This isn't rhetorical question. I really am sincere in wanting to hear opinons from my colleagues as to why so many of us suffer over the "fine" details of a mix. Understanding that there are huge differences between both song and mix styles; and we all know that recording and mixing a three piece blues act is a lot different from doing the same with modern pop. Yet, we still listen - often very critically - to those finer details... it might be a tuning issue, or a rattle on a drum kit that bothers us. It may be a performance thing, where the bass player played a certain section not quite as tightly as another, or it could be that one synth note that, while in itself isn't earth shattering, but when put into context with everything else, seems to be very important. I'm just curious as to how much others here will sweat the small stuff, or if, at the end of the day, it really just all comes down to the basics - can you hear and discern the vocal? Is the performance locked? Can you hear the guitars equally with the keys equally to the drums, equally to the bass? And perhaps most importantly: is it a good song? And, is sweating over the small details really going to make all that much difference, when everything is said and done, and the "average" John or Jane Doe listener hears the song through a cheap pair of earbuds? At what point do you consider a mix to be finished? Or, will there always be something that you felt you could have done better, and in the end, you're just compromising, because at some point, for better or worse... that song needs to be finally wrapped and released? Do you think it's remotely possible that someone like Roger Nichols ever listened to a track off of Aja', or Alan Parsons heard a song from DSOTM, and for as great as both those albums sounded, they still felt that there was something they could have done to make it sound better ? Thoughts?