Should I use Masterbuss Processing (Compression, mainly) at all??

[jamcat]

Putting a compressor on the 2-buss / MASTER channel is NOT the same as mastering compression.

Every mixing console has a master bus. Historically, when a multitrack recording is mixed down, it comes out the mixing console’s master bus to 2-track tape. That is done by the mixing engineer at the end of the mixing session. (Now it comes out the DAW's master bus to a stereo file.)

That 2-track mixdown is then sent off to a mastering engineer. He will do all of the mastering EQ and compression and whatever else. He works exclusively on the final stereo mix to create the final master(s) for various media. The reason why he’s needed was to make all these different versions, because it sounds different on tape and vinyl and CD, so each needs different treatment to sound optimal for its given format. He specialises in knowing all of the idiosyncrasies of all the different media, and how to compensate for them.

Tape needs high frequencies boosted to compensate for what it loses. CDs need to stay below -1dBFS to not digitally clip on most CD players. Vinyl needs extra compression to keep the record within its limited dynamic range, or bad things happen. Vinyl even sounds different depending on where it is on the record, so they have to account for that, too.

Bottom line is a mastering engineer’s job is not to give a second opinion or put a second coat of paint on a sloppy mix, despite what you may have read.

Today a mastering engineer will put your recording in the proper loudness / dynamic range for various streaming services. In all honesty, this is something you can do yourself. They’re not voodoo priests even though some people talk about them like they are.

Our concern is with DAW mixing, and for our purposes, the mixbus compressor in question is found on the mixing console’s stereo mixbus. Its job is to be the last line of defence against unexpected spikes so they don’t distort the tape during mixdown (or blowout any speakers or ears). It’s a totally different beast than a mastering compressor.

I keep reading about this “glue” from the mixbus compressor, specifically the SSL 4000 buss compressor. I really don’t know what that’s about. Some arsehole said it once in an interview and it’s entered recording mythology since.

Anyways, I’d say, yes, use some kind of compression at the very end of your mixbus, for the same reason that engineers used it back in the day: to tame peaks so they don’t distort during mixdown. The mixbus compressor shouldn’t be doing much of anything 99% of the time. You could use a classical SSL mixbus model, or you could use a look ahead peak limiter that catches inter-sample peaks (ISP). ISPs are where the samples don’t exceed 0 on paper, but the curve between them implies a peak above 0 to the reconstruction filter. Those kinds of limiters didn’t exist back in the day, and weren’t relevant for analog recording, but they’re the thing to save your ass in digital recording.

In all honesty, I use one of each: brainworx townhouse buss compressor followed by IK Stealth Limiter to catch any ISPs that might slip through.

In between those two, I use tape machine modeling, to simulate the 2-track tape it would have been mixed down to.

[andymcbain]

Plenty of mix engineers are mixing into all sorts of things on the master bus, all the time. It complicates things, as you say. So the key is having the confidence to know that whatever processing you’re using is actually helping you achieve the result that you want and not doing more harm than good. As usual that’s down to trial and error, critical listening and A/Bing with reference tracks.

I’d completely agree that master bus processing is an entirely separate thing to the mastering stage. It’s just another way of shaping your mix.

[Synthman2000]

Whether you use master bus processing, and that can cover a huge variety of different types of processing is dependent on many factors. I would say unless you are doing it for specific sound that is imparted by a compressor then there is not much need to. I don't put much at all on my stereo output, definitely not eq or compression but that is because I can mix my own tracks nicely. I have access to mastering grade acoustics and monitoring.

This topic alone can be spoken about in great depth. You need to know what you are doing to know whether it is beneficial or not. If in doubt it is best left without.. instead control everything in your mix separately where it is of greatest consequence.

With regards choices of kit, someone said you should not choose an engineer by kit list. Well of course not.

However kit list and especially monitoring choices are important. Once an engineer has used top tier monitoring chain including monitors, DACs/ADCs and amplification and in a superb acoustic they don't go back. I can guarantee to you that the quality of sound from actual mastering grade monitors will totally destroy near fields below around $2,000.00 - And I mean destroy. So I would suggest it could be not such a great plan using someone who does not have monitoring that is superior than my own, at any price. Surely you want them to be able to hear things you may be unable to by having equipment that can present more information not the same that you can hear. In terms of details and accuracy of sound.

Maybe that person has bionic hearing I think not.

The truth of the matter is 99pct of people making music have not had the chance to hear truly top level monitoring in a good room. You can say it does not matter as an amateur online but it does, especially when you are trying to produce superb results consistently with many genres of music.

How do you think gear is selected to do a job ? Through professional listening experience and knowledge built from decades of persistent use.

Someone using plug ins and a set of monitors may well do a better job than yourself at mastering. It is possible, maybe, though exceptional.

That would be the exception to the rule. The very vast majority of mastering engineers who are well regarded are using tools that are up to the job and typically they are costly items.

There is simply no way I would go backwards from high end accurate monitoring for my clients. The internet is a great thing but there are many many myths about audio, there are many idiosyncrasies, details that remain undisclosed, exceptions, oddities, misunderstandings and blanket statements that are oft repeated without the discussion of all important detail. At the highest level of audio, details count.

Details are hard work and have many dependencies.

And of course a kit list that can include $100 pieces of software, but rarely exclusively.

As far as pricing goes, the range of pricing is indeed wide. The range of results will also be wide also irrelevant of the price. You will have people who reckon themselves who have little experience who charge higher than their ability. You will have people charging too low for their ability, people who price themselves about right for their ability and gear, you will have people who are arguably worth their high price, you will have people who are not mastering engineers but fool people into thinking they are (everyone is a mastering engineer in 2023 right?). You will have mixing mastering engineers who are jack of all trades master of neither.

You need to be in a position to know good mastering from bad mastering and you can get good or bad mastering at any price point.

What you want is to find out who knows what they are talking about, that do you a good job at a price you find good. Test them out with a single.. see what response you get, how does it all go, how is the result, how does it feel with that person.

And if you think you can do your own mastering, then it is self finalization not mastering.

I hope that clears it up for you !

[VELLTONE MUSIC]

Whether you use master bus processing, and that can cover a huge variety of different types of processing is dependent on many factors. I would say unless you are doing it for specific sound that is imparted by a compressor then there is not much need to. I don't put much at all on my stereo output, definitely not eq or compression but that is because I can mix my own tracks nicely. I have access to mastering grade acoustics and monitoring.

This topic alone can be spoken about in great depth. You need to know what you are doing to know whether it is beneficial or not. If in doubt it is best left without.. instead control everything in your mix separately where it is of greatest consequence.

With regards choices of kit, someone said you should not choose an engineer by kit list. Well of course not.

However kit list and especially monitoring choices are important. Once an engineer has used top tier monitoring chain including monitors, DACs/ADCs and amplification and in a superb acoustic they don't go back. I can guarantee to you that the quality of sound from actual mastering grade monitors will totally destroy near fields below around $2,000.00 - And I mean destroy. So I would suggest it could be not such a great plan using someone who does not have monitoring that is superior than my own, at any price. Surely you want them to be able to hear things you may be unable to by having equipment that can present more information not the same that you can hear. In terms of details and accuracy of sound.

Maybe that person has bionic hearing I think not.

The truth of the matter is 99pct of people making music have not had the chance to hear truly top level monitoring in a good room. You can say it does not matter as an amateur online but it does, especially when you are trying to produce superb results consistently with many genres of music.

How do you think gear is selected to do a job ? Through professional listening experience and knowledge built from decades of persistent use.

Someone using plug ins and a set of monitors may well do a better job than yourself at mastering. It is possible, maybe, though exceptional.

That would be the exception to the rule. The very vast majority of mastering engineers who are well regarded are using tools that are up to the job and typically they are costly items.

There is simply no way I would go backwards from high end accurate monitoring for my clients. The internet is a great thing but there are many many myths about audio, there are many idiosyncrasies, details that remain undisclosed, exceptions, oddities, misunderstandings and blanket statements that are oft repeated without the discussion of all important detail. At the highest level of audio, details count.

Details are hard work and have many dependencies.

And of course a kit list that can include $100 pieces of software, but rarely exclusively.

As far as pricing goes, the range of pricing is indeed wide. The range of results will also be wide also irrelevant of the price. You will have people who reckon themselves who have little experience who charge higher than their ability. You will have people charging too low for their ability, people who price themselves about right for their ability and gear, you will have people who are arguably worth their high price, you will have people who are not mastering engineers but fool people into thinking they are (everyone is a mastering engineer in 2023 right?). You will have mixing mastering engineers who are jack of all trades master of neither.

You need to be in a position to know good mastering from bad mastering and you can get good or bad mastering at any price point.

What you want is to find out who knows what they are talking about, that do you a good job at a price you find good. Test them out with a single.. see what response you get, how does it all go, how is the result, how does it feel with that person.

And if you think you can do your own mastering, then it is self finalization not mastering.

I hope that clears it up for you !

You read my mind Entire legendary super powers of mastering engineers are probably trading tricks of people with more experience and better tools.
How to pay 50 euro to somebody using questionable software and speakers ,who start doing it 2 years ago just make some extra money from naive people?
I have 10 years birthday this year sound designing and if a told you i can do thinks you will never learn and do better than me will be absolute bullsht, probably to convince you to buy my product whatever it is...
After thousands of working hours somehow i am not impressed by statements and advertising,but wanna hear really great sound made by pro with really expensive equipment i can't afford. at the moment.
Wathing a lot of videos about mastering in youtube - mastering engineers do basically the same things i try,but have better hardware tools and way more experience.
I think its process of learning: how to and what to,as everything else...
Sorry if it seems as denying of mastering engineers or something,just point the facts - no magic and wizards,just learning and getting better during the process ...

[kritikon]

TBH it depends on how you define mastering. The old definition of mastering is finalizing completed mixes and tweaking to fit groups of songs together in an album etc. Most people now would refer to mastering as the mixing and finalizing of mixes because they're likely not going to go for that extra stage at the end of it all. And it's changed precisely because it's so much easier to do it yourself than it used to be - going on for 20 years or so. If I were to be pedantic, it's mix engineering, but things have changed, definitions have moved and most people here won't know or want the traditional"master engineer". Everything I've commented on is pretty well mix engineering, but like old king Canute said - only a twat fights against the tide. It might make some feel smug to poopoo it, but most times anyone is talking about mastering, they're talking about mixing and finalizing mixes - they're likely not going to do any mastering. It is what it is. If you're Charles Dickens, then continue to live in the past.

They call it mastering because it's doing stuff to your master channel. Technically wrong, but TBH even I really don't care about how it used to be done 20 years ago. I learnt some good stuff from the hw days, but a lot of it simply does not apply nowadays. I use mostly hw synths but I don't do it anywhere close to how I did it with a real mixing desk and a DAT recorder and rack comp/gates/FX etc. Same with mastering.

[jamcat]

They call it mastering because it's doing stuff to your master channel.

No, it's mastering because it is creating a master copy from which all copies are made.

[Synthman2000]

The penultimate posts on this thread/topic are good examples of the confusion people have surrounding mastering. I could write an essay but I do not have time. It is very difficult to have a meaningful discussion when you cannot really understand the posts, maybe because of language or maybe just not understanding.

I mainly come here for the fun of spare time music making and synthesis. I will save in depth talk about details for my clients and their music. No one can know everything, even if the internet may make you feel you do.If your music sounds like the best music productions out there, then you know it all.

If not you have some things to learn yet.

[vurt]

With regards choices of kit, someone said you should not choose an engineer by kit list. Well of course not.

However kit list and especially monitoring choices are important. Once an engineer has used top tier monitoring chain including monitors, DACs/ADCs and amplification and in a superb acoustic they don't go back. I can guarantee to you that the quality of sound from actual mastering grade monitors will totally destroy near fields below around $2,000.00 - And I mean destroy. So I would suggest it could be not such a great plan using someone who does not have monitoring that is superior than my own, at any price.

between the list of albums on the previous page, and you telling us you own nice gear, which one tells us most about the quality of work?

i think given he has worked with major labels, and some rather high profile clients, his gear list isnt likely to be stock fruity plugins.

[kritikon]

They call it mastering because it's doing stuff to your master channel.

No, it's mastering because it is creating a master copy from which all copies are made.

No, my point is the majority of people making music call it mastering because they're doing stuff to their master channel - i.e. mix. I don't give a flying f**k why it used to be called mastering. Common use terminology changes. Pedanticise all you want...

[jamcat]

They call it mastering because it's doing stuff to your master channel.

No, it's mastering because it is creating a master copy from which all copies are made.

No, my point is the majority of people making music call it mastering because they're doing stuff to their master channel - i.e. mix. I don't give a flying f**k why it used to be called mastering. Common use terminology changes. Pedanticise all you want...

So you’re talking about amateurs talking out of their arses. It’s not mastering unless it is being formatted for distribution media. That has not changed, regardless of what ignorant things are said by ignorant people.

Of course if they are distributing via mp3 directly from their mixdown, then I guess you could call it mastering. It probably consists of jacking up the bass then squashing it to death with a loudness maximizer and calling it a day.

However, if they are distributing to streaming services, they are doing themselves a disservice, because they’re getting turned down to -14 LUFS. This is where having a professional who knows what they’re doing helps.

[Synthman2000]

With regards choices of kit, someone said you should not choose an engineer by kit list. Well of course not.

However kit list and especially monitoring choices are important. Once an engineer has used top tier monitoring chain including monitors, DACs/ADCs and amplification and in a superb acoustic they don't go back. I can guarantee to you that the quality of sound from actual mastering grade monitors will totally destroy near fields below around $2,000.00 - And I mean destroy. So I would suggest it could be not such a great plan using someone who does not have monitoring that is superior than my own, at any price.

between the list of albums on the previous page, and you telling us you own nice gear, which one tells us most about the quality of work?

i think given he has worked with major labels, and some rather high profile clients, his gear list isnt likely to be stock fruity plugins.

The thread is about master bus processing. I answered on that and it veered off into mastering. I am not here to criticize an individual. I can speak about what most mastering engineers have understood with regards to equipping themselves, most willing to proudly show their studios. I am not here to name drop and shout about what I have done. Here I am interested in synths and other production related chats.

You are very serious all of a sudden vurt. Between a list of bands and labels etc. who is sharing actual professional knowledge on this thread ? To expect a little respect for that would not be unreasonable otherwise I will swiftly leave the topic, not a problem.

[vurt]

i meant no disrespect, just pointing out that examples of a person's work when choosing an engineer is important


all just part of the wider conversation.

[Synthman2000]

I did not feel disrespect, but I did not feel any respect either. It is good though as I have learnt to keep away from any topics that are not related to synthesis.

[VELLTONE MUSIC]

TBH it depends on how you define mastering. The old definition of mastering is finalizing completed mixes and tweaking to fit groups of songs together in an album etc. Most people now would refer to mastering as the mixing and finalizing of mixes because they're likely not going to go for that extra stage at the end of it all. And it's changed precisely because it's so much easier to do it yourself than it used to be - going on for 20 years or so. If I were to be pedantic, it's mix engineering, but things have changed, definitions have moved and most people here won't know or want the traditional"master engineer". Everything I've commented on is pretty well mix engineering, but like old king Canute said - only a twat fights against the tide. It might make some feel smug to poopoo it, but most times anyone is talking about mastering, they're talking about mixing and finalizing mixes - they're likely not going to do any mastering. It is what it is. If you're Charles Dickens, then continue to live in the past.

They call it mastering because it's doing stuff to your master channel. Technically wrong, but TBH even I really don't care about how it used to be done 20 years ago. I learnt some good stuff from the hw days, but a lot of it simply does not apply nowadays. I use mostly hw synths but I don't do it anywhere close to how I did it with a real mixing desk and a DAT recorder and rack comp/gates/FX etc. Same with mastering.

Agree,some people focus on playing instrument,other recording it,some deal with sound design,other do compositions,but mastering engineers should thing how to make final mix more interesting,experimenting,learning so on for years - i guess from engineer to engineer difference will be from Earth to The Moon.
It's entire new world with it's rules and specifications,i do not know nothing about and i am curious how far i can get learning it.
Cheers

[VELLTONE MUSIC]

The penultimate posts on this thread/topic are good examples of the confusion people have surrounding mastering. I could write an essay but I do not have time. It is very difficult to have a meaningful discussion when you cannot really understand the posts, maybe because of language or maybe just not understanding.

I mainly come here for the fun of spare time music making and synthesis. I will save in depth talk about details for my clients and their music. No one can know everything, even if the internet may make you feel you do.If your music sounds like the best music productions out there, then you know it all.

If not you have some things to learn yet.

Share some of your wisdom with us (like Gandalf will:):):),is thee easy way to keep transparency of the final mix and the same way to sature it during mastering process,what plugin emulations could do that?