> I also agree, that overcompression is not what we need. Although, there
When considering music produced by people on this list it would
be true that in almost all cases the one doing the mixing and
the one doing the mastering is one and the same person. And this
changes the picture.
Mastering as a separate step has two, maybe three functions or
1. To adapt the recording to the limits of the distribution
medium. In the days of vinyl records that was essential. Today
this requirement just doesn't exits.
2. To provide an extra set of ears and a second reproduction
environment. This won't happen if the mixing and mastering
is done by the same person, within a short time, and using
the same studio.
3. To equalise levels and atmosphere and create dramatic effect
when assembling an album consisting of several separate pieces.
The is the only function that remains today, in the circumstances
we are talking about.
So, if during mastering you are not satisfied with the sound
why on earth would you try to adjust it using complex filtering
and dynamics on the mixed signal ? Just fix it in the mix, where
you have vastly more possibilities by working on separate tracks.
Digital production techniques make it easy to do this - there
is no need to adhere to a workflow dictated by the state of
technology 30 years ago.
Linux-audio-user mailing list