As SOS readers we get two lessons on mastering from the journal. One is not to try to do mastering ourselves as we don't have the equipment nor the expertise. And two is not to do mixing and mastering in one pass but first export the mixed song in 24bit and then import it again in a new project to do the mastering.

However, as an amateur producer I do not have any budget for hiring a mastering engineer so I have to do it myself. So I was very pleased to read Paul White & Matt Houghton March 2012 article on creating loud mixes. It seems DIY mastering is possible.

My question is the following. We also get recommended to mix with compressors/limiters in the main buss so we can adjust to the effects of mastering during our mixing. And then to take them out when we export for mastering. Why not put in the full mastering chain and mix and master your track in one pass?

I mixed my lastest track with the following chain in the master bus:
- Cubase full band compressor with 1.2:1 ratio for 4/5 db of reduction
- Powercore EQsat with broad (4 oct.) 1db dip at 850hz
- Powercore Master 3X multiband compressor 3.2:1 with 2db gain reduction
- Tone Boosters Barricade set on -1 dbf with 3/4 db reduction

You can hear the results on my website and compare it with an umastered version that only was normalized: Studio De Bovenkamer

Any suggestions on how I can improve this mix and the mastering of it are very welcome.

--------------------
...at the end of the day, it is what you do not what you say...(Spock's Beard)www.spocksbeard.com

With regard to your question, I'm really no expert, but... if you wanted a collection of tracks/songs on, say an album, you really want the tonal balance and level of each track to appear the same as the others. So mastering a number of tracks together/at the same time in a dedicated mastering session makes better sense (if you want the tracks to fit together that is).

The use of compression and eq on the mix bus is not mastering. It's mixing. Don't take those processes off the mix bus. If you're not confident in their use, it'd be better to mix without them. They're not essential, and there are top mixers who don't compress or eq the bus. The role of the compression is not really to increase average level, and the role of the eq is not to adjust the track for an optimal tonal balance in the way it might be in mastering. Those elements affect what happens in your channel processing and how you balance and automate your mix. The compression is also, in some ways, an eq in this role.

Whether you can do this at the same time depends what you want from your mastering. If you're just trying to make your track louder, then you can apply a limiter to the mix and squeeze some level out of it. Your results will tend to depend on the way the mix is balanced. But by and large you can get a decent result from a decent mix this way, but if the mix isn't great, it might make matters worse as out of balance elements hit the limiter. But anyway. If you're using your mastering to adjust for deficiencies in your monitoring environment...Obviously you can't.

J

--------------------
www.jackruston.com

With the state of music sales these days it isn't viable to pay £100 or over per track to master an Album. So I suspect doing the job oneself is going to become the norm. I do find that the compression aspect of mastering is better done on the mix bus because it can bring out faults in the mix. If you are working with the single mixdown wave file you then have to go back to the full mix and start again. The eq aspect however to create a similar flavour track to track needs the single mixed wave files for comparison.

--------------------
www.myspace.com/shambolic-charm

You either master it professionally or it isn't mastered (A good term is self finalized). It's a choice and only you can determine whether your music is worth mastering. £100.00 a track may not realistic for someone doing music as a serious hobby or even a pro who is not very well off.

This type of rate would certainly be for a big name mastering engineer as well. There are many good mastering engineers who do not operate anywhere near this price point. (FWIW thats my 5 track EP rate !)

Look around and I think you will find you do have the budget after all.

And if not all the best with your project.

SafeandSound Mastering
http://www.masteringmastering.co.uk/

Quote Andriessen:

---

As SOS readers we get two lessons on mastering from the journal. One is not to try to do mastering ourselves as we don't have the equipment nor the expertise. And two is not to do mixing and mastering in one pass but first export the mixed song in 24bit and then import it again in a new project to do the mastering.

---

I don't think SOS has ever said 'thou shalt not master at home'. What we have done is try to highlight the practical difficulties and the inherent limitations, and explained the advantages of professional mastering. But there will always be those who either can't afford pro mastering, or who want to learn new skills or just enjoy tyhe challenge... and for those we have often provided advice of the kind you refer to in PW and MH's article on increasing mix loudness.

Quote:

---

It seems DIY mastering is possible.

---

Of course it is... but it is also a minefield of potential traps for the unwary.

Quote:

---

We also get recommended to mix with compressors/limiters in the main buss so we can adjust to the effects of mastering during our mixing.

---

There are two separate things here that often get confused. One is mixing INTO a bus compressor in order to achieve a specific kind of final mix sound.

The other is applying a compressor across the bus after a mix has been completed to try to imitate the effect of post-mix compression of the kind that might be employed by a mastering engineer in some cases, usually to achieve increased loudness and density.

Quote:

---

And then to take them out when we export for mastering.

---

Only if you are taking your completed mix to a mastering engineer, since he/she will want to use his/her own dynamics processing rather than try to work with your compressed version.

Quote:

---

Why not put in the full mastering chain and mix and master your track in one pass?

---

If you are mastering the track yourself you can... but great rcare is needed because the post-mix loudness compression can interact with and obscure the mix bus compression. Personally, I think it is better and easier to concentrate on optimising the mix first, and then think about optimising loudness (if really necessary...) in a separate pass with a different mindset in place. There's nothing wrong with mixing for good loudness if appropriate to the track, but the it can get tricky and complicated to try to mix and master simultaneously.

BTW, a lot of mastering engineers offer on-line services these days which are very affordable, and I'm a big fan of (a) supporting the wider audio industry by employing professionals and (b) it's often amazing what goodness a fresh set of ears can bring to a project!

hugh

--------------------
Technical Editor, Sound On Sound

I don't like trouble I can avoid. To make mastering at home more controllable, here's what I do:

1: I take away lots of bass while mixing. My speakers don't go down there, and I don't need them to.
2: I mix in mono. Stereo has issues that I don't know how to deal with.

Then again, I'm more of a recording artist than a sound technician, and 97% of what makes music interesting to me is melody and lyrics. And getting a good performance.

Quote TBM:

---

With regard to your question, I'm really no expert, but... if you wanted a collection of tracks/songs on, say an album, you really want the tonal balance and level of each track to appear the same as the others. So mastering a number of tracks together/at the same time in a dedicated mastering session makes better sense (if you want the tracks to fit together that is).

---

That is true. I tend to mix all songs of an album in one project so it is easy to use the same effects on different songs. And when I get the individual instruments to sound right they will be right and similar for all songs. Then I will use automation to make changes to individual songs.

--------------------
...at the end of the day, it is what you do not what you say...(Spock's Beard)www.spocksbeard.com

It's not a good idea to work on several songs within the same session file. Why not?

1. Automation of levels is certainly not the only thing that needs to change. Eq's will change according to key and compression attack and release according to tempo. You'll be automating everything, trying to bypass new plug ins in and out on different tracks. Nightmare.

2. You may well require different saved versions of a track, different edits, comps additional bits etc. It'll get VERY confusing if you end with different 'final' versions of a track in one saved file, which does not necessarily contain the final version of another, or has a different edit etc.

3. Backing up will be a nightmare...You wont be able to label the backup to reflect the final date that each of the tracks was worked on. So you wont be able to see at a glance what's there.

4. You will ultimately resist changing your approach on different songs because it'll be so complicated. Some songs, even with exactly the same instruments and arrangement style benefit from a totally different approach.

This sort of working method is fraught with problems, and it's a bad habit to get into. Do yourself a favour and get out of it now. You'll drive collaborators mad and get yourself in a total muddle.

J

--------------------
www.jackruston.com

Quote Jack Ruston:

---

It's not a good idea to work on several songs within the same session file.

---

Many of the reasons you speak of would be annihilated by putting each song on a new stereo track, and writing extensive notes.

The best thing about working on the finished mixes within one session, is that you are now working closer to the product you want to make, and can make your fades and sequencing as the part of an album. Mastering is listening to mixes and adjusting them to find how to make them fit together as a whole.

I think there is some talking at cross-purposes here.

The OP was talking about mixing all of his songs in the one session which Jack was advising against... and I agree that it is generally better and easier to mix each song in a separate project file...

However, when you reach the stage of mastering, clearly copies of all the individual stereo mixes do have to be in the same project file so that you can audition them together and make the necessary tweaks to make them sound like they belong together as an album.

The OP wanted to mix and master simultaneously, and while that approach can be done and might work well where mixes are intended to stand alone rather than as part of an album, the more common practice is to mix first, then export to a mastering session and master separately.

hugh

--------------------
Technical Editor, Sound On Sound

Mixing and mastering multiple tracks in one session sounds quite strange, I agree.

However, here's a workaround: If one records many songs into a session to keep the flow, one can always split the session up later, using the "save as" function for each master take, and removing (not deleting!) the other tracks from the session. One would wind up keeping the general session plugins, and being able to tweak them for each track. If one uses a metronome, one should definitively record that to a track, if using this method.

Yep...If you're mastering then they would be in one session, at least for the later stages of the process. I was talking purely about mixing within a session. As you say, you can certainly track within one session if all the parts remain the same, and then split sections off into different takes. It can get confusing if you also want to playlist a pass. It also gets confusing if you want to comp takes. Playlists tend to work much better for that.

J

--------------------
www.jackruston.com

What do you mean by "to playlist a pass"? Is it a DAW-specific terminology?

K

Yes...pro tools.

J

--------------------
www.jackruston.com

Ah, "playlist" is called "comp" in logic. :-)

From my brief research, the costs simply don't add up and I've no idea how the hell you would go about selecting a service.

Even if you use the cheaper services, you have to sell an awful lot of songs on iTunes to get your money back. As far as the quality improvement is concerned, a few of the services sound little better than Ozone presets.

Most of the pages I visited don't inspire a lot of confidence as the most popular tack seemed to be warning others about online mastering!

I was thinking about getting some stuff done properly, but from what I've seen it's back to Ozone and PSP Xenon and the Logic plug ins

Bazza

--------------------
This time next week, who'll give a sh*t
http://www.podcastrevision.co.uk

Quote Bazza:

---

Even if you use the cheaper services, you have to sell an awful lot of songs on iTunes to get your money back.

---

You'd have to sell an awful lot of songs on iTunes to repay the costs of your guitar /keyboard /microphones /computer /DAW software /monitors.... too!

Will professional mastering affect sales? Possibly... but nothing like as much as writing a really good tune and performing it well. A duff song, or even a good song performed badly, won't sell regardless of who masters it.

But if someone has gone to the effort of writing something very good, and performing it exceptionally well, and recording and mixing it skillfully, then there is still an argument for investing a little more in having the final polish applied by someone who knows what they are doing and has the right tools and monitoring environment.

But everyone's budgets, priorities and skill levels are different, so each to their own.

hugh

--------------------
Technical Editor, Sound On Sound

Essentially I agree Hugh.

You could however take your idea to Abbey Road and remortgage your house (I suspect most here don't), but where do you stop?

Have a nice weekend.

Bazza

--------------------
This time next week, who'll give a sh*t
http://www.podcastrevision.co.uk

You are right, you do have to be a bit careful looking for low cost online mastering services. I know my field you could say. The sheer number of sites that do not show their kit despite listing some nice pieces is rife. I find that bit odd myself. Make of that what you will but personally if I have some nice kit, showing that in the actual studio would be a priority to demonstrate credibility. (however naff the photo's) When searching I suggest looking for sites with the following traits:

Look like they master full time.
Show their kit 'in situ'.
Use monitors that are actually mastering grade.
List recent clients.
Biog their engineering career thus far.
Provide some online before and after clips.

A lot of people seem to be making their money back and I am exceptionally glad of that and very happy to assist in that being the case. They obviously know their field and thats what it is all about.

Righto.... footy time ! (I am not football crazy, but like the big Intl's)

cheers

SafeandSound Mastering
Audio mastering

Using Ableton live as a mastering DAW: thoughts? I'm most familiar with it, but I'm sure there are benefits to more dedicated DAWs.

Yeah, don't. It's an amazing compositional tool but it does funny things to audio. It's to do with the warping functionality, and even if you turn that off there's apparently still some weird stuff going on. The guys that I know who use it won't mix with it for that reason.

J

--------------------
www.jackruston.com

thanks jack. i recognize it can't be the best DAW for mixing, but if u got a minute can u be more specific about the funny stuff Ableton Live does besides warping the audio? also, what EQ, compression and reverb plugins do you use for mixing?

I can't tell you anything concrete but Ableton is optimised for live use and as such prioritises performance over quality. Throughout the software there are lots of low mid high quality options etc. The clever warping stuff obviously affects quality but it may be that even when it's off the audio is all resampled in some way. Not sure. At any rate, you can hear that it's not quite 'right'.

For mixing I use relatively few plug ins for 99% of things. In no particular order: Waves SSL channel (E), Metric Halo channel strip for eq, mdw eq, SoundToys Echoboy and devil loc, Valhalla room and mod, Massey limiter, mpressor a bit, fabfilter gate, digirack delay. Sometimes the waves 1176 or puigchild compressor but most of my compression is out of the box.

J

--------------------
www.jackruston.com

Quote Andriessen:

---

Quote TBM:

---

With regard to your question, I'm really no expert, but... if you wanted a collection of tracks/songs on, say an album, you really want the tonal balance and level of each track to appear the same as the others. So mastering a number of tracks together/at the same time in a dedicated mastering session makes better sense (if you want the tracks to fit together that is).

---

That is true. I tend to mix all songs of an album in one project so it is easy to use the same effects on different songs. And when I get the individual instruments to sound right they will be right and similar for all songs. Then I will use automation to make changes to individual songs.

---

+1 .. this really makes good sense.

A funny thing happend to my post. It ended up in the Fabruary 2013 issue, accredited to a person named Damien McEwan. I never heard of the guy and it is certainly not my full name!

Here is the question and a very informing answer by Mike Senior:

I often read recommendations to mix with compressors/limiters in the main bus so we can adjust to the effects of mastering during our mixing, and then to bypass those dynamics plug-ins when we export for mastering. Why not put in the full mastering chain and mix and master your track in one pass? I mixed my latest track with the following chain in the master bus: Cubase’s full-band compressor with a 1.2:1 ratio for 4-5dB of reduction; Powercore EQsat plug-in with a broad four-octave dip of 1dB at 850Hz; Powercore Master 3X multi-band compressor plug-in operating at a 3.2:1 ratio with 2dB of gain reduction; and ToneBoosters’ Barricade limiter set to a -1dBFS ceiling and showing 3-4dB gain reduction.
Damien McEwan, via email

SOS contributor Mike Senior replies: Using a compressor on the main mix bus during mixdown is indeed very common (although by no means universal) in order to ‘glue’ the mix together or create extra excitement via gain-pumping effects. Given that this bus-processing can impact quite heavily on the way you balance the track, it makes sense to have it working while you mix, particularly so that you can judge your effects levels and fader automation sensibly within context.
However, limiting the main output bus during mixdown is a whole different kettle of fish, because the main purpose of full-mix limiting is simply to boost the subjective loudness within the digital headroom. As such it’s usually much faster-acting, and the goal is usually to make as little difference to the mix balance as possible. Furthermore, setting up a limiter for the best results is usually a delicate process, where small shifts of the input level and plug-in controls can make big differences to the sound. So on the basis that mastering limiting shouldn’t normally affect mix balance, and that it adds to the already considerable complication of creating a decent mix, I usually recommend that this process be left until after mixdown.
Clearly there are some chart-oriented producers for whom the loudness of the master is an important primary concern. In that context having a preview of what the side-effects of heavy-handed loudness processing (including limiting) will do to the mix tone and balance can allow some pre-emptive compensatory steps to be taken by the mix engineer. However, even in that case, I’d favour bouncing your mix out to a separate project to experiment with this processing, even if that means that you then have to hop between the mix and a pseudo-mastering project. One reason I prefer working this way is that it puts fewer limitations on the mastering-style plug-ins I can use within my PC’s available CPU resources, and usually makes it a lot simpler to switch between my own pseudo-mastered mix and a selection of commercial reference tracks — an essential process when judging the results of your own mastering. Also, from a psychological perspective, being unable to immediately enact changes on the mix during the comparison process encourages me to clarify my own thoughts on the deficiencies of my own production across my available monitoring systems, and I find that this means I go round the houses less often while finalising my mix settings.
Equalising your main output bus at mixdown is pretty common. It’s very easy while you’re working on a mix for your ears to get used to a skewed tonality (they’re very good at adapting), and if this shows up during comparisons with commercial tracks then it’s much easier to deal with using a decent-quality master-bus plug-in than by tweaking the individual EQ settings across dozens of individual tracks.
Multi-band compression, on the other hand, is another thing that I suggest leaving to a separate mastering stage. Again, this is because it’s so fiddly to set up properly, and you’re not normally looking for it to impact hugely on the mix tone or balance; the heavy multi-band compression of the late ‘90s hasn’t aged well, and isn’t very fashionable these days. Also, in my experience, it’s very easy to take your eye off the ball as regards getting the mix balance right when there’s a multi-band compressor in the master bus, because the compression can often counteract your mix settings and disguise subtler balance problems that need addressing. Or, to put it another way, it tempts to you think that the mix is easier than it is somehow, so you work less hard.

--------------------
...at the end of the day, it is what you do not what you say...(Spock's Beard)www.spocksbeard.com

Yes I would like to be like the 1000th person to underline a couple of points the experts always give me: one is that, indeed, if the person is good at what they do, ie, any better than you are, i think it pays to have someone else master your recordings. If it's someone slapping a limiter on your stereo files, then no, that is a waste.

Also in no way form or fashion should you put a limiter on before you master. You do however want to do your final mix listening through a master limiter with a modest setting, just to get an idea of what's going to happen. If something undesireable comes up super loud in the mix when even a modest limiter is applied, then surely this is a good cue to turn that down, etc.

All in all i think its okay to 'trial' your mixes with mastering tools, but you want to seriously avoid having anything on the mix bus when you export those mixes. The mastering engineer(even if that turns out to be you)needs them in their raw form so they can have the leeway to deliver a good loudness-versus-dynamics ratio, which is also critically important from song-to-song accross a whole album, not just within each individual song.

Maybe a bit off the OP question, so apologies in advance. For the last song we did with my band, I've decided to see if the online professional mastering was worth outlay and hassle. Thought it could be useful to share research and experience.

First, I gave a stab to mastering myself, like the OP. For the record, I used 2 passes - I always do a mix first and then work only on the finalization. Result: much fun to learn what mastering is, and quite amazing how you can change the sound. I printed and read the free Ozone PDF you find on the internet, and had it near me all the time - great document even if you don't use Ozone, and the only concise free primer I found.

To test the "new pair of ears" idea, I had a friend make a master as well - but then he's not experienced in mastering either. Both results (mine and his) were quite ok - and not so different. However, I botched this part of the experiment a bit: by the time he did his version, he'd listened to mine, and we had talked about the whole mastering process, so we may well have influenced each other. He'd listened for remarkably less time than myself tough.

Then, as I care quite a bit for my band's music, I wanted to see how much better a pro could do.

In short: quite a bit.

The hassle was very little and the outlay much less than I expected.

In order to have a clear look at my options, I did an Excel list of mastering studios - found by googling or browsing various forums - which allowed me to sort and compare. I put down stuff such as which kind of credits were on the website, if the engineers were listed by name, if they offer free preview, price of course, etc.

No attempt at completeness: I tried to find a range from cheapest and unknown (to me) to most expensive and known (even to me!). Out of tiredness, I stopped when I had around 15 entries (so it may be that I missed the world-best mastering studio just on the next result page, but so be it).

Originally I'd thought of sending the mix to all the several mastering houses who offered free preview; but then I didn't have the heart of having all but one work for free; nor the patience to negotiate an agreement to experimenting beforehand (after all, I *really* wanted the song out asap! :-)

So I ended up taking one low-medium price option, sent the mix, and in three days I had my master. Loved it, found it better than mine, and that is what went to distribution.

So for me that's now the way to go. It was my very first attempt at mastering so I might be able to learn more and do better, but online mastering is so convenient than I feel I'll be much better off putting my effort on the songwriting, guitar playing and singing instead; and the mixing of course, which I enjoy (even if I'd love to have stuff mixed professionally as well, but the outlay there seems to be definitely much greater ).

As I disclaimer, I think I have absolutely no golden ears. But to my pair, the professional mastering was absolutely worth the (little) money. I have no idea if more expensive studios would have done better. All I know is that I like the process and the result. And it pleases me to actually contribute a bit to some other musician's survival. :-)

If anyone wants the Excel file with the list of mastering houses, just say so and I'll dropbox it (I dont know if files can be attached in this forum). My list is about mastering one song, but I guess it scales to albums as well. The list is far from complete but definitely could be extended (and maybe actual experience comments added).


Cheers,

-cs

--------------------
http://www.silver-spoon.org - It's just music
..and the FB page

One important reason to have someone else master your work is objectivity. It isn't just about the gear it's also about being objective and experienced enough to be able to make objective decisions.

As to the cost, yes professional mastering can seem expensive at first. However, people may want to consider what affect a poor 'bedroom master' may have on future sales and reputation. You pay for the engineers time, experience and facilities. Professional mastering engineers tend to use studios designed and equipped for mastering. A mastering studio can easily cost well in advance of £150,000 to build and equip. Most of us also have years of experience in sound engineering.

As to what a professional masterint website should include, that is subjective. For instance, just like Barry I find it odd when on-line studios don't post picture of their studio and equipment. However, I do know some engineers are concerned about photos being copied without permission and so don't include them on their sites. (We watermark our photos to try and stop this.) Many of us don't include audio samples as there are issues with stream quality, whether or not clients want their mixes put up 'warts and all', and so on. I don't blog as I don't have the time to maintain one and doubt that I'm interesting enough to blog about my life anyway. Some choose not to display their rate card. We do as it helps deter some of the 'can you master my album for £10' enquiries (we do still get them though but at least I can point them politely at the rate card). We also make clear that we charge sales tax where appropriate (it's also gentle hint that we are a legitimate, established business and that we do sufficient work to have to be registered to charge it.)

Having said all of that there's no reason why you can't do your own 'bedroom master'. Apart from the cost saving you may also gain some experience and insights that could be helpful elsewhere. If you do want to do this one piece of advice I'd give is to leave time (a few days as a minimum) between finishing your mix and starting the mastering session as it may help improve your objective evaluation of the mix.

--------------------
Senior mastering engineer - MiroMastering
www.miromastering.com

As there is some interest in the stereo master bus here I thought this article which I wrote a few days back would be relevant. (unfortunately the title was changed by the publisher and it actually does not particularly relate to mastering)

Stereo master bus processing tips

I quite enjoy writing in my evenings and my site will soon have a blog incorporated. Regarding sites, the more transparent a site.... gear, clients list, engineering career history, photo's, samples, clear pricing, free previews, the more likely people will feel the person behind it knows what they are doing.

SafeandSound Mastering
Audio mastering services

Nice article. I am interested in discussing this though...

"If you find yourself placing two, three, or four processes on your master output you should consider if more work could be done in the mixing of the tracks/sources themselves. "

Given that an SSL type 'glue compressor is acceptable practice, and as you suggested possibly a good quality EQ - lets say N.I's recent Manley emulation - this already takes you into 2 processors - is this really a 'danger zone' - given what you said about assuming the user is competent?

If you read anything about current practices for electronic music, you might hear horror stories about Ozone or such like being commonly on the bus, just to get halfway towards the excessive loudness that is considered acceptable, and if I was self/home mastering I would probably add a transparent limiter, again just to get close to the kind of levels needed so that your track does not dissapear into the background on Soundcloud etc.

So, that might be three processors on the bus - really over the top if each is handled with care and watched closely for any destruction on the "vision" for the mix?

--------------------

Yeah i um...im not sure what to think of that, either way.
On one hand, yes but i would reword it: 'if you find yourself
doing too much trial and error and putting tons of nutty plugs on it...' etc etc fill in the blanks...


However..."Two or three processors is too much"

what?

Has this person seen the amount of gear in a real mastering suite? (Hardware, that is) 2 are essential, and i dare say that no engineer would consider putting a massenburg eq and limiter
'getting into the danger zone'. I had to laugh at that.

Same goes for plugs, whatever works without harmonics, dynamics and impact degrading. Unless thats what you want

I guess maybe this was more specific to Ozone,
sorry if derailing thread

No time today so will respond with something sensible in due course, cheers. Please.. let's be respectful (or at least accurate) when quoting things that do not exist. Danger zone ? Two or three processors is too much ?

Mixing is not mastering, thats a good thing to grasp in the meantime.

Ok awaiting resub download here so..... (the old bounced in mono mistake)

Quote:

---

Given that an SSL type 'glue compressor is acceptable practice, and as you suggested possibly a good quality EQ - lets say N.I's recent Manley emulation - this already takes you into 2 processors - is this really a 'danger zone' - given what you said about assuming the user is competent?

If the user is competent you can do anything you want. Danger zone is not mentioned in my article ?

If you read anything about current practices for electronic music, you might hear horror stories about Ozone or such like being commonly on the bus, just to get halfway towards the excessive loudness that is considered acceptable, and if I was self/home mastering I would probably add a transparent limiter, again just to get close to the kind of levels needed so that your track does not dissapear into the background on Soundcloud etc.

---

Current trends in perceived volume and how you approach that goal are 2 different matters, one based on fear/paradigm/pressure, the other technical.

I do not necessarily agree I agree with 'current practice' or "internet this is what I do" or that it is the best way of working. I recommend NOT mixing into a limiter at all. Any self finalizing should be done in a new project with 'self finalizing' hat on. Thats not mixing.

In fact mixing into a limiter can easily compound problems for the future in getting tracks working together.(and the present, related mixing ability) How many people never bounced a 24 bit unlimited mix only to find their drive broke ? Instead you have a 16 bit self finalized pancake. So if a label picks your track up a year later and you want to get it professionally mastered because your monitors/amp/ acoustics never cut the mustard and you pancaked your track with limiter 'X' you are in a pickle.

Quote:

---

So, that might be three processors on the bus - really over the top if each is handled with care and watched closely for any destruction on the "vision" for the mix?

---

Well I did not say that in that context, you can have 8 processors lined up and be doing very little. It is about what processing not how many processors.

The article title did not help (despite my explanation above) I asked them to change it and it has been.

"If you find yourself placing two, three, or four processes on your master output you should consider if more work could be done in the mixing of the tracks/sources themselves"
...

“Mixing is not mastering”

I'd say it's fairly common to see 2 or 3 processes on the mix session master output! Lots and lots of people out there using some, all or none of the below, which can be appropriate on the master output of a mix depending on the context, source material, genre etc:

- Gain control (to optimise level accordingly for what follows)
- Tape and/or desk/channel emulation for saturation/character
- SSL or other suitable mix compression for global dynamics/glue
- EQ (colourful or surgical)
- De-esser to soften any harsh high-end build-up (yes seen this several times in dnb)
- Limiter to catch any stray peaks

None of the above need necessarily be detrimental to a mix and used tastefully/appropriately for the track at hand might well help/enhance the sound. Sometimes the best place for these processes is exactly on the master output of a mix! It is of course useful knowing when and where to apply them!

On the contrary, you could argue that ‘professional mastering’ stage is not a suitable time to be passing a mix through one of the most characterful/colourful EQs around, which will clearly impart a distinct sound on a mix – such creative decisions could often be better made at mix time, by or with the artist!

Most importantly of course, listen and experiment. Don't take what somebody says on a blog/forum to be automatically appropriate for your track!

The article in written in context. Most people will read it as such, thats where the benefit of reading it lies. Picking holes here and there is fine, if thats your thing.

4 in your list are fixes to mix/technical/knowledge problems, without question, thats my point.

If you are 100pct confident with your monitoring and engineering experience the article is not be relevant, cause you are already creating mixes of excellence. I know the vast majority of people at home are not in that position and should be cautious before they read on someones blog or a forum that adding X, Y and Z is going to make their skills limited mix better. There is a difference between doing what is popular, trendy, even ill conceived and understanding what you are doing. A situation that the internet age has proliferated with great success.

Opinions and knowledge are developed from actual experiences, this is meant to be something useful for those who want to learn. If everyone was a professional mixing engineer no one would need a helping hand and every record would be sublimely mixed. This is very, very far from being the case.

It is much better for beginners to move forwards with caution than create and compound problems they are not even aware that exist because 'everyone' else does it.

I agree that everyone should be diligent and discerning in choosing what knowledge as distinct from information they absorb online.

@ strangy - thats exactly the kind of thing I was getting at.

I dont want to get to argumentative about this, but I think sometimes the advice from mastering engineers can be misplaced. Of course you dont know who is mixing, but the point advising against mix bus processing needs to be spelled out as only a caution for beginners really- which I guess you did. I mean how do you know what horrors are going on on the other channels?! Even presented in a 'bus clean' format it might be as 'unmasterable' as someone who has piled on to much the other way.

The point about not making a hyped version your only version of course is good advice, but I think most people are well aware of that problem, as well as the realistic facing of the problem of 'adapting mixes' - if even only temporarily - for online streaming sites. Very few home producers, if any will be able to match a professionally mastered track, but experienced people can get a good way there these days, not because they have to, or feel under pressure from some kind of loudness war, but because for some music thats just how modern mixes sound these days, and the sooner you start to learn the art of pre-mastering mix bus processing the better I reckon. It is no more to be avoided than basic channel mix EQ, or writing good basslines - something you could equally say is best avoided if you cant do it.

Anyway - keep writing interesting stuff.

--------------------

People are free to take and leave whatever they wish. Mixing and mastering, no comparison, (though one follows the horse like a cart online) different goals and mastering has changed/is changing for many along with just about every aspect of the music industry. Nowt wrong with healthy debate or inquiring why people write what they do. I think for people starting out it's worth questioning some of the practices they might have followed and see if it is a help or hindrance.

Audio is deep it's what makes is such a wonderful, interesting and enjoyable and constant learning experience for everyone involved at every level.