When mastering a final mix what is the correct sequence of effects ie. does EQ come first followed by what - compression - limiting - reverb? What is the last (final) effect(s) to use in the chain? Also what are track plug-ins vs mastering plug-ins? Thanks to anyone/all taking the time to help me out!! (I'm amazed at how many of you "in the know" folks on this forum sacrifice valuable time to help others such as myself!!!

I would say compression before EQ is most common.

I go with what Konrad says....you see if you put an eq first...the boost in a certain frequency may cause the compressor to clamp down on the boosted frequency(s) - causing unwanted interference with the eq process ..... if the boost is after the compressor the eq will be free to go up and down without the compressor affecting those peaks.....perhaps a multiband compressor and of course the limiter last...... ...I set up a separate bus for the "room reverb" (I often do a high pass filter to remove low end from hitting the verb to hard) and mix the room verb buss and the master buss to a 'buss' I call OUT and  adjust final balance between the two.
I hope this helps.    for more check out Google: mix master buss compressor 

So... I'm sure I'm the only one who's perpetually puzzled by the whole MASTERING thing. It leaves me flat. I mean... I visit CJs site and I can hear amazing differences between 'mastered' and pre-mastered tracks.
 
To me, mastering means magic applied to a single stereo wave file that makes it awesome. I don't think of mastering as the FX I throw on the master bus.
 
I don't do this myself. I don't own any tools outside of Sonar - no magic Waves plugs... no dongles.
 
So, if I had to take a stereo wave file from a stranger and try to make it sound better, I would have to automate the compression and LP64_EQ settings so that I only enhanced where it helped and I only compressed where required.
 
But I have NO IDEA WHAT I'M TALKING ABOUT because I NEVER DO THIS.
 
I'm usually rushed to mix and burn and move on.
 
That said, I want to learn to do it. I'm just no good at it right now. When I use a multi-band compressor I often just stick it on and I use the ALL button most of the time and set every band the same (compression really light and usually lighting in only the second band of the 5). Wouldn't raising and lowering the bands be like applying EQ in a sort of graceless way? So I don't. I also don't automate LP64_EQ although I do sometimes use one on the master bus.
 
To me, mastering is a magic that is on the list to learn. I don't consider myself to know the first thing about it.
 
 So, you people who know... school me. I've bought books (Katz and others). Am I even right when I say that mastering is working a single stereo wave? Am I right about automation of EQs and Compressors on that wave?
 
If asked, I could list my standard steps in bouncing 10 Waves to a stereo wave. I could list the steps for setting up a compressor on a banjo or guitar. So... what are the steps you take when mastering ? -- I'm not asking theoretically. Practically, the last time you mastered, how did you start... what tools did you use? what envelopes?

It depends a bit what order to put things in EQ or compression. I actually do it the other way around and EQ first. Especially if the track I am mastering has an excess of energy in the spectrum eg suppose there is a lot of low end present or too much 300 Hz present. With the compressor first it is going to act on those frequencies and that will effect how the compressor reacts to the rest of the spectrum. By EQ ing first you are actually correcting what you are feeding into the compressor and hence the compressor will react more evenly to the overall sound. So there is an argument against what has been said so far.
 
When the mix is very well balanced energy wise though then it is slightly less critical and either way can work. But even in a very good mix there is still some very extreme parts of the spectrum that needs a little work eg very low and high end and I prefer to get those right first then the compressor is not having to deal with an excess in those areas. It is usually happier. Be good to ask Danny what order he puts things in. I think he runs the mix through the LP64 first to clean the extreme parts of the spectrum before anything. I tend to agree with him.
 
The idea is to present the compressor with the most well balanced EQ energy across the spectrum you can. You are only boosting areas that are lacking. Once right you don't boost above that. You also cut areas that are excessive.
 
Lately I have been mastering in Harrison Mixbus and using thier mastering multiband comp and it is very very good. It has a very interesting display as to how much gain reduction is taking place in each band. I find when I EQ first it is easy to get all the bands to gain reduce the same amount. Very important in order to maintain the EQ balance across the spectrum when using a multiband comp. But is does feature a low end replace boost type control for putting back some bottom end which can be sucked away if you are not careful with a multiband comp and this must obviously be after the compressor.
 
Watch out listening to before and after grabs of mastered tracks. Listen to the after versions at exactly the same volume as the before version and you will really hear how well the mastering is done. (ie remove the obvious louder is better syndrome) When you do this you reveal things like the snare sound losing all it's attack and snap. Poor mastering IMO. Good mastering keeps that all intact and delivers the volume at the same time.
 

I've always gone with using  HPF & LPF before the compressor, then use one of several EQ plugs for tonal shaping after the comp.

In my experience, there is no definite sequence. My answer is: it depends. Depends on the source mix and what the client wants out of it. If the mix is really punchy and almost overzealous on transients, I may compress before EQ (on my own mixes, this is typically the initial sequence). However, I may use an EQ before and after the compressor. Typically, I will use a surgical Linear-Phase EQ before compression to "fix" any real problems up front, assuming I cannot get the mixing engineer to re-tweak with my recommendations. Then I'll use a Mastering grade "glue" compression. If I feel the mix could use some character, warmth, punch, or sparkle/presence, I will sometimes add an emulated EQ after compression, if I deem fit. This echoes a bit of what Bristol_Jonesey states.
 
Many times, after I have tweaked with a specific sequence, I will drag and drop the plug-ins to change the sequence just to see if the compressor works better before or after the character or emulated EQ, but I will always leave any surgical fix EQs first in the sequence. Again, it depends on the source material, and how you need it to be Mastered, but it also may simply be your taste, which is why your clients come to you.
 
Footnote: Even Mastering Engineers don't always follow the general be transparent rules. That's a secret!

" I actually do it the other way around and EQ first. Especially if the track I am mastering has an excess of energy in the spectrum eg suppose there is a lot of low end present or too much 300 Hz present. With the compressor first it is going to act on those frequencies and that will effect how the compressor reacts to the rest of the spectrum. By EQ ing first you are actually correcting what you are feeding into the compressor and hence the compressor will react more evenly to the overall sound. So there is an argument against what has been said so far." This !!!! You want your mix as flat as possible, I view eq-ing when mastering as smoothing the edges like a final touch of sandpaper on wood, my cuts in mastering is no more than a dB or so, even if Im boosting round about 4-6 kHz to bring it a bit closer, its no more than .5 of a dB or so, eq-ing when mastering should be kinda minimal. Drastic cuts or boosts say to me that the mix isn't flat at all

I'm an EQ-firster, too.
 
Talking about tracks, though, because (contrary to popular trends) I don't normally use a compressor on the master bus.
 
Limiter always goes last.
 
The part of the OP's question that made me stop and think, though, was about where reverb goes on the master. Of course, many will reply that reverb has no place on the master bus, but that isn't a set-in-stone rule. On a sparse instrumental it can be just the ticket. My vote would be to place it after both EQ and compression.
 
Now, in what order to place the BBE Sonic Maximizer and Aphex Aural Exciter on the master? ;)
 

gswitz
perpetually puzzled by the whole MASTERING thing. 

 
Me too
 

gswitz
To me, mastering means magic applied to a single stereo wave file that makes it awesome. I don't think of mastering as the FX I throw on the master bus.

But I don't understand why that should be the case.  The master bus, by definition, has the full, completed mix -- the same file that people pick up and run into another tool.  Why is it necessary to break this into two separate processes?  Why can't the mastering simply be the final effects added on the mastering bus?
 
Unless I am missing something really important, it seems to me that is the ideal workflow.  I presume the only reason people DON'T do this is because there are better mastering tools in other programs and they are not available to plug into the SONAR master bus.  Is that correct?