Is less compression in mixing favored at the mastering?

[yllet]

Originally Posted by OpusOfTrolls

What kind of mix would you prefer to receive? One with careful use of compression for loudness and density, or a very open acoustical kind of quality?

Boring answer but, whatever suits the mix. The better the mix sounds, the more fun it is to master, easy as that, no hard rules.

Sound of wool

/Jon

[Twerk]

Mix like you mean it.

[OpusOfTrolls]

Originally Posted by Twerk

Mix like you mean it.

This is exceptional advice for mastering engineers.

[cuebism]

Originally Posted by OpusOfTrolls

This is exceptional advice for mastering engineers.

+1

[Twerk]

Originally Posted by OpusOfTrolls

This is exceptional advice for mastering engineers.

I'd prefer to take a mix that was mixed "carefully". Period. I get a lot of clients that are quite capable of using compressors.

[wado1942]

Originally Posted by OpusOfTrolls

compression for loudness and density

Stop right there. If you're doing anything in the mixing stage for the sake of loudness, you're not helping your mix. Do what makes the mix SOUND best. If it's not loud enough, turn up your monitors.
That said, I usually prefer mixes with no buss compression for several reasons. #1 is consistency; one song may have more compression than another, usually too much, and I have to try to "undo" the damage with expansion to help it match the less compressed songs, which is pretty hit & miss. The other reason is 99% of the masters I've done require some EQ. If the compressor is reacting to say, some heavy bass that will get reduced in mastering to sit right, the compression will sound very unnatural. I have two choices there, either let the song stay somewhat bass heavy and make the other songs match or correct the bass and have odd compression that serves no purpose.
I'm not saying compression on the main buss is always bad. I'm saying it's something that I'd never encourage, because only the best mix engineers seem to do it well. Bear in mind, also, that compression on the stereo mix is something the mastering engineer can do very easily with all the mixes in context. So why would you feel the need to use it in the mix?

[OpusOfTrolls]

Track compression not bus compression. This is used all the time.

[wado1942]

I didn't catch that. I'll stand by what I said though, if you're doing it for loudness, you're not helping yourself. If you're using compression on the tracks because it sounds better that way, go for it.

[Slug1]

I don't think there is a problem with some good mix buss compression for groove, mojo, and some leveling if needed, but not for squashing things for loudness. Too many top mix engineers use buss compression and even buss limiting (Pensado swears by L2 on the '2 buss'), so its hard to argue that you can't use compression/limiting on the mix buss. I refuse to believe that its some sort of standard. Actually, I think if the track is mixed right and the mix-e puts a compressor on the buss, sometimes the mastering engineer may have less to do. Just my opinion.

[Ninja_Edit]

My intuition is that you want to do as little as possible at the mastering stage, which means correct compression and group compression. Addressing the bass thing, high pass your sidechain?

Although by the nature of the question, the correct amount of compression is... the correct amount of compression.