I'm trying to understand the difference between a track or mix effect and a mastering effect. For instance - why use a "mastering" compressor or EQ rather than another when "mastering"?
I'm sure this has been discussed many times. Tried to find it in search - so if anyone could direct me to a discussion or article - that would be greatly appreciated.
Thanks
Steven
Tract/Mix/Mastering Effects
-
- KVRAF
- 1927 posts since 30 Oct, 2003 from Frolicking in Dirac's Ocean
-
- KVRist
- 74 posts since 2 Feb, 2005 from Champaign, IL
Some EQs use a lot of CPU. I think authors label them mastering EQs because they realize it's not realistic to use them on a track.
Also, a lot of mastering compressors or limiters have a "look ahead" feature which would introduce unwanted latency if used as a track effect.
Also, a lot of mastering compressors or limiters have a "look ahead" feature which would introduce unwanted latency if used as a track effect.
-
- KVRAF
- 8705 posts since 24 May, 2002 from Tutukaka, New Zealand
There's not really any difference. Of course there are different types of Eqs and different types of compressors, but it boils down to whichever one you personally think flavours your master the best to your own ears is the mastering FX of choice.
If it's labelled as "mastering FX" then it's either targetting a particular market, or more likely just trying to bump up its price by appealing to the uneducated. For example, something like Ozone...obviously it's designed to be mainly used as masterFX - simply because it contains all of the FX that you'd generally want to use at some point in your mastering. But it's perfectly useable and setup as a channelFX too. You wouldn't use it in any different way, apart from maybe the ferocity of your settings is all. It doesn't have any extra features that points it out as a masterFX thing - all of its features can be found in channelFX.
And any decently specified compressor has exactly the same parameters in a channel comp and a master comp. Just that some comps sound better over masters for whatever reason (such as slow envelopes, a particular colouration etc).
If it's labelled as "mastering FX" then it's either targetting a particular market, or more likely just trying to bump up its price by appealing to the uneducated. For example, something like Ozone...obviously it's designed to be mainly used as masterFX - simply because it contains all of the FX that you'd generally want to use at some point in your mastering. But it's perfectly useable and setup as a channelFX too. You wouldn't use it in any different way, apart from maybe the ferocity of your settings is all. It doesn't have any extra features that points it out as a masterFX thing - all of its features can be found in channelFX.
And any decently specified compressor has exactly the same parameters in a channel comp and a master comp. Just that some comps sound better over masters for whatever reason (such as slow envelopes, a particular colouration etc).
- GRRRRRRR!
- 17804 posts since 14 Jun, 2001 from Somewhere you're not!
I've tried several different Multi-band compressors and I really don't get it. At the end of the day its the relatively subtle use of PSP MixSaturator and the overall effect of some kind of volume-maximining limiter that is the most important aspect of mastering for me.
NOVAkILL : Legion GO, AMD Z1x, 16GB RAM, Win11 | Audient EVO 8 | Lumi Keys | Studio Pro 8
Korg Odyssey, bx-oberhausen, Proxima, PolyMax, GR8, JP6K, Union, Atomika,
Invader 2, Flow Motion, Olga, TRK 01, Thorn, Spire, VG Iron
Korg Odyssey, bx-oberhausen, Proxima, PolyMax, GR8, JP6K, Union, Atomika,
Invader 2, Flow Motion, Olga, TRK 01, Thorn, Spire, VG Iron
