STEM or Stereo Mastering?

mactreouser

New member
Hi,
What's your style ?

* Stem or Stereo Mastering?

If Stem Mastering processing :
1) Would you adjust the volume (balancing each track like a mix stage) other than touching up/polishing each Stem ?

2) Other than Limiter to bring up the targeted volume, what else plugins were hooking on your Master Stereo Track?
 
Hi,
What's your style ?

* Stem or Stereo Mastering?

Both depending on the project and what the desired outcome will be.

If Stem Mastering processing :
1) Would you adjust the volume (balancing each track like a mix stage) other than touching up/polishing each Stem ?

Yes 99.9% of the time.

2) Other than Limiter to bring up the targeted volume, what else plugins were hooking on your Master Stereo Track?

There is a lot of controversy over placing anything on the master track other than a limiter. Myself, if it is needed, I may add a very light compression and since I use Reaper, I always place the "Audio Statistics" as the last plugin for the mix. Once I render the audio, I will go back and remove it, than do the final render.

It seems the biggest common factor about placing plugins on the master, is they can effect anything from fad ins/outs to adding unwanted effects from all the plugins placed on each track. IMHO, this is one of those "Less is More" situations.
 
If you were mastering a stereo mix, all the processing would be on the master.

Mastering from stems is useful for when you need different mixes for different purposes. (Album version, radio version, game version, video version) But other than that, a well balanced mix should not need to be mastered from stems.

In other words, if the mastering is going to change the balance of the mix that much, it isn't mixed well enough for the desired outcome. Also, why would you want the mastering engineer to make mix decisions for you, that's your job.
 
Appreciate Dudes!

It seems the biggest common factor about placing plugins on the master, is they can effect anything from fad ins/outs to adding unwanted effects from all the plugins placed on each track. IMHO, this is one of those "Less is More" situations.
More than agree!

In other words, if the mastering is going to change the balance of the mix that much, it isn't mixed well enough for the desired outcome. Also, why would you want the mastering engineer to make mix decisions for you, that's your job.
That's right! Therefore, why Mastering processing nowadays came with "multitracks" -- stems? It certainly might affected the Original Mix, wasn't it?

Those days, Mastering Engineer always advised that Do Not proceed your Mastering process over the Master Stereo Track during Mixing stage, for you may "touch" the mixes, and result will get worse. So, Bounce into stereo track for mastering and focus on that.

So, what's your view?
 
... So, Bounce into stereo track for mastering and focus on that.

So, what's your view?
That's my view of the right/traditional way to do it. Whether it's worse or not, it certainly risks screwing up the mix. I believe a lot of people keep the kind of changes that are made based on output (stream/CD/video/etc) to the mastering step so the mix is the mix, regardless.

Do I always do that? No, because a lot of what I do is providing a quick mixdown for feedback to singer-songwriters I record "pro bono" at open mics, with nothing past that 99% of the time. I have templates I work from with my own "presets" on the master for the venue. I do EQ/compression on the vocal/instrument tracks and bounce it down to MP3. Quick and acceptable.

When I do get asked for a single song or video sync, in an "alternative" I turn off all plugins on the master, leaving only fade in/out, listen and tweak as necessary, bounce in place, and then turn them back on for the bounced stereo, and listen/tweak a little more before final bounce.
 
Also, why would you want the mastering engineer to make mix decisions for you, that's your job.

I think you are replying to my post before I edited that statement out. Sorry for the confusion. The reason I took it out was because the OP did not inquire about that and I have a very bad habit of providing to much information that really does not directly relate to the issue at hand. I will provide my reasoning for my previous statement in my response to [MENTION=196982]keith.rogers[/MENTION] below.


Do I always do that? No, because a lot of what I do is providing a quick mixdown for feedback to singer-songwriters I record "pro bono" at open mics, with nothing past that 99% of the time. I have templates I work from with my own "presets" on the master for the venue. I do EQ/compression on the vocal/instrument tracks and bounce it down to MP3. Quick and acceptable.

I basically do the same thing, that is the secondary purpose for building my home studio. I also get the same request as you do and I don't make a dime. I follow the dream, not the money. The money will come in time. The primary reason for the home studio is to record ACX quality for audio books and I also have a burning desire to work with local schools to provide young artist with a chance to have a quality recording of their talent. It may help them with getting a scholarship to further their education.

Now if I have a band or other Professional that is going to be a paid client, then I have no problem doing the mic set ups and mixing the track. At that time I follow the advice from Grammy Awarding Winning Producers/Mixing Engineers and I will pass it off to a Mastering Engineer. Before I do, I already know what their requirements are and everyone walks away happy as I am also furthing my education on the art of Mastering Audio.

That is why this community has a separate forum for mastering questions. "Because Mastering IS NOT the same as Mixing"!
 
I wasn't replying to you, I was commenting about stem mastering in general.

The mastering engineer is supposed to take all the songs in the project, make them flow together and prepare them for replication. He isn't supposed to second guess your mix decisions.

You are the mixer, if you do your job right, the mastering engineer will be able to master the project without the mix falling apart.
 
I wasn't replying to you, I was commenting about stem mastering in general.

The mastering engineer is supposed to take all the songs in the project, make them flow together and prepare them for replication. He isn't supposed to second guess your mix decisions.

You are the mixer, if you do your job right, the mastering engineer will be able to master the project without the mix falling apart.

Well that is one way of looking at it. When I use a Mastering Engineer, I welcome any and all suggestions they may have. I do agree with you to a certain extent. In theory, their job is to make sure the output levels are as close to the desired dbs without clipping. IMHO, their job is to do that as well as catch any mistakes I may have made. p.s. I LOVE your studio logo. When is the website coming online?

I only ask as I have been designing websites for 17.5 years and I would love to extend my services to you free of charge, if you decide to make an on-line presents!!! The first year will run you about $90.00. PM me if you want to run the panties up the flag poll.
 
In theory, their job is to make sure the output levels are as close to the desired dbs without clipping. IMHO, their job is to do that as well as catch any mistakes I may have made.
In actuality, it's their job to create the replication master from the separate mixes. Besides making sure they are the same relative volume, or at least flow from one song to the next, they also put the last bit of polish on the songs with EQ, de-essing, mid-side compression, and finally limiting. A very small part of their job is about the final level.

p.s. I LOVE your studio logo. When is the website coming online?
The studio is gone. Dismantled it in 2014. I did the odd mix over the internet for a few years, but haven't had time lately. So I just decided to get out completely,

I still keep the domain because it's taking me a long time to ween me and the Mrs. off the farviewrecording.com email addresses. We've had them since the 1990's
 
In actuality, it's their job to create the replication master from the separate mixes. Besides making sure they are the same relative volume, or at least flow from one song to the next, they also put the last bit of polish on the songs with EQ, de-essing, mid-side compression, and finally limiting.

2017 and you are using nothing but "Buzz Words".

A very small part of their job is about the final level.

I respectively disagree. This has been one of their main jobs for decades. Just ask any one of them that do this full time to put their kids through collage.

The studio is gone. Dismantled it in 2014. I did the odd mix over the internet for a few years, but haven't had time lately. So I just decided to get out completely, I still keep the domain because it's taking me a long time to ween me and the Mrs. off the farviewrecording.com email addresses. We've had them since the 1990's

Sorry to hear that you shut down. Thanks for the convo.
 
In theory, their job is to make sure the output levels are as close to the desired dbs without clipping.
Nope. Such a small part of the process that it's almost an afterthought.
In actuality, it's their job to create the replication master from the separate mixes. Besides making sure they are the same relative volume, or at least flow from one song to the next, they also put the last bit of polish on the songs with EQ, de-essing, mid-side compression, and finally limiting. A very small part of their job is about the final level.
Yup. I'll go along with that.
I respectively disagree. This has been one of their main jobs for decades. Just ask any one of them that do this full time to put their kids through collage.
The final volume is certainly determined during the process -- But by no means is it anywhere near the "main job" -- "Mastering" -- by its own self-definition -- is the creation of the master - compliant to the final medium(s) that will be released to the public.
 
Nope. Such a small part of the process that it's almost an afterthought.

Yup. I'll go along with that.

The final volume is certainly determined during the process -- But by no means is it anywhere near the "main job" -- "Mastering" -- by its own self-definition -- is the creation of the master - compliant to the final medium(s) that will be released to the public.

Maybe i am looking in the wrong direction for mastering services. You seem to be going 180 degree off center with what other Professional Mastering Studios are saying that I do know. This will be my last comment on this thread. Keep with the times or get left behind. It is just that simple. I hope the best to the original Poster. Sorry your thread got off topic.
 
Maybe i am looking in the wrong direction for mastering services. You seem to be going 180 degree off center with what other Professional Mastering Studios are saying that I do know. This will be my last comment on this thread. Keep with the times or get left behind. It is just that simple. I hope the best to the original Poster. Sorry your thread got off topic.


Seems you are 180 off center of reality...
 
2017 and you are using nothing but "Buzz Words".
What buzz words? Those are actual things, all part of the mastering process



I respectively disagree. This has been one of their main jobs for decades. Just ask any one of them that do this full time to put their kids through collage.
Having owned a commercial recording studio for 20 years and working at other commercial studios for about 15 years before that, I'm pretty familiar with what mastering engineers have been doing for decades...Since they've been doing it for me.

Make no mistake, that is where you get the final level. If the client wants it slammed to the moon, that's where it happens. However, it's what most professional mastering engineers do reluctantly (past a certain point)

Think about it: A guy is so into fidelity that he dedicates his life to making things sound better. He goes out and buys $20k monitors, $5k amps, acoustically treats his room to make it perfect, has probably another $40k in EQ's compressors, limiters, etc... All so he can 'make things loud' (and probably worse)? It doesn't make much sense.
 
What's wrong dudes? ?
I and my view didn't out of topic, instead. I'm here very keen to understand about the knowledge of Stems and Stereo Mastering!
I eagerly hope that someone whom experts and willing to share knowledge,even experiences could show your kindness. I'm humbly receiving ?

More than appreciate !
 
Like I said in my first post: stem mastering is mostly used when there will be different versions of the song going out. In pro circles, it is not used to give the mastering engineer creative control of the mix.
 
Sometime it's done so they can do backing tracks, either for tv appearances (where the vocals would be performed live, but the music is recorded) or for live shows (used to play extra parts that there is no one on stage to play).

Video games will tend to get a different mix, as will movies and video.

Sometimes radio singles will have a different master, because it is a single and not part of an album.
 
The tendency lately, even without stems, is [Standard] which would be for the standard digital release - CD, download, etc. [Vinyl] which is pretty obvious - wider dynamic range, concentration on the sum/difference relationship (no excessive low end in the difference, no excessive sibilance in the sum, etc.), higher resolution, no dithering (black is BLACK and not dither noise), etc., etc. [MFiT - Mastered for iTunes / iTunes PLUS] which has a higher crest factor *and* a lower peak, as each (longer word length / higher bit-depth) file is converted to AAC, scrutinized post-conversion for inter-sample peaks and then the high-res files that made the "successful" AAC files are used as the master for MFiT/iTP and the AAC files are used as a client reference. [High-Resolution - PCM, FLAC, etc.] Similar to the MFiT files (higher crest / lower peak), but without regard to the peak (assuming the peak is still comfortably below -0dBFS). Usually the "as-captured" volume - The volume the music was asking to be (for lack of a better term), as captured from the analog chain with no additional processing or limiting, again exported without dither in 24-bit. Much of the time, you can add "high-res" [MP3] files to that also. Not to be confused with high-res audio like 24-bit FLAC or PCM, but a set of MP3's at 256-320kbps, pulled directly from the 24-bit EDL. Usually for advance purposes (previews, radio blasts, etc.). Then goofy stuff like album artwork and meta data being embedded directly into the MP3 and FLAC files as if they're used pre-release and database propagation, that info/images won't be able to be drawn from those databases.

That's a typical 'package' for a label or reasonably established self-managed artist.

Throw stems in -- Even just [vocal] and [instrumental] stems and you can figure a "standard" and "high-res" version of the instrumental and possibly an a'capella (vocal only), although that's fairly rare.
Maybe i am looking in the wrong direction for mastering services. You seem to be going 180 degree off center with what other Professional Mastering Studios are saying that I do know. This will be my last comment on this thread. Keep with the times or get left behind. It is just that simple. I hope the best to the original Poster. Sorry your thread got off topic.
As much as I hate the "loudness war" going on, I'm deep, deep in those trenches. I've put out some of the loudest recordings I've ever heard. But the "war" is a pissing contest between artists and labels (and other artists and labels). The public never asked for it.

That said - As mentioned - I (and most mastering engineers) have invested relatively ridiculous sums into gear that can handle relatively ridiculous levels - in part, so we won't "get left behind" (as you put it) and of course, in part because it's friggin' awesome gear. But it doesn't change the fact that "war volume" is an afterthought -- Something done almost under protest. Rarely (if ever) because it's what best serves the recording...

I'd bet that plenty of the "old-timers" here remember just maybe a little over a decade ago, when every kid with headphones and a maul-the-band compressor had a "mastering" service. All they talked about was "loud" -- And they got left behind.
 
Last edited:
Really depends on what you planed to do. BUT there is one important thing to keep in mind: "Mastering is not a good place to think about the big mixing issues such as balancing or level of instruents."

If you feel you are not comfortable with your track for mastering, GO BACK TO YOUR MIX. Mastering to me, is all about feeling not big inventions! :)
 
Back
Top