R
RAMI
Guest
Sometimes an artist will send the Mastering Engineer "stems", which are either individual tracks, or sub-groups of tracks. But, in general, no. An ME is usually working with a 2-track stereo mix.
Last edited:
Mastering With A Limiter...
- Thread starter Dr. Varney
- Start date
Sometimes an artist will send the Mastering Engineer "stems", which are either individual tracks, or sub-groups of tracks. But, in general, no. An ME is usually working with a 2-track stereo mix.
Dr. Varney
Pimp
I see. Thanks, Rami.
And so... That's why he can't master well, a bad mix? Gotcha.
So say I wanted to master my own and I've got, say, 23 tracks and a bunch of those are in subgroups (and I'm doing all this in my DAW)... How would I save my file with just these subgroups?
Or would I master a further set of subgroups in the same project? I can route via sends to four subgroups - let's call 'em "Drums", "Keyboards", "Strings" and "Other Stuff". I can disable all sends from the individual instruments to the Master and then run my four "Master Groups" to the Master and apply sparkle, polish and what-knot to the main master, using the limiter and anything else I need?
Sorry for the bug-eyed twenty questions, guys...
Dr. V
And so... That's why he can't master well, a bad mix? Gotcha.
So say I wanted to master my own and I've got, say, 23 tracks and a bunch of those are in subgroups (and I'm doing all this in my DAW)... How would I save my file with just these subgroups?
Or would I master a further set of subgroups in the same project? I can route via sends to four subgroups - let's call 'em "Drums", "Keyboards", "Strings" and "Other Stuff". I can disable all sends from the individual instruments to the Master and then run my four "Master Groups" to the Master and apply sparkle, polish and what-knot to the main master, using the limiter and anything else I need?
Sorry for the bug-eyed twenty questions, guys...
Dr. V
Last edited:
SouthSIDE Glen
independentrecording.net
Rami pretty much nailed the answer on that one. But for more...
We're at the point where it gets difficult to tell whether we're saying different things, or saying the same thing, but semantics or vocabulary are mixing our signals. So let me throw this on the table just to make sure.
The "border" that separates mixing and mastering (more or less) is typically the mixdown; where the individual instrument tracks are summed or mixed together into their final number of channels (two for a stereo mix, or more for a surround sound mix). Mastering is what's done to the to the stereo or surround mix after the mixdown. Semantically, it's not the "final "mix", because the final mix is what's given to the mastering engineer. But yes, mastering is the creation of the final sound.
There are specific instances where that mixdown borderline fuzzes a little bit; sometimes the mix engineer might tweak the mixdown a little before handing it off for mastering.
And also sometimes, like Rami said, the mastering engineer does not receive a final mix, but rather a series of "stems", which are individual submixes instead of a final mix. For example, the mix engineer might create a stereo submix of just the rhythm section, another of just the accompaniment instruments, another of the backing vocals and another of the lead vocals (just for example). In such a case, the mastering engineer does indeed create the final mix from those stems. But that kind of stem mixing/mastering tends to be the exception more than the rule.
As far as gear, while the basic tool types (monitors, EQs, compressors, etc.) remain much the same, the studio configuration tends to be quite different. A mixing studio pretty much revolves around either a mixing board or a DAW (or both) with the fundamental purpose of turning massaging multiple instrument tracks or takes and blending them together into a final mixdown. A typical mastering studio configuration, OTOH, centers around a custom desk of signal processors (EQs, compresors, etc.) meant to massage the stereo mixdown (or more if surround sound) and record the results to either it's final medium or to the medium on which it will be transferred to a duplicating house which will make the copies on the final medium.
G.
Dr. Varney
Pimp
Well, that's starting to sound a little 'Swedish' already - but in a good way... 
Thanks very much, Glen. I think this is gelling...
Cheers!
Dr. V
Thanks very much, Glen. I think this is gelling...
Cheers!
Dr. V
Dr. Varney
Pimp
I know it's a little early start thinking about mastering but I was scratching my head over how I would get everything down to a 2-channel mixdown for the final master... etc...
Then I realised, there is a master track on the mixer. That's two channels of all my other strips - summed.
Now, FL Studio being more of a make-music-fast kinda software, seems to offer a mastering facility right there. I don't think they expect you to send your mixes off to a mastering engineer but I think this is intended so that when you've finished mixing, you can just master that master strip.
Make sense?
If so, I think FL solves a lot of complicated problems for me. Just get a summed strip (of everything) averaging around -12 /-14db, send it to the master and apply the limiter there. Done!?
Now I'm trying to work out how I'm gonna compare all the songs with each other, to master the 'album'.
Dr. V
Then I realised, there is a master track on the mixer. That's two channels of all my other strips - summed.
Now, FL Studio being more of a make-music-fast kinda software, seems to offer a mastering facility right there. I don't think they expect you to send your mixes off to a mastering engineer but I think this is intended so that when you've finished mixing, you can just master that master strip.
Make sense?
If so, I think FL solves a lot of complicated problems for me. Just get a summed strip (of everything) averaging around -12 /-14db, send it to the master and apply the limiter there. Done!?
Now I'm trying to work out how I'm gonna compare all the songs with each other, to master the 'album'.
Dr. V
kcearl
I see deaf people
One thing...even though FL is one of the cheaper recording options out there dont think it isnt as powerful as the bigger companies offerings for basic projects..its just as capable of producing professional results and its audio engine will be much the same
also the rule of thumb is no mastering plugins on your master bus...bounce your tracks down to a stereo audio file then import it back in as a seperate project to add overall EQ, compression, limiter etc. keep the mixing and mastering processes as two separate entities
also the rule of thumb is no mastering plugins on your master bus...bounce your tracks down to a stereo audio file then import it back in as a seperate project to add overall EQ, compression, limiter etc. keep the mixing and mastering processes as two separate entities
Dr. Varney
Pimp
Well, I've no complaints with it at all. It's a thousand times more user friendly than anything else I've used; looks good and sounds brilliant. I feels like I can do anything I want. I love it. Very addictive, too.
I was thinking exactly that - and then thought: no, that can't be the way (at least not some kind of compressed file, like MP3 etc...)
So if I were to save it to a non-lossy format, such as .WAV, would this be the way forward? Then master that.
I think half the confusion has come from me expecting mastering to involve tweaking and adding FX to every instrument track. I had no idea we mastered only one track.
I do get it now.
Thanks for all your help and patience, guys. The answers have been really informative. Have rep'ed ya.
Cheers
Dr. V
R
RAMI
Guest
Yes. Keep it in 24 bit if you can. And when you master, render that in 24 bit also. Then, you use your mastered 24 bit file to convert to MP3 (if you want MP3's of your music) and/or to burn 16 bit audio CD's. But, always keep your 24 bit master and make your conversions and CD's from that.
(In fact, you probably want to also keep the 24 bit UN-mastered version in case you like the mix but want to re-master it.)
kcearl
I see deaf people
Dr. Varney
Pimp
Isn't CD 24bit? No, I have an old Technics SL-series which is 18bit... In any event, I figure 24bit has to be good enough for my purposes.
Dr. V
Dr. V
R
RAMI
Guest
A CD is 16 bit. 24 bit is more than "good enough" for your purposes. It's as good as you need.
Dr. Varney
Pimp
Okay... Try this:
If I get my mix right - I mean just right - when I come to master... What about leaving compression and limiting off?
I like my sound without it (and I've watched that 'Mastered By Muppets' Metallica video).
Would you say it's not always necessary to use a limiter on the master at all? I'm all for letting my ears decide. Was thinking of getting a mix onto CD and then sitting in front of the Gales of the main system for a while... To hear how it sounds at this stage.
Dr. V
If I get my mix right - I mean just right - when I come to master... What about leaving compression and limiting off?
I like my sound without it (and I've watched that 'Mastered By Muppets' Metallica video).
Would you say it's not always necessary to use a limiter on the master at all? I'm all for letting my ears decide. Was thinking of getting a mix onto CD and then sitting in front of the Gales of the main system for a while... To hear how it sounds at this stage.
Dr. V
Massive Master
www.massivemastering.com
In the 'good ol days' the limiter was used to catch the occasional peak that would clip the converters.
These days, the converters are clipped on purpose.
If you don't want something limited & squashed, that's completely up to you (and you have my full support).
That said - Limiting, even mild clipping on some converters, isn't 'evil' on its own. It's the overuse - the abuse - that line that's crossed on almost every modern recording where quality takes a back seat to sheer volume.
These days, the converters are clipped on purpose.
If you don't want something limited & squashed, that's completely up to you (and you have my full support).
That said - Limiting, even mild clipping on some converters, isn't 'evil' on its own. It's the overuse - the abuse - that line that's crossed on almost every modern recording where quality takes a back seat to sheer volume.
Can I just ask in what scenario would an ME want these stems mentioned above to master a track? Why would one do submixes of the rhythm section or backing vox etc rather than just mix the track properly and master that? I can only assume it would be to resolve some problem arrising at the mastering stage that isn't necessarily a problem with the mix itself.
Waltz Mastering
New member
I don't think ME's prefer stems over a well mixed 2 track (I know I don't), because it turns into mixtering instead of mastering and also gets a little more time consuming and expensive for the client, but it's just part of the gig that gives the mixer/client more flexibility if they want it. So I don't think ME's prefer to work this way as much as sometimes clients want to provide it.
One reason a client might want to provide stems to an ME is that they might feel they have taken the mix as far as it can go, but feel unsure or uncertain that their mix is complete and would like to pursue the possibility of having one more layer of quality control. Part of this might be due to mixing room issues, equipment issues and inexperience issues on the mixers end.
The most common stem is the stereo music track stem and the Lead vocal stem. I've had client send this on occasion most of the time because they can't get the lead vocal to sit right in the track or they feel I have better compression and/or de-essing than they do. I use the tube tech cL1b a lot on vocal stems when sent which tends to sound great when used sparingly.
The other most common stem configuration is:
Stereo drum
Stereo guitar
Mono bass / mono vocal
Stereo everything else
So your dealing with 3 stereo tracks and 1 dual mono
I would rather work on a well mixed 2 track any day, but sometimes dealing with stems can bring a mix together beyond what the client can do on their own and it's really just another option to achieve what the client wants in the end.
masteringhouse
www.masteringhouse.com
In some cases stems would be used to address issues on a more incremental basis, for example after the ME has tried working from the stereo mix he may find that it would be better to EQ or compress the vocal differently than the entire mix. Also often it's just easier to work from stems than several vocal up/down (or whatever) mixes of the same track in order to make level adjustments
In the case of many of the Hip-Hop and Rap artists that I work with they may want several versions of the same track, the regular version, the radio version, acappela, remix, and instrumental version. In this case it's easier just to mute or edit a track, possibly make some small adjustments in the overall level or threshold of the comp/limiter an let it fly.
masteringhouse
www.masteringhouse.com
Tom why mono vocal? What about stereo vocal effects?
I find the stem configuration can vary depending on what the client feels is most important (or troublesome in the mix).
For Hip-Hop I might get:
mono kick and bass (assuming no stereo effects)
stereo remaining drums
stereo lead vox
stereo background vox
stereo instruments
On a Rock track I might get as much as:
mono bass
stereo drums
stereo lead vox
stereo background vox
stereo rhytm guitars
Stereo lead gtr
stereo instruments
And then there's the simple:
stereo vox
stereo instruments
One of the most elaborate stem sessions I received was:
Kick
snare
toms
room
overheads
bass
lead guitar
rhythm guitar
keyboards
misc
And yes this came close to mixing, but the stems should be delivered in a way that once they are in the DAW with levels at unity they should match the stereo version. It kinda comes in "mixed" but the tweaks to the individual tracks that you feel necessary may require a level adjustment and re-checking against the stereo version to ensure it stays within the original intent. You can also feed the stereo version through the same overall processing to see if you are in fact improving on the sound via stem adjustments.