compression on master versus individual

[reboundking]

a lot of times now ive seen threads that seem very interessting but when i read through them its just a bunch of people going att each other...thís isnt rocket science but some people wanna act like there some kind of facking proffessor or some ****. And its always the same people i can allmost guess when there post are on the way.

[Blue Bear Sound]

a lot of times now ive seen threads that seem very interessting but when i read through them its just a bunch of people going att each other...thís isnt rocket science but some people wanna act like there some kind of facking proffessor or some ****. And its always the same people i can allmost guess when there post are on the way.

While it's not rocket surgery, there is far more to the craft than many of the participants at this site realize....

[Degree]

I don't see where neil wrote "nothing going on". Do you mean "nothing done here"?

Yes.
The operative word here being."nothing" as opposed to "something", or "everything"

Which simply leaves the question: "Is there something going on, or not"

There are way too many grossly outrageous misinterpretations in his post to even begin to address.

Start by giving your definition of the term "Nothing".

I would call your hihat/ and levels fixing idea a pretty gross misinterpretation/extrapolation
Considering it's about mastering/stereo-processing in general and there is no reference whatsoever to what you claim.
It might be worth adressing the logic behind that.

[sleepy]

Neil was making the case that if a person is processing the master bus, they should process the mix at the track-level instead if they are going the DIY route. That was all, nothing more.

[Degree]

Neil was making the case that if a person is processing the master bus, they should process the mix at the track-level instead if they are going the DIY route. That was all, nothing more.

Exactly.
And how would you go about achieving the effect of stereo bus compression by doing it at the track level instead?

The answer: You can't.
The results are different. Which is why you CANNOT achieve the same results at track level.

So there is no "instead". There is no "going back to the mix"
The effect of bus-compression cannot be achieved through processing individual track.

and that irrefutably contradicts the idea that there is "nothing done here that can't be done better at the track-level.

[sleepy]

He wasn't making a case for bus-compression, but mastering in general.

[Degree]

He wasn't making a case for bus-compression, but mastering in general.

Yes. Mastering in general. I already stated that.
Since when did that exclude simple compression of stereo material?

Scenario. I'm mastering my own mix and put a stereo-compressor on the master bus.
Hmmm Someone said I should go back and do it on the tracks instead.
"Wow! can I do that cool????"
"Eeerm no I can't"
point is this I cannot get that type of sonic results by "going back and doing it at track level"
..and that contradicts "nothing being done" vs "track level" etc

[sleepy]

A Mastering Engineer may choose to not use any compression/limiting at all on material if it's not necessary.

Even with pop music and the like where things have to be "loud", compression/limiting may be an afterthought.

Compression/limiting is an afterthought even in these cases and is really not the point of mastering though increasing perceived loudness is something that does take place at the mastering stage nowadays.

So since when? It always has been optional as far as mastering is concerned with a lot of Mastering guys.

When you take a mix to a Mastering Engineer they're not thinking "compression" but rather "balance" as far as processing is concerned.

A good mix ideally needs no processing as the mastering stage.

[Degree]

A Mastering Engineer may choose to not use any compression/limiting at all on material if it's not necessary.

Even with pop music and the like where things have to be "loud", compression/limiting may be an afterthought.

Compression/limiting is an afterthought even in these cases and is really not the point of mastering though increasing perceived loudness is something that does take place at the mastering stage nowadays.

So since when? It always has been optional as far as mastering is concerned with a lot of Mastering guys.

When you take a mix to a Mastering Engineer they're not thinking "compression" but rather "balance" as far as processing is concerned.

A good mix ideally needs no processing as the mastering stage.

OK I ask since when it EXCLUDED, and you reply it optional??
erm....optional and excluding are not synonymous.
Is stereo compression a common inherent part of the mastering or is it not?
Well it is.
Optional?
Of course everything you do is optional when it comes to creating music.

As has been said over and over in this thread(and not just by me) it achieves a sonic result that cannot be achieved otherwise.

Even mastering is "optional"

So why would you contest that he does not mean stereo compression when he adresses "mastering in general" Because it's optional?

When you talk about something in general it commonly includes all parts. That's what separates it from addressing something specifically.

[sleepy]

Is stereo compression a common inherent part of the mastering or is it not?

It is not.