Hello Julien, > I also agree, that overcompression is not what we need. Although, there > are times, where you might want to use it as a tool for sound shaping. > Not everything is classical and live sounding music. Mixture of electro > and acoustic can be in need or just production of one instrument. I > admit, that as a mastering tool, all I use is a limiter at present. > Mostly it works out, sometimes it doesn't. 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 merits: 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. Ciao, -- FA _______________________________________________ Linux-audio-user mailing list Linux-audio-user@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-user
