I finally did an inventory of all the plugins I own… and the number is around 300 🤯 But they are useless if I don’t truly know them. So I’m starting a long-term journey of studying and testing each plugin, beginning with the most important ones. My plan: - 2 plugins per week - 3 days study per plugin - at least 1 hour each day - Sunday review of both plugins That means 8 plugins per month and so 96 plugins per year. I’m committing to some understanding how each plugins shapes tone, dynamics, color, and workflow. It’s going to take time and patience. But honestly… there’s no other way. Is there? Gotta do it!

While studying the SSL 4000 E Channel Strip, I stumbled on info that completely changed how I think about music production process. It defined my new direction where I want to go next in my journey -> dive deeper into producer skills of sound selection. It turned out, in the past engineers didn’t rely on endless plugins to fix a mix later.There was no “I’ll repair it in mixing” approach. Instead, they relied heavily on the quality of the source and the great sound selection so sounds fit together without forcing. Once it hit the SSL console and a few pieces of outboard gear, that was basically the mix. No 50 plugins. Quick mixing decisions for each channel. No endless tweaking. Just great sounds going in. I was like “whaaaat… only SSL console?” Suddenly I caught myself doing exactly that, relying heavily on forcing the sounds to fit together later in mixing. I realized I have absolutely no strategy in sound selection. It cannot be just “oh I like it”. So, that it's one of the most important lessons in this March 2026. Focusing now on new direction, on how producers are good at the sound selection. How to do it.

I noticed this interesting discussion in February 2026 FTM Day 2 replay about how we can reach the same LUFS level yet end up with completely different results depending on how we get there. Scenario 1: Forcing the Foundation Toward the LUFS Target In this approach, pushing the foundation harder into the limiter to reach the desired LUFS level causes the limiter to reduce dynamic range. It does this by raising the sustain closer to the transient peaks, shrinking the space between the sustain and the transients. As a result, we LOSE DEPTH and the mix sounds flat. Scenario 2: Adding Low-End to the Sustain of the Foundation to Reach LUFS Target Instead of squeezing dynamics to get louder, this approach increases perceived loudness by enhancing the low-end energy in the sustain. In this approach, we DON'T LOSE DEPTH because the transient-to-sustain relationship stays intact. Depth is preserved! Loudness comes from fullness, not limiting.

I had to share this… So I just discovered the mud recipe: 1.Take one chord progression. 2.Copy/paste it to multiple instruments 3.Keep everything in the same octave 4.Mix… and wonder why it sounds like a …. (Very bad word) Yeah… but I’ve been doing EXACTLY that 😱 I….. AM…… SO….. SHOCKED…. Turns out it’s not a mixing issue. It’s a production issue. But I had no idea that digging into harmony and arrangement would reveal this.

After rewatching February 2026 replays, I noticed explanations about creating the depth of the mix as the main focus of this method: - get a great depth - a good foundation of depth early on in the mixing process - setting a foundation of depth in the mix - appropriate amount of depth early on in the mix - a competitive industry level of depth - a maximum amount of depth at a mastered volume - the depth between sustained low end and transient peaks - the depth between 0 VU reading and -5 dBFS True Peak reading - the depth should remain intact when pushed to mastered loudness level