Mastering or Reverb?

Is there a recommendation for the "correct" order to add effects like mastering and reverb? This is for radio productions. I am often unsure whether I should be adding the reverb as the last effect or a mastering, such as Waves L2, Ultramaximizer etc. Some people might say it's up to you, but I reckon that the audio techies here will have good reasons why things should be applied in a certain order, and for good reasons. For instance, I am seeing friends of mine adding mastering, then eq, then reverb on the dry voice, then separate reverb on the elements, then putting it all together and adding reverb again, then adding mastering, and more eq, then...oh boy it goes on. Some pieces sound over-processed even before reaching the radio station. If the station broadcast adds compression too, then the thing is going to sound distorted beyond comprehension! I don;'t think the idea should be to produce something that already sounds like it's on the air before you deliver it. Surely productions should not be so over-processed, over-eq'd and over-reverb'd, bearing in mind that the radio station will add processing too.

Some good advice needed please  

I'm sure you'll get some good advice on this, and you might start with this thread and following some of the references within:

http://audiomastersforum.net/amforum/viewtopic.php?t=127

There's a lot of debate about the order that effects should be applied - this often generates more heat than light, although there is some logic behind the traditional approach. This says that what should be borne in mind is the effect that one effect has on another. Let's take compression, EQ and reverb. The first thing to note is that a reverb tail is usually designed to sound good untreated - so if you apply any effect at all after it, it will alter the characteristics of the tail - so that's why reverb usually goes last in the processing chain, unless you want to use the 'effect' of this as a deliberate effect on its own.

The question of 'do you compress or EQ first' is less clear-cut though. But if you apply EQ to boost a signal before compressing it, then it gets more compressed, and strangely enough, less boosted than it was... but if you compress a signal first, and then apply EQ, at least you then get to hear exactly what the effect will be straight off.

And if you look at a typical mixer with insert points and FX sends, this is the same processing order that would be applied. After the mic preamp comes the insert point, where typically a compressor would be applied. Then comes the EQ section, and finally the aux outputs will be mixed and sent to a reverb unit, which gets a mixed feed from several sources.

Anyway, that's the traditional answer. But of course, if you want to achieve something different, then you can muck about with this all you like - because ultimately it's what the result sounds like that counts. We used to have a sort-of rule that said do the spatial stuff first, and then apply the temporal processing, and as a general rule this is fine - but it doesn't altogether take account of processing like enhancement, which it is just possible that you might want to apply post-everything - although I wouldn't do it post reverb unless there really was too much reverb already.

I never stop learning. What about the specific point about compressing/mastering a production for use on radio. Obviously care has to be taken here not to overdo it because the radio output adds even more .. but how much is too much, not enough, and just right? Records are compressed, and they get put through radio broadcast compression too, I'm aware of that. But are there any "Red Book" type guidelines that record companies follow for how to master records? (not too technical) This would be invaluable for the guys making productions for radio. I wish there were solid guidelines to follow on this.

Has anyone experienced negative comeback on the quality or eq of a production from a radio station, and how did you correct it? Make up the station names if you like  

Since every station sets up their Optimod (or alternative) differently, it's hard to be specific about this. A comment that has been made by many people is that if you want to sound just like everything else on the station, then you really don't want to do anything special at all - simply on the grounds that you'll be fighting the Optimod. It sort-of makes sense really - if a record sounds alright on the station, and the desk output in general sounds okay, then pretty 'normal' sounding sources that work in that situation are going to work for you too.

Basically, an Optimod is just a rather clever multi-band compressor, designed to make everything sound louder without it being particularly obvious. It uses adaptive processing on each of at least 5 bands to achieve this without any noticeable pumping. So, if you want your stuff to be really 'in your face' when it's transmitted, then compress the hell out of it, and the Optimod will probably ignore it. Or if it's been set up extremely well, it might actually reduce the output level slightly to keep the overall station average level the same.

A lot of people think they sound quite good when their output is broadcast, because a well set up Optimod can impart a sheen to a station's output that's otherwise hard to achieve - that's why they cost so much. Even Radio 3 uses one, for heaven's sake! Most people think that this classical station isn't compressed at all, but it is.

So I'd say (and anybody else is quite free to disagree with this if they want to) that if it sounds okay to you at home, it's probably still going to still sound okay when it's broadcast - only the quieter stuff you did will sound louder. If there are guidelines anywhere, then I'd treat them cautiously.

Stations make themselves sound different by adjusting the attack on their Optimod. One London station has their attack set so slow that you can actually hear the music rise when the presenter has finished talking!   This sounds stupid to me, but hey I'm only the image man and I keep out of these things