20 Plug-in slots for Master Channel please.

[JFreak]

Why can't you route your stuff from aux1 to aux2 to aux3 to aux4 etc (which work pre-fader as in audio tracks) until you reach the point where you want your stuff out of the system and have 10 post-fader plugin slots?

I fail to see how this is not enough. If you use 10 auxes you have a hundred plugin slots right there. Besides, I have never used all 10 on any track, whether audio, aux, or master.

[DetroitT]

+1

Although I do know a cat that software-masters with chained and automated plug-in in- series-master faders.

[DDDaniel]

Hi, although I personally don't have a problem with max 10 inserts, I master in a separate master session and dont mind daisy chaining auxes, I do want to support hatepop...

I am totally happy with the fact that some people dont need 10 inserts, but that doesn't mean others are wrong.
I prefer to have a lot of processes ready when mastering, I might not use them all, but they are there.
Some genres need more processing than others, and some different than others.
And sometimes using a touch of a process from 3 different brands works better than 1 process a lot.
This also applies to sound restoration. (like from shellacs or vinyls)

An example for the people that can not imagine 10 inserts filled
1 tool to adjust stereo image like bx solo
2 a master tape machine simulator
3 a corrective surgical EQ
4 a corrective multiband comp
5 saturation processor brand A
6 Bob Katz stereo processor
7 creative EQ for the 'sound'
8 saturation processor B
9 a creative compressor for the 'sound'
10 special linear phase high pass filter
10 limiter
11 frequency analyser
12 dynamic range meter / phase meter
13 sonnox encoder software for iTunes/mp3
14 R128 meter

Haven't mentioned a sub bass generator, a touch of reverb, or an exciter or whatever.

Before you reply with 'the mixes must be really crap if you need all this": I mostly master other peoples mixes.... Some really good, some really bad. And on folk or jazz I do not need all this, but rap, electro, trance might need this stuff.
A lot of processes behave differently in mastering than in multitracking, so it is not a matter of 'you should have done that in the mix' but it is often an extra process that adds something unique in the mastering stage.
Some people might call it 'gelling things together'.

But whatever you think about the right amount of processes in mastering, there is no reason to make a moral judgement. Some people need one pot to make dinner, others 20, I dont think there is any cooking forum where people discuss the right amount of pots and pans....

Daniel

[Carl Kolchak]

Originally Posted by DDDaniel

Hi, although I personally don't have a problem with max 10 inserts, I master in a separate master session and dont mind daisy chaining auxes, I do want to support hatepop...

I am totally happy with the fact that some people dont need 10 inserts, but that doesn't mean others are wrong.
I prefer to have a lot of processes ready when mastering, I might not use them all, but they are there.
Some genres need more processing than others, and some different than others.
And sometimes using a touch of a process from 3 different brands works better than 1 process a lot.
This also applies to sound restoration. (like from shellacs or vinyls)

An example for the people that can not imagine 10 inserts filled
1 tool to adjust stereo image like bx solo
2 a master tape machine simulator
3 a corrective surgical EQ
4 a corrective multiband comp
5 saturation processor brand A
6 Bob Katz stereo processor
7 creative EQ for the 'sound'
8 saturation processor B
9 a creative compressor for the 'sound'
10 special linear phase high pass filter
10 limiter
11 frequency analyser
12 dynamic range meter / phase meter
13 sonnox encoder software for iTunes/mp3
14 R128 meter

Haven't mentioned a sub bass generator, a touch of reverb, or an exciter or whatever.

Before you reply with 'the mixes must be really crap if you need all this": I mostly master other peoples mixes.... Some really good, some really bad. And on folk or jazz I do not need all this, but rap, electro, trance might need this stuff.
A lot of processes behave differently in mastering than in multitracking, so it is not a matter of 'you should have done that in the mix' but it is often an extra process that adds something unique in the mastering stage.
Some people might call it 'gelling things together'.

But whatever you think about the right amount of processes in mastering, there is no reason to make a moral judgement. Some people need one pot to make dinner, others 20, I dont think there is any cooking forum where people discuss the right amount of pots and pans....

Daniel

But why would you want those processes post fader, as all inserts are on a Master track?

[DDDaniel]

Well, I dont know why he wants them on the master fader, what I was trying to say is that that is besides the point.
I was just trying to make two points:
- an example of a lot of inserts for people who can not imagine why anyone would need so many inserts (and I forgot to mention BX Boom in that serie;-)
- if someone else does not see the use of something, then that doesnt' mean that there is no use...

I usually use daisy chained auxes, but to be honest my master fader is always at 0dBFS in a mastering session. Any volume automation is either done with clip gain or automated plugin parameters, so theoretically the plugins could be moved to the master faders. The fact that they are post wont make a difference in that case.
Reason why I don't is because I want be able to A/B between tracks and versions, and then processes on the master are not really convenient. Only the metering is on the master, and the sonnox encoder.

I will just not question anybody because he prefers 20 inserts on the master, maybe he uses a unique trick that only works on the master....
Maybe he rides the master to compensate for different loudness in different parts of the track, so that they will all hit the limiter equally loud. Dont know.

I've been working for 30 years in audio and I've seen many unusual setups, some inspired me, and some I thought were crazy. But if it works for somebody and it is technically not wrong, then go ahead, if that inspires you and makes you excel in your production...

It's the people who take unusual paths that discover new roads...

[Carl Kolchak]

Originally Posted by DDDaniel

what I was trying to say is that that is besides the point.

It's entirely the point. The title of the thread is in reference to "Master Channel"s, and the O.P.'s feature request is directed at the "Master Channel".

He states he does not want to chain Aux channels in series, in order to get the required number of plug-in slots.

As I said in my initial post, I'm not arguing with, nor judging peoples workflows, or the number of plug-in processes they like to use.

I simply don't understand why you'd want them all to be post fader processes.

[CME]

I agree with taking new paths and using the tools you have. So while I wouldn't be mad if avid added more insert slots, there's lots of features PT has I don't use, I say use what you have. If you need the extra slots use an aux feeding the master. Is it ideal and the most simple? No. But it would work. I guess the point is, don't sit around wishing pro tools was better. Figure out ways to make it work better for you and get the job done. Just my .02.

[JFreak]

And remember that all output points in a PT mixer have a master fader whether visible or not. So...

You have "audio track A" that goes to "Aux1" via "bus1-2" and that aux track goes out to physical output "analog1-2". IOW, you have ONE SINGLE AUX between your audio track and your physical output.
--> you can have master fader for "bus1-2"
--> you can have master fader for "analog1-2"

==> therefore you have:
* 10 pre-fader insert slots for the "audio track A"
* 10 pre-fader insert slots for the "Aux1"
* 10 post-fader insert slots for the "bus1-2" master fader
* 10 post-fader insert slots for the "analog1-2" master fader

That is 40 inserts already.

Now if you route that "Aux1" to "Aux2" through "bus3-4" before the signal goes out to the physical output;
--> in addition to the previous, you can also have master fader for "bus3-4"

==> therefore you have:
* 10 pre-fader insert slots for the "audio track A"
* 10 pre-fader insert slots for the "Aux1"
* 10 post-fader insert slots for the "bus1-2" master fader
* 10 pre-fader insert slots for the "Aux2"
* 10 post-fader insert slots for the "bus3-4" master fader
* 10 post-fader insert slots for the "analog1-2" master fader

That is 60 insert slots. With only routing that audio track VIA TWO AUXES.

So...

How many do you really need? Add one aux to the equation and you will have 20 insert slots more. AFAIK, PT11 offers at least 128 Aux tracks. Is this kind of the end of this story?

[DDDaniel]

I think it is more a visual thing, than a discussion about routing or pre or post....
Seeing all processes in one row feels different than having to think about multiple channel and busses which each contain part of the processing.
There is this philosophy that mixing is a creative process, and that distraction caused by technical issues disturbs that creative flow.
I think it depends on your character and the way your brain works if you recognize this, but I am convinced that for a lot of creative people this true.
I always spend a lot of time setting up my session may it be for mixing or mastering, so that once I am working on the sound, I am not distracted by or have to focus on tech details anymore.

Some people might not find it a problem to have inserts in multiple channels, I can imagine that for others this is not ideal, and in a time where many daws have 'unlimited' inserts, they'd like to have that in PT too....

And because a master does not have sends, there is the space....

For the rest I personally totally agree with CME, its the best attitude for life, but not everybody is the same...