My own view is that starting out thinking in terms of what effects chain to use is a mistake, especially for a beginner.

The better place to start is by working out what you're trying to achieve, and then working out what you need to do it. What's your objective here?

I hesitate to say whether a given selection of effects is good or bad, as that depends on all kinds of factors, but a good rule of thumb is only do what's necessary. Good mastering of a good mix tends to be fairly minimal.

UnderTow

Poco

As is the case with all acoustic environments, different frequencies from different instrument reach our ears at different levels and times due to the distance the instrument is from our ears, as well as absorbtion and reflection.

The speed of sound is the same at all frequencies. Delaying sounds at different frequencies is not something that happens in the real world. It can work, I believe Aphex were the first to do this with their aural exciter but I could be wrong, but it isn't the way sound behaves naturally. 

Not necessarily true. Humidity can affect low frequencies more than high frequencies.

The lows of a sax may bounce off something close to us, and the highs may bounce off something further away, providing three dimensional sound. With multiband effects, as the sax traverses the frequency regions, its sound can be treated in different ways.  In this case, its how much of that sound sounds like a reflection.

Not true. Some objects might be more or less reflective at different frequencies but there is no way you are going to emulate that by changing the inter-channel timing of a whole mix at different frequencies. The way to emulate a space and proximity/distance of sound sources to objects and walls is with good use of reverb during mixing. 

Again with the absolutes. The lower the frequency, the wider the dispersion pattern.  In simple terms, this is why you can park a subwoofer in a corner somewhere and get a fairly uniform spread.  The same is not possible with higher frequencies, even if the source is a 360 degree radiator.  So the variance of direct / radiating principles is valid - the sax example is not bad.

Different frequencies create differently timed reflections (delays in this case) creating the effect of three dimensional sound, even in an anechoic environment.

Not true. Different frequencies might have different levels after being bounced off different objects or simply due to the damping of air but they will not have different timings. Of course different reflections from different objects will have different timings but again, that is best dealt with during mixing with judicious use of reverb.

Wrong again.

     Within a very few milliseconds,  given equal levels from a stereo source,  the first signal to arrive is interpreted as the source of the sound.  This is simple to demonstrate - send a mono signal to a pair of busses, one panned left, one right.  Stick a 1-2 mS delay in the right sight (make sure you match gain) and your perception will be a shift to the left.  This is controllable with incremental increases / decreases in delay time.  After 6-7 mS, combing will occur, and then you will begin to hear distinct sounds.  In the early 80s a commercially made digital pan pot was produced using this philosophy as a way to lose the razor thin stereo imaging area available in an arena, but it was way too expensive for regular usage.

   

It is remarkable how very small delays between the left and right channels can shift the perceived direction that the sound is coming from.  When applied to an entire mix, the sound seems to change the point from which it is emanating in a way that is similar to an acoustic environment with real, discreet sound sources.  It sounds like it is coming from all around you, which is of course, the desired trick.

And which of course is not natural at all and not in any way similar to a real acoustic environment. Changing the relative timing of the left and right channel might give an instant wow factor just like that those "Space effect" functions on cheap ghetto blasters in the 80's had but there is absolutely nothing natural about it and it will cause comb filtering and cancellation when summed to mono. It also removes focus and makes everything a bit of a spacial blur.

<Sighs>.  This can be used in an entirely natural manner.  when you have a group of musicians on a stage playing locally amplified or acoustic instruments, with a singer though a PA.  you will hear a variety of sources arriving at different times, the degree of difference varying - the closer to the stage, the more significant the time differences.  By applying these same degrees of delay from center to a recording of the musicians taken individually, you can achieve an emulation of their original stage placement.  By exaggerating the degree of delay, you end up with a mix suitable for car audio that extends the virtual stage beyond the car doors.  (I am not discussing where this should be applied, although the mix allows far more flexibility - just disputing that use of delay is categorically unlike a natural environment)   

As this thread is about mastering one's own mixes, I suggest people try to get a wide stereo mix in the mix itself and not in the master. IMO it is best to make some elements wide through whatever technique (from the most conventional like double tracking guitars to whatever tickles your fancy) and use other elements to fill the whole sound stage from left to right. Some elements should be in perfect mono, some could be panned at 11 / 1 o'çlock, others at 10 / 2 o'clock etc. Not only can you get a wider spread this way, it will keep the mono elements much more focused and they will have more punch and impact.

Again, use of delay is far more useful than volume based panning in placing instruments.  Both can be used together.  Conventional volume panning is lost on anyone not close to a center line.

Cheers... Grif

<Very few absolutes in sound - including it's speed>

If you are dealing with full stereo mixes and don't have access to the individual elements, in my experience using M/S techniques is the best way to widen things naturally. (For instance EQing or compressing the side channel of an M/S encoded signal). This is perfectly mono compatible and keeps punch and focus.

UnderTow

SteveGriffiths

Bristol_Jonesey


Indeed.

A perfect mix will need NO mastering.

Until you want to put it on the same CD as the perfect mix you did the week before :)


Cheers




Grif

Yeah. The "perfect mix" being talked about here is theoretically fine, but seldom turns up in reality. But BJ does make a good point that's worth having in mind as a theoretical benchmark.

SteveGriffiths

Bristol_Jonesey


Indeed.

A perfect mix will need NO mastering.

Until you want to put it on the same CD as the perfect mix you did the week before :)


Cheers




Grif

Correct!

Then we get into the realm of REAL, traditional mastering where the ME will attempt to achieve a similar sound & level for each song to maintain album consistency.