cparmerlee - I don't mean for this to come out sounding wrong, but it sounds like you have never had the experience of working in a high-end mastering house.  The first time I ever went to have something mastered in a place like that, I was floored by what they were able to do.  I can't even touch it.  I'll 'master' things myself if it's something that's not meant for wide release, but I'm totally aware that what I'm doing isn't the real thing.
 
If you have something that you want to try and sell, bite the bullet and go get it mastered by a real mastering engineer who has a real mastering room.  It'll be worth every penny.
 
Peace,
Seth

I think one reason many see it as a separate process is because the habit of bouncing down to save CPU made it so. Often in the past it was done because the added burden of the sort of plugins used to put too much strain on the CPU with the normal mixing plugins going on at the same time.
 
It became a normal thing to do. There may not be as much compelling reason to split it up except I do think its useful to work with just a stereo file as your source.
 
But I agree with the OP that there is no technical reason to do so. Also as has been pointed out a great mix doesn't need much intervention. 
 
I do think its very helpful for adding that final gloss though. I agree with those that one needs to step back a bit before doing more work on a song. So you can add the need to become fresh to the mix as a human demand.
 
One thing I am sure about is that fewer plugins can often be better in the end than throwing a bunch of plugins at a song.
 
 
 
 
 

I have a master FX chain that I load up when I import a mixdown. Each of these processes in the FX chain are enabled only as needed:
 
1) EQ - Precision EQ to correct or enhance some aspect of the mix. This includes HPF/LPF as needed.
2) Maxbass or RenBass to add bass harmonics. I also use it to tame bass and add thump when needed.
3) Aphex Aural Exciter. Just a little dab will do ya.
4) Linear Phase Multiband Compressor.
5) Final shaping Linear Phase EQ.
6) L1 or L2 (+ dither for conversion to 16bit)
 
I may swap any of the first 3 around as necessary, depending on the mix. It's taken me a looong time to get the process I use to produce a final mix "master" that I'm happy with and compares favorably to commercial mixes that I like. I also never try to "master" a mix on the same day I mixdown.
 
Regards,
Dan
 

sethmopod
The first time I ever went to have something mastered in a place like that, I was floored by what they were able to do.  I can't even touch it.  I'll 'master' things myself if it's something that's not meant for wide release, but I'm totally aware that what I'm doing isn't the real thing.
 
If you have something that you want to try and sell, bite the bullet and go get it mastered by a real mastering engineer who has a real mastering room.  It'll be worth every penny.

Seth, I'm not disputing that.  But that isn't what I understood to be the premise of this thread (maybe I misunderstood the discussion point.)  I understood the premise to be the "mastering process" for people here on the forum who do that process themselves.  Even in that case, people seem to want to break it completely apart from the mixing process and to port the file from SONAR over to some other tool.  I was just wondering why that would be better than simply putting the same tools onto the master bus.
 

dcumpian
Precision EQ
Maxbass or RenBass
Aphex Aural Exciter
Linear Phase Multiband Compressor.
Linear Phase EQ.

Do you find that you use these particular tools only at the mastering stage, or do you use some of them earlier during mixing as well?  I'm thinking in particular that the bass and HF enhancers could go on individual tracks.
 

cparmerlee
 
...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.

Nicely summed up, cparmerlee. For the DIY producer who has no intention of sending his mixes out for mastering, either because he can't afford to or just because he wants the satisfaction of doing it all himself, there needn't be any distinction.
 
The fact is that mastering alters the mix. You'll almost always want to go back and tweak a mix after hearing the mastered version. As you note, those finalizing changes should be small. If they're not, then something in the mix needs refinement. Sometimes, mastering throws the desired balance off. Sometimes you find yourself using too-extreme EQ on the master. Sometimes the flattening buries key elements.
 
If you have the proper plugins, there is no reason you can't master in-place right in the original project. Well, there is one reason: if you're building a compilation for a CD, you might have issues trying to get all the songs to match volume. But this can be overcome.
 
I'll add a +1 to the notion of waiting a few days before mastering, though. A mistake I often make is jumping ahead out of impatience. After listening to the song a hundred times, every nuance is clear to me, so I might not notice that the mastering has sucked the life out of it.

Something obvious—but maybe not to new engineers—is that master bus compression will change the mix a lot more in those songs with a wider dynamic range and instruments that come and go.  By this I mean, if you start with an acoustic guitar, then add voice, later add bass and drums, and finally build with sweetening, you may find that compression really alters the way your mix sounds.  After you add that lift and limit you may go, "Whoa!  What happened?"
 
If you have recorded a rock band that goes balls-to-the-wall from start to finish, the master bus compression is less likely to make your mix sound radically different.

If you don't wish to have your mix "Mastered", the Master bus is fine for post-production tweaks. A great mix will cause the Mastering Engineer to not change a thing, but in the last 20 years, that's almost NEVER been the case. Unless the mixing engineer is mastering the mix on each channel, or mastering on the master bus, the Master will certainly change to make it louder and competitive. The only case I've found where the mix never changed in Mastering was in a classical recording, although I've seen where a Mastering engineer deliberately induced dynamics to a classical piece in the hopes of giving the dynamics even more impact. It didn't work. 
 
Point blank, go meet and sit in with a Mastering engineer if you're going to Master. And I don't mean one that has a home studio, or has only Mastered unsigned bands. I'm talking a major contract house, where every detail is scrutinized. See how they do it. See where they put the EQ, compressor, Stereo-imager, etc.
 
In my experience, there is no definite sequence of where the plug-ins go, other than 95% of the time, the limiter goes last. Yes, there is an argument to when NOT to put the limiter last, but it's rare you'd ever want to place it anywhere else. Something else to keep in mind, though: Each plug-in that boosts the signal at any point in the chain, should not clip the plug-in or piece of equipment that follows it. Doing so will render the Master smeared and distorted, even if you believe you can make it super loud. I learned this the hard way.
 
When you pre-Master on your mix buss, expect criticism from a Mastering engineer if you decide to have it mastered.

I.....nevermind, it would take me 4 pages to cover all the stuff quite a few of you are missing. No one wants to see me do that anyway. LOL! I will say this...as a silent mastering guy who has never bragged about any clients or tried to sell mastering services....it blows me away how wrong people are about this subject. What's even more disturbing are the guys that think they know what they are talking about posting about it with confidence. There are so many things that go on in a real mastering situation before you even get to the plugin/hardware stage, it would spin your head around if I started rattling things off to you. 
 
Quickly....and this is my opinion only. It is not meant to discredit, belittle or bring anyone down.
 
1. Anything that *usually* sounds drastically different than the original mix once mastered....was not mixed right. When someone sends a mix off to be mastered, they pressed the "Export" button for a reason. That reason is...they liked what they heard. What YOU as the mastering guy think sounds better isn't always the answer. The client usually has an agenda. So I'm never really blown away when I hear a before and after. To me, it makes the engineer that tracked/mixed it look like a fool. It tells you "don't go to that studio!" However, it DOES make the mastering engineer look good. This is why I do not provide before and after on my site. It makes me look good, but it makes the studio look terrible....and well, to me that's not fair. I've done those types of surgeries but only when the client can't give me a remix and all we have is what we have.
 
2. Pre-mastering: No one EVER makes a mention of this because they simply don't have a clue....unless you're in the industry. No one throws a song in an editor and starts running plugins until it sounds right. So let's stop right there. The material needs to be analyzed. Ends are trimmed to get rid of unwanted space because most engineers could give a rats @ss and leave you with 15 seconds of intro and outro dead space. 5 seconds is enough, I'll handle it from there. :) The material gets listened to closely to see if there are any artifacts such as hums, hiss, noise, rumbles, oscillation, rise or fall in audio, pops, clicks, guitar hum due to the mix engineer not doing his job during slip editing, punch in artifacts, drum sticks whacking things other than drums, engineer editing laziness, and anything else that should not be heard during play back. Everything is logged and written down in one listen. This forms your pre-mastering work order.
 
3. Along with what I just told you, when that stuff is all done, you can move on to the next phase of the pre-master. What you did above took about an hour. Now you get a fresh start and remove any DC offsets so you are starting fresh. From here, we analyze and remove any rogue peaks we find in the audio. We do this because the material will only be as loud as its loudest peak no matter how much you use a limiter. Remember, the limiter will threshold itself to that peak. So leaving loads of peaks will always stop your material from being as loud as it can be. You don't want to use a limiter to control the peaks for this because it will destroy your attack on your snare drum everytime. Create a mix with a snappy snare and try to remove the peaks by limiting. Then, try it by hand manually....huge difference for the better every time, but unfortunately, incredibly time consuming to where if you do it once, you'll probably never do it again or you'll hand it off to a dope like me that doesn't mind doing it.
 
After we take care of all those peaks (usually snare drum or kick drum transients because the mix engineer didn't know how to control them) we level the audio by ear using automation. This preserves dynamics and makes things gradual. This also allows your compression and limiting to work as it should without smearing the stereo field or creating artifacts. Keep in mind, all the stuff I've mentioned so far above, is NEVER and I repeat NEVER seen if the project comes in to you from a major label or an engineer that has a clue.
 
Have you noticed we haven't even started the mastering procedure yet? Does everyone do things this way? No, but by rights they should and I know big name guys that do. Why do I know this? By talking to them as well as seeing the numbers they achieve when you look up the stats on the audio they master. You don't get those numbers that consistent by feeding stuff into Ozone. You work the material the right way....or....you're so rich you have your own programs that do it based on your old work habits that are not for sale. You'd be surprised at the stuff they have that they DON'T share with you. A trip to Katz studio will show you that, although he has started to sell his personal contraptions.
 
FX chains: For what it's worth, I'm eq first as well and prefer all ITB as it has proven itself worthy enough for me to get rid of my outboard gear. You eq to get the song right...then compress to control the little peaks and valleys you may have just created. As far as the rest of my chain, it varies from job to job. The one thing I rarely do is add reverb to a mix during mastering unless the material is crying for it. I've done it with success, but it's not something I agree with or feel the need to do unless absolutely necessary. But rest assured, at any given time, there are anywhere from 9-11 plugs in my chain during a mastering procedure. Sometimes I use them all, other times I do not. The reason for the amount is several eq options, so they add up quickly.
 
After all this is done....there's a post mastering procedure....oh joy! This finalizes everything just right, converts sample rates, dithers, removes any final residing DC offsets and earns my DZL stamp of approval. :) There's more, but you get the idea.
 
Stem mixes: Quite a few mastering guys master using stem mixes. This gives the ME way more control and allows he/she to paint a much better picture. You'd be surprised at how often an ME is NOT mastering using a stereo audio track. It depends on the situation as well as who the producer is in a big time situation. Most of the hobby guys will just provide a stereo track...which is fine. But when you find out you have problem areas, then you either have to fix the mix or send stems. This is why all my clients are screened beforehand. Not screened to the point of declining (well sort of but not due to "you suck") to the point of being honest. 
 
It stops me from polishing turds and stops me from taking money from them when mastering will not make a major difference in their audio. The better you mix the song on your end, the better the master will turn out. I even help people for no additional cost as long as they let me master it. You learn something during the process and you get back the best material possible that is not doctored up, fake or synthetic....it's you being you. I wouldn't be able to sleep at night if I took on a job that was so badly mixed I'd be taking money "for the sake of" just to make it 2% better if that. Yet, I see this happen every day because other mastering guys need to eat. Uggh. What a world we live in. :( I'd get another job before I'd take someone's money "for the sake of being in business".
 
Mastering today vs. mastering of yesterday is something only a pro that has been on both sides could answer in my opinion. I believe it would be different procedure wise if we were still going to vinyl, but I have no clue and am not embarrassed to say that. I do know this...I'd be willing to bet way more editing is done TODAY than when they mastered years ago. I don't know how they dealt with pops, clicks, noises etc. But this takes up quite a bit of my time for some clients because of how they have misused or misunderstood the tools that were given to us/them. Not every project is a project done on a major label, so I'm sure they had to deal with this too. There are so many things today that contribute to noise and people totally not understanding things that they are literally destroying the audio before it gets to the ME. This is something that was unheard of in the past.
 
Whatever the case, the principal *should* be the same for most situations. The major difference is volume and the amount of compression, distortion and limiting entering into the scheme of things. They would have had a mess on their hands back in the day dealing with this volume and excessive compression/limiting/coloration stuff the way things are today.
 
Ok, not quite 4 pages...but long enough for some of you curious about this to get an idea. :) Back into my hole I go. :)
 
-Danny

"What's even more disturbing are the guys that think they know what they are talking about posting about it with confidence."
 
Danny, you speak quite confidently, although I'm not going to say you don't know what you're talking about. If you're referring to my posts, which I sense you do include to some degree, I gathered some knowledge from those who are in the Mastering business, two of the sources of my knowledge are regarded as two of the most highly regarded ME's in the industry (Calbi and Ludwig). I also spend lots of time reading interviews from the big ME's when and wherever I can. While I don't disagree with much of what you've posted, especially when it comes to specific processes and such, my attempt to explain what I know was certainly abridged and, for the same reasons you mentioned, to not post a 4-page blog.
 
What I don't think I see eye-to-eye with you about is what I mentioned about the Master sounding different from the mix. It doesn't mean that the mids are going to be hot and bass missing, as a horrendous example, but rather that when you compare a professional master (especially ones competing in loudness wars). You should have been exposed to clients that bring you a mix and want it to compete in volume. From that, you know you simply cannot increase the volume with no tweaking and attain the loudness the clients want, right? That's what I mean by different. There's obvious dynamics manipulations and processing that is unavoidable. Take Rush's Vapor Trails, one mix/master that the band decided to go back and re-do just recently. At the time, it was probably the loudest and most smashed up mix on the market, but it was done by Masterdisk, I believe (Howie). I'm sure he wasn't happy to receive such a cold response to killing dynamics like that, but it was what he was asked to do even as a pro. The challenge is to make it loud without ruining the mix, or "hurting" it, if at all possible. Hope that helps explain a little of what I meant. 
 
Surely nobody disagrees with "Do the least amount of damage as possible".