[Boydie]

I agree with you that it is better to revist the mix (which I mentioned) and there are some mixes that can't be rescued but I do think it is possible to "transform" a poor mix with the use of mastering

The "professional sounding" bit is more of my point and I actually meant stand up "volume" wise, which I should have added so sorry for the confusion

It is hard to describe in words what I am trying to say by the professional "sounding" - I mean that the mix will "feel" more professional - sparkle, depth, shine etc. - not that it "will" be a professional mix after mastering

The only way to really find out is to have a track mastered and see whether you think it is worth it for your material/quality of mix

[Alan Starkie]

Gotcha.

Volume-wise, mastering will get a dictaphone up to release levels when all's said and done.

[Skub]

Well,thanks to the generosity of two forum members,my original question has been conclusively answered.

Mastering may indeed be subtle and a final polish,but for anyone who loves music the difference that final polish makes is well worthwhile. The track sparkles,has more punch and clarity and makes the whole listening experience much more pleasant. The 'before' recording seems almost flat and uninteresting by comparison.

Many thanks to Boydie and Alan Starkie for spending time and effort proving  a point. Neither of you needed to do that,but I'm very glad you did. 

We have an embarrassment of riches here and for me,every day is a school day.