Separation Mastering...

[Synkrotron]

I've been searching around in t'internet for mastering articles and I came across something called Separation Mastering.

No doubt everybody here knows about this technique but for those who might not, here's a link:-

http://www.johnvestman.com/separations.htm

The article tries to make it clear that it's not done to enable the ME to have his say on the mix but for giving them the ability to say de ess vocals without effecting the cymbals.

Sounds OK to me... or does it just make everything just that little bit more complicated?

 

[bblackwood]

Mixing and mastering require listening to different things. I have worked from stems (the proper term) in the past and don't think it's possible to remain objective while basically mixing in the mastering room.

And it takes longer = costs more, so of course many mastering engineers think it's a great idea...

Commit! Take some responsibility and make the record great!

 

[masteringhouse]

If it's tracks from a great mix engineer I'll take a stereo mix every time.

If they are tracks from a less than stellar engineer I'll take stems most times if possible.

Not all MEs charge more for this. If it takes more time to whittle away at a stereo mix than make a quicker adjustment via a stem it's actually cheaper.

I do agree with Brad on commitment though. At some point you have to say this is what I want/the best I can get it and avoid holding off the final decisions.

 

[SouthSIDE Glen]

It's the mixing engineer's job to make the mastering engineer's job easy.

G.

 

[Massive Master]

I'm in both camps - I don't like working from stems, but I hate it when we decide that a remix is needed just because the vocals need to come up "a bit" more than I can weasel out of it.

 

[Synkrotron]

So there appears to be some "mixed" feelings on this topic

I guess it's a case of each to their own... yet again.

Also another example of...

"and the first rule is, there ain't no rules"

 

[masteringhouse]

I'm in both camps - I don't like working from stems, but I hate it when we decide that a remix is needed just because the vocals need to come up "a bit" more than I can weasel out of it.

Or when the guitars are biting your head off and everything else sounds like it was recorded under a wet blanket, or some other imbalance in the mix. But again, that's just bad mixing.

 

[bblackwood]

Aside from the immediate benefit, who does it help? It certainly doesn't help the mixer, who won't learn in his room what sounds right and what doesn't. If it needs to be remixed, remix it, but not in the mastering room - 'you only get to hear it the first time once'...

Objectivity is king in mastering.

 

[masteringhouse]

Aside from the immediate benefit, who does it help? It certainly doesn't help the mixer, who won't learn in his room what sounds right and what doesn't. If it needs to be remixed, remix it, but not in the mastering room - 'you only get to hear it the first time once'...

Objectivity is king in mastering.

Brad I hate arguing with the ones I love

It depends what ill we're trying to cure. If the purpose of mastering is to help educate the mixing engineer then by all means. If the client is asking you to fix his mistakes and you haven't got a semester to teach the engineer for the project ...

I've been through this with a few engineers and always am happy to give my feedback. Some learn, some don't. Why should the client need to have his project suffer when it's possible to fix many of the issues? I have one engineer that does this as a matter of course after he heard what I was able to accomplish on my end. The producer also prefers that he send stems so that when he comes in for mastering he can make some modfications that would require multiple mixes.

 

[bblackwood]

Of course we're hired to make the project as much as it can be, but where do we draw the line?

Are you going to overdub vocals in your mastering room? How about guitars?

The processes have been separated for years for a reason - not because it was impossible to do it all at once, but because history has shown over and over again that this method works best. People simply cannot switch objectivity on and off.

Besides, I just read where you wrote in another thread here:

Agreed, the "fix it in mastering" philosophy is just as bad as the "fix it in the mix" philosophy.

You can't have it both ways.

I insist that folks fix their own mixes when something drastic is involved because I'm a mastering engineer, not a mixing engineer and the method of listening is radically different. The added benefit is that they learn their room better.

As for producers who can't commit, well, nevermind...

 

[pingu]

Mixing and mastering require listening to different things. I have worked from stems (the proper term) in the past and don't think it's possible to remain objective while basically mixing in the mastering room.

And it takes longer = costs more, so of course many mastering engineers think it's a great idea...

Commit! Take some responsibility and make the record great!

Bloody Oath

 

[masteringhouse]

Besides, I just read where you wrote in another thread here:

You can't have it both ways.

I insist that folks fix their own mixes when something drastic is involved because I'm a mastering engineer, not a mixing engineer and the method of listening is radically different. The added benefit is that they learn their room better.

Well it's not quite the same thing when put in the original context. I firmly believe in the above but there is a difference between relying on a device/plugin to fix a mix and depending on an inexperienced engineer to fix a mix.

Unless you are doing a flat transfer you are affecting the mix in some way and this can be considered an extension of mixing.

The question becomes when does mastering cease to be a little added "makeup" and become plastic surgery, and who would you prefer having do the job? Someone hopefully with experience, good ears, and a good sense of where the music can and should go, or someone that didn't take it there in first place?

There is of course another option if budget/time/politics allow. Get another engineer to mix. I think we're both ok with that.

Brad, we've had this discussion before and I don't think that we came to an agreement then. Just like I don't think that we agree that a person can be both a mix engineer and a mastering engineer. There are exceptions and points to both of our opinions, good to hash 'em out.

 

[pingu]

It's the mixing engineer's job to make the mastering engineer's job easy.

G.

Its the tracking engineers job to make the mixing engineers job easy.

 

[pingu]

So there appears to be some "mixed" feelings on this topic

I guess it's a case of each to their own... yet again.

Also another example of...

"and the first rule is, there ain't no rules"

No mixed feeings really.

If everyone up to the point of mastering did there job correctly there would be a world without stems.

 

[bblackwood]

Yah, even though we know where we stand, it's always good to discuss this stuff in the open so maybe others can see the pros and cons and decide for themselves...

That being said:
- Stems don't allow for the use of buss compression. When buss compression is added later, it radically alters the balance of the mix. Fine for a jazz record, but compresssion is the sound of rawk rekkids.
- Stems are akin to trading methadone for heroine - you're trading reliance on external sources. In this case, stems are almost always 'necessitated' by poor room acoustics/monitoring - something easily repaired with a little effort. But instead of trying to help the client improve their listening space, some recommend essentially relying on the mastering engineer to help tighten up mix issues.
- Stems, imo, are the perfect example of the constant decay in responsibilty and training in our industry. People complain all the time about the 'golden days of audio', when recordings sounded better, etc. yet continue to change methods, getting further and further away from the methodology that actually made the great sounding records everyone loves.
- Mastering isn't processing - it's listening without prejudice. The processing that happens in mastering is a result of the objective listen, which simply cannot be done as effectively if one is digging through parts, fixing mixes.

Just some thoughts from my perspective...

 

[SouthSIDE Glen]

It's the mixing engineer's job to make the mastering engineer's job easy.

Its the tracking engineers job to make the mixing engineers job easy.

Exactly!

G.

 

[masteringhouse]

Yah, even though we know where we stand, it's always good to discuss this stuff in the open so maybe others can see the pros and cons and decide for themselves...

That being said:
- Stems don't allow for the use of buss compression. When buss compression is added later, it radically alters the balance of the mix. Fine for a jazz record, but compresssion is the sound of rawk rekkids....

It depends on the format in which the stems are sent doesn't it?
If someone sends the stems in a Pro Tools file format it can be done.

- Stems are akin to trading methadone for heroine - you're trading reliance on external sources. In this case, stems are almost always 'necessitated' by poor room acoustics/monitoring - something easily repaired with a little effort. But instead of trying to help the client improve their listening space, some recommend essentially relying on the mastering engineer to help tighten up mix issues.
....

Not sure I follow the analogy. As a client you are always relying on external sources. That's usually a good thing, more ears, more skills to lend to a project.

Stems aren't always due to poor listening conditions, sometimes they are necessitated by different edits that need to be performed (e.g. radio edits). I think you are also assuming the client and the mix engineer in the above paragraph are the same person? For this forum that is often true which why I'm guessing that you phrased it this way. Assuming that they are different people, how long can the client wait for the engineer to improve their skills and acoustic/monitoring situation before getting their mixes good enough for mastering?

- Stems, imo, are the perfect example of the constant decay in responsibilty and training in our industry. People complain all the time about the 'golden days of audio', when recordings sounded better, etc. yet continue to change methods, getting further and further away from the methodology that actually made the great sounding records everyone loves.
- Mastering isn't processing - it's listening without prejudice. The processing that happens in mastering is a result of the objective listen, which simply cannot be done as effectively if one is digging through parts, fixing mixes.

In the golden days I remember (I believe Bob O) mentioning somewhere that the ME's job was to do flat transfers of the mixes. This of course assumes that the mixes are great to begin with. Given that there are more people involved in the recording process that are less schooled than before given the cost of entry, there are more likely going to be people needed with greater experience further down the recording process in order to help fix that which has been "broken". In order to help fix these issues you may need to have to have greater ability to dig in deeper into a mix than before. Stems are just one possible tool for this and in my experience have significantly helped in some situations.

Depending on how you work, you can always take a break from a project and attack it new the next day. This should help one to get a more objective perspective after the "fixes".

That said, in the past week I had two projects submitted as stems that worked out great. Last month I had one where the producer was constantly asking for changes that definitely went past mastering and into remixing. In that case I handed the project back and suggested that he remix before any further changes and made many suggestions for improvement. Still waiting for the remixes on that one ...

 

[pingu]

there are more likely going to be people needed with greater experience further down the recording process in order to help fix that which has been "broken". In order to help fix these issues you may need to have to have greater ability to dig in deeper into a mix than before. Stems are just one possible tool for this and in my experience have significantly helped in some situations.

This is a good point.

It would be nice if it wasnt true.

 

[masteringhouse]

It would be nice if it wasnt true.

Yep!

It makes one wonder what the future of recording will be when they call these the "golden years".

 

[bblackwood]

It depends on the format in which the stems are sent doesn't it?
If someone sends the stems in a Pro Tools file format it can be done.

Assuming ITB compression, yah.

Not sure I follow the analogy. As a client you are always relying on external sources. That's usually a good thing, more ears, more skills to lend to a project.

Not when used as a crutch which doesn't allow them to learn to do what they are hired/supposed to do!

I think you are also assuming the client and the mix engineer in the above paragraph are the same person? For this forum that is often true which why I'm guessing that you phrased it this way. Assuming that they are different people, how long can the client wait for the engineer to improve their skills and acoustic/monitoring situation before getting their mixes good enough for mastering?

I assumed nothing about who the client is, but if they are relying on the mastering engineer to fix the mix, why not choose a different mix engineer or take the time to learn to do it right themselves?

No matter how you slice it, this is mixing in the mastering room.

In the golden days I remember (I believe Bob O) mentioning somewhere that the ME's job was to do flat transfers of the mixes.

Everyone has different 'golden days', I suppose, but ever since Doug started TML in '65, mastering engineer have been correcting and improving mixes. There's 30+ years of some of the greatest sounding records ever made where stems weren't used.

Stems certainly aren't a new invention, but why should they be used now?

The answer is because folks are rushing along without trying to improve their own skills, and many people are willing to help them along that path. I'd rather send stuff back to be remixed and help them learn to avoid the same mistakes.

This of course assumes that the mixes are great to begin with. Given that there are more people involved in the recording process that are less schooled than before given the cost of entry, there are more likely going to be people needed with greater experience further down the recording process in order to help fix that which has been "broken". In order to help fix these issues you may need to have to have greater ability to dig in deeper into a mix than before. Stems are just one possible tool for this and in my experience have significantly helped in some situations.

See? You see it as a solution, I see it as perpetuating the problem.

They'll never learn how to mix it 'right' if they only learn to rely on someone else!

Depending on how you work, you can always take a break from a project and attack it new the next day. This should help one to get a more objective perspective after the "fixes".

Yikes, talk about eating their budget.

Don't forget 'you only get to hear it the first time once'.

That said, in the past week I had two projects submitted as stems that worked out great. Last month I had one where the producer was constantly asking for changes that definitely went past mastering and into remixing. In that case I handed the project back and suggested that he remix before any further changes and made many suggestions for improvement. Still waiting for the remixes on that one ...

I don't doubt you can get better results from stems, all things considerd. I just wonder who it's helping, besides you...

I'd rather spend the extra time working with the client to improve the areas that need to be addressed. Kind of the buy a man a fish, teach a man to fish thing...