(04-02-2014, 05:58 AM)pauli Wrote: I'm curious... are you 100% opposed to processing on the master channel? I try to avoid it whenever possible, but I don't really take a dogmatic stance (I try to avoid that whenever possible, too).
Well... perhaps I'm a little more dogmatic about it than I actually am in practice, reason being is because of how common
this kind of cluster f*BEEP* is in today's music scene:
http://discussion.cambridge-mt.com/showt...p?tid=3193
My main gripe really is about
compression and limiting in the master buss, not so much EQ and reverb. As a general rule, I find EQ also to be unnecessary; most of what you could do with EQ in the master buss can be done much more effectively and flexibly in the individual tracks, though I am not opposed to EQ on the master if you're under a time crunch and find a quick overall EQ can get the sound you want before the deadline.
In other words, you're probably better off fixing the EQ at the mix stage
if you have the time to experiment, but if you don't a
gentle EQ fix on the master can work. As for reverb, that's actually one of those few effects that actually
belongs on the master buss, particularly if you're going for a live, natural sound.
(04-02-2014, 05:58 AM)pauli Wrote: I've also seen examples of people using extremely light reverb inserts on the master bus as mix glue with good results, though I prefer saturation personally.
I actually prefer reverb over saturation. On a few of my mixes, most notably the barbershop quartet recordings by The Rounders, I actually applied the reverb at the master stage so that all four singers would be treated by the same reverb, just as they would sound standing on a stage (which was the sound I was going for
). So I would actually
encourage the use of reverb on the master buss when appropriate, so long as its not overdone (overdoing effects is a big problem in many amateur mixes, both at the mixing and mastering stages).
(04-02-2014, 05:58 AM)pauli Wrote: I guess some folks are of the opinion that the sort of master bus processing I'm talking about should be saved for the mastering phase, and if I had the resources to have my music professionally mastered, I'd probably let the million dollar ears make those judgements, but for home-brew music, I like the results I get... I'm not usually going for slick, glossy productions like modern mastering is geared toward anyway.
Glad to hear it, because it is that "slick, glossy" sound that makes modern music sound so unnatural to begin with. As for me, I prefer to do my own mastering; I'd rather obtain the high end gear and do it myself rather than trust my work to other hands. I'm one of those "if you want something done right you gotta do it yourself" people.
(04-02-2014, 05:58 AM)pauli Wrote: The main question I'm asking (purely out of curiosity.. to learn and understand another artist's style and approach) is why you're opposed to it. Obviously it's a bit of a broad brushstrokes technique, so any decision you make can affect more than what you intended, but sometimes I can't find another way to get the results that I'm after without shooting myself in the foot by overprocessing tracks individually.
Well mostly because with the exception of the artful use of reverb, which we've already discussed, I find that applying effects to the overall master, as you said, sometimes affects more than you meant to. I prefer to make adjustments to each track in isolation so that eac adjustment doesn't throw off other stuff I've already done on other tracks; I find this approach, while more time consuming, ultimately results in much more natural, clean sound.
There are exceptions, of course. For example, if I was given the already mixed Bat Out of Hell II, was assigned to master it and was told that the session recordings were accidentally destroyed or lost I would probably have applied a little low end boost to the overall master. Why? Because I find that Bat Out of Hell II, which otherwise sounds gorgeous (one of the best examples of pre-excessive-limiting digital sound mixing out there), does lack a little in the low end. If I was the mastering engineer and didn't have access to the individual tracks that's probably how I would've handled it. However, if I
did have access to the individual tracks I probably would have only EQed the bass and kick drum to get that extra body to the bass since the rest of the mix is perfectly fine the way it is.
Reading this, you might assume I applied that EQ to my copies of Bat Out of Hell II for my own use, but I didn't. I may not necessarily agree with David Thoener and Steven Rinkoff's EQ choices regarding the bass line but it's their mix and I respect the integrity of their work; I listen to it the way
they envisioned it. I'm just saying what I would have done if
I had been the engineer; just because it's not quite the way I would've done it doesn't mean it's not a good mix...
So, in conclusion regarding master track effects: I'm not opposed to a little reverb when appropriate, and EQ when you need to smooth out a project quickly, but I absolutely
refuse to use compression or limiting of
any kind; I have yet to see the recording that was actually improved by it.
I'd love to get my hands on the multitracks to remix from the only one of the three Bat Out of Hell albums that suffered from excessive limiting: Bat Out of Hell III.
