For the sake of discussion, imagine you're mixing/mastering one song in isolation. That is, not as part of an album or other collection. Is there anything you can do in two steps (exporting the project mix, then importing it into a mastering project) that you couldn't do in one step by just adding your "mastering" effects to the master bus?
 
For years I've been doing this in two steps even though I'm never going to send my mix off to a mastering professional for tweaking. In the case of an album, I can see where a separate mastering step can help you match levels and EQ to make a set of songs fit together sonically, but I'm not sure what this extra step gives you in the case of a single song.
 
Your thoughts?

I'm just a novice DIY Mix/Master guy ... I've taken Mastering courses online.  The single reason I prefer the 2-step process (Separate Mastering Project) is to keep myself far away from the impulse of touching the mix while in the mastering process.  With my finished stereo mix and my reference tracks located in the Mastering Project, I have all that I need to work with and my Mix remains a constant.  I believe this let me know whether my Mix is sound or still needs some work and remains my reference point.  I have a separate Mastering Project template that contains all of my preferred plug-ins for that purpose.  That being said, "yes" you can just do it in the Mastering Bus ... but in my case, based upon the sheer number of plug-ins that I use, it would only add CPU overhead to a possibly already large over-tapped Project that may cause complications of there very own.  Just my thoughts and how I work.

better to use software that is designed strictly for mastering, IMHO

Which software?

henkejs
For the sake of discussion, imagine you're mixing/mastering one song in isolation. That is, not as part of an album or other collection. Is there anything you can do in two steps (exporting the project mix, then importing it into a mastering project) that you couldn't do in one step by just adding your "mastering" effects to the master bus?
 
For years I've been doing this in two steps even though I'm never going to send my mix off to a mastering professional for tweaking. In the case of an album, I can see where a separate mastering step can help you match levels and EQ to make a set of songs fit together sonically, but I'm not sure what this extra step gives you in the case of a single song.
 
Your thoughts?

best is 2 steps, 2 professionals ...
 
for DIY IMHO 2 steps are still preferable (give it a break in between to have fresh ears, make only subtle changes because that's what's mastering is about ... it's not remixing, that's a different animal)
 
mastering has totally different objectives than mixing. so I'd even recommend 2 steps with 2 applications so you do not twist the same knobs in the same plugs again ...

When I have put Ozone across my master bus it caused noises and stopping. Apparently those look-ahead plugins are too much for my equipment when added onto everything I'm doing to individual tracks. I could probably fix this by adjusting buffer settings, but it all "works" better if I just mix my song, open the stereo wav file in Sound Forge, and apply mastering FX there.
 
Bottom line here comes from the smartest thing Craig Anderton has said: "We are making music, not audio." Do whatever it takes to that end. There's no right or wrong if you get the results you're looking for.

Thanks for the replies. It's good to see people's perspectives on this. I'm sure professional mastering or even specialized mastering software would be a big improvement over what I do now. But as I mentioned in the thread title, I'm wondering about what people do in SONAR. For hobbyists like me, it's a constant struggle to decide where to put my limited $$ in order to get the best bang for the buck.
 
I see the advantages of the two step process, especially when system resources are being pushed. It seems like I always hear things in the mastering stage that need to be fixed in the original mix, so back and forth I go. . .

Just one more item ... I've used LANDR (freebie mp3) to test my Mastering ability (or lack thereof) and that has worked well for me as a baseline for my mastering.  I even gone so far as to use the LANDR mp3 as a reference track in my Mastering Project (for the same mix, of course).

lick4lick
Which software?

there are lots of good options out there.
 
i use wavelab.
 
there is ozone.....
slate....
ik multimedia...
sonoris....
Har Bal.....
sound forge.....
and mastering specific plugins as well.....
Waves.....(what i use)
sonnox.....
just a plethora of stuff........
a google search should put you on the proper path.
 
 
 
 
 

Yes there are two paths you can go by but in the long run, there's still time to change the road you're on.....  words made famous by Zepplin....  and yeah it kind of applies to mixing and mastering too.
 
There is the two step process and it has it's advantages. You aren't tempted to screw with the mix... and it gives you a degree of isolation from the original mix.
 
However, putting Ozone in the master buss, as you suggested is the method I use. It's quick, and easy, and I start working from the very start on the final product.   You have to be aware and think ahead about the things you are doing.  One thing you do now may have an effect on something that's yet to be recorded in the mix.  Keeping plugs to a minimum and as many tracks dry as is possible is one way I try to work in order to minimize adverse reactions later on.

If I was mixing with the goal of putting a commercial CD together, I would very likely be doing it with the 2 step method. But since that is not my goal with the music I record, I choose the one step method.

Neither way is wrong.... one way is the preferred way by many folks in the business, so I respect that.  I like to color outside of the lines.