How to prevent squashed snare ???

[KaNeT]

Originally Posted by MattGray

Send the 3 mixes to me & I will treat each one individually & we'll post the results blind & let people choose which one they prefer. Once the votes are cast I'll reveal which mix was which. Sound like a better plan?

That would be very interesting.

[Musiclab]

Originally Posted by MattGray

Sure, I agree & this should always be the case with a quality mastering engineer whether a mix is sent in compressed or not.



Did Scott use to master those uncompressed mixes for you back then?



Ok put it this way, what are the main things that you change when mixing with the SSL inline that you wouldn't of changed when mixing without it? You mentioned higher snare levels & less reverb, is there anything else?



Ok lets do 3 mixes, the 1st mix your normal way, with the SSL inline like you've always done. The 2nd mix is easy, turn off the SSL & print this mix without it. Then with the 3rd mix leave the SSL off & listen to the mix again, listen for anything that sounds unbalanced i.e. snare is now too loud, vocals are a touch loud, guitars & effects are too quiet. Adjust these to the level you want to hear them but remember the idea is that the uncompressed mix sounds the way you want the final balances on the master to be (but don't compensate for the extra level that will ensue). The theory is there should be no need for you to compensate for the snare or the reverb levels as they should be pretty much the same after mastering. The master should be very similar to the mix once level matched in terms of snare & fx levels.

Send the 3 mixes to me & I will treat each one individually & we'll post the results blind & let people choose which one they prefer. Once the votes are cast I'll reveal which mix was which. Sound like a better plan?

Matt

OK Here's what I can do. I can do the SSL and turn the SSL off mix. I dont know that I have enough time to do method three but if I do I will. I have been using Scott Hull for years, as far back as when he was at Masterdisk, it's possible that he's gotten mixes without 2 buss compression from me, but I can't remember.
I agree with your next post about using analog compression with low ratios and NO limiting. It's one thing to give a client a pumped up ref, but loudness should be handled by the mastering engineer.

[phild]

Originally Posted by MattGray

summing an uncompressed version of the mix with a heavier compressed version & blending the 2 to taste. This can be done on an analog board or in a DAW that has plugin delay compensation.

Matt, I know you are talking mxing boards here but are there any current and stock mastering consoles that you are aware of that can do this? Our long-gone Neve transfer console had a reverb return with a very nice Penny & Giles fader.

I know there are plenty of digital options out there... but I like, maybe, one of 'em.

Does digital offer advantages over analog here?

[aivoryuk]

Originally Posted by KaNeT

That would be very interesting.

what would make it more interesting would be if Matt didn't know what mix was which before hand

[MattGray]

Originally Posted by aivoryuk

what would make it more interesting would be if Matt didn't know what mix was which before hand

That's where ears would give it away

[MattGray]

Originally Posted by phild

Matt, I know you are talking mxing boards here but are there any current and stock mastering consoles that you are aware of that can do this? Our long-gone Neve transfer console had a reverb return with a very nice Penny & Giles fader.

I know there are plenty of digital options out there... but I like, maybe, one of 'em.

Does digital offer advantages over analog here?

Hi Phil, I've been looking into an analog mastering console that would do this but I can't seem to find any off the shelf solutions that has this built in which I find more than a little odd. Currently I am using Pro Tools HD's mixer set up to do this purpose, it has ADC (auto delay compensation) for any plug-ins or hardware inserts that you insert in the mixer section.

The benefit of setting this up digitally is that it can be perfectly in phase using ADC or MDC. Doing this in the analog domain may reveal a very slight phase shift (hardly worth mentioning but it's there). If you wanted to look at some analog options you could have someone like Manley Labs custom build something or check out the new Elysia compressor which has M/S & parallel compression built in. I haven't tried this unit yet but those who have are giving it a good wrap.

If anyone else here knows of some analog routing options for parallel compression please share...

Matt

What I've started to do is on the right hand end of the ptools mixer just before the master fader, I do parrallel compression, where a compressed version of the mix is added to the uncompressed version, but I usually Eq the compressed version so that it's a bit warmer in the low mids.

My drums are usually multed on the left end of the mixer and sent to an aux channel. (which is sometimes parrallel compressed but often not.)

IF I walk away from a mix and come back feeling the drums need a bit more ummphfff


Instead of altering the drum mix (which is probably close to where they should be since I at one point felt the mix was done)

I usually place another set of mono aux's for kick and snr down mixes on the right end of the mixer (with the parrallel mix comp and master fader) To filter and add back to the drums whatever I felt was missing.

It's been working for me.

[phild]

Originally Posted by MattGray

The benefit of setting this up digitally is that it can be perfectly in phase using ADC or MDC. Doing this in the analog domain may reveal a very slight phase shift (hardly worth mentioning but it's there). If you wanted to look at some analog options you could have someone like Manley Labs custom build something or check out the new Elysia compressor which has M/S & parallel compression built in. I haven't tried this unit yet but those who have are giving it a good wrap.

Actually, it's the phase shift that excites me... could that be what all the fuss about summing amps is about?

I'm sure Manley could make something really bullet-proof. Our old Neve had a parallel reverb return. I don't remember if the Neumann consoles did or not and other than that the CM consoles you see in various NYC studios have the Rev/return too. Lucky bastards. That extra stage would add amplifier noise and an extra relay though - so there is a bit of a compromise to do this analog style. It would have to be clean as possible!

The Elysia comp is touching down at The Lacquer Channel in March/April sometime.
I'll give it a good run and if I like it I'll get it eventually. But I'd almost rather have a host of disparate sounding compressors and use a RR/parallel box. Just for a broader range of tones... I am of mixed mind in terms of my direction. The Elysia looks really versatile and I'd love just to have one comp doing comp cores for a change. I've taken steps to build something so I'll let you know what happens. Strangely, I haven't compressed analog for a while.

Right now I've tried it digitally with the ds1 (nice, but not a reason to break out the champagne and cigars). Slightly better results with a plugin at the moment.

The next 6-8 months are going to be great fun experimenting around here.

[MattGray]

Originally Posted by phild

Actually, it's the phase shift that excites me... could that be what all the fuss about summing amps is about?

I'm sure there's more to it then just phase anomolies, but if you want different degrees of phase cancellation in the digital summing world, you could always add a sample or 2 to the MDC (manual delay compensation). But I'm sure that's not the sound you're coveting .

What I've found when doing parallel compression digitally or using an analog compressor as a hardware insert, is that the compressed signal tends to be different enough that when it combines with the clean channel it produces a nice texture. It depends on the way the compressor reacts & I choose the colour of the compressor based on the hardness factor of the mix. If it's done digitally & it's sounding a little edgy or harsh in the mids I use a more neutral or warmer sounding compressor. If the mix sounds too soft, warm or dense then I use one that has a little more colour or aggression.

The Elysia comp is touching down at The Lacquer Channel in March/April sometime. I'll give it a good run and if I like it I'll get it eventually.

Definitely keep us posted about your thoughts on how it sounds & operates.

But I'd almost rather have a host of disparate sounding compressors and use a RR/parallel box. Just for a broader range of tones... I am of mixed mind in terms of my direction.

I think I would prefer to have more then one option to choose from too, unless the Elysia has a wide range of sounds that all sound fantastic.

Right now I've tried it digitally with the ds1 (nice, but not a reason to break out the champagne and cigars). Slightly better results with a plugin at the moment.

Interesting, I haven't tried the DS-1 but I assume it sounds very neutral? Out of curiosity what compression plug-in is floating your boat at the moment?

Matt

[Brad Blackwood]

Originally Posted by MattGray

Doing this in the analog domain may reveal a very slight phase shift (hardly worth mentioning but it's there).

There *might* be some equipment able to measure it, but there will be nothing audible. There's a reason analog gear doesn't specify 'latency'...

[phild]

Originally Posted by MattGray

Interesting, I haven't tried the DS-1 but I assume it sounds very neutral? Out of curiosity what compression plug-in is floating your boat at the moment?

It's very glitchy - and audibly so... but the PSP comp has got me some great results when I've used it.
There is a nice blend feature & side-chain feature (not so nice).

Looks ugly... but there's potential with this one.
Where I use it in my system and how it gets used leads me to prefer it (only sound-wise) over my Weiss (not a Weiss slag at all...I'm keeping mine)

[lucey]

Originally Posted by phild

The Elysia looks really versatile and I'd love just to have one comp doing comp cores for a change.

Originally Posted by MattGray

I think I would prefer to have more then one option to choose from too, unless the Elysia has a wide range of sounds that all sound fantastic.

Not to derail here but if you want color, just add color. I may use no comp ... or the Alpha only. The thing about passive parallel is that our overall level increases as we blend the compressed in to the M or the S. That complicates the mental A/B quite a bit as you have to use both hands to keep the level even, when moving the blend around for either M or S. The Elysia lets you use one hand on the M blend and one on the S blend. Or ... one hand on the overall gain (image shift) and one hand on the blend (transient shift). The results are immediate and always level matched (within 0.2db or so). Getting things any more complicated than that sounds like too much for my brain!

[Musiclab]

Originally Posted by aivoryuk

what would make it more interesting would be if Matt didn't know what mix was which before hand

If Matt couldn't tell he wouldn't be in the mastering business.

[MattGray]

Just thought I'd give everyone an update report about my experiment with Lou's (aka Musiclab) mixes. Lou provided me with 2 mixes, an SSL compressed mix & an uncompressed mix (same as the first mix but with the SSL compressor taken off the mix buss). I've done the pre-mastering on these 2 tracks & labelled them generically i.e. "Master A" & "Master B". Lou has downloaded them but I am still waiting to hear back from him which version he preferred & why. I'll start by sharing my thoughts, hopefully without revealing the identity of the 2 masters.

Both of Lou's mixes were excellent & as a result, I believe great mastering results were achieved from both of them. For this particular style of music I thought the compression made the upper mids & highs a little dull & dynamically veiled, so I felt I needed to add more highs & use a bit of upward expansion to revive some of the life. On the other hand, the bottom octave sounded punchy & very nicely controlled. The uncompressed mix was a fair bit brighter (this was probably added in the SSL mix to counteract the compression side affects). The bottom end wasn't as controlled but the whole track sounded more open & natural. After doing some A/B tests I felt that the uncompressed master had a more suitable dynamic feel compared to the compressed master for this style of music. However I still preferred the feel of the bottom end on the SSL compressed track. I think the ideal mix for me would of had one channel of the SSL on the bass guitar & the other channel on the kick & no buss compression at all. I think if Lou had of mixed without the SSL he may of compressed the bass & kick a bit more & it wouldn't have been quite as bright in the highs. Had this been a rock track I may have preferred the SSL compressed mix, this is where I need to do a little more experimenting...

I've been recently dealing with a few clients who have based their mixes on Charles Dye's techniques from his educational DVD's 'mix it like a record". One of his techniques involves mixing into a McDSP 'Analog Channel' buss compressor then into an 'SSL' style plug-in called 'Impact', which are both inserted on the master fader in Pro Tools. The idea being that you set it up first using his recommended settings & then you mix into it as you go.

I asked these clients to also provide me with an 'uncompressed' copy of their mix. One of them refused saying that their mix would 'fall apart', the other said ok sure, I trust you to do your thing. In both cases the compressed mixes had problems, they sounded 2 dimensional, flat & lifeless. The client who refused to supply an uncompressed mix left me with a harsh, slightly distorted mix which proved challenging & time consuming to work with but he was very happy with the end result. I felt it could've been better if I had the uncompressed version, as it was I felt like I was making a lot of repairs to fix the problems due to the compression such as excessive sibilance, blurred distorted cymbal hits & dull dynamics. The other client's compressed mix also sounded dynamically flat, thin & harsh, it lacked body & depth. Although the uncompressed mix sounded tonally similar, it didn't sound flat or lifeless. I used this one to great affect & it amazed the producer to hear the results.

These are the conclusions I've found so far...

1) A great mix will always be a great mix, regardless of buss compression & excellent mastering results can be made with either one.
2) Successful buss compression is dependent upon the user, the type of compressor & how it's set up. This is programme dependent, I don't believe one compressor is suitable for all styles.
3) This technique can do more harm then good if it's abused or in the hands of an inexperienced operator.
4) As a general rule analog buss compressors sound better then plug-ins for this purpose.
5) In most cases better results are achieved by mastering the 'uncompressed' mix.

Matt

[Musiclab]

Originally Posted by MattGray

Just thought I'd give everyone an update report about my experiment with Lou's (aka Musiclab) mixes. Lou provided me with 2 mixes, an SSL compressed mix & an uncompressed mix (same as the first mix but with the SSL compressor taken off the mix buss). I've done the pre-mastering on these 2 tracks & labelled them generically i.e. "Master A" & "Master B". Lou has downloaded them but I am still waiting to hear back from him which version he preferred & why. I'll start by sharing my thoughts, hopefully without revealing the identity of the 2 masters.

Both of Lou's mixes were excellent & as a result, I believe great mastering results were achieved from both of them. For this particular style of music I thought the compression made the upper mids & highs a little dull & dynamically veiled, so I felt I needed to add more highs & use a bit of upward expansion to revive some of the life. On the other hand, the bottom octave sounded punchy & very nicely controlled. The uncompressed mix was a fair bit brighter (this was probably added in the SSL mix to counteract the compression side affects). The bottom end wasn't as controlled but the whole track sounded more open & natural. After doing some A/B tests I felt that the uncompressed master had a more suitable dynamic feel compared to the compressed master for this style of music. However I still preferred the feel of the bottom end on the SSL compressed track. I think the ideal mix for me would of had one channel of the SSL on the bass guitar & the other channel on the kick & no buss compression at all. I think if Lou had of mixed without the SSL he may of compressed the bass & kick a bit more & it wouldn't have been quite as bright in the highs. Had this been a rock track I may have preferred the SSL compressed mix, this is where I need to do a little more experimenting...

I've been recently dealing with a few clients who have based their mixes on Charles Dye's techniques from his educational DVD's 'mix it like a record". One of his techniques involves mixing into a McDSP 'Analog Channel' buss compressor then into an 'SSL' style plug-in called 'Impact', which are both inserted on the master fader in Pro Tools. The idea being that you set it up first using his recommended settings & then you mix into it as you go.

I asked these clients to also provide me with an 'uncompressed' copy of their mix. One of them refused saying that their mix would 'fall apart', the other said ok sure, I trust you to do your thing. In both cases the compressed mixes had problems, they sounded 2 dimensional, flat & lifeless. The client who refused to supply an uncompressed mix left me with a harsh, slightly distorted mix which proved challenging & time consuming to work with but he was very happy with the end result. I felt it could've been better if I had the uncompressed version, as it was I felt like I was making a lot of repairs to fix the problems due to the compression such as excessive sibilance, blurred distorted cymbal hits & dull dynamics. The other client's compressed mix also sounded dynamically flat, thin & harsh, it lacked body & depth. Although the uncompressed mix sounded tonally similar, it didn't sound flat or lifeless. I used this one to great affect & it amazed the producer to hear the results.

These are the conclusions I've found so far...

1) A great mix will always be a great mix, regardless of buss compression & excellent mastering results can be made with either one.
2) Successful buss compression is dependent upon the user, the type of compressor & how it's set up. This is programme dependent, I don't believe one compressor is suitable for all styles.
3) This technique can do more harm then good if it's abused or in the hands of an inexperienced operator.
4) As a general rule analog buss compressors sound better then plug-ins for this purpose.
5) In most cases better results are achieved by mastering the 'uncompressed' mix.

Matt

I had a chance to listen to Matt's mastering on the track I mixed and the two versions of the mix. First off let me say nice job Matt, you know definetly know what you're doing and I would recommend you an Mastering Engineer. What we have here with regards to the two mixes might be a difference of opinion. To me it's clearly obvious which is the mix with the SSL engaged and which isn't. What I think you proved is that a good ME who is sensitive to not smashing the life out of a project can leave you with your snare not squashed to death. What happens when I took the
SSL out, and I did that just by hitting the bypass button, is that the mix changed, the snare and vocal is louder on SSL bypassed mix, and Matt didn't hit it hard enough to pull it back in, which proves his point in one way which is what I stated before, it's possible a good ME won't radically change your mix. At the same time tho, pulling the SSL out did change my mix, and that is at a low compression ratio, 2:1. Also I use a fair amount of individual compression on the tracks, again low ratio.
So while it seems that it's possible that for this to happen, if your tracks werent compressed the way mine were or to tell the truth even if they were, I believe that it's very possible for your mix to change big time in mastering , but Matt would be a good guy to send your project to. If the ME felt your track had to be "grabbed more by the compressor the levels would change.
When I A/B records I hear some of the transients grabbed, some more than others, so part of what I associate with as a "record" sound is the transients being grabbed somewhat by a 2 buss compressor. For me mixing "into" the 2 buss compressor enables me to get that "record" sound without completely killing the transients although definetly taming them.
As far as which version I like, well I like the SSL version. The SSL smooths out the upper mids abit, it's part of it's sound which is something Matt talked about in one of the earlier posts when he said if you want to use a 2 buss comp for it's color go ahead. The track just sits better for me. Also for the kind of project this is, which is actually the Adult Contemporary/ R&B/ Smooth Jazz bag , it seems to me that the SSL version is more right although Matt's preferred version maybe hits abit harder.
So I would still say I agree with your conclusions Matt except for #5. But I'm sure others will agree with you on all points. One thing is for sure, its much better when you have a really good ME work on your project than not.
Anyway I hope someone gets something out of this and that anyone who listens to the songs likes it. I'm very proud of this particular project

[MattGray]

I've just heard from Lou that I have permission to put up some samples of the experiment we did. I've zipped up 4 x 16bit 44.1kHz wave files, the first 2 are labelled Mix A & Mix B (one has the SSL G series compressor on the 2 bus, the other mix has the SSL bypassed). The second lot of files are labelled Master A & Master B these represent the mastered versions of both these mixes.

Once you've downloaded them feel free to comment & make your own mind up which mix/master combo you prefer overall & if you happen to find elements of both which you like. I've kept the file names generic so you can make an unbiased decision on which mix or master you prefer based on listening only. Bear in mind that the mix files are not level matched & only presented as they were given to me. The mastered files however were level matched in the mastering process.

Thanks to Lou & his wife (who is the talented singer on this track) for giving us permission to use this mix as an experiment we can all listen & learn from.

I decided to use "You Send It" as the file server so I could give each file about 1min 20secs in length for people to hear the dynamic shifts between the verse & choruses more accurately.

Download the zipped file HERE (48.7MB). If this link expires after 7 days & you would like to hear these test files then PM me for a new link.

Cheers,

Matt

[Ermz]

I'd just like to thank you both for going to the lengths of actually doing this. Mastering has always been a bit of a grey area for me, and I'm very appreciative to have learned a thing or two about how to present my mixes to an MA.

It's a bit too late right now to download and listen to those tracks with any sort of objectivity or detail, but tomorrow, definitely!

[MattGray]

Originally Posted by Ermz

I'd just like to thank you both for going to the lengths of actually doing this. Mastering has always been a bit of a grey area for me, and I'm very appreciative to have learned a thing or two about how to present my mixes to an MA.

It's a bit too late right now to download and listen to those tracks with any sort of objectivity or detail, but tomorrow, definitely!

Anyone downloaded these & had a listen? I'm surprised by the lack of comments.

Matt

[defjamm]

i think this is the problem:

"The person who sent you this file was using the free version of our service. When our free users send files 20MB or more, we ask our customers to register with us and get the advantages a registered customer has, including 1) You own inbox 2) Send multiple files to multiple recipients 3) Send and receive files up to 100MB and 4) 4GB Bandwidth limit per month. To download your file and enjoy all these benefits, please register and start sending files for free today!"

does anyone else know a better place to upload?

[aivoryuk]

Originally Posted by MattGray

Anyone downloaded these & had a listen? I'm surprised by the lack of comments.

Matt

hi matt i listened to the tracks some time ago but what with being away and gearslutz being a bit unreliable at the mo i've not had a chance to post.

for what its worth i thought you did a decent job on both the mixes couldn't really say which one was my favourite, snare was kept intact for both the masters but then again it wasn't really smashed levels (and im very glad for that).

what i was quite surprised about was the the mix with the buss compression the peaks were already up there (i'm assuming its that one) so IMO it seems it was used more for level rather than sound. Good mixes though, i could of dealt with either but would of preferred the one with the more headroom.

[Bob Olhsson]

My mixing method is to test using an L2 on the mix buss. I like to pull both the threshold and output sliders down together so that I can clearly hear the "damage" without getting confused by the change in volume.

I find that a small, somewhat meaningless seeming change to the snare eq., and its balance relative to the overheads can make a huge difference after peak limiting is applied to the mix.

If mastering is going to suck out the snare unless extraordinary care is taken, you can bet that broadcast processing is going to absolutely decimate it.

[dkelley]

just a thought, if the snare sounds great in the mix before you use your finalizer, and if you like the mix at that point before the finalizer, maybe don't use the finalizer????

Not a mastering engineer here, just regular engineer, but there are times for finalizer (well, I never have time for it, but that's just me) and there are times when you don't want to use it. If it sounds good without, then don't use it.

Cheers,
Don

[Tempest19]

That link is down.

Could you possibly post another?

I just saw this thread and read through it all to find I can't hear the result.

Thanks,

CT

[MattGray]

Originally Posted by defjamm

i think this is the problem:

"The person who sent you this file was using the free version of our service. When our free users send files 20MB or more, we ask our customers to register with us and get the advantages a registered customer has, including 1) You own inbox 2) Send multiple files to multiple recipients 3) Send and receive files up to 100MB and 4) 4GB Bandwidth limit per month. To download your file and enjoy all these benefits, please register and start sending files for free today!"

does anyone else know a better place to upload?

For those having trouble accessing it from You Send It, I've just put the files up on my http server here just login as a guest using the 'anonymous' login & download directly from there.

Matt

[MattGray]

Originally Posted by aivoryuk

hi matt i listened to the tracks some time ago but what with being away and gearslutz being a bit unreliable at the mo i've not had a chance to post.

for what its worth i thought you did a decent job on both the mixes couldn't really say which one was my favourite, snare was kept intact for both the masters but then again it wasn't really smashed levels (and im very glad for that).

Yes this certainly wasn't the type of music that needed to be smashed for level, the average levels after mastering on both versions was -11.4 for the clean version & -11.7 for the SSL version, which I think is more then enough for this style of music.

what i was quite surprised about was the the mix with the buss compression the peaks were already up there (i'm assuming its that one) so IMO it seems it was used more for level rather than sound. Good mixes though, i could of dealt with either but would of preferred the one with the more headroom.

Yes unfortunately both mixes were hitting 0.0dbfs before I got to master them, the SSL mix was hitting 0.0dbfs quite a bit harder then the clean one with a -14rms average & the clean mix was -16.8rms average.

Matt

[Adam Dempsey]

Originally Posted by phild

Matt, I know you are talking mxing boards here but are there any current and stock mastering consoles that you are aware of that can do this? Our long-gone Neve transfer console had a reverb return with a very nice Penny & Giles fader.

I know there are plenty of digital options out there... but I like, maybe, one of 'em.

Does digital offer advantages over analog here?

Yep (re parallel/upwards comp) typically you'll want a real fast attack on the compressed signal to prevent a double shot of transient attack. Although I have used an analogue board for this, with just 1 stereo send/return insert on a blend pot, with 12dB pads in 3dB steps on both the input and insert so you could gain match, even null the comp side with a polarity flip to find the 50/50 point, or just dial in beneath the uncompressed signal to suit. The limitationhere was the single, slow tube compressor available. Lately, however, not needing it with the options & colours available here.

[phild]

Originally Posted by Boomshanka

Yep (re parallel/upwards comp) typically you'll want a real fast attack on the compressed signal to prevent a double shot of transient attack. Although I have used an analogue board for this, with just 1 stereo send/return insert on a blend pot, with 12dB pads in 3dB steps on both the input and insert so you could gain match, even null the comp side with a polarity flip to find the 50/50 point, or just dial in beneath the uncompressed signal to suit. The limitationhere was the single, slow tube compressor available. Lately, however, not needing it with the options & colours available here.

A great response! Thanks!

I have been doing the usual research - looking at schematics, talking to some respected guys about designing/building me a "blend-er" but I'm having a hard time stirring up interest for it. Implementation issues and all that goes along with it. R&D, Noise, etc... I honestly figured there would be more excitement towards building one.

I've got a quite few projects on the go so maybe I'll just put it on the back burner for now... everything comes back with a vengeance sooner or later....

I'll let you know what happens. Say hi to Tony.

Happy Easter
Happy Passover!

[SUPADUPA]

I find that some mixes " need " a Buss compressor to work ... and some don't ...

I wouldn't trust any ME telling me not to do something to a mix arbitrarily ...

i.e. ... with out listening to the mixes first ...

[sloper]

I haven't read this entire post so i hope i don't repeat someone else.

I find a great way to make sure the snare comes through in the mastering process is to mult the snare and limit the snot out of it blending it in with the original. It's pretty basic trick that helps get the girth of the snare out in the mix. If you're doing this already maybe try turning up the compressed track before messing with the original snare.

For mastering ITB i sometimes have to do my own mastering (which i'd rather not do), but i've had great results using Izotope's Ozone plugin and the Timeworks Mastering Compressor. They are great for mixes that need the snare to punch through. I've had a few of my masters on the radio using these plugs and they stand up quite well.

I went through a stage a while back where i mixed into a compressor but i found it screwed me up and made me a bit lazy at times. I do mainly hard rock and i try not to compress anything but the vocal if i can get away with it. When you're tracking it helps if the drummer hits the snare super F***ing hard too.

Hope this helps.

-slope