Mastering a track at a time

[masteringhouse]

Again, I agree with Tom.

M&M -

Just curious, what DAW do you use for mastering? Also do you process on load-in or load-out?

I think that these are two point of differentiation between MEs who aren't as bothered by stems as others, or who may need to charge more because of them.

 

[kylen]

If you've ever tried mastering a mix with both sibilance on some tracks and dull tracks all mixed down into stereo, compared to having these tracks separated out and being able to work on them individually you'll see where I'm coming from.

Oh OK - that's true. Also depending how hard I push stuff into a mastering limiter in my DAW the balance and sibilance can change - I see your point.

 

[bblackwood]

I hate stems. To me, they cause an unhealthy reliance on the mastering engineer to finish the mix due to two things:
1] fear of failure - the inability to commit and learn your room, learn from your mistakes, etc, and
2] not learning buss processing - stems are virtually impossible if the mixer wants to use any buss processing (which virtually every mixer worth their salt does).

It's fine if one wants to never get better as a mixer, but we learn and improve from our mistakes, not by relying on others to catch us when we fall...

 

[masteringhouse]

I hate stems. To me, they cause an unhealthy reliance on the mastering engineer to finish the mix due to two things:
1] fear of failure - the inability to commit and learn your room, learn from your mistakes, etc, and
2] not learning buss processing - stems are virtually impossible if the mixer wants to use any buss processing (which virtually every mixer worth their salt does).

It's fine if one wants to never get better as a mixer, but we learn and improve from our mistakes, not by relying on others to catch us when we fall...

Brad and I almost disagree on the stem issue.

I think(?) you would rather have stems than an unbalanced mix to work from correct? But as I've said all along, yes I would rather have the mix as close to the vision of the artist and producer as possible from the get go. When the mix isn't quite ripe I personally find stems a better route than going back and forth with remixes. The results are quicker, and the client can hear what the final product will sound like on the spot rather than wait days or weeks for a recall of the mix and then coming back to the mastered version.

I'm not sure why bus processing is a prereq to good mixing though? Most MEs I speak to try to dissuade mixers from doing too much in the way of stereo bus processing. I can see a bit of compression to glue things together, but it takes an experienced mixer to know the difference between glue and cement.

There have been some mixes that I've gotten, from the likes of people like Shelly Yakus that hardly need to be touched. In cases like this I'm in total agreement with Brad. For the less experienced group, it's a bit more rare.

 

[bblackwood]

I think(?) you would rather have stems than an unbalanced mix to work from correct?

In a perfect world, yes. I'd rather talk to the mixer and discuss what I'm hearing and guide him to make better mixes on his end, hearing both how and why he's getting there and what 'right' sounds like in his room.

But as I've said all along, yes I would rather have the mix as close to the vision of the artist and producer as possible from the get go. When the mix isn't quite ripe I personally find stems a better route than going back and forth with remixes.

Great in the short term (that project) but poor in the long term if the mixer wants to learn anything but dependence on the mastering engineer.

Too many guys are thinking short-term, imo. The industry is in the state that it is because too many guys are relying on someone else to fix their issues - they're not learning to deliver mixes that sound good!

The results are quicker, and the client can hear what the final product will sound like on the spot rather than wait days or weeks for a recall of the mix and then coming back to the mastered version.

They can hear it better, perhaps, but do you really think the client will know your room and monitors after being in it for a few minutes/hours?

I'm not sure why bus processing is a prereq to good mixing though?

Never said that.

Most MEs I speak to try to dissuade mixers from doing too much in the way of stereo bus processing.

Who are you speaking to? All the mastering engineers I speak to (for the most part) want the engineer to get better, not rely on him.

I can see a bit of compression to glue things together, but it takes an experienced mixer to know the difference between glue and cement.

How does the engineer gain that experience, by watching you or by doing it themselves?

There have been some mixes that I've gotten, from the likes of people like Shelly Yakus that hardly need to be touched. In cases like this I'm in total agreement with Brad. For the less experienced group, it's a bit more rare.

Yah, sure. Most of my clients are admittedly the types that don't require major surgery, but for those that do need major surgery, I'd much rather help them improve their room or how they hear things than simply fix it for them. Been there, done that, and by simply fixing it for them, they never get better, ime...

 

[masteringhouse]

I still don't disagree with anything that you've said above Brad. Maybe it's timeline issue, and in some cases the gear available to the mix engineer.

Do I recommend using an Alesis 3630 over the main bus because compression should be added and this is the only compressor that the engineer has available? I don't think either of us do, and would rather apply this ourselves.

I always give the mix engineer my two cents on how things may be improved, and as you know I'm very dedicated to education. However when the client is pushing a date for a CD release party that is in 3 weeks down my throat, there often isn't enough time for education and getting the product completed in time.

FWIW I ask for stereo mixes first, get the lay of the land, and deal with the fallout from there. If after consulting with the client it appears that stems may be a better solution, it's just another option.

 

[SouthSIDE Glen]

it takes an experienced mixer to know the difference between glue and cement.

Funny, Tom Silva just said the same thing on "This Old House".

Sorry guys, just couldn't pass that one by. Great thread!.

G.

 

[johnsuitcase]

The stems debate rages on...


Another question is about Buss compression. You can actually do Buss Compression and stems at the same time, but not stereo (master) buss. You send it out like this:

Buss 1: Drums
Buss 2: Bass Guitar
Buss 3: Guitars
Buss 4: Vox

You have all your levels set, fades, eq, effects, etc. The only step you don't do is summing these buss mixes to one master buss mix. This is what you leave to the mastering engineer. If everything is kosher, the ME just sums them all, works his magic and you're done. If, however, the vox are sibilant, he has the ability to run just the vocal buss through a de-esser, or eq, or whatever he sees fit, without having to worry about the cymbals disappearing etc.

Now, he's not "remixing", and really he shouldn't have to adjust relative levels at all. But if in my monitoring room, the kick sounds great, but he can hear that's it's loaded with 30hz junk, he can fix it more easily.

I think it's a pretty interesting innovation, one that eliminates a lot of sending the tracks back for remix/adjustment, and also one that takes advantage of the often higher quality outboard gear that mastering facilities have in-house.

I should note that I haven't actually ever sent stems to a mastering facility, but it's something I would consider, particularly if it was a project for a large indie/major, and was going to be seeing significant release and promotion.

 

[masteringhouse]

The stems debate rages on...


Another question is about Buss compression. You can actually do Buss Compression and stems at the same time, but not stereo (master) buss. You send it out like this:

Buss 1: Drums
Buss 2: Bass Guitar
Buss 3: Guitars
Buss 4: Vox

Yes, you can compress the submixes individually. Brad's point was that you couldn't compress/process the overall mix when sending stems. And is a very valid point.

You have all your levels set, fades, eq, effects, etc. The only step you don't do is summing these buss mixes to one master buss mix. This is what you leave to the mastering engineer. If everything is kosher, the ME just sums them all, works his magic and you're done. If, however, the vox are sibilant, he has the ability to run just the vocal buss through a de-esser, or eq, or whatever he sees fit, without having to worry about the cymbals disappearing etc.

etc.

Yes absolutely! However some would argue that this is still a form of mixing. For lack of a better term, I would call it "macro mixing". Or maybe "Bill".

 

[SouthSIDE Glen]

You have all your levels set, fades, eq, effects, etc. The only step you don't do is summing these buss mixes to one master buss mix. This is what you leave to the mastering engineer. If everything is kosher, the ME just sums them all, works his magic and you're done. If, however, the vox are sibilant, he has the ability to run just the vocal buss through a de-esser, or eq, or whatever he sees fit, without having to worry about the cymbals disappearing etc.

John, I see and agree with what you are saying about what the advantages are to sending stems to the ME, I have no problems with that.

What I don't quite understand, though, is the idea of just leaving the mixdown and the discovery of problems to the ME. It seems to me that is kind of slacking off a bit on the mixing engineer's* duty/part. I''l grant you that Tom and John have much better rooms and gear than I do and can hear finer details than I can because of that. But if they catch something like vox sibilence that I miss, it had better be damn minute amounts of it or I don't deserve to get paid because I didn't catch it myself.

Secondly, if they catch something that's a clash between stem elements that gets by me because I didn't check for it in at least a trial mixdown myself, then again I'd consider myself as slacking on the job.

And finally, even if the master does work from the stems, I'll want to have a mixdown to send him as well to act at the minimum as an illustration or template of what I (or the artist or the producer, FTM) am wanting the final mix balance to sound like.

G.

* How come mastering engineers get to be called MEs and mixing engineers get called to bring the coffee?

 

[johnsuitcase]

John, I see and agree with what you are saying about what the advantages are to sending stems to the ME, I have no problems with that.

What I don't quite understand, though, is the idea of just leaving the mixdown and the discovery of problems to the ME. It seems to me that is kind of slacking off a bit on the mixing engineer's* duty/part. I''l grant you that Tom and John have much better rooms and gear than I do and can hear finer details than I can because of that. But if they catch something like vox sibilence that I miss, it had better be damn minute amounts of it or I don't deserve to get paid because I didn't catch it myself.

Secondly, if they catch something that's a clash between stem elements that gets by me because I didn't check for it in at least a trial mixdown myself, then again I'd consider myself as slacking on the job.

And finally, even if the master does work from the stems, I'll want to have a mixdown to send him as well to act at the minimum as an illustration or template of what I (or the artist or the producer, FTM) am wanting the final mix balance to sound like.

G.

* How come mastering engineers get to be called MEs and mixing engineers get called to bring the coffee?

I agree that the mix engineer should provide a fully mixed stereo version. I don't think, though, that you're leaving anything to the mastering engineer, really. I mean, yes, if I hear sibilance, I'll fix it. When I deliver a mix to the ME, it's exactly how I want it to sound. His job is to make sure that it's in the same ballpark as the other tracks on the album, and to make sure that the aforementioned ballpark isn't on mars. That is to say, that my mix will sound right on other systems out in the real world.

Providing stems just gives the ME the ability to make adjustments, in the event that my ears weren't picking up something that becomes obvious to him. I may be abdicating some responsibility, but the bottom line is that I'm mixing on some near fields, and listening to the mix in my car to hear if it's out of whack. The ME, having heard lots and lots of great recordings in his properly calibrated room on speakers that cost more than my entire studio may be able to hear things that I missed.

It's all sort of an academic discussion, but my point is just that if labels start requesting it be done this way, it's probably in our own best interests to try it out, and get familiar with the ins and outs of it all.

If I were a label, getting ready to spends 10's of thousands of dollars (or millions, if it's a major), I would be requesting stems. I would be making sure to get the best possible product, from each step in the process.

I think that's where the industry is going, and it's good to be aware of it, how it's done, what it can do and can't do, etc.


This has been a great discussion, thanks to the MEs giving feedback. I sometimes think there isn't enough communication between mix engineers and mastering engineers. I love going down to SAE and getting feedback on my mixes, but if I were sending tracks off to LA or somewhere, I would be pretty clueless about what MEs need, how to improve my mixes, etc.

 

[masteringhouse]

Glenn is absolutely correct and is underscoring what Brad is saying (I think).

I don't know that we're really debating anything so much as clarifying. Stems are not a better approach to mastering, they are just an alternative to problematic mixes that allows someone further down the foodchain to make enhancements at a more detailed level, as well as postponing decisions (like vocal up/down) until later on. They really aren't anything new, the first I've heard of them was I think Phil Spector who used to mix to a four or 8 track as I recall.

As with anything in audio, the better the source, the less processing is required further down the line. The more confidence and experience that you have as a mix engineer, the less you will need to depend on stems. Likewise the more experience the client has (or at least the less anal), the less need there will be for them.

 

[7string]

Too many guys are thinking short-term, imo. The industry is in the state that it is because too many guys are relying on someone else to fix their issues - they're not learning to deliver mixes that sound good!

This was my original reason for coming to this board. In fact I had talked to Massive on the phone before ever coming here. I told him up front that I had no idea what my mixes should sound like when sent to the ME. He recommended this board and I'm thankful that he did. I've learned a TON of things here. But I'm still not clear on so much. One of which is what the ME expects in a mix. If I could nail that down I'd have taken a huge step. I am one that WANTS to learn and not rely on others to fix my problems.

 

[mixandmaster]

Tom,
I use Pro Tools as my editor. I usually process on the way out, as I almost always get the files as .WAVs, and it's easiest. I think I was thinking the same way you were, that it depends on a person's workflow as to how much they mind stems. I also think it may have something to do with the quality of the mixes we all get.

Many of the tracks I work on are done by less than experienced engineers (and many of the good rooms have been forced to close, too!), so there are often cases (like your de-essing example) where what's good for the vocals is not what's good for the overall high end.

ALSO, any method that keeps people from smashing a limiter on their mixbus is one that I endorse. Sometimes stems can help keep people's hands from the taser.

If they demand that it be SUPERLOUD, I can try to be a little tricky and limit the hell out of the drums, and leave the vocal/band with some breathing room if I have stems.

But more than anything, whatever works best for the song/project/ be it stems, stereo mix, a remix, I'm willing to do. I'm pretty open-minded and don't really care how I work as long as the clients are A) good people and B) pay.

 

[masteringhouse]

Tom,
I use Pro Tools as my editor. I usually process on the way out, as I almost always get the files as .WAVs, and it's easiest. I think I was thinking the same way you were, that it depends on a person's workflow as to how much they mind stems. I also think it may have something to do with the quality of the mixes we all get.

Same here.

I think that for MEs using PT it's not as much of a leap of faith to process stems since it's made more for mixing than other DAWs. In other cases one may need to mix from a second DAW and refeed into the mastering DAW, particularly if processing on load-in.

 

[kylen]

I really just wanted to come back in here and find out if aux effects stems are provided also - you know the things with all the reverbs, flangers, chorus wash in it? Maybe I missed it earlier if someone mentioned it.

 

[masteringhouse]

I really just wanted to come back in here and find out if aux effects stems are provided also - you know the things with all the reverbs, flangers, chorus wash in it? Maybe I missed it earlier if someone mentioned it.

Very unlikely, at least I can't see a reason for an ME to get down to that level.

Is it possible? yes.

 

[mixandmaster]

Usually the reverbs, flangers, chorus, etc. are mixed in with their respective stems.