i also was thinking along these lines first, but it is not really a contradiction. you can do it manually just as you did with hardware i.e. using hardware controllers, but then record the automation. so if something goes wrong you do not need to repeat the whole track but only 10 seconds, later you render it in discrete time.

basically just like mixing in a DAW, too...

 

I wonder if a track mixed by Serban or Manny Marroquin would be mastered using automation, if not to fix a problem. I personally would hate to give my work to mastering engineer that would change the character of my mix on that matter to fit his taste. Well, it may be the favorite ME of some, but this person would never meet the color of my money.

That's why i would avoid it on mastering. That approach doesn't respect your work as a mixer.

 

Why do you think automation will alter your mix more than EQ, limiting, clipping,... ?
Most of the time I'm automating a few things while mastering to retain the character of the mix despite processing, like, as an example, keeping a dynamics relationship between parts that would otherwise be lost to limiting.
And, again, the 'unit' of mastering isnt the track, but the album. Making a cohesive album may cause the necessity of altering the character of a mix, although it should be as minimal as possible. When it is a compilation of various artists, the alteration might not be that subtle. Because the record as a whole is what matters.
Mastering should be as technical as possible, as it was during vinyl times. A mastering engineer shouldnt have a personal taste. Habits of work will already have a big footprint. But a mix engineer shouldnt regard his part as a work of art. The track is and so, must be altered as much as necessary to fit the context it will be listened to.
In the last years, I might have mastered singles maybe three times, all the rest were EPs, albums and compilations. Believe me, you dont want to hear a compilation made of tracks which 'mix character' has been fully respected.

 

Last edited: Jul 25, 2025 at 9:00 AM

I'd go back to the mixing. Unless you're trying some creative last minute move or you only have the LR stereo...
it's like boosting the bass in mastering.
If I find myself suddenly boosting too much in one specific track and the others (of say an album) not as much, then I go back to the drawing board.
If i'm doing the mixing and mastering, I make sure that in mastering I only have to do a bare minimum of say leveling track volume against the others of the album. a good solid mix needs almost 0 mastering. Most especially if you know that you'll be filling that role down the line when you're taking care of mixing. the same way with a good song arrangement. if it's done right, mixing gets easier. same with editing. if you rehearse it correctly and record it accordingly then you'll have to edit nothing or close to nothing.
and same goes with mastering. if you're doing tooo much there, it's because you didn't do enough before. or maybe on that specific track you were not as "in the zone".
when mixing an album track by track you're sucked in the process of each one and sometimes ONLY when you get to the end of the mixing of the entire album and you pair the tracks that you find that some have more or less bass then others etc etc.

there's fix it in the mix and fix it in the master and fix it in the editing... all postponing something that could have been fixed in the previous stage. (maybe this is not the case, but you gotta be careful)

 

With modern DAWs on home PCs, the boundaries between mixing and mastering are becoming increasingly blurred.

Home production: In a home studio, individuals often take on both roles—producer, mixing, and mastering engineer.
This allows the work steps to flow seamlessly, as there is no clear separation like in professional studios.

 

The funny thing about automation is that it is a double-edged sword. I get what you are suggesting. The overly summarized point of automation is to accurately control parameters that you set to do specific tasks. In mastering, theoretically, you want to monitor the finest detail and automation will still have to be manually monitored due to the ensuring of a zero-glitch factor, that is not unreasonable to take into account that automation might miss.

 

In MTWM, Chris Gehringer showed one of his session where he used two ozone instances where he switched between 2 different algorithms throughout the songs.

In another MTWM, Randy Merrill was using two different master chains for one song and he switched between these 2 mastering chains throughout the songs.

In Pensado's Place, Manny Marroquin told Dave Pensado that he used different compressors on his Mix Bus in Different Sections of the song.
(I know this one is a mixing tip but I think it is some form of mastering.)

In one of the video where White Sea (the snake oil guy) went to a mastering guy to compare online mastering services to real mastering guys.
Wtsy pointed out that The mastering guy automated the overall volume of the song to be quiter in verses & lil louder in choruses which not only made the song exciting but improved the overall dynamics of the song.


Imo you should do all the things required to make the song best as possible, whether it's widening, clipping, putting reverb on the track or simply deleting the song if it's bad so you save the listeners from suffering.

 

Also, I would like to remind you the infamous GULLFOSS on the master used by many pros is simply an automated spectral eq.
AUTOMATIC AUTOMATIONS ON THE MASTER?!?!!!!

 

Interesting approach in mastering by Kenny Gioia. No more automation?

 

The Secret To AUTOMATION In The Mix (Finally)

 

Last edited: Jul 25, 2025 at 3:47 PM

This is exactly what i expect from mastering. I just want it to be the best sonic output of my mix, and the guys that do this well may use automation without me or other even noticing it. And as soon as any processing or move made doesn't alter the intention of the record, but enhance and polish to consumer ears, it will be what i expect as a client.

But what would frustrate me as a client is noticing, for example, that the ME made processing automations for each section on the song to input his taste upon mine, which was the point OP was bringing to the table.

Man, this would kill me. If the moves are not gentle and become obvious to this point i would be a hell disapointed with the work. Or the ME thinks my work is sh*t or theres some lack of comunication going on because:

You can always go back to the mix and deliver things in a way it can be worked without any fuss.

 

Trust me Reverb on the master is a thing, it would be subtle like 4-5%, Or only on the sustain part of the song, Like that "ambience" setting on the Valhalla Vintage Verb which is super subtle.

That was a joke mate!
3 years ago I was working with a guy who hired a singer & a composer & myself as a mixing & mastering engineer.
That shithead ruined the singers performance by his direction also changed the song by forcing the composer.
Both singer and composer told me the guy is a shithead and when I heard the song I literally wanted to quit but did the work in just 2 revisions he got happy.
The guy messed with the label that song never got released cause on the videoshoot he delayed the shoot abused the videographer and the set designer.

 

depends on the material. Most don't really need it. But if you are doing mix or stem mastering, then that could be a way to animate things and add some impact to the material. my ignorant 2 cents.

 

Great insights from all of you guys! This is a vibrant and high level community.

This reply in particular has been very insightful. From my perspective, as a self-everything artist, mastering still is the most mysterious stage. Some golden rules seem to be: 1) 'mix for good sound, not for loudness', 2) 'never postpone for the next stage what can be solved in the previous stage' and 3) 'mastering should be transparent'... with all that in mind, mastering seems to be a loudness-focused activity. The fixing of problems that pop up once one raises the volume to the desired level, as far as I understand it, should be mostly solved by taking a step back to the previous stage i.e. mixing. It seems technology really has blurred the traditional workflow rules and separations. I even wonder whether a clipper should only be used in the master bus/mastering stage.

 

Mastering at that time was employed to make the final audio sweet and dynamically solid. These days it's all about making the shit louder than the next guy, and as bereft of dynamics as possible. You don't really need much automation to mess up audio in this way.

 

Why use clipping in the mix?

Clipping has traditionally sat within the wheelhouse of mastering engineers, done subtly at the stereo track level. But some mixing engineers have been playing with clipping for many years too – particularly in metal, EDM, and modern pop genres.

Yes, newbies often clip their mixes unintentionally, creating horrible sonic results in the process. That’s not what I’m talking about. When a careful engineer uses clipping in the mix itself – often on a track or buss level – they can actually rustle up serious sonic benefits:

Simply put, clipping can help manage levels in your mix without introducing compression artifacts, adding undesired density, affecting the tonal balance, or altering the overall character of your mix.

But only if you do it right!

Clipping in mixing explained, and how to use it ---> www.izotope.com/en/learn/clipping-in-mixing

 

Composing, Mastering, and Mixing is like painting art:

• The desired outcome determines the process.
• Sometimes it can be simple, but we keep having ideas to add this or that (ie: automation).
• I am still listening to classic music that use none....maybe the "automation" was someone throwing the faders during a transition. Those engineers were heroes.

The only rules are what the distro wants you to submit (format, dbfs, samplerate, etc). Everything else is to taste and besides the bare minimum "standards/guidelines" every masting engineer is going to have a different opinion on mastering and automation.

 

what fails more often, a human or a computerprogram? hard to tell.

i guess my main point was that you can not compare manipulating plugins on the fly with manipulating analog hardware. IMHO there can too much go wrong with controlling a software with physical knobs, so that you really want to record possible parameter automations first before writing the audio file.

if you dont make any errors it is basically the same procedure as recording it live, you just have to press the render button render at the end. mastering an album takes 3 minutes longer by that additional step.

 

do you even read what you write? audio mastering is done since 1970 and even if everyone would use some fancy plug-ins from 2019 how would you know? :P

 

Really ?

1970 ?

" In 1948 Ampex produced the Model 200 tape recorder and “transfer engineers” became experts at transferring recordings from tape to a vinyl master for reproduction. In 1954, the Recording Industry Association of America standardized the frequency response of playback devices with the introduction of the RIAA equalization curve as the de facto global industry standard for vinyl records. This curve ensured a flat frequency response from vinyl records and reduced the amount of high-frequency noise at the expense of emphasized low-frequency rumbling. Since bass-heavy recordings could cause problems with the stylus jumping out of the groove, engineers began to apply corrective EQ during the vinyl-cutting process to create better-sounding and more reliable records.
This was the beginning of modern mastering — when the role of the mastering engineer shifted from a purely technical process to a creative one. It was during the 1950s that engineers like Steve Hoffman made a name for themselves by enhancing masters with creative tools like EQ and compression. Hoffman was known for his work with jazz artists, including Miles Davis, Ella Fitzgerald, and The Beach Boys. "