+1 Chuck ... numerous producers/MEs, iirc,  have recently 'discovered' Ozone's plastic playdough factory issues.  The above article was written over 2 years ago, while MEs were learning the new ME tools (per SoundCraft  SongCraft above)

The same is true with the Wave's L Limiters/Maximizers.  Max-Output is so plastic and toylike ... ME's rarely rarely reach for Waves anymore.  Wave's also sits poorly (*bridged*) in 64-bit systems, like Sonar 8.5.3 64.

The Slate Digital (64 bit) requires manual release adjustments; I noticed yesterday, my kicks 'echoed' ... from too fast of a release. 

But the Slate was written with hip-hop and metal in mind. 

Ozone does its job exceedingly well for the beginner-ME ... but not the pro-ME. 

The fact is, I rarely read Ozone touted by pro-producers anymore.  Ozone-5 is become a beginner's tool (despite its silly imaging that costs $1000 after January 2nd).  Furthermore, No one at the UAD forum speaks of Ozone, when comparing maximizers and limiters.  And they don't speak highly of their own precision maximizer nor precision limiters either.

The fact is, most are like Jeff Evans, who like others, prefer Xenon,
but also: Sonnox, Elephant, Slate, and Fab ... over everything ... iirc. ... depending on the material.

You and I are intermediate producers aspiring for pro-level masters.  You and I must know the real paradigms.  Currently, pro-level masters defy the stoic Katz paradigms as well. 

Your ears and your target audiences are what they are;

Ozone (4) won't disappear from producer/ME palettes anytime soon; its auto-release features get things in the ballpark, IMHO. 

Ozone is a safe and excellent 1st reach tool for all of us.  But Ozone is not for serious mastering, IMO.
 
(Edited for sloppy grammar)

Ok Philip, here are a few things to think about. Two screen shots here.

1. This is a song I'm working on for my instrumental guitar album. This is exported out in Sonar at -3dB peak. No compression of any kind or limiters on my master bus.



HQ pic: http://dl.dropbox.com/u/4909348/DannyTest.JPG

2. Same song with me auto-leveling the mix as well as taking care of the peaks that I found a bit offensive and in need of love. Again, final output is -3dB, no mastering, no comps, no limiting of any kind.



HQ pic: http://dl.dropbox.com/u/4909348/DannyTestLevelPeak.JPG

See how much more consistent the second pic is? And...it's also louder because the peaks were dealt with manually instead of allowing a limiter to just control them. This preserves dynamics and also allows for you to get better results from your comps and limiters during mastering. They don't have to work as hard which stops any artifacts from creeping through. All the comp has to do is even things out...the limiter will further even things out and if you decide to jump on it a bit harder than normal, you still maintain dynamics because the stray peaks are all controlled now from the start. It took me about 10 minutes to level that out while controlling the peaks with various tools based on where the peak came from and what the best method would be to control it. I normally go for even more peak control but for this example, it's easy to see the differences. Doing this song the right way would add about 5-10 more minutes to the job.

The second half of the song intensifies which is why the wave form appears bigger. I want it to hit harder there and climb the level ladder a bit. But once I compress and limit it, it will look and sound beautiful. It actually sounds really killer the way it is right now so I won't have to do much to it. 

The first mix rides at about -18dB RMS average and -13dB RMS max. The second -17dB RMS average and -11dB RMS max while both showing -3dB peak output. When I master the second one, it will maintain all that it has but will have a nice eq curve on it and the comp, MBL (if needed) and limiter will just keep it nice and tight while raising the volume a bit. Because this is more of a ballad guitar solo type piece, I don't feel the need to jack the limiter on it. Some things just don't sound good mastered loud even though you maintain all dynamics. It's nice to give the listeners a volume break without being right to the numbers level wise with every tune on the album. I don't make my stuff super loud anyway, but in this tune, I'll probably have it -2-3dB lower than the more powerful tunes. I won't tell until I work on the entire thing at once though.

Now keep in mind...this is MY tune. When mastering for others...the peaks could be way more as well as be way more drastic. The more you have, the more chance of those peaks setting the pace for where your final output will be as well as sometimes just messing with a mix depending on how strong the peak is or where it comes from. A peak point should never be the captain of the mix and without care and consideration, that's exactly what it will be. The more we control peaks properly, the more consistent the tune will be as well as maintaining dynamics and over-all levels when needed.

The limiter/compressor will not have to work as hard, so you use less and this can stop the artifacts we hear in mixes. Too many people just throw an eq curve on a mix, compress/limit, make it loud and it's done. It's rare those mixes sound any good. This is also why I don't particularly care for those "all in one mastering suites". They are just too limited in my opinion, and there's no way they are going to hang with a project that is done with tender love and care while focusing on all the RIGHT stuff. Sure, many get good results...but then again "good" will always be in the ears of the beholder. :)

-Danny 

Yep that's ugly Danny!  Nice brick!

Philip-  I don't know that I would even put myself in the "intermediate" class just yet...  I believe I have a good ear and know what I want it to sound like, but I lack the experiance to get it there quickly and efficiently.  I have learned to tweak and compare, tweak and compare... to make sure I am always improving it not ruining it.    I would say I am a novice who strives to be subjective enough to admit... "nope that didn't work as I wanted"or "sound the way I expected" so go back and try something else.

SongCraft


SoundCraft? 

Ooops, Sorry Greg, I corrected that (above).  I know I haven't operated with all fidelity lately.  But, you know I seriously appreciate your thoughts (having re-read them thrice) and I love your Title, Avatar, and music.

LOL Philip....you're so awesome man! If I ever have a bad day, all I have to do is visit your posts to me and it's like nothing else matters. Thanks a lot for that I really appreciate your kind words, belief in me and the partnership we've created. :)

But for me, it's about bettering myself. Doing better than I did the last time. It's never about hoping to receive incredible compliments or anything...it's about "ok, this is what I did last time...I need to try and better it...if not, it better be just as good" or I feel I sort of failed. And sure...I can be sensitive too! When you are passionate about something and truly give something your all...sometimes when you get smacked down it can sting a little. Then again, it depends on how it gets delivered. :) But compliments rule and when they get delivered just right....it's an incredible feeling. :)

You know, the science stuff is really a funny animal. Take a guy like bitflipper as an example. (sorry bit, it's respect man nothin bad lol) In my opinion, he has a really great grasp on the scientific stuff. The man is a sponge and seems to know something super deep on any given topic. Yet, he's not just all talk....his mixes show he knows how to get results. I think that's really commendable. The combination of heart and science is the ultimate weapon really. Like a guy who goes to music school that doesn't come out sounding like a robot. He doesn't leave his heart home when he goes to uni. I really think this is important.

There are lots of guys here that fall into these catagories. I think the object is getting from point A to point B with good results. If science gets your there, that's awesome. Look at you Philip, you're a prime example of delivering the goods with pro quality without massive theory or science. And you deliver the same good stuff whether I'm involved with your tunes or not. We end up with a "different" production, but rest assured yours are just as good when you're alone.

For me, show me how to do something...tell me why I'd do it and show me a few ways to do it and let me go. I've always been like that in everything actually. Show me once or twice, I'd get the idea and then experiment on my own. I think that's another good thing to remember. We can read about this stuff until we're blue in the face and still fail. This is where trial and error can make a difference because there are some things in this field that just won't work for everyone. There are things that will...but you know how it goes. You could have the same rig as someone and follow their instructions to the "T" and still not get the results they did.

This makes your "reasons" at the end of your post so true. We all like a challenge...we all would love to save money and not send things out to anyone when there ARE tools that allow us to get this stuff pretty good on our own. The problem I hear though...and this is even from my students here....they seem to ruin the mix with the master. They just over-do it. I hear it on the songs forum too at times. I know in my heart the original tune is probably better than some of the mastered stuff I hear on here. That said..I know some guys don't care that they are killing their quality, but there are some that don't notice it and DO care. We do them a diservice by not telling them if we review a tune and stay too quiet or praise too much while ignoring the obvious.

Artists, enjoyment and responsibility: We can learn a lot from others. When we live in a world of tunnel vision, we stay at the same level and maintain being a one-trick-pony. I've worked with lots of rap, hip-hop and skate type artists. I knew about the style quite well and have had great results while doing it. Working with you and your abilities has taught me so much about other things I hadn't experienced with those styles. Not to mention you're one heck of an engineer/artist with a craftiness that anyone can appreciate. So it's like we trust in each other as well as learn from each other. I'd not be afraid to come to you and say "Philip...I'm stumped on this and need your input more than I think you'll benefit from mine!" I do my best to never have to say that, but rest assured, if the time comes, I have no problems crying for help or pushing you a little harder due to what may be missing on my end.

Another thing also is, we can't be afraid to call on others. There's nothing wrong with realizing you may not have what it takes on something. That doesn't mean you will always be lacking...but it may be where you are today. The day we close up and don't cry out is the day we stop gaining ground. I reach out all the time to those that have more skill in areas than I do and I'm never ashamed of it. At the end of the day...we all have a purpose and goals we like to achieve. Sometimes we'll meet them on our own...sometimes we may need the assistance of another. If someone is serious about really having songs that represent them in ways that can possibly gain interest somewhere, you only hurt yourself by not acting on it. For those that do it as a hobby, have fun with it in all aspects but don't ever be afraid to ask questions. Sometimes the questions or "the acts" that help might cost a few bucks. It all depends how important it is to the individual.

-Danny

Chas, I'm sure it's great...but in my opinion, I wouldn't consider it something to be used with "serious mastering". All in one consumer products with bells, whistles and loads of presets aren't the same as a "Serious Mastering job". I'm not trying to discredit you or how good Ozone 5 may be.

For the guys that do the serious mastering, there are a few important steps they take before they even open their plugin rack and there are definitely way better plugs that are more suited for the job than anything in an all in one suite. I thought Ozone 4 was pretty decent although, night and day difference when I used that compared to the pro plugs I spent good bread on. If it's better than 4, it's probably worth me checking out. I always try to give these suites a chance. So far...I'd not replace any of my methods with any of them. Maybe O5 will be different. :)

-Danny

chasmcg


Danny, for what I do, songwriting and demos, I need a helping hand (presets). I haven't used Ozone 5 Advanced that much, but at this stage I really think it's great. Tomorrow it may be something else. :-) But O5A has so many settings, it can be an instructor in itself, by looking at its setting at every turn.

On my last song I mixed and mastered. I would mix, then master. Then add and subtract and repeat this process. Never really got what I wanted (and that was because of my limitations in every aspect of music (especially imagination)). But I was wanting a professional, drop dead performance. I got as close as I could and I've let go of it (I think).

But if I truly wanted a drop dead performance, I would turn to professionals to do the mixing and mastering 'cause I know my limitations on this aspect of music. But for me being a "do it all" engineer, O5A (at this point) is what I'll turn to. I definitely recommend it.

Totally with you and agree 100%. :) Safe to say 85% of our forum members probably feel the exact same as you do.
 
-Danny

I gotta say, I've tried Ozone, and I don't get what all the love for it is about. 
Everyone on the forums here seems to love it. idunno. What am I missing?

I've noticed Ozone taking a little bit of a beating lately on the internet forums, perhaps no longer the golden child it has been for so long. But that, I think, is only due to disappointment over version 5 not being the giant leap forward everyone assumed it would be. But it's still at least as good as its predecessor, even slightly better.

Ozone is best suited for mild to medium volume maximizing. If you're creating pumping, flat-line K-2 dance club material, it's no better than any other limiter and you're better off using something intended for that style. But for mainstream pop, classic rock, metal, jazz, funk and country, Ozone is an excellent tool. 
Its main strength is its simplicity: only two controls, threshold and a coarse adjustment to its intelligent release algorithm. That makes it a good choice for those who aren't quite sure what they're doing. You have to really abuse it to make it sound bad. 

<pet_peave>
Many users expect way too much from a limiter. They want one control labeled "LOUD!" that somehow performs magic to preserve transients even though they've pumped the average RMS so high the transients have nowhere to go. They're on a never-ending quest for a weapon that makes them sound good no matter how clumsily they wield it. What they need is some self-education, not a plugin.<\pet_peave>

^ Most novices (not saying you are one, but I'm not ashamed to say that I am one)

I've also heard though (about FX in general, which I am guilty of) is that if you can hear it, it's too much.

Then again, was that about the track individually or in context? That is some sound advice, but it's obvious if you put reverb on a vocal, you'll hear it when it's just the vocal; however, in context with everything else - provided, the other stuff is mixed well also, you'd barely notice it.

Whatever the plug (hardware or software), it all comes down to getting it to fit well in the mix. Those second pair of ears does wonders.

TBT, every knob is a "volume" knob until you figure out it isn't - even if you still use it like one. (Guilty, but odds are great that I'll get someone to properly mix my tracks)

IA with all of this; however, if this is so, what is all this talking about mastering then since it is tweaking the overall mix.

More punch, less hum, etc. It's all about getting the mix, but how is "polishing" - though not required - such a necessity?

Having said this:

I do agree with your list, but wish to offer my own thought on each point:

Point 1: That's a bit easier concerning the label if you know your stuff; however, the general audience doesn't pay too much attention about the things sound/mixing/mastering people do. Their definition of "sounds good" is more general than specific/technical.

The most you'll get is: This instrument overpowers this (is too loud) which makes this one underpowered or too soft. You may get a rare frequency mention, but again that is rare for a casual listener to get that deep. (Too much bass rather than reduce the 32-63hz range)

Point 2:

I think is most evident as many have said that a professional who mixes/masters will have one's track sound vastly different than when it was self-mixed/mastered. (Some said earlier: What should be and not what one thinks should be.) My mix sounds fine (not-so-much, but to a trained ear ...)

Unless both parties are pretty stubborn, often times there will be a compromise and keep in mind that it's for everyone's ears - not just yours - if you plan on putting it out there.

Point 3: Self-explanatory! However, you were to put yourself in the listeners' shoes (Playing on other speakers) You may not want that result - despite adamantly saying you did.

Point 4: Same thing. No need to make it spotless; however, you may want to do that - even if just your friend across the street wants to have a listen.

I do wanna get my track out there; however, I want to hear how it sounds very polished - even if that never happens or I change my mind.

Sure, I baked a wonderful cake and did a Picasso-like job with that icing, but I can't do wrong with sprinkles! Of course, not everyone likes sprinkles; there's still no harm in adding some - even if it's only me who eats the entire cake!

Rus W


IA with all of this; however, if this is so, what is all this talking about mastering then since it is tweaking the overall mix.

More punch, less hum, etc. It's all about getting the mix, but how is "polishing" - though not required - such a necessity? 

Here's the deal on that part, Rus.
 
Mastering/tweaking/polishing: You come up with a mix you think is fantastic. You play it for a few days straight after the final export just to make sure you like it...and you do. Little do you know, you've gotten so close to the mix, there are a few obvious things you missed. When an ME gets a hold of it, hopefully (unless you have a really bad mix that you thought was good) it's going to come back to you sounding like what you sent. However, there are differences that you'll notice when it comes back.
 
The first thing I do is check for any pops, clicks, hums, oscillations, abnormalities, lack of cross fades etc...the list goes on and on. You'll be surprised what you THINK is a great mix and how this stuff is so easily missed. Right here, in my usual 1 hour "editing" stage, I've improved your quality as far as your image goes as an engineer/artist simply by removing things or editing things you may not have heard or might have been too close to. Trust me, you won't get a Grammy with crap production these days. LOL! People listen for this stuff if even just industry people. It's best to have things as clean as possible.
 
Now, would the public hear this stuff? Maybe yes, maybe no. But, you're a musician selling your material. We need to make it as polished as it can be without degrading your name as "the dude that puts out mixes with artifacts in them".
 
Next, as I listen to the mix, the first thing I notice is some sub low rumble in say the 40 hz range. Some guys like this and can make use of that low freq, others can damage mix with that frequency. In your case, I felt it was damaging so I curbed it. I noticed some mid range congestion in about the 200 Hz range because you were after a super warm guitar tone. What you didn't realize was it was washing things out even though it sounded good on your end. You didn't notice that certain bass notes were disappearing in the mix. You also didn't notice how some of the vocals were hidden at times because the upper mids in the guitar at about 860 Hz were also dominating. So I curb them a bit. Though you had a good vocal sound and good cymbals, at times you're hissing like a snake on the hats and crashes...and this is also adding sibs to the vocals. So we curb stuff in the upper high end.
 
Because you jacked up an analog tube compressor on a few things, we have a little noise/hiss in the upper frequencies. I have to decide whether to noise reduce or maybe totally kill the high end there via high pass if there is nothing happening in that range anyway.
 
After I do all this, though your song sounds the same...it is now presented in a different image. I must compress lightly to control the little peaks or valleys that I may have created with my eq curve. This "glues" things together for the mix *I* have edited. This is another reason I'm not crazy about people using extensive 2-bus glue. They are glueing THAT mix together..not the mix I'm working on. When we use 2-bus comrpession via hardware, we will make changes in our eq's that we wouldn't make without the compressor in the chain. So now that I made changes...if a 2-bus comp is already used by you, it *could* make things a bit more difficult depending on how much you used it. We should never glue a mix too much if it will go out to be mastered. Your glue and my glue are two different things.
 
So let's say you played it safe and used no 2bus comp or subtle and all is well. I'm still going to have to glue it a bit on my end using a light compressor. I'll check my levels to make sure I didn't boost anything because we don't want the compressor to cut or boost anything. I might add a MBL if needed at this stage of the game just to keep a few frequencies in line. From there if all systems are go, I'll drop a limiter on and make sure we haven't lost any stereo field. If so, I put it back. But you gotta really crush a limiter to kill the stereo field. This is just a quick idea as to how it works...but for the most part, the changes made here to your entire mix in this particular situation, may come back to you sounding a little more drastic...but they should sound WAY better than what you sent. You should be able to crank the mix up and not hear anything dominating that would cause distortion...it should be nice and level, nothing pumping or leaping out at you other than when an instrument is supposed to be a focal point etc.
 
All this stuff can make an incredible different when done the right way. But it depends on how the mix is delivered. This polish we speak of is the tightening of a mix to where things are removed, curbed, edited, compressed, eq'd, limited for the better with an unbiased opinion, good set of monitors in a good room with a fresh set of ears.
 
Now, some guys may send a mix they think is great that totally sucks. In this situation, when it comes back...there will be a SUPER drastic difference. We don't like to do that...but there are times when a client's hands may be tied and they can't give us a remix. They know going into it that the mix they sent will require major surgery and will NOT come back sounding like what they sent. So sometimes there will be drastic difference, other times subtle to no differences other than a level boost and some lows, mids and highs curbed or accentuated.
 
The whole idea is to get a good mix and litereally polish it while using good tools, monitors and a fresh set of ears. This is where it really matters. We "do it yourselfers" are always going to have a bias with our tunes and we're just about always going to be so close to them, we can miss the obvious. The extra set of ears alone can make a good mix sound great. You can have the best mix in the world...if it's loaded with pops, clicks, oscillations due to laziness on the players behalf or the engineer doing the session, it's going to degrade the quality to the point where some won't even listen to it. Some won't notice...but you'd be surprised at how common listeners really do listen closer than we think these days. They hear everything in those earbuds because they are rammed into their brains. This literally allows them to listen to music more closely instead of in a car where there are obvious car distractions, wind, noise and speaker separation.
 
The problem in all of this stuff when you do it yourself is....most do not know when to make the right calls and they wind up with a worse song at the mastering stage than the actual final mix. Everyone goes for loudness while not understanding how you are really supposed to go about making a mix loud. It's not from a limiter, compressor, gear or a MBL. It has to do with a properly recorded song that has the instruments compressed properly as well as eq'd properly without a load of crap going on that may be degrading the quality.
 
Take a look at the screen shots I put up of that master I was working on for a second. Not the one with the L2 killing it. LOL! When you look at mix 1 without the manual leveling and peak control...it doesn't look too bad really. However, if I just mastered it the way it was, it wouldn't be close to as loud or clear as the second mix that had the leveling and peak control. This is the key to making things loud...consistency and having all the right stuff. You can buy every limiter in the book...when it identifies peaks and inconsistencies, it's going to try and compensate because it's working too hard. This in turn can give you even more inconsistencies, pumping/breathing as well as distortion and...you wind up wondering why it's not as loud as you had hoped it could be.
 
I find that these all in one mastering tools just don't give us what we need. Perfect for a hobby guy that just wants a little something else to have fun with...but too often people are just over-doing it and are totally missing the boat as well as what is TRULY required to have a really good sounding master. Hope some of this helps. :)
 
-Danny

timidi


I gotta say, I've tried Ozone, and I don't get what all the love for it is about. 
Everyone on the forums here seems to love it. idunno. What am I missing?

When you are as good at arranging, playing, and recording as you are, the need for it is not so obvious. For the rest of us, it does the trick.

bitflipper

...every knob is a "volume" knob until you figure out it isn't

Rus, that's brilliant.

Thanks! I try! Though one should learn about this stuff, nothing like hands on experience. I told someone on another forum about pushing to the extremities. Yes, that is wrong, but my point was to see/hear what it is that knob does. Of course, learning about it will make things much clearer; however, when you get into the "hands on" portion (gaining more knowledge from what you read/heard), then you actually start to grasp thing.

Though we have some amazing experts about this stuff, they must have experimented at some point as the old saying goes. Am I right? If not, then they wouldn't be experts. (ie: Danny)

Danny Danzi

Rus W


IA with all of this; however, if this is so, what is all this talking about mastering then since it is tweaking the overall mix.

More punch, less hum, etc. It's all about getting the mix, but how is "polishing" - though not required - such a necessity? 

Here's the deal on that part, Rus.
 
Mastering/tweaking/polishing: You come up with a mix you think is fantastic. You play it for a few days straight after the final export just to make sure you like it...and you do. Little do you know, you've gotten so close to the mix, there are a few obvious things you missed. When an ME gets a hold of it, hopefully (unless you have a really bad mix that you thought was good) it's going to come back to you sounding like what you sent. However, there are differences that you'll notice when it comes back.
 
The first thing I do is check for any pops, clicks, hums, oscillations, abnormalities, lack of cross fades etc...the list goes on and on. You'll be surprised what you THINK is a great mix and how this stuff is so easily missed. Right here, in my usual 1 hour "editing" stage, I've improved your quality as far as your image goes as an engineer/artist simply by removing things or editing things you may not have heard or might have been too close to. Trust me, you won't get a Grammy with crap production these days. LOL! People listen for this stuff if even just industry people. It's best to have things as clean as possible.
 
Now, would the public hear this stuff? Maybe yes, maybe no. But, you're a musician selling your material. We need to make it as polished as it can be without degrading your name as "the dude that puts out mixes with artifacts in them".
 
Next, as I listen to the mix, the first thing I notice is some sub low rumble in say the 40 hz range. Some guys like this and can make use of that low freq, others can damage mix with that frequency. In your case, I felt it was damaging so I curbed it. I noticed some mid range congestion in about the 200 Hz range because you were after a super warm guitar tone. What you didn't realize was it was washing things out even though it sounded good on your end. You didn't notice that certain bass notes were disappearing in the mix. You also didn't notice how some of the vocals were hidden at times because the upper mids in the guitar at about 860 Hz were also dominating. So I curb them a bit. Though you had a good vocal sound and good cymbals, at times you're hissing like a snake on the hats and crashes...and this is also adding sibs to the vocals. So we curb stuff in the upper high end.
 
Because you jacked up an analog tube compressor on a few things, we have a little noise/hiss in the upper frequencies. I have to decide whether to noise reduce or maybe totally kill the high end there via high pass if there is nothing happening in that range anyway.
 
After I do all this, though your song sounds the same...it is now presented in a different image. I must compress lightly to control the little peaks or valleys that I may have created with my eq curve. This "glues" things together for the mix *I* have edited. This is another reason I'm not crazy about people using extensive 2-bus glue. They are glueing THAT mix together..not the mix I'm working on. When we use 2-bus comrpession via hardware, we will make changes in our eq's that we wouldn't make without the compressor in the chain. So now that I made changes...if a 2-bus comp is already used by you, it *could* make things a bit more difficult depending on how much you used it. We should never glue a mix too much if it will go out to be mastered. Your glue and my glue are two different things.
 
So let's say you played it safe and used no 2bus comp or subtle and all is well. I'm still going to have to glue it a bit on my end using a light compressor. I'll check my levels to make sure I didn't boost anything because we don't want the compressor to cut or boost anything. I might add a MBL if needed at this stage of the game just to keep a few frequencies in line. From there if all systems are go, I'll drop a limiter on and make sure we haven't lost any stereo field. If so, I put it back. But you gotta really crush a limiter to kill the stereo field. This is just a quick idea as to how it works...but for the most part, the changes made here to your entire mix in this particular situation, may come back to you sounding a little more drastic...but they should sound WAY better than what you sent. You should be able to crank the mix up and not hear anything dominating that would cause distortion...it should be nice and level, nothing pumping or leaping out at you other than when an instrument is supposed to be a focal point etc.
 
All this stuff can make an incredible different when done the right way. But it depends on how the mix is delivered. This polish we speak of is the tightening of a mix to where things are removed, curbed, edited, compressed, eq'd, limited for the better with an unbiased opinion, good set of monitors in a good room with a fresh set of ears.
 
Now, some guys may send a mix they think is great that totally sucks. In this situation, when it comes back...there will be a SUPER drastic difference. We don't like to do that...but there are times when a client's hands may be tied and they can't give us a remix. They know going into it that the mix they sent will require major surgery and will NOT come back sounding like what they sent. So sometimes there will be drastic difference, other times subtle to no differences other than a level boost and some lows, mids and highs curbed or accentuated.
 
The whole idea is to get a good mix and litereally polish it while using good tools, monitors and a fresh set of ears. This is where it really matters. We "do it yourselfers" are always going to have a bias with our tunes and we're just about always going to be so close to them, we can miss the obvious. The extra set of ears alone can make a good mix sound great. You can have the best mix in the world...if it's loaded with pops, clicks, oscillations due to laziness on the players behalf or the engineer doing the session, it's going to degrade the quality to the point where some won't even listen to it. Some won't notice...but you'd be surprised at how common listeners really do listen closer than we think these days. They hear everything in those earbuds because they are rammed into their brains. This literally allows them to listen to music more closely instead of in a car where there are obvious car distractions, wind, noise and speaker separation.
 
The problem in all of this stuff when you do it yourself is....most do not know when to make the right calls and they wind up with a worse song at the mastering stage than the actual final mix. Everyone goes for loudness while not understanding how you are really supposed to go about making a mix loud. It's not from a limiter, compressor, gear or a MBL. It has to do with a properly recorded song that has the instruments compressed properly as well as eq'd properly without a load of crap going on that may be degrading the quality.
 
Take a look at the screen shots I put up of that master I was working on for a second. Not the one with the L2 killing it. LOL! When you look at mix 1 without the manual leveling and peak control...it doesn't look too bad really. However, if I just mastered it the way it was, it wouldn't be close to as loud or clear as the second mix that had the leveling and peak control. This is the key to making things loud...consistency and having all the right stuff. You can buy every limiter in the book...when it identifies peaks and inconsistencies, it's going to try and compensate because it's working too hard. This in turn can give you even more inconsistencies, pumping/breathing as well as distortion and...you wind up wondering why it's not as loud as you had hoped it could be.
 
I find that these all in one mastering tools just don't give us what we need. Perfect for a hobby guy that just wants a little something else to have fun with...but too often people are just over-doing it and are totally missing the boat as well as what is TRULY required to have a really good sounding master. Hope some of this helps. :)
 
-Danny

I understand. I probably missed the entire boat with my piece, but I'm a much better composer/arranger than producer - not that I don't try. Thanks for the explanation. So, would you say that mixing/mastering are equally important?