Compression is one of those tools that almost everyone uses, but very few people truly understand in the context of mastering. While compression plays a visible role in mixing, its place in mastering is far more restrained, far more delicate, and—perhaps surprisingly—often minimal.

One thing that tends to surprise people is this:

Mastering engineers generally don’t use a lot of compression.

In many ways, the approach mirrors how equalization is handled at the mastering stage—very small moves, applied only when absolutely necessary, and always with the broader musical picture in mind.

How Compression Is Typically Used in Mastering

If compression is applied during mastering, it is usually extremely subtle.

Rather than dramatic gain reduction or obvious tonal shaping, the goal is gentle control—just enough to shape the presentation without changing the character of the music.

Typical mastering compression settings often include:

• Very low ratios
• High thresholds
• Minimal gain reduction

In practice, this usually means:

• Maximum gain reduction: 2–3 dB
• More commonly: around 0.5 dB

Ratios tend to live in a narrow range, often around:

• 1.2:1
• 1.5:1
• Occasionally 2:1, which is already considered quite strong for mastering

These numbers may look conservative, and that’s intentional. Mastering compression is not about reshaping performances or fixing balance issues—it’s about preserving integrity while making small refinements.

The Audiophile Reality of Compression

One of the stranger truths about compression—at least from an audiophile perspective—is that compression never really sounds “good” on its own.

The moment a compressor is engaged, something changes—and not necessarily for the better.

Common side effects include:

• A loss of depth
• A slight increase in noise
• A reduction in dynamic range

And that last point is unavoidable. Compression, by definition, reduces dynamic range. From a purely technical and fidelity-focused standpoint, this means the recording is objectively worse in certain respects.

That doesn’t mean compression is wrong—but it does mean it needs to be handled with intention.

The moment you turn on a compressor, something changes for the worse.

Understanding this is crucial, especially when learning how to use compression effectively.

Music vs. Recording: A Critical Distinction

One of the most important concepts to internalize is the difference between the music and the recording.

Compression is rarely about making the recording more “audiophile.” Instead, it’s usually applied to:

• Restrict dynamic range
• Help different elements sit together
• Improve clarity and perspective within an arrangement

In other words, compression often helps the music communicate more clearly, even if it slightly diminishes the fidelity of the recording.

This distinction matters because many engineers experience this moment:

“People say this compression sounds good… but it doesn’t sound good to me.”

If that happens, it’s probably because you’re hearing exactly what compression does—you’re noticing the subtle loss of depth, openness, or realism. That doesn’t mean you’re wrong, and it doesn’t mean you’re inexperienced.

It means your ears are working.

Learning to Evaluate Compression Honestly

When learning compression, the most important question is not whether a piece of gear is “supposed to sound good,” but something much simpler:

Does it make the music sound better?

Not louder.
Not more impressive.
Not more aggressive.

Better.

If compression improves how the music translates, how elements relate to one another, and how the arrangement is perceived, then it’s doing its job—even if some fidelity is sacrificed in the process.

And if it doesn’t? That’s not a failure. It’s information.

Mixing with Compression: Commit or Not?

For experienced engineers who are comfortable with their tools and confident in their decisions, there’s a strong case for printing the mix with compression applied and sending that version to mastering.

Why?

Every compressor behaves differently.

Even if two engineers are using the same model, subtle differences in settings, calibration, and signal flow mean the results will never be exactly the same. If the mastering engineer doesn’t have your compressor—or can’t precisely recreate your settings—they may hear something slightly different from what you intended.

And in mastering, there’s an important limitation:

The mastering engineer can’t react to compression the same way a mix engineer can.

Once the mix is printed, the flexibility to rebalance elements around a compressor is gone.

When to Send Multiple Versions

If you’re confident, commit.

But if you’re unsure—if you’re worried the compressor might be misbehaving, or that you may be using too much, or that the mastering engineer might achieve a better result—there’s a simple solution.

Print two versions.

Send:

1. A compressed mix
2. An uncompressed mix

This gives the mastering engineer critical context:

• They can hear what you were responding to
• They understand your intent
• They can choose the version that translates best

If they can improve things using their own compression, great. But if not, they still have your compressed version to work from.

That flexibility often leads to better outcomes—and fewer surprises.

At least the mastering engineer has your version that’s already compressed to work with.

This approach respects both the mix engineer’s vision and the mastering engineer’s role, without forcing unnecessary compromises.