cparmerlee, I agree that mastering could be done on the master bus. After all, it's just a stereo wav at that point.
 
I think I was trying to say that I imagine parameter automation as part of the mastering process for compressors and EQs. For example, CJ Masters tracks. He gets a stereo wav as input and then makes it sound better. What other things can he do outside of compression/expansion and EQ? I have no idea. And if those are the only tools he has, he must be automating the application of them.
 
Right? He can't just stick an EQ and compressor on and give a .5 bump here and 1 cut there... there must be more to it.

Mastering is best done not at the time of mixing. After 8 hours of mixing your ears are shot and are in no state to be able to make the correct decisions for great mastering. Also it is great to listen to mix for a week or so before mastering. There will be many things you may pick up and want to change. That is the really important thing you are missing.
 
I do mastering a week or so later than mixing. It is like hearing the track fresh for the first time and it is best done in the morning after a good night's sleep too! Then you will be able to make the right decisions regarding EQ especially, the right amount of compression etc. Mastering engineers do not master your mix after a long period of hearing you mix do they so why should you. By leaving suitable time between the mixing and the mastering process you are moving a step closer to creating a similar result that a good mastering engineer would. I have read many times by famous engineers too that when they mastered straight after the mix to keep the record company happy due to time pressures they regretted it very much later on. What is the hurry!
 
And yes it is also good to import those tracks into another application such as Harrison Mixbus to do the mastering in. It has lovely track and buss EQ and the mastering EQ and multiband comp sound excellent. It can just give the track a slightly different sound from your regular DAW.

I second Jeff's advice that separating the mixing and mastering process is a good approach. In days of yore, the person doing the mastering was almost always different from the person doing the mixing. This created a kind of "insurance" that there would be another set of objective ears before hitting duplication. Although taking a break between mixing and mastering isn't the same, it's more of a step in that direction.
 
Many clients want at least a semi-squashed sound, but that can change the mix and after hearing the master, some people want to go back and make changes. I've found that I can cut down on that by saying to people go ahead, put a compressor or limiter or EQ or whatever in the bus when you mix, but then 1) send me a mix with ALL the bus processors disabled, and 2) send me a copy of the mix with the processors so I can hear what you like.
 
Finally, I master a really wide range of material, running the gamut from country to techno to Christian to narration to restoring a cassette recording of a play from 1986. People often ask what my setup is for mastering but it seems like it's never the same twice. The various masters have different problems and unique characteristics. To relate this to your original question, I usually do EQ after compression (if compression is needed) but before limiting. However, for me most of the time the final limiter is more about catching transients than affecting the sound. I try to do all the "loudifying" before it hits that stage by techniques I've talked about before, e.g., redrawing selected waveforms in Sound Forge or WaveLab.
 
[Edit: and of course, you can't do that kind of surgical editing just by putting processors in the bus.]
 

Jeff Evans
Mastering is best done not at the time of mixing.

Right, but why not come back a week later and do the mastering task simply by adding processing on the master bus?  What technological benefit is there to disconnecting it from the rest of the process?
 
I realize that, conventionally speaking, "mastering" has been done for decades usually by a separate person in a separate place at a separate time using separate hardware.  I understand people being comfortable with that tradition.  But is there really any valid TECHNICAL reason for that to be the case today, assuming that the mastering tools are available as plug-ins that could go on the master bus?

And now I'm going to disagree with myself...sort of...
 
For some people, mastering is not about detailed surgery but simply enhancing a tune as much as possible using available tools. In that case, mixing through processors can pretty much accomplish that more limited goal. However, even in this case, it's a good idea to re-listen several days later with fresh ears. You can then re-open the project, do a few tweaks, and try again.
 
Another thought i'd to throw in is that mastring in today's era of "singles" is very different from mastering back in the days of albums. With albums, there was a whole element to mastering of sonic consistency as well as song order and flow. With vinyl, it was even more demanding because you couldn't have loud songs toward the end of a side due to inner groove distortion, and also, the mastering engineer had make decisions about tradeoffs. For example, if an artist handed the engineer a 50-minute album, did you lower the overall level in order to keep the bass intact, or cut some bass in order to be able to cut at a higher level? Or compress it more so levels were less of a concern? At least we don't have to worry about those issues any more when mastering for a digital delivery medium.

cparmerlee

Jeff Evans
Mastering is best done not at the time of mixing.

But is there really any valid TECHNICAL reason for that to be the case today, assuming that the mastering tools are available as plug-ins that could go on the master bus?

Another issue is that you can't assume that all the mastering tools you need are available as plug-ins that could go on the master bus. I mentioned waveform redrawing, but high-quality noise reduction is another "fix" that's usually not doable as a master bus plug-in. The analysis tools in DAWs are not as comprehensive as what's in most DAWs, so if you want to, for example, compare average loudness levels among different cuts it's not that easy.
 
But I often differentiate in my seminars between what I call "Mastering with a capital M" and "Mastering with a lower-case m." I define the former as something that's done for mission-critical projects where the bar is raised very high. But for posting a video on YouTube to promote your gig, while it might be nice to have a world-class mastering engineer make it sound as good as possible, you can probably do plenty yourself to enhance what you have.

Thanks for chiming in, Anderton!! I have bought both of your video advanced workshops and the paperback guitarists guide to sonar and I've enjoyed them. I refer to them from time to time.
 
I listen to my mixes again and again... I listen a week later... I put FX on the master bus. I don't have Sound Forge or Wave Lab. Sometimes, I will split a track around a single wave cycle and apply different FX to that very short clip to try to handle a unique transient (or maybe two or three) or just normalize them down 1-2 DB. But for the most part, I'm working hard to get basic EQ and Compression right. I don't like squashed sounds. My home stereo rocks and so does my car. I don't really care how it sounds on the bar owner's laptop.
 
I do regularly get people complaining about the amount of bass that can be heard when listening on cheap stereos. On some of these tracks the bass is so loud to me it pushes everything else in the mix down. Boomy would be the word... I hate that I have such a deep pocketful of tricks, but I get the same criticism repeatedly.
 
I would totally buy your book of recipes or lessons learned while mastering.

In response to cparmerlees's point about is there any technical reason for doing mastering at a later time. Basically I would say not because after waiting a week I could go back to the masterbuss and start inserting mastering processors. It is more about the time between to give you time to get a fresh perspective again and listen with a slightly more accurate viewpoint. I would not be bringing up the full mix at this point though. I would have printed that back at the mix stage. Craig is right too about some things may change slightly when mild two buss compression is used over a final mix. I might print two versions of that mix one with and one without for extra options.
 
There is the workflow consideration. With me I could not master in my DAW (same time as mixing that is) because I don't do a full mix there. I send multiple stems to a digital mixer and bring things together there. The digital processors sound different and I have manual control too. There is EQ and dynamics on those stems too. I prefer the way things sound when mixed there. I know it should be the same but for me I like the way the digital mixer brings everything together. I have got external effects connected to that as well. So I have to print an unmastered mix anyway and work on it later. Slight two buss compression can be applied though and I like the way that sounds sometimes.
 
So one could stay all ITB but of course the moment you do delay the mastering you do have the options of sending mixes through outboard gear of any kind which may enhance your master. I believe you can get excellent mastering done both all ITB and also by using outboard too. One is not a lot better than the other at all, just different. As Craig also points out it sometimes is useful to open up a premastered mix (or partially mastered mix) in an editing program and do some pre mastering optimisation and pre-preparation that might really enhance the mastering later. There is often so much that can be done there before mastering even begins. When the prep is done well before mastering the mastering processors usually have to work less hard at their job making them all the more transparent.
 
These days too with the proliferation of great sounding analog devices in plugin form there could be a case where it is being done less and less (using analog outboard that is) at least with me anyway.
 
 

Jeff Evans
sometimes is useful to open up a premastered mix (or partially mastered mix) in an editing program and do some pre mastering optimisation and pre-preparation that might really enhance the mastering later.

I think this is what is confusing to me.  People talk as if there is a solid line between the mixing and mastering processes.  And of course, there once was.  When you finished your mix tape, you might ship it off to a company that would master it and press the vinyl. And I certainly understand (conceptually at least) that there was certain processing dictated by the limitations of the medium (e.g. vinyl LPs.) 
 
But to me, this notion of "mastering" as a distinct and separate process seems to be really blurry, here in 2013.  Let's say you throw on a multi-band compressor and limiter and all of a sudden the congas seem a touch too present in the mix.  If everything else sounds just right, I can't see trying to patch that with EQ.  Wouldn't it be better to simply go back and adjust the mix?
 
Once one is working on the polished product (i.e. the "mastered" output,) I'd expect the upstream changes to be very small.

If you are mastering well the mix should not change that much. The compression should not be changing the mix much at all, instead the mix just gets a little clamped down and assumes this slightly more professional sound level wise. It gets a little more attitude and it gets a little louder too. That is when you have got your compression working nicely for you rather than against you by not changing the mix too much.
 
Granted I have been surprised at times by how much something may move in a mix even with slight amounts of compression applied over the whole thing. Yes it is good to go back an open the mix up and make the change there. It is nice having a two buss compressor available at all times with the digital mixer. It is cool to have it set lightly, slowish attack to maintain transients and nice small amount of GR. When the makeup gain is set right there is no shift in level from the two buss compressor being on or not. It is a good mix check I find. I still print two versions though. And the version without the two buss comp on was set mix wise though with the two buss compression on. Sometimes I have found the one without the two buss printed sounded better inside Harrison Mixbus using it's mastering compressor instead. But I had that set the same way as the two buss was on the digital mixer. Mix stays exactly the same but nicer sounding compression now. Plus you can just change it slightly for the better usually by tweaking some of the parameters.
 
When I like the two buss compression it just adds this level of attitude or something and gets a little more forceful I find later I can get it really slamming in the final mastering stages. And yes when in that mode you may get a little shifting of things in the mix so it's nice to be able to put them back to normal right there and then. Sometimes I don't like what the two buss compression does at all on the final mix with the digital mixer and so I leave it off and just print the mix without any compression at all. I find on those ocassions I can set the mastering compression well later on and it doesn't change the mix.