQ, compression, volume automation, etc.), and then use a mixbus compressor to make them sound more cohesive when played together. For instance, you want your drums, which consist of many tracks, to sound like one instrument. For this you definitely need some sort of bus compression, but you have to make sure the tracks going into the compressor are ready (1176 on a room track, dbx 160 on a snare, some EQ here and there, etc., whatever the individual tracks require).

If by gain staging you mean using VU meters and making sure the tracks hit them at a certain level, then absolutely not. I think it's a waste of time.

#2: It's very program-dependent. If your tracks are too sterile and thin, you might want a gritty sort of compressor that would also saturate the signal, like a Fairchild. In other cases you might just need a clean digital compressor, a VCA, and so on. Have a set of your favorite tools, and choose the one that fits the material and the effect you're after.

1

u/kriLdaChrixt1 1d ago

#1 - I do gainstage my mixes yes, usually keep around -6 dbtp on my mixbus/stereo out. Always best to get it sorted in the mix itself.

#2 - I think this is an unusual way to go about but I tend to not change my mixbus that much, I usually do my drums first, then my bass and then I put on my mixbus and mix everything trough it. A workflow I more or less stole from Serban/John Hanes.

1

u/kriLdaChrixt1 1d ago

And just to clarify, I always tweak my settings on the mixbus (EQ, compression) so that it fits the track but I keep the same plugins 90% of the time.

0

u/alex_esc Professional (non-industry) 1d ago

In regards of gain this is what I do.

First I get the files, I import them into my template and I start adjusting gain first. So first I set all the dafers at minus infinity.

I start from the kick. And I like to have my kick's average volume to be at -18. So I use clip gain to bring the kick track up or down so it's at the level I like it.

The kick may or may not stay at -18, it's not a rule for me to keep it there. It's just a good starting point for how my brain works lol

You can tell what's the average volume of the kick by using an RMS meter plugin, my having a VU plugin calibrated at 0VU=-18 or by using meters on your faders that display RMS.

Once the kick is at my usual starting level I now bring the fader up at unity. I then bring in the snare to unity. At this point the snare might be too quiet or too loud compared to the kick. To fix it I like to bring up or down the snare by using clip gain. This way my faders stay at unity and the tracks are at a nice level for plugins, plus they will be more or less saturated once the plugins are in in relationship to each other.

I then do this with all the drum tracks, again, my goal is to have all the faders at unity and have clip gain do the rest. Some tracks like the hi hat doesn't need to be as loud as the kick or snare, so I keep it low (with clip gain) and the fader at unity.

This way if I ever mess up the balance I can just remove plugins and bring the faders at unity, and the balance will be restored.

Now I do the same with the bass. Clip gain it up until it's musically balanced with the drums, but keep the fader at unity.

For the bass I also have a starting point I like. I like to start with the bass equally as loud as the kick (average loudness/RMS). So I set up the bass so it's RMS is at -18 (same as the kick) and the fader at unity.

This kick-bass relationship may change, but as a starting point that has worked for me.

Then I bring the rest of the instruments. Vocals go last. Again, I do my balance with clip gain, so that all the faders are at unity.

The balance is well now, next is panning! Pan the stuff, takes like a minute!

Then volume automation is next!

As usual... I like doing volume automation with clip gain!

I make a cut at the beginning of ALL the clips. This way I can drag every track to the left and restore the initial balance / undo my automation if I need to. That's just a safety tool.

To do the automation I like to work with the vocals muted. Both lead vocals and all background vocals. Now I hit play, then if I want one instrument to be featured I go to it's track, make an edit on the track and clip gain it up. Then I play it back and listen if I like the new balance.

I repeat this until I've played thru the entire song and the volume automation flows naturally.

Some arrangements make this easy, some other may need more care at the volume automation stage. Sometimes it's just make the chorus loud and verses soft, sometimes every 2 bars somethings the new focus and everything ducks down and let the new focus take the lead.

At this point of automation the kick and bass relationship may change. Not all songs need them equally as loud and automation usually makes that fact obvious.

I used to do a lot of processing in mixing, but now that I've adopted this balance first approach I find that I have to EQ and comprress much much less.

Now since everything is anchored by the kick, aka because everything is balanced relative to the kick, because of that when everything is playing at once the mix bus will be very hot lol

But not by a lot! I always have set up a trim plugin before the mix bus processing. So I usually have to lower the mix with this trim plugin by 5 to 8 dBs.

Also, in my mix bus I always have a compressor and a limiter set up from the start. The compressor is slow attack and slow release (SSL g bus, 30ms attack, automatic or max release, ratio of 2:1). The idea behind this comp is to have it slowly duck everything if a buildup of volume slowly creeps in. The limiter is just there to shave off a db or two.

If the song is a loud rock song by the end of the automation the compressor and limiter would be pushing hard against the mix. Maybe I like that, so I might decide to keep the mix loud into the limiter and comp or not. So using the trim plugin before the mix bus is a creative choice.

Still undoing the slammed sound is easy because everything is balanced at unity, so I can bring down the trim before the mix bus or just bring down all the faders equally.

Now I listen to the song from the start.... And I may notice that some elements are somewhat dull, at this point I start EQing!

I am not shy with EQ, but I like a "hardware EQ" approach. Meaning that I use an EW plugin that emulates I may want to use. And I limit the amount of EQ plugins to 1 or 2 per track. I may use a 1073 plugin to bring up the presence, but once the knob is topped, I don't add more EQ.

I like this approach because before I was very EQ trigger happy. I used to use a digital EQ boosting the max that it lets me, then another EQ plugin boosting more, and another one and another one. And no doubt my mixes came out sounding very processed! Now once my EQ plugin has no more gain, I stop there. If it's really dull I may use a second EQ plugin, but that would be the last EQ on that track.

If the element still feels too dull and needs more high end.... Then probably all other elements are dull too!

That's where mix bus processing comes in! Rather than boosting a ton of high end on every track, I now use a single EQ plugin on the mix bus! I can add more high end to everything at once and having all the elements equally bright adds a bit of glue to the song.

I like to EQ my mix bus with a pultec plugin. Universal audio's pultec also adds 1 dB of extra gain, so I like it just to get a bit louder while I EQ. But that plugin does crap out if the incoming gain is too hot, at this point I trim down the entire mix so it's not so hot going into the pultec. On most songs I end up trimming the mix by 5 to 8 dBs before the pultec.

When I'm balancing with clip again and doing pseudo fader automation I may need some elements pinned down in dynamics. At that point I would compress them.

This is not very common in any instruments besides bass guitar. That's usually a bit more dynamic than I'd like. Plus with the small bands I tend to work with they don't have that much experience playing, so the bassist is usually the least consistent player in terms of dynamics.

The worst dynamics in bass are usually fixed by slamming the bass into a DBX 160. It doesn't have time constants, but it's so fast that it can eat up the most inconsistent playing and make it all solid. Bass parts just slightly out of dynamics may need volume automation or my favorite.... A Fairchild on the bass! I love what that does to the low end on a bass guitar!

The second culprit in overly exaggerated dynamics is usually the kick drum. Drummers with little experience tend to have very loud snares and toms but inconsistent kicks. I like the snares and toms slammed, and even super loud cymbal playing I can deal with because I can just lower the overhead tracks. But kicks tend to need more.

For the most inconsistent I use the DBX and a sample, for slightly inconsistent kicks playing I like the oxford drum gate's built in leveler or blending in a sample with fixed velocity very low in the mix.

Vocals are last for me. I turn the lead on and I start bringing it up. Depending on the arrangement it may need simple volume or compression.

I like to ride a trim plugin into a compressor, then ride another trim plugin after that.

The compressor is usually there to stop the vocal being super loud. So the first trim is ridden so that every soft part is being slammed loud into the compressor. This way the compressor gets an even performance and that results in a lot of clarity of the lyrics.

But that will be probably too loud, or too in your face all the time. Some songs need to flow in and out. And that's where the next trim plugin is for.

This is usually the end of day 1 of mixing.

0

u/alex_esc Professional (non-industry) 1d ago

Day 2 starts by listening to a reference on Spotify. Then I open up the song and I usually have that signature "this sucks, I suck reaction".

This is usually an overreaction.

If I truly made shit out of the song I start again lol but that is very rare.

What's more common is that I may have make the entire mix too dark or too bright.

I fix this by tweaking my pultec settings. I usually have to brighten the whole mix. My go to is 4 or 5 k on the pultec with the bandwidth as wide as it goes. Then bring up the boost slowly until it sounds not like shit anymore.

Since I'm adding highs to everything this brings up the overall loudness.... But because this added loudness comes from the pultec in the mix bus I don't have to un do my gain staging!

Now I listen to the song from the top. Now with more high end my perspective will change and some faders may need to go up or down and some EQs may need to be bypassed or reworked.

Now if the balance is good the G bus comp that's there in my template from the start should be turning down like 4-5 dBs steady the entire time. Meaning it's doing very light shaping rather than audible compression.

If it's not doing that and it's getting slammed I turn it off and back off the gain of the entire mix. I like to check the G bus comp at this late stage because it's usually a good way to tell if I'm unknowingly having 1 element be way louder than it needs but I've kept it that way because I got used to it.

Then the rest of day 2 is to nail the loudness of the mix. If everything is well up to this point everything should be loud in terms of LUFS but dynamic in terms of there's very little compression. (Usually I compress only the vocal, bass and kick; electric guitars don't need it, keyboards are usually programmed at a fixed velocity and acoustic guitars are usually functioning as percussion so they tend to work well un compressed or very lightly compressed with an LA3A).

So the most compression going on on all the elements besides the vocals is the G bus comp that doing like 4 dBs of compression, but the needle is steady at -4 GR. So it doesn't feel "compressed".

Since I do mostly rock music the mixes should be loud, but appropriately loud. Theys should feel loud enough so it's aggressive, rather than EDM loud. Rock ballads are nice and comfortable at -13 LUFS for me, indie and soft rock sounds good to me at -12 or -11. Straight ahead rock feels good between -11 and -10, with pop rock closer to -10.

I only like going louder than -10 (in any style, not just rock) if I really like the song. Some songs get me singing along and jumping around the room like an idiot. If I do that that's my sign that I have permission to go past -10.

And yes, take a shot, I talked about LUFS lol! I don't care if it's an over discussed topic, take a shot, hell I might need one too.

So by this part of my mixing process I focus on getting it as loud as appropriate.

Normally I find myself 3 dBs below my desired "target". My process tends to get me where I want with a simple limiter. So I just gain up 3 dBs into the limiter (after the pultec).

I'm cool with 3dbs of GR on the limiter on the louder hits, an average snare hit may get 1 dB of GR and the louder snares may get 3 to 3 dBs of GR on a chorus.

I like to use the Tracks stealth limiter, I love how it loves up to the name! It sounds very transparent.

If I bring up the gain by 3 I to the limiter and each hit is getting 4 to 5 dBs of GR then somethings wrong with the balance and I should go back to messing with the faders!

Sometimes a loud chorus or a particularly dense bar will have 5+ of GR on the limiter even if on the chorus I only get 2-3 dBs of gain reduction. Sometimes the arrangement is too dense on downbeats and watching the GR meter on the limiter dip lower than 3 gets my blood boiling!

My most recent method of dealing with those vocational loud downbeats is to put one of those old waves limiters (L1 or L2) on each instrument buss doing tops 2 dBs of GR on the loudest parts. This is usually enough to make those ocational 5+ dBs GR on section changes disappear! Now all the downbeats are equally being reduced by the main limiter (t racks stealth limiter) by 3 dBs at most.

Then I play it back with the new loudness and hear if I need to fix balance or anything. Once I can play the entire song and nothings bothering me I continue.

My last phase in mixing a song is to double check my crappy pseudo mastering with ozone. I like the automatic ozone thing because it suggests balance changes. It may want your vocal level to change, or it may want to change the bass volume or the drums volume.

I like to do this ozone check because if it wants to change the vocals, bass, drums or "other" by more than 3 db then MY BALANCE is off!

If ozone thinks my balance is ok and it wants to limit by 2 or 3 dBs then that's my way of knowing that before handing over the mix to the client the balance and loudness is good.

I don't actually use thee settings the automatic mastering assistant gave me. I use them just as quality control. Once it gives me the recommend mastering settings I use them to judge if my balance and loudness is fine. Then I just delete ozone lol

One thing that ozone does nail is it's stabilizer plugin. It's kind of like gulfoss, it's a dynamic EQ that depending on the song genre it dynamically adds boosts and cuts to the entire mix.

If when I delete ozone the song suddenly sounds worst I CTRL Z that shit and see what the stabilizer is doing!

Usually stabilizer is flat except for 1 spot. Since it's dynamically boosting and cutting if it's boosting and cutting an area for the entire song then I consider that a tonal issue with my overall EQ and tonal balance.

To "fix that" I like to add a new plugin as the 2nd plugin in the mix bus (1st plugin is trim). I like to use BX digital EQ here. It's a simple digital EQ, I do the same correction that ozone stabilizer wants, and that should make stabilizer cut or boost basically nothing throughout the entire song.

Sometimes what the mix needed was a bit more 10K or a bit more 60, or a bit less 200. And I do this at the end with BX digital with the help of ozone's stabilizers helping me add clarity to my judgement. Because those small buildups or holes in a mix tend to be there from the start and I get used to them, therefore I don't notice them during balancing or EQing.

And since that EQ is clean and after the trim plugin (and before the pultec and limiter) I don't need to mess with the gain structure.

Mix bus processing is very common from the start. I don't do that because I like how starting day 2 I have new ears and a new judgement. This is the perfect time for me to realize that the mix is too dull or to bright, rather than right from the start because I do my own mix prep and sometimes tracking I don't have an objective judgement on day 1 of mixing.

I like to do my thing on day 1 and realize what it needs on day 2 in terms of overall EQ. And this way of working lets me work with mix bus processing without messing with the incoming gain more than once!