Using Compression on Your Master Fader

Mix bus compression. Do you do it? Should you do it?

First off, let me explain what I’m talking about. When you’re mixing a song, regardless of what DAW you’re using, all of your audio tracks are being fed into a single mix bus. This is normally represented by a master fader of some sort.

When you’re first starting out mixing, you’re main goal is to mix everything at a decent level without clipping your master bus. As long as you’re happy with your mixes, you can keep doing this…and you don’t have to read the rest of this article. ;-)

However, a lot of mix engineers use some sort of compression on the master bus. They’ll slap a compressor or limiter on the master fader. There are several reasons to do this…and not all of them are necessarily “good” reasons. Let’s take a quick look at a few examples of why you might want to use compression on your entire mix.

Scenario #1 – You’re client wants a demo CD to play in the car.

This is a common request. You finish up a recording session, and before the artist goes home, she would like to take something with her to listen to between now and the next session. (If you’re an artist, you know what I’m talking about. You just want something to listen to, right?)

In this situation, you could simply do a bounce of the song, burn it to CD and send her on her merry way. However, chances are your phone will ring thirty minutes later, and she’ll say, “Something’s wrong with this recording. It’s too quiet! It doesn’t sound as loud as my other CDs.”

What your client may not know is that the audio on a finished, mastered CD has gone through a LOT of compression. Her music will need to be both mixed and mastered before it will be at a relatively “normal” volume.

You can try to explain this to her, and explain why it’s not a faulty recording, but there’s the chance she may start to doubt you a little.

I know, I know. This is probably an extreme example, but it can certainly happen. For this reason, a lot of engineers will simply throw a compressor and/or limiter on the master bus right before bouncing the song down for the client. Since the client knows it’s a rough mix, she won’t expect it to sound perfect, but at least it will be plenty loud.

Scenario #2 – You want your mixes to sound like they’ve been mastered.

In the first scenario, we applied compression/limiting to the mix for the sake of the client, NOT the mix.

However, as you’re working on a project, and listening to your various mixes, you may get the urge to squash them with some compression and limiting to make them sound more like a “polished,” finished, mastered recording.

Here’s where things can get dangerous. Now you’re changing the sound of the mix. Mixing and mastering were meant to be two completely independent phases. When you start trying to mix AND master at the same time, you’ll inevitably do a poor job of both.

What ends up happening is you use too much compression, and you begin to rely on the compressor and limiter to achieve that “sound” you’re going for. This is a backwards work flow. You should use the normal methods of mixing — EQ and compression on individual tracks, effects, automation, etc. — to make your mixes sound good. As soon as you start relying on the mix bus compression to save you, you’re going down the wrong path.

This isn’t to say you shouldn’t use ANY compression during mixing, but you need to be clear as to why you’re using it. Keep mixing and mastering separate.

Scenario #3 – You want something to help “glue” your mixes together.

This scenario describes what I try to do when I mix. I almost always use a compressor on the master bus. However, I’m not using it to compress the living daylights out of my mixes. I just use light compression (usually with a 2:1 ratio) to give me no more than 2-4 dB of gain reduction. That’s it. (My compressor of choice right now is the Waves SSL Bus Compressor, which is a part of their SSL Bundle.)

The reason I do this is because the compressor causes everything to “stick together” a bit better in the mix. It’s the glue that holds my mixes together. It helps my mixes sound more like a mix and less like a bunch of individual instruments.

A couple things to consider when using a bus compressor:

  1. Use it from the beginning. – You should instantiate your bus compressor VERY early in the mix process. Don’t wait until the last five minutes to throw it on there. If you do, the compression will essentially “undo” everything you’ve been working on for the past few hours. For example, you could have an amazing balance going on in your mix, but when you add a bus compressor, suddenly the lead vocal seems lost, and the shaker and high hat are too loud. Use the compressor from the beginning, so you’re making all of your changes while listening TO the compressed signal.
  2. Don’t use it “just because.” - If you’re happy with your mixes, don’t start compressing everything just because you can. It’s much easier to over-compress something and make it sound worse than it is to just leave it alone. Be very conservative with any bus compression you do.
  3. Don’t use a limiter. - Limiters should be left for the mastering engineer.
  4. Ask your mastering engineer. – Contrary to what some people say, a lot mastering engineers don’t mind if you send them a mix that’s been compressed a little bit. In fact, some say that it’s easier to master a song that’s been lightly compressed than one that hasn’t been compressed at all. Keep in mind, though, that if you go overboard with compression, you’re making the mastering engineer’s job much harder, and you’re giving him less room to work.

Do you use a bus compressor? Why or why not? Leave a comment and let us know. I need at least 10 comments from you folks (let me know you’re out there). ;-)

If you enjoyed this, you might also like...

  1. Day 28 – Compress the Master Fader? [31DBR]
  2. Video: Pro Tools Track Types Part 2 – The Master Fader
  3. Why are My Mixes so Quiet in My Car?
  4. Mixing Bass Part 3 – Compression and Limiting
  5. EQ Before or After Compression?
  • chris

    Hi joe , wow theres a lot to read i didnt quite make it to the bottom , but i think you taught me something new this morning! To keep it short i have been producing electro music for around a year ,i use ableton live and not long ago was one of those people who was wandering why the kick drum was not loud or had no balls which i thought was a mastering issue which really led to mixing down properly. i thought i had to get the mix down pact till i thought it was perfect then i could chuck izotope ozone on the master track and give it a a bit of compression , are you suggesting to turn the compressor on and leave it on or to turn it on and occasionally check the balance of the track, also also do you think ozone is ok to use ???? Or is the waves comp the real mcoy… its true what they say music is a journey and it will take a life time to really master

    • http://www.homestudiocorner.com Joe Gilder

      I’m suggesting mixing THROUGH a compressor, meaning the compressor is always on.

      While there are no rules, typically you mix through a stereo compressor, then during mastering you use a multi-band compressor plus a limiter.

      • chris

        will do and thanx heaps for replying!!!!!!

  • Gregg Jackman

    I’ve had fun following this for a couple of days it’s been interesting many thanks. I’ll get back to making records now. (I may sneak in and spy again some time in the future) I’ll leave you with this thought provoking idea though. It’s obvious but one most people haven’t spotted.
    I won’t deny that sending your mix to a mastering engineer can have a benefitial outcome, unless like me you’ve been doing this so long you can sort it yourself. However let’s analyse why that might be.
    You squeeze everything you can out of your song although you never really opened the throttle more than 75% in case you didn’t make it round a bend or two. Then you send it to a mastering engineer. Whatever equipment he or she is using be it analogue or plug-ins, he or she is likely doing pretty much what you did on your output bus “again”.(there’s the clue)
    so here’s another religious experience:-
    Let’s presume you’ve got a fabulous sounding mix of a blinding song, sung by a chap that the camera loves lol. Then-
    Set up your bus squasher how you think it’s working best and at the point where you normally print it and send the mix for mastering. Just put the same stuff on the bus again following the first lot. You may have to adjust the threshold etc on the second lot differently since it’s seeing a slightly different output than the first lot is. This usually sounds….
    how do you guys over there say?
    Oh yes….
    “Awsome”
    It’s just worth a listen. I have no intention of messing things up for you, so you’ll probably bypass it and send it to a mastering engineer as usual. I’m not here to do them out of work or force anyone’s hand to go where its not comfortable.
    I’ll leave you with this thought provoking joke though;
    How many mix engineers does it take to change a lightbulb?

    Only one but then you have to get a mastering engineer to come and brighten it up a little afterwards.

    all the best
    Gregg Jackman

    • http://productionadvice.co.uk Ian Shepherd

      Good gag :-)

      I strongly disagree with applying mastering processing when mixing, though. I’m a mastering engineer but have also recorded and mixed many times, and I always keep the mastering as a separate process.

      There’s just too much to think about if you try and mix and master at the same time. If you’re mixing track 3, how will you know how loud it should be in comparison to track 8, which isn’t done yet ?

      Mastering is a whole other mindset, a whole other process – the chance to take a longer view and judge all the songs in context. Even if you master it yourself, I think there’s huge value in keeping it as a separate stage.

      • Gregg Jackman

        ok let’s have some fun here. Track 8 (when I’ve done it) will appear as a download on my son’s I pod, followed by track 1 of Enya’s second album, (he likes to have a few things his father did) followed by track 2 of Led Zepplin’s 4th album, then, since he has amazingly catholic taste will be followed by Nigel Kennedy playing the Four Seasons. (oh and he probably won’t have paid for any of them)
        You’ve got to laugh. But you get my point. I’m just going to plug the I ron in and uniformly compress my clothes now.
        Only joking. I’m sure you are a splendid mastering engineer. I never said we should do without them. I have been rescued a few times in the past.
        I really am off now.

        • http://www.homestudiocorner.com Joe Gilder

          Nice responses from both of you. Thanks for joining the conversation!

          If you’re just releasing singles, then yeah, maybe “mastering” it while you mix works fine, but when I’m working on an album, I want to master all the tracks together. Otherwise I have no idea how they sound in relation to each other.

          • Gregg Jackman

            ok, ok so I can’t keep away. The point I was making when I started this hasn’t really been noticed. So I’ll try to paint a better picture.
            It might seem excessive to have a limiter followed by a limiter or a compressor followed by a compressor. It does seem like you’re reaching for the “Big Hammer” but actually it’s rather the opposite. Those trans USA railway trains with a hundred waggons all coupled together are often pulled by two locos, rather than one that’s puffing and panting and having a heart attack.

            People experimenting with gear plugged into other gear is how we arrive at newness. One after the other is an interesting way of dealing with the tidal waves that get chucked at the mix bus, even if you think you’ve done enough individual channel taming. This is something I did accidentally once and then had to consider why it sounded so good.

  • http://www.dasprd.com DAS

    Ok, I’m really late to this very interesting discussion. But here’s my $.02 for ya.

    Can you master your music yourself? Yes you can. Should you trust yourself verses a professional ME for your music? No you shouldn’t; UNLESS you spent YEARS at training your ears to hear what needs to be heard. And even THEN, 9/10, the average person still can’t compete with a truly professional mastering house. Why?

    How many regular people/musicians do you know that spend $20,000 on a compressor? Not many unless they are maybe multimillionares. A truly professional mastering house will have at least 1 compressor worth that much, and several more with the same value, as well as eq, limiters, etc of the best value.

    Also, a true mastering house is electrically wired for the least amount of noise, with the highest grade of wires used, and acoustically constructed and treated for the best monitoring response. In fact, a true mastering house with the optimum construction will have a “floating floor”. Not to mention the best monitoring system money can buy, with matched subwoofers, and amps as necessary.

    No I’m not a mastering engineer at all. But I sat in on a professional mastering session in NYC/Battery, and I can assure you with all honesty, that as good as my ears are, there is no way I could get to the same level of excellence these guys performed on the independent album I produced for my client years ago.

    It is truly an art form to get top notch mastering. There’s a difference between mastering and mixing; just like there’s a difference between being a phenomenal keyboardist, and being a phenomenal producer with a keyboard.

    Now, here’s the real question/debate: Can a person get pretty “close” to the level of a ME themself? Yes, IF you have a REALLY mature set of ears, and a really good understanding of audio engineering principles, and some QUALITY gear.

    Ask yourselves this question; if you really think that you can get the exact same results mastering everything yourself ITB(In The Box), then why isn’t everyone dumping their $3,000 SSL Compressors for a $600 SSl Waves plug-in? Why are people still spending $10,000+ on Manley gear when you can buy a VST EQ for $200?

    I’m not saying plug-ins aren’t good, obviously, I use them. But there comes to a point where you have to acknowledge that no matter how many mods you put on your Dodge Charger with a HEMI, it still aint a Porsche 911 turbo.

    I assure you from personal professional experience, there is a difference with professional mastering.

  • http://www.downsouthstudio.biz Downsouthstudio

    Great info Joe….
    Mixing “without” a compressor on my master bus, may be the main problem Im experiencing with my mixes. I wait until I get the mix I want, add the compressor to the master buss, and bounce down to stereo. As you said, highs suffer as well as too much mid range boost..which puts the vocal “in your face”. Ive gone back and “re-mixed” and “lost” the sound I was trying to accomplish.

    “mix with compressor on master bus”…..simple, and logical.  A big “duh” to me. : ? )

    Jeff
    ________________________________–

  • Josh

     The Real trick is to apply the compression BEFORE you start mixing. Keep it very light on the ratio!

  • Harry

    Well I just found out I was one of the ones trying to do it backwards – so you answere my question – why the master bus compressor made everything sound worse. But that brings up another question – Once I get a mix that I am really excited about, how do i get it to normal volume levels without messing it up?

    • Ronmusik

      Insert a limiter and raise the volume until it peaks then lower to get rid of the peak.

  • Lindsey

    The mastering discussion here is robust and thought-provoking. I’ve got pretty good mics and other gear, but a terrible monitoring situation. The room is so small, I don’t even try to get something approaching a flat response. I have a pair or NS-10′s too close to the wall and some nice headphones. It seems that the problems with my mixes are in the final eq. My original plan was to take my tracks to a high end studio for mixing. However, I find that I can still get a lot of work done using my own plugins. Going to a studio and trying to re-create some of that work is an expensive hassle. So, my question is, can I trust my mixes enough to have them eq’d by a mastering engineer? …or do I really need to mix in a high end monitoring situation? Another option is to “print” my tracks with plugin effects added, and take those tracks to a mixing studio. Opinions please…

    • http://www.homestudiocorner.com Joe Gilder

      There’s no straight answer to your question, unfortunately. Can you trust your mixes enough “to have them eq’d by a mastering engineer?” It’s hard to say. If your mixes sound horrible, then no. If your mixes sound good (on multiple systems, not just in your studio), then sure!

      Mastering engineers aren’t voodoo workers. They can’t make bad mixes good, but they can make good mixes better.

      Is it worth going to a pro studio to mix? I don’t know. If your room really is that bad, then invest in a nice set of headphones. I use the Sennheiser HD650′s. They’re around $500, but totally worth it if your room is a hopeless acoustical situation.

  • http://www.deluxemastering.com.au Adam Dempsey

    Suffice to say, I’ve nothing against receiving mixes with compression on them – providing that it’s done for the sound, NOT for sheer level, NOT to sound ‘mastered’, but simply for the sound/feel/density of the track.

    As also stated earlier, if in doubt, supply versions to mastering with and without, and simply communicate with your mastering engineer. You don’t want to be locked in to something which is detracting from your mix or which is “going against the grain”.

    A large part of what we offer for clients in doubt is simply a session to help ascertain whether their project is in fact ready for mastering, or whether the mixes themselves could be improved. It’s win-win for all concerned.. just allow yourself the time, and again, communicate.

  • steve

    I used to throw in Vintagewarmer on my master bus, but then i read on many mastering sites that final mixes should not be compressed before sent to mastering, so i stopped doing that.
    But the way you just explained it, i guess using slight compression on the master bus is a matter of taste, (or experience since it should be used early in the process).

  • http://www.myspace.com/truemusician Letzter Geist

    just wanted to say thumbs up on the ssl bus compressor in the output bus. i set mine the same way (2:1 with about 3db of reduction).

    • http://alonetone.com/colingarvey ColinG

      Not the same setting for every song, surely?

  • keith Hammond

    i’m amazed at some of the comments ive read here about mastering engineers being pointless. One key thing that no-one has mentioned is that a good mastering engineer has ears that are tuned to hear how your mix should sound to be balanced on other systems. Most artists get a good mix according to their ears but they don’t translate well and thats what you pay for. Its simple, why would i pay an ME, because he’s better at it than me duh. Great if you can do it yourself but extremely ignorant to assume that all home recording artists have that ability or the equipment to compete with pro work.

  • http://sonicidiot.wordpress.com/ Perry Grinn

    Hi Everyone,

    This thread developed into a pretty interesting conversation. People sure do love compression. I did a little experiment with Transparent Parallel Compression with audio samples that I think you all will appreciate. You can find it at my site http://sonicidiot.wordpress.com/2010/07/02/see-how-easily-you-can-learn-upward-compression/

  • Pingback: IHR #81 (Enhanced) – Moog Lab, Phase, Small Amps | Inside Home Recording.com

  • Shlummy

    Bueller? Bueller?

  • http://www.catchcamera.com Catch Camera

    Here is a professionally mastered version of a track we made 3 years ago.

    http://www.catchcamera.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/06/Byzantine-Love.mp3

    Here is our version, it’s not quite as loud, but I don’t think the difference is that noticeable.

    http://www.catchcamera.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/06/pre-master-byzantine-love.mp3

    • David S.

      first off, good song. i like that.
      secondly, i hear very little difference. i’m no pro, but i am a consumer of music and i hear very little difference. i would buy your version and be perfectly happy.
      good work.

    • Shlummy

      Are you sure you didn’t upload two of the same file? They’re identical in size (3,100,869 bytes) and when played together, reversing the phase of one, they perfectly cancel each other out.

    • http://alonetone.com/colingarvey Colin G

      Yeah, it’s the exact same track. I’ll be charitable and assume that this was a mistake…

    • http://www.homestudiocorner.com Joe Gilder

      Yup. I dropped ‘em in Pro Tools as well, and they nulled out completely. Wanna re-upload with the right file? Can’t wait to hear it!

  • Pingback: MASTERING YOUR RECORD IS A SCAM |

  • http://www.catchcamera.com Catch Camera

    Mastering is the lamest thing EVER. It’s not even a real process, just a micromanaged element of making records.

    If you spend money on mastering but not on ads or PR, you’re a true amateur.

    And BTW, mastering cost $1000′s not hundreds and people that do it for $100′s are not worth their services.

    If you’re making records for fun, which most of you are, then, save your money and spend it on gear, PR, ads or rent.

    If you’re a mastering engineer, find a new career, because like so many professions in the 21st century your job has successfully been outsourced to a 300 dollar computer program.

    Normally I wouldn’t be so blunt but it hurts to read all your comments about the LEAST important stage of making music. There is literally no element of writing, recording, marketing, and selling music that is more unimportant than mastering. A mastered record that has no marketing is going nowhere compared to a marketed, professionally unmastered record.

    If you’re on the fence about spending 300 bucks about some trivial element of the music making process than this is certainly a hobby and as such shouldn’t warrant spending money on services that will not matter to the casual listener of your record.

    Spending money on $400 mastering is like buying halogen headlights on a car you can’t afford gas for. You’re car may have cool lights but it’s going nowhere.

    I bet the people that are spending money on mastering won’t spend money on a PR firm or ads, or a nice website, or T-shirts (which unlike records, actually make money) You’ll convienetly say to yourself “Yeah I will.” But when it comes down to it , you wont.

    If you’re thinking of spend 200-600 dollars on mastering. Here are some ideas that aren’t as lame.
    -Elance, is a website that outsources website designers. make a website.
    -TD Ameritrade- invest your money.
    -A new microphone
    -a new set of plugins
    -a new suit
    -buy christmas presents for your family now.
    -donate it to charity.
    -an iphone or new sweet smartphone.
    -a new camera (canon s90) take photo’s of your studio so you can show your kids what dad did before he/she was born.
    -books from Barnes and noble that improve your life
    -gym membership.
    -take your parents or grandparents out to a nice dinner

    MASTERING IS WHAT AMATEUR’S WASTE THEIR MONEY ‘COS THEY THINK THEY CAN BUY THEIR WAY INTO HIT RECORDS. FALSE.

    • Dave Chick

      Nick,

      You’ve got some interesting opinions (that obviously go against the grain with the group). I’d be interested to hear what you’ve been able to do on your own.

      Do you have an A/B comparison of your music mastered yourself versus a professional ME?

      I’m sorry to put you on the spot, but your posts have lead the skeptic in me to see (hear) the proof of your claims. Writing words and criticisms of others’ opinions is one thing, but putting your money where your mouth is is where it counts.

      Cheers, Dave

    • http://www.deluxemastering.com Adam Dempsey

      Wow, something must be wrong with the universe, given I’m busy and clients so happy with our work.
      Back to the double album.. Vol 30 of on going anthology compilation, fwiw…

      Mastering is the craft of creating the master and serving the client’s vision, with an experienced, unbiased, fresh sonic assessment in a detailed, full range monitoring environment.

      In other words mastering ≠ processing.

  • Pingback: Thank You, NASA - 010 mixing RWELP, pt.9

  • David S.

    Real late to the party, I apologize. lol
    But, I have to say I understand exactly where Catch Camera is coming from. Most responses in favor of going to a ME sound as though they would rather not take the time to figure out how to master properly. That it is quicker and easier on the mind to just pay for someone to do it quickly. If I’m wrong in that assessment, I apologize, but that was how I was reading those responses. I agree w/ Catch Camera, there is no reason why I or you couldn’t take the time and trial and error (yes, maybe weeks to months) and figure it out. You’d save yourself money and gain yourself the happiness of knowing you worked hard at a skill and “mastered it”… sorry had to do it.:)
    I’ve never met or heard an ME say, “you can do this yourself”. For that matter I’ve never heard a mechanic say that or anyone who makes a living off of a particular trade. At this moment in time, a professional ME will kick my butt in mastering. But, who’s to say in 5 years time after continually working at it that I can’t compete or even kick his/her butt in mastering?
    I never thought in a million years I could make my mixes sound good. Thanks to Joe and continual hard work, I’m getting much better at it and am extremely pleased. Why couldn’t the same thing happen in regards to mastering?
    In a nutshell, I see where Catch Camera is coming from and I agree w/ him.

    • http://productionadvice.co.uk/about Ian Shepherd

      Hi David,

      Actually I’m a mastering engineer who says “you can do this yourself” – or at least “you may be able to do this yourself.

      But I think you summed it up really well when you said:

      “who’s to say in 5 years time after continually working at it that I can’t compete or even kick his/her butt in mastering?”

      The question is, do you want to spend five years learning how to do something, using your time to learn that skill-set, when you could be using it to make music ?

      If mastering is something you are interested in and are prepared to work at, go for it ! But if you basically want your CDs to sound as good as possible, and your time would be better spent playing, composing, recording and mixing, then maybe getting an experienced engineer to do the job is actually a better option.

      Ian

      • David S.

        I commend you on being the ME that says “yes you can!”. That is rare.
        And yes, I think it comes down to how much time someone wants to commit to learn proper mastering. Most want to just make music and not be bothered w/ the ins and outs of mixing/mastering and many engineers feed off that immediacy. Nothing wrong w/ that in any way. What I don’t agree w/ is when many mixing engineers/mastering engineers put that fear of failure in many home studio geeks in hopes of getting some mulah (hence where the “scam” comes in). I’ve personally had a ME tell me verbatim “Ah, don’t waste your time, you’ll never get your home recordings to come out right, let the pro do it.” I kid you not. Verbatim.
        I definitely want to learn proper mastering, so to me time commitment is no problem. But, to most, yes, I agree they should be hiring someone to help get that CD out in a timely fashion if that is their main concern.
        And also, yes, any blanket statement such as Catch Camera’s “all ME’s are scams” is an overstatement. I understand that, but I feel I see where he is coming from.

  • Pingback: Mastering Yourself

  • http://card.ly/siggidori Sigurdór

    I don’t use an compressor for the master output when mixing.
    As for my mixes of your material @ Mix With Us then I run the mixers through compressors and limiters after I’ve mixed.

    I’m all for hiring a qualified mastering engineer.

    When my band, Menn Ársins, were done with our first record we hired Kevin Metcalfe @ The Soundmasters (UK) to master the album- http://www.soundmasters.co.uk/kevin.htm

    We were very happy with the results. The album was recorded over 2-3 years and at various studios.

    Not only did Kevin make the tracks louder, but the overall balance and EQ tone was balanced and therefore… great! …. and I was smiling because my bass tone/sound had bloomed. Perfect. Great results.
    http://soundcloud.com/mennarsins/sets

    The last time we needed mastering we hired Ian Shepherd.
    Again… Great results.
    http://soundcloud.com/mennarsins/gefst-ekki-upp

    • http://petrisuhonen.com Petri Suhonen

      @Sigurdór – Sounds very good indeed!

  • http://petrisuhonen.com Petri Suhonen

    Speaking of compression, how much mastering engineers use it in mastering process?

    • http://www.deluxemastering.com Adam Dempsey

      Often no compression in mastering at all.
      Sometimes a little… gently but always just there.
      Sometimes a little but more a aggressive type, kicking in only occasionally.

      The key is to hear what’s needed in your head first, then work towards that. Experience and an accurate (unflattering) monitoring environment are the primary tools in this regard.

      • http://productionadvice.co.uk/about Ian Shepherd

        It depends entirely on the source material – anything from none at all to A LOT :-)

        It depends on the genre, the sound you’re going for and the original mixes.

        To summarise: How much compression ? As little as possible, but just enough to get where you’re going.

        Here’s a couple of posts that might help:

        DIY Mastering Techniques – Using compression

        How to make your music loud (Without killing it stone dead)

        Ian

  • http://petrisuhonen.com Petri Suhonen

    I don’t use compression on master channel, but after I’ve done mixdown I run the mix through PSP Vintage Warmer so I guess the end results are same.

    • http://productionadvice.co.uk/about Ian Shepherd

      Hey Petri – Not really ! As Joe says, mixing through a compressor is very different to applying one afterwards.

      It can be crucial to getting “the sound” in some genres (rock & metal esp) but if you are getting a sound you’re happy with without using a buss compressor, stick with it !

      • http://petrisuhonen.com Petri Suhonen

        @Ian – Ah yes, now that I give it a second thought it makes sense :)

  • http://alonetone.com/colingarvey Colin G

    I wish I could afford $400-700 to have my album mastered…

    I’ve never used compression on the master bus during mixing. I leave that for the mastering, which I do myself. At the moment, for me mastering is very much broad strokes – a bit of EQ, mainly to smooth out problem frequencies, some mild compression (1.5:1 – 2:1 usually) and some very gentle limiting. I’m not interested in making it loud.

  • http://www.podcomplex.com/blog Dan Foley

    Very interesting debate, with good points on both sides. I think this is something that everyone has to decide for themselves – just as you can’t say every mix should have an EQ cut at 9kHz, neither can you say that everyone should/shouldn’t master their own stuff.

    I’m sure there are a lot of ‘mastering’ services that are doing no more than running mixes through Ozone defaults. Just as there are great mechanics who will fix your car for a fair price, there are others who will charge you huge amounts to recalibrate your flux capacitor (which you probably don’t have).

    But for certain mixes and situations, I believe mastering by a true pro can make a huge difference…

    • Tom Hartman

      What a lot of people seem to forget is that a good mastering suite has gear and acoustics most of us can only dream about. “Mastering” at home in bedroom studio and comparing it to what can be done in a room where you can really hear what is going on is a whole different thing.

      The mastering “programs” for 300 will not make you a mastering engineer, anymore than buying a 1500.00 string library will make you an arranger.

      TH

  • Joseph J.

    Great points from both sides. Lots to think about and experiment with!

    A manufacturing plant was completely shut down because of an equipment malfunction. The plant was losing money every minute that passed by. The Plant Manager called in an expert to fix the broken piece of equipment. When the expert arrived, he said, “I’m here to fix your problem.” The Plant Manager quickly rushed the expert over to the broken piece of equipment. The expert looked at the broken machine, reached into his tool box to pull out a hammer and then, hit the machine with his hammer. The machine immediately started back working and the plant was back in operation. The Plant Manager said, “How much will that be?” The expert replied $1,000. The Plant Manager could not believe what he was hearing: “Come on” said, the Plant Manager, “all you did was hit it with a hammer.” The expert replied, “Yes, but the key is that I knew where to hit it with the hammer.”

  • http://www.deluxemastering.com Adam Dempsey

    Do whatever you need for the mix – for the sound of it, not for sheer mix level. And not as an “add on” – if compression is really helping your mix you should be hearing it as you mix.
    Try it with/without but compare at matched levels.

    If in doubt, supply both versions to mastering. Just mix to leave a few dB digital headroom.

    Mastering is not the place to create the “vibe” of a mix, and knowing what to leave out – and the sound the client is after – is as important as anything else.

  • http://www.homestudiocorner.com Joe Gilder

    Not to beat a dead horse, but this is such an interesting (and thought-provoking) discussion that I wanted to throw another thought out there. I actually posted this on Ian’s blog, but here’s a repeat:

    If you say that all mastering engineers are scam artists, then you would also have to say that all recording and mixing engineers are as well.

    People sometimes pay me to mix their stuff even though they could do it on their own. And I’m certainly no scam artist.

    I could repair my car, but I don’t.

    I could build a house, but I don’t.

    I leave it to the professionals, and I pay them for their time, tools, and experience. (That’s a magical combination.)

    • http://www.hatchedproductions.net Dave Chick

      Fantastic thread and great comments from everyone.

      Joe – your final thoughts here (plus Ian’s post) are right on the money – literally.

    • http://www.deluxemastering.com Adam Dempsey

      As said by a colleague: “I have a drill and some alcohol, but I still go to a dentist.”

  • http://productionadvice.co.uk/about Ian Shepherd

    Wow, great conversation !

    Looks like I’m a little late to the party, but this is a subject I feel strongly about (I’m a mastering engineer) so I started typing anyway – and it turned into a bit of a rant, so I posted it on my blog:

    Is mastering a waste of money ?”

    I can’t resist adding here, though – Catch Camera makes some great points, and I agree with a lot of them.

    But I can’t help smiling at the fact that he claims MEs use plugins and presets (I don’t, and neither do many others I know) – and then goes on to give his own “secret recipe” !

    Also – 3:1 compression in mastering ? Hm, once or twice a month, for me.

    And – subtle differences ? Not necessarily…

    But I should stop :-)

    • http://www.homestudiocorner.com Joe Gilder

      And I will vouch for Ian that he is not a hobbyist mastering engineer. That’s his full-time gig.

      • http://www.hatchedproductions.net Dave Chick

        +1 to that!

  • http://songdemotips.wordpress.com Toby Baxley

    Informative and entertaining. You sure know how to pick a fight, Joe! Ha!

  • http://www.catchcamera.com Catch Camera

    And by the way if you wanna do cross fades and labeling so the song titles show up in new car stereos, buy the $80 program Toast. After bouncing your tracks drag them into toast, name the playlist and there’s options to do all that stuff. easy as pie.

    • Trent

      I just want to say that that whole debate was very informative for me. Cheers!

  • http://www.catchcamera.com Catch Camera

    Honestly folks, I am not trying to sell you a service or convince you for any other reason than your own benefit.

    I watched the mastering video and there’s two disagreements I have.

    1. You discuss from about 3:35 to 4:00 that the mastering engineers might be able to fix issues that you have on your records.

    If there’s one thing I could leave you with about this whole discussion, please hear me out. Mastering engineers CANNOT FIX MIXES. if there is too much bass in a song, open up the mix and turn down the bass. If the vocals are too loud, turn them down in the mix. If one song is strangely brighter than the rest of the album, eq the guitars or add an instrument or turn the bass up, etc etc. don’t assume you can bring your mixes to a mastering engineer and they can fix any issue.

    MASTERING ENGINEERS CANNOT FIX A MIX.

    MASTERING ENGINEERS CANNOT FIX MIXES.

    Even if they wanted to, no equipment can adjust one element of a song without affecting the whole mix.

    2. At about 4:15 you say the one phrase that has kept the entire mastering business afloat.

    “I’ve worked so hard on this and I don’t wanna screw it up by saving a couple hundred dollars”

    I have been there before brother. thinking that mastering is gonna really push my mixes over the top and be the difference between success and obscurity.

    In my opinion there’s a psychological element at play.

    The process of paying someone else money regardless of outcome, convinces us that we are making our album sound better. It gives us comfort to pay money for something.

    “I’ve worked so hard on this and I don’t wanna screw it up by saving a couple hundred dollars”

    There’s in interesting element to that comment. You assume that by not spending a few hundred dollars you’ll screw up your album.

    That’s been ingrained in us by the mastering engineer community.

    Of course mastering engineers are gonna say that mastering does wonders and it’s essential for home studio projects.

    They’re drumming up business. ( i’ll assume that comment will ruffle some feathers but, bluntly I think that’s the honest truth)

    Look at the major producers that have started mastering their own records.

    Mastering a record is simply adjusting the compression eq and volume of all the tracks and making them sound great in a variety of speakers.

    Funny, but it took me years to learn that mastering is a compromise.

    A compromise between the sound of your record in different listening environments.

    When you check your final mixes, check out how they sound on your ipod, in your car, in your friends car, on your laptop, on your desktop, on you grandparents stereo, etc etc.

    For instance, your mixes will probably sound bassy as hell on your home stereo system so you eq it a bit to make it clearer in the mid’s and the high’s. than you realize that after you’ve done that, they sound way too tinny on your ipod, so you adjust accordingly.

    Mastering is a compromise between bassy and tinny speakers and where you want your mixes to sit in those different environments depending on your genre and your tastes.

    MASTERING ENGINEERS CANNOT FIX MIXES.

    long live your master buss plug in settings!!!

    Once again mine are a variation of the ones below

    In this order

    1.Stereo Distressors set to 3:1 or 2:1 for acoustic and bare bones mixes, ratio, 4.5/7/3/6.3
Stereo

    2.Lil Freq by Empirical labs EQ is different each time, but it’s very subtle eq boosts in the highs


    3.Phoenix Cranesong Iridescent set at 11 o’clock
Massey L2007 threshold 2, max output 0

    I’ve found the ssl masterbuss to be too bassy for my tastes.

    The L2 and L3 are a bit pumpy and not grounded enough, if you know what I mean.

    By the way, red book standard is an antiquated word from the 80′s that is thrown around when talking about mastering but doesn’t actually mean anything. google “red book standard” and read the wikipedia.

    • http://www.homestudiocorner.com Joe Gilder

      True, a mastering engineer cannot fix a mix. However, a bad mastering job CAN make a mix worse. I’m not a mastering engineer, so there’s a good chance my master won’t sound as good as a professional’s.

      • http://www.catchcamera.com Catch Camera

        well folks I’ve said my piece. Good Luck. Hope all goes well for you.

        three points I’d like to make before I leave

        1. Master your own stuff

        2. Under compression is more amateur and prevalent than over compression. Compression is the pro’s most useful audio tool.

        3. The longer you take to record, mix, or master a project the worse you make it. Quicker is instinctual and better.

        For all of those who disagree. Who’ll probably be almost everyone here. just think about it. dwell on these concepts for a few minutes before writing them off as ravings of a mad man.

        I have nothing to lose and I’m just trying to help you out and give you another perspective.

        Good luck folks.

        Make records and put em on cdbaby and get em itunes and make tons of money!!!

      • aLf

        You can actually fix some problems and control certain elements in a mix during mastering with the M/S (Mid/Side) operation – like de-essing the lead vocal without changing the whole mix.

        • Kyle

          Thank you! The first mention of M/S processing, finally! It’s actually one of the more powerful tools in a mastering engineer’s arsenal. So many people think that it’s completely about the multi-band compression and peak limiting. The soundstaging and spectral width added by proper mastering techniques via M/S matrixing and the subsequent buss summing can be the most noticeable by-product of a professionally (or amateur) mastered recording. Sorry, I was astounded that no one had mentioned this earlier, despite this thread evolving into a VERY two-sided discussion on the topic of mastering. Aside, from that, mix engineers can also produce incredibly euphonic results with M/S matrixing without “pre-mastering.” Check out Brainworx’ M/S tools, videos, manuals, and even demo sessions @ http://www.brainworx.de It’s some really cool stuff, even for experimentation/inspirational purposes (i.e., helping shed light on aspects/directions of your mix not previously considered).

          Thanks!

  • aLf

    In Germany lives a producer named Hans-Martin Buff. He lived many years ago in the states and was several years the personal engineer from Prince. He also produced a lot of musicians like for instance George Clinton, Maceo Parker, No Doubt, Scorpions, Banana Fishbones.

    I don´t know him personally, but I´ve heard and read, that he does a lot of bus compression stuff, bus EQing and limiting.
    When he finally finished mixing, the song is – according to his opinion – done and loud. He achieves the right loudness while mixing with the A-B technique using commercial CDs as reference.
    And the mastering engineer just have to sweetening things up a little bit afterwards and prepare for the red book standard and so on.

    Mixing is for Hans-Martin Buff like an art in its self, the supreme discipline of making music – with the mix (of course you first have to do a good recordingjob) you can bring the song enormously forwards.

    I myself, as a “homerecorder”, do the masteringthing myself. The quality is good enough for myspace, youtube & co.

    Would I have the opportunity to record in a pro-studio, I would after the mixing let a mastering-engineer do the job.

  • http://www.gethatched.ca Dave Chick

    Wow – what happened to the original topic?

    compression on the master bus – yeah, why not? I’ll do a combination of things depending on what sounds good to me, but I’ll apply some sort of analogue channel or tape saturation plug and then a light compressor or limiter right off the bat.

    When the mix is done, I sometimes put something like Ozone or T-Racks on after to further glue parts together with multi-band elements to get things as a whole to pop out (compressor, exciters, stereo imaging) – typically, tightening up the punch on the bottom end and getting the kick and bass to saddle in, add some more pizzazz to the upper mids and highs and emphasize the spread and air in the highs…

    As for the mastering engineer thing – I’ve never personally used one, but I’ve never released music to be consumed by itself with the intent of it being bought by a consumer.

    That being said, I’ll have to respectfully disagree with Catch Camera though as I’ve played parts on projects that have gone on to a mastering engineer and even though they may seem to be quick and cursory, they KNOW THEIR STUFF. Good ones have done hundreds … nay thousands of albums and through experience and skill, know what to do when and where without the time-consuming trial and error that we go through. They’ve got the ears, they’ve got the equipment (and no, it’s NOT the same as what we have – rather expensive and specialized gear that is insanely accurate and expensive – monitor speakers that approach six figures and the like) AND more importantly, they have the experience.

    Trust the wisdom being shared here – if you’re looking to produce music and you’re looking to make a living off of it – DIY up until mastering is fine, but I’d highly recommend getting someone else to do the final spit ‘n polish before it goes out to mass consumption.

  • http://bcfortenberry.tumblr.com/ B.C. Fortenberry

    A great mastering engineer is worth their weight in gold. They bring a different perspective to a project that I find to be invaluable.

    Just got to hear a friend’s project mastered by Bob Olhsson. Worth every penny.

    • http://www.homestudiocorner.com Joe Gilder

      Thanks for weighing in there, Billy Boy.

  • http://www.catchcamera.com Catch Camera

    I’m not trying to be smug or disrespectful or anything. It just seems strange that people think they can engineer and mix a great record but they can’t sequence the songs and eq and compress them a bit. Again, I’m not trying to be disrespectful here, but if you have to hire someone else to eq and compress some stuff on a record why don’t you just hire them to eq and compress the vocal, or the guitar, or drums? “They have better ears?”

    BTW, my POV on this debate is from home recording perspective.

    If someone is hiring you to make a record and you don’t have the time because you need to move on to another project, than fine send it to a great mastering house. If it’s your own record, you can and should do it yourself.

    And as harsh as it is to say, yes I believe the majority of the mastering business shouldn’t exist. It is a relic of another time and I believe they have somehow convinced people that what they do is different than what you do when you make a record.

    I think it’s the exact same thing!

    As stated in my previous post, at one point in time they were necessary, but I think that is no longer the case.

    Just like coloring houses in the film world.

    Post houses used to be monopolies, they were huge companies because the gear was so expensive you had to pay to use their equipment.

    Now those engineers that did those records on that old equipment 10, 20, or 30 years later have bought the same stuff any of us can buy and make tons of money mastering records for people, and people come to them because they have incredible discography credits. (And rereading this, I know you’re gonna say, “why do you think they have great discographies?” It’s because they worked at sweet mastering houses where all the studios that made records brought their stuff.)

    Why do record companies remaster records?

    Does anyone care about a re mastered version of a record? Did you fall in love with the record the first time?

    Does a song that you love sound bad on a compilation album?

    Have you ever made a great mix CD with songs from several different bands from several different decades?

    Have you noticed that “mastering versions” of outboard compressors is just marketing jargon for stereo?

    Next time you have someone master something, as a test, try to master it as well and have friends A/B the mixes. back and forth back and forth. I bet they won’t be able to tell. Because it’s so subtle it’s laughable.

    I have so many stories about mastering that are so funny…

    I think there’s a lot of conventions in recording that, over time you realize with your own experiences, are wrong and to me, mastering is definitely one of them.

    The bottom line is, hire a guy to master a track and master one your self. Wait a few days, compare the results using a blind method.

    Ask others to do the same.

    It’s as easy to learn to master a record as it is to tweak a problematic instrument so it sits nicely in a mix.

    They both take time, patience, creativity, and a lot of trail and error.

    -N

    • http://www.homestudiocorner.com Joe Gilder

      I see what you’re saying. And I definitely agree that we should know WHY we’re doing what we’re doing. If you’re using a mastering engineer just because someone told you to, then yeah, that’s not a great reason.

      You make some compelling arguments, and I REALLY appreciate the discussion. (Too many people get huffy and mad when you disagree with them. Thank you for being cool.) :-)

      A great-sounding record will be a great-sounding record whether or not it’s mastered by a mastering engineer or not. Have you watched the video I posted on mastering a week or two ago? The article I refer to makes a great point that for a lot of home studio guys, the mastering engineer might be the ONLY professional to touch your recording…and it might be the only time your mix gets played through a decent listening environment. I can imagine what you’re response will be, but I found it to be something to think about.

      Here’s the link.

    • http://www.deluxemastering.com Adam Dempsey

      “Have you noticed that “mastering versions” of outboard compressors is just marketing jargon for stereo?”
      No. And the units we have prove me correct! (not that marketing jargon doesn’t exist…).

  • http://www.catchcamera.com Catch Camera

    Thanks for creating a forum and doing what you do Joe.

    I just feel that mastering engineers get credit for records even though they had next to nothing to do with their sound.

    A great record will sound great because it has great songs on it. The Beatles records weren’t mastered anywhere close to todays standards, yet they sound awesome. “A day in the life” doesn’t need mastering from today’s mastering guys.

    If you made a great record Joe, you know more about it than anyone else and YOU know how to master it properly.

    I’m familiar with the sentiment that it’s great to have a mastering engineer master a record because people are “so emotionally tied to their music that they NEED to send it to someone to give them a fresh, objective perspective.”

    The funniest part is, mastering engineers just start mastering a record without even listening to the record all the way through.

    Why? Because they have the THEIR OWN PRESET MASTERING SETTINGS THEY JUST RUN EVERYONE’S MIXES THROUGH.

    They aren’t listening to your mixes for 5 days straight thinking about what they’re gonna do with them.

    When you walk in with mixes you’ve spent the last six months slaving over, you hand them over to some mastering engineer who you’ve never met and who runs your mixes through the same stuff he runs everyone else stuff through, he’ll pay you a few compliments to make you feel good and after 4 or 5 hours and 2 grand he’ll send you on your way.

    What if you need to remix a song? Well you’ll be tempted not too even though you know you should because you’ll just have to pay more and you’ll worry that mastering one song 2 weeks later will make that song sound different than the rest of the mix.

    I’ve seen high end mastering engineers put de-essers on mixes cos the sibilance is bad. When really they should have told their costumers, “go home put a deesser on the vocal and come back next week.”

    Saying mastering engineers are a scam is nothing like saying microphones over a hundred dollars are a scam, because one makes your music sound better and one is a random chain of plugins that may or may not be right for your music.

    What I’m saying is you SHOULD spend your money on a good mic and a good mic pre INSTEAD of hiring a mastering engineer.

    If you can mix and edit a good vocal track than you are qualified to master a record. Don’t sell yourself short. You’re talented enough to figure out a mastering chain.

    I can say these things because I’ve wasted THOUSANDS of dollars of my own and other people’s money before other colleagues and I started figuring out ” this is a scam” these guys aren’t doing anything I can’t do myself. “We know our records more than these guys” “I’d rather take a week figuring out how to make this thing sound sweet than let a
    stranger master our final mixes over 4 or 5 hours.”

    And the only thing I can say, is the only thing worse than going to the best mastering guys in the business is going to a random guy because it’s cheaper.

    That guy is literally doing the same thing you can do.

    Spend the money you’d use to master your record to buy gear BEFORE you start recording OR SPEND YOUR MONEY ON PR for your record.

    Mastering is an antiquated service charge that record companies in the 1970′s through the 1990′s used to overcharged their bands to make more money. Capital records would tell their Capital clients ” You’ve gotta master your record at our Capital records mastering facility for 8 thousand bucks. That’s in house mastering. Capital bands are paying 8K to Capital Records Mastering, so in essence that 8K would be subtracted from their advance and floating back into the pockets of capital records.

    Mastering used to be important when actual vinyl records were around because if the EQ wasn’t controlled the needles would skip and there’d be returns.

    And mastering is somewhat acceptable for Modern day hip hop , R & B groups, or pop chicks that hire a different producer for each song at 5,6, or 7 figures a track. So in that case each track is delivered from a different studio and all of them need to be set with same EQ, Compression, and Volume.

    Otherwise,

    Please folks….

    Master things yourself.

    You are good enough!

    My typical mastering settings on the master fader are as follows

    in this order

    Stereo Distressors set to 3:1 ratio, 4.5/7/3/6.3
    Stereo Lil Freq by Empirical labs EQ is different each time but i usually boost at 10K
    Phoenix Cranesong Iridescent set at 11 o’clock
    Massey L2007 threshold 2, max output 0

    -Nick

    • http://www.homestudiocorner.com Joe Gilder

      Interesting stuff, Nick. I still have issues with blanket statements like “The funniest part is, mastering engineers just start mastering a record without even listening to the record all the way through. Why? Because they have the THEIR OWN PRESET MASTERING SETTINGS THEY JUST RUN EVERYONE’S MIXES THROUGH.”

      That’s like me saying that every lead singer in the whole wide world is a self-absorbed prima donna. Or it’s like saying that all brain surgeons suffer from a God complex and are far too arrogant to be trusted with chopping up our brains.

      This DOES characterize SOME lead singers and surgeons, but it’s not even close to characterizing all of them.

      I’m excited to have my mastering engineer master my album (which I’m almost finished mixing) because I know him personally and I trust him. I certainly don’t think everyone absolutely must use a mastering engineer. And I completely agree that we are physically cable of clicking the right presets and setting the signal chain up properly, but I’d rather leave it to someone who does it day in and day out.

      If you want to master your own mixes, AWESOME! But I’d be careful not to tell the rest of us we’re being “duped” by scammers. In fact, your big dramatic statements actually hurt your argument. It reminds me of those folks on the popular forums who make these big sweeping generalizations. I’d take them much more seriously if they made their points WITHOUT dogging on a whole group of people who make their living offering a service that thousands of people value and are willing to pay for.

      I love a good debate. :-)

    • Joe

      Nick,

      Although I can appreciate some of your arguments, you make some naive generalisations that are simply not true.

      “The funniest part is, mastering engineers just start mastering a record without even listening to the record all the way through.”

      Actually, it’s vital to listen to the entire record at the very least once before starting the mastering process, and every mastering studio I am familiar with will do this. I know I can’t speak for everyone, and I’m sure there are places who will cut corners and not put a hundred percent into there work. But that goes for any line of work, doesn’t it?

      “Why? Because they have the THEIR OWN PRESET MASTERING SETTINGS THEY JUST RUN EVERYONE’S MIXES THROUGH.”

      Again, this is a generalisation with absolutely no evidence. How can you back this up? Have you observed the mastering process of every mastering studio out there? Most decent mastering studios use a significant amount of analogue gear, which will not even have ‘presets’, and each chain will be individually tailored and adjusted to suit the songs.

      “My typical mastering settings on the master fader are as follows”

      With all due respect…don’t you think it is a bit hypocritical to criticise people for using the same plugin settings and then go on to present a list of your own typical settings?

      “after 4 or 5 hours and 2 grand he’ll send you on your way.”

      Actually, I know engineers who will spend at least two days on an album, or longer, if it takes that long to get it right.

      “one is a random chain of plugins that may or may not be right for your music.”

      Again, this is simply not true. Any decent mastering studio will not use a ‘random chain of plugins’, and I’m pretty sure you don’t genuinely believe this either – try putting a random chain of plugins on your mix and see what happens.

      “Have you noticed that “mastering versions” of outboard compressors is just marketing jargon for stereo?”

      True, the mastering versions are generally very similar in design, but you wouldn’t expect a mastering version of a compressor to have an entirely different characteristic to the regular version, you’d probably expect it to sound the same. They usually have a few extra/different options that are more suited to mastering and, as far as I’m aware, at little or no extra cost, rather than having a different sound. Check out the Manley Slam as an example.

      “If you can mix and edit a good vocal track than you are qualified to master a record. Don’t sell yourself short. You’re talented enough to figure out a mastering chain.”

      I agree this is true to an extent, but by hiring a mastering engineer you’re also hiring years of experience, talent, a highly trained set of ears, a large amount of high quality and specialised equipment, a ludicrously high specification set of monitors and a specially treated studio. An analogy to this is that just because you have written a guitar part and can play the guitar, does not necessarily mean you are the best person to play it on a recording – chances are a professional session musician would play it better, tighter, and with better equipment if you are not a professional guitarist yourself. I’m not suggesting that you are incapable of producing good results when mastering a track yourself, but when you pay for a record to be mastered at a decent studio you are not paying for some bloke to run your track through some cheap plugins presets.

      “Bernie Grundman, Bob Ludwig, Ted Jensen, Herb Powers, Eddie Schreyer, and Chris Athens all use the same plugins you can buy from guitar center!!!!”

      Well that’s not entirely true either. These guys are using analog equipment from people like Manley, Avalon, Massenburg, SSL, Millennia, Weiss, SPL, TC Electronics, DCS, Pacific Microsonics to name but a few – this is not software you can buy off the internet for a hundred quid, this is the best stuff out there. You certainly wouldn’t find an Ampex ATR 102 at Guitar Centre. I recommend you take the time to actually have a look at these guys studios and check out what they’re using:
      http://www.gatewaymastering.com/mastering_thestudios.asp
      http://www.berniegrundmanmastering.com/technical.html
      http://www.sterling-sound.com/main.php

      Nick, this is not a personal attack on you, and I do agree with some of the things you say. I just think that it is wrong to attack talented people who work hard and take pride in their work without justification. It seems to me you have had a lot of bad experiences with mastering studios in the past – perhaps you have gone to the wrong places, or they have just not produced the results you were expecting. 99% of people I know who have their records mastered at a decent studio, whether they are friends, acquaintances or clients, have been amazed and entirely happy at the difference it makes.

      Mastering can make the difference between a great record and an astonishing one.

  • http://www.catchcamera.com Catch Camera

    Mastering Engineers will just end up compressing it themselves. Paying someone else to master your record is the BIGGEST scam ever. The best mastering guys are all charging 2000-4000 bucks a record, and when you’re done, you’ll quietly wonder if it did anything, EVERYONE thinks that because MASTERING does very little.

    It’s audio folks, your girlfriend couldn’t tell the difference between your mastering job and a pro’s.

    Spend the money you’d use to master on gear or PR for your record!!!!

    Bernie Grundman, Bob Ludwig, Ted Jensen, Herb Powers, Eddie Schreyer, and Chris Athens all use the same plugins you can buy from guitar center!!!!

    All these mastering guys take advantage of one simple fact, that people think they can pay their way into great sounding records. $2000 isn’t gonna change your chord progressions or the way a singer sings. It’s gonna do very very little. If you spend more than 3 % of your total recording budget on mastering you are an absolute fool.

    Mastering is the most overrated meme in the workflow of modern recording.

    Master records yourself.

    • http://www.homestudiocorner.com Joe Gilder

      Thanks for the input. Glad to have you as a reader!

      I have to say, though, that I very much disagree with you here. “Paying someone else to master your record is the BIGGEST scam ever.” I can’t really take a statement like this seriously. That would be like me saying that all microphones over $100 are a scam.

      You’re right, I may have the exact same plug-ins as the engineers you mentioned, but I don’t have the experience or the ears. Also, I’m so emotionally tied to my music that I NEED to send it to someone to give me a fresh, objective perspective.

      Also, I don’t think any of us home studio owners are thinking about dropping $4,000 on mastering our albums. I’ve gotten quotes from several different professional mastering engineers, and they ranged from $400 to $700.

      Again, I appreciate your opinion, and I get what you’re saying, but I personally don’t agree.

    • http://www.homestudiocorner.com Joe Gilder

      Also, what if I was to stick 10 people in a room with the EXACT same equipment Bruce Swedien used on Thriller, are you saying that every one of those 10 people will produce the exact same, great results?

      According to your logic, using the same exact equipment should equal the same exact results, right?

      • http://skonrokk.blogspot.com/ Sigurdór

        Ha!

    • http://skonrokk.blogspot.com/ Sigurdór

      You can’t be serious.

      • http://skonrokk.blogspot.com/ Sigurdór

        This was meant for Catch Camera.

    • http://www.deluxemastering.com Adam Dempsey

      To quote a colleague:
      “I have a drill and some alcohol but I still go to the dentist”.

      It always amazes me how discussions about mastering tend to lead towards compression, when often little to no compression is used on many projects involving great mixes.

      Professional mastering is the objective experienced assessment of a music project in the context of the whole, in a detailed, full range monitoring environment. That, alone – without the processing – makes it worthwhile.

  • Pingback: This Is My Father’s World « playing in peoria

  • Preshan

    I like to use the Massey CT4 compressor with a very light ratio on the mix bus. This is the most transparent and clear compressor I’ve heard, so it works well. Apparently Massey’s L2007 mastering limiter is also a great plugin for the master fader. As Vinnie mentioned, I also love putting the Massey Tapehead plugin on the mix bus just to “fuzzy things up” a little. Great post Joe!

  • http://kimlajoie.com Kim Lajoie

    Hi Joe,

    Scenario #1: Usually not a problem for me. I explain to all my artists and clients about the distinction between mixing and mastering. And a lot of my rough mixes get emailed as MP3 files – so they’re probably going straight into rotation with other commercial music (iTunes shuffle!). Can’t remember ever having a compliant about the volume level.

    Scenario #2: I’ve been guilty of this one! Usually it’s for projects that are a bizarre combination of having extremely short deadlines but high tolerance for bad sound. In these cases I just slap a mastering limiter on the end, turn it up to ‘burn’, and call it a day. Fortunately these projects are few and far between these days. ;-)

    Scenario #3: I’m actually doing something like this in my usual workflow – but right at the end of the process. Personally, I find mixing *into* a bus compressor is annoying because the mix shifts and changes too much while I’m working. I add a little compression right at the end, however, just to add a little colour and funk to the overall sound.

    I’ve got more thoughts on mix-bus compression, but that’s why I have my own blog:

    http://kimlajoie.wordpress.com/tag/mix-bus/

    ;-)

    -Kim.

  • Trent

    I worked with a guy that was an audio engineering major and Indiana University (one of the best music schools) and he said that they’re taught to avoid compressing the master fader and just using a limiter. Is this a good method?

    • http://www.homestudiocorner.com Joe Gilder

      I’d say that’s actually a WORSE approach. Limiters chop off peaks entirely. They can have dramatic impact on your dynamics. I personally would never use a limiter for mixing.

      Anyone else?

      • chrisw92

        I have one on a mix im currently doing (it was already on logic’s “music for video” template) but it sounds okay… mind its electronic type of music, I would more than likely take it off if it was another genre of music.

      • Trent

        Well I guess I should have said that this was based on a project that isn’t going to be sent to get mastered. Do you still think it’s a bad idea to use a limiter for this purpose?

      • http://sonicidiot.wordpress.com/ Perry Grinn

        Well Joe, I would agree with you here but there are soft compressors/limiters with a feature called Mix. The allows you to control the amount program material fed to the limiter. It actually works like parallel compression. And is a nice way to avoid non-linear destruction of your entire program and at the same time beef up your mix when dialed in at 50% or less.

        -Perry

        • http://www.deluxemastering.com Adam Dempsey

          That’s exactly what parallel compression is: uncompressed signal blended with compressed signal (typically at least 2:1, fast attack, threshold set for zero gain reduction in the softest passages). In effect it’s upwards compression (lifting the soft) as opposed to the usual downwards compression (pulling the loud down). It does this by virtue of the fact that as input level exceeds the threshold level, less compressed signal is fed to the output. It can add density – often great for a drums buss in mixing.

          • http://sonicidiot.wordpress.com/ Perry Grinn

            Well Adam I agree with the first part. Parallel Compression is uncompressed signal blended with compressed signal. But that’s it because, parallel compression is the means not the end.

            Check my site there is more on this, we’ve got audio samples and more discussion on the subject as well… http://sonicidiot.wordpress.com/2010/07/02/see-how-easily-you-can-learn-upward-compression/

            • http://www.deluxemastering.com Adam Dempsey

              The technique’s been around for a while. (see this, originally in Studio Sound, 1977: http://homepages.paradise.net.nz/~rhulse/Side%20Chain/sidechain.htm).

              Quote: It has been around since at least the early sixties and dozens of companies have used it as the basis of a wide range of products.

              • http://sonicidiot.wordpress.com/ Perry Grinn

                Sure Adam, like I wrote on my blog, I am not saying its new, it just hasn’t been written about much.

                Besides, that I don’t believe there is much new in audio, sure things get faster or smaller. But its the same stuff over and over. Even digital is just a copy of what analog is doing, only voltages are expressed differently.

      • Gregg Jackman

        Actually limiters don’t chop off peaks entirely. That’s what a clipper does. A limiter will squash the whole sound every time there is a peak above its working threshold by a ratio higher than 10/1. this means you need 10db more at the input to get 1db more out once the threshold has been reached. Chopping the top off the flagpole so to speak (which is what a clipper does) is often a superior audio experience as it leaves all the other flags that are at various points up the flagpole unaltered. This is what analogue tape does when you hit it hard and seems to be why we like it. The cliff faces are simply not recorded since the oxide coating can’t record peaks of + 14dB above full mod, although the meat of the sound is quite happily recorded. The tape makes no attempt to turn the whole shooting match down to accommodate the peak even for a moment. It just doesn’t take any notice of the peak. (“Can’t do” comes to mind)
        If you want a religious experience, mix something in your daw to half inch analogue then copy it back into your daw and compare the meters of your original output with the copy from the analogue. You’ll have just discovered the best limiter you ever heard.
        Oh since you mentioned Thriller take a look at the meters on Thriller. All annoying peaks missing. I would bet my next year’s pay the mix was printed to analogue at some stage before it became a record.
        We are now in a world where the best we can do is try to emulate this behaviour with number crunching. Fortunately it can be done.

        • http://www.homestudiocorner.com Joe Gilder

          Thanks Gregg…the problem is that this site is catering to home studio guys. The overwhelming majority of us will never own or use a tape machine. So while I’m sure it’s awesome to run a mix to half-inch tape, that’s probably not applicable to 99% of us on this site. :)

          • Gregg Jackman

            Hi, thanks for the response. My comment re analogue was really to help illustrate why we have to go through this “apparent level” nightmare. I haven’t seen a piece of half inch tape myself for a few years. I’ve been mixing in the box for the past ten years. My early attempts in the box were just as hopeless as anyone elses. I was meaning to be helpful and not trying to appear elitist. It’s still a good idea to look at Thriller on the meters in logic or tools or whatever you use. You will see nothing above the general meat of the sound showing. It all got dealt with.
            I think it too dangerous to leave your mix lighting meters up like a Christmas tree while being sonically inefficient. Why would you want nearly to finish making the record? Why not actually finish it?

            • Ian’s Shepherd

              I just want to quickly highlight that there’s a big difference between analogue and digital clipping. Digital clipping really does slice the top off the signal, and sounds bad.

              Analogue clipping is more a “soft” type of clipping, and can sound great on some material. I use both “soft” clipping and limiting when I master. Knowing the difference and choosing which is best for the music you’re working on is a great skill to learn.

  • http://bcfortenberry.tumblr.com/ B.C. Fortenberry

    I’ve been using the Waves PIE compressor for a few dB of gain reduction, mainly to glue everything together. I keep hearing good stuff about: http://www.cytomic.com/glue

  • http://songdemotips.wordpress.com Toby Baxley

    I generally apply a limiter to my master bus. In my case, it is the Cakewalk Boost 11 which is a really nice VST plug-in. I also use a tape simulator to warm up the mix and really glue it together.

    My track templates open up with those two plug-ins applied to my master bus, just so I don’t forget.

    That said, I may be guilty of points 2 and 3. :)

  • Lukas

    I would use a tiny bit of compression by driving an analog console simulation, courtesy of McDSP’s Analog Channel. The goal here is to glue the mix together and to have the peaks more controlable. I will normally stick it in early in the process, say after setting the rough levels and pans. Even 1-2dB of GR gives that smoother, nicer sound to it. Trick I’ve learnt recently is to use two instances of the plugin (both in multi-mono format) so that you could work independently on L and R channel, thus achieving closer-to-analog type of buss compression. At least that’s what they say…

  • http://www.myspace.com/diego.pozo Diego Pozo

    i have used compression on the master fader, mostly for loudness and to give my mixes a “mastered” illusion. i learned to apply the right amount by trial and error -my first mixes (ca. 2007) sounded like the audio equivalent of roadkill -squashed to death!

    i’d like to do a project properly though, and to me that means having my mixes mastered by someone else. fortunately, recording and mixing aren’t all that expensive, so that leaves me more dinero to invest on mastering. now, if i could only get a paying gig sometime… :P

  • http://www.myspace.com/dreamsilent Vinnie

    I use Massey Tapehead…not exactly a compressor, more a light very subtle warm tape distortion with some great limiting/compression qualities. Sorts out my peaks, adds glue and punch and keeps everything under control. I tend to keep all its settings at minimum just to hold it together, I use more driven settings on individual tracks, especially a drum bus. I don’t think I can live without Tape Sim now!

    I only tend to use it if I get some really unruly peaks though, otherwise I try my best to keep levels down in the mix.

  • chrisw92

    I have never used compression (no matter how small) on my master track, its just something I don’t do… I don’t use reverb or EQ either, thinking about it I don’t know why.

    but I may do when I bounce a song im mixing for in my car as I do have to turn the USB/CD player up a lot when im listening to a song im mixing (and then it plays the next song on my usb drive and suddenly im death)

  • Kevin Hilman

    Like you, I only use a very small ratio: somthing like 2:1 or even 1.5:1.
    I have yet to learn the art of using more agressive settings without my mixes suffering terribly for it. I will soon be sending out some tracks for mastering so I look forward to getting the mastering engineer’s take on whether or not I should send my music to them with or without compression.

  • http://www.thankyounasa.com Simon

    Good points. I typically use it for scenario #1, but have tried it occasionally for “glue” (and good point about using it from the beginning).

    Out of curiosity, how else do you set up the compressor as glue, besides the light ratio setting?