Separation Mastering...

[masteringhouse]

Assuming ITB compression, yah.

Good point B. Yeah ITB comp only.

Yikes, talk about eating their budget.

Well this depends on attended/unattended sessions. Makes no difference to me if I spend x hours one day and y hours the next if it's on my watch. It's still x+y hours, or for the client's benefit a flat rate. I guess I'm stupid in that respect, I charge the same flat rate for stems as mastering stereo tracks.

If you have to pay for a remix in a commercial facility that can eat budget too. Also, wouldn't he be charged in the first mastering session only to find out that he needed a remix? Seems like 6 in one half a dozen in the other.

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

I have a very short-term memory

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

If you get better results wouldn't that also be helping the client? If the client is a different person than the mix engineer, why should he give a flying fart about improving the engineer's skills and having to wait for it? Or worse yet, pay for him to remix his mistakes?

 

[pingu]

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

This says it all really.

 

[pingu]

I have a very short-term memory

That doesnt help and misses the point.

 

[masteringhouse]

That doesnt help and misses the point.

I got the point, it was a joke P.

If this is mixing in the mastering room, is processing on the stereo bus during mixing mastering in the mixing room?

It's all grey ...

 

[bblackwood]

Also, wouldn't he be charged in the first mastering session only to find out that he needed a remix? Seems like 6 in one half a dozen in the other.

Nah, takes a few seconds to realize a track is beyond repair.

If you get better results wouldn't that also be helping the client?

Do you think that you'd get better results by working from stems or from working from a stereo mix that's right from the get go?

If the client is a different person than the mix engineer, why should he give a flying fart about improving the engineer's skills and having to wait for it? Or worse yet, pay for him to remix his mistakes?

He shouldn't - that's between him and the engineer.

The base question still remains - see one quote above...

 

[bblackwood]

If this is mixing in the mastering room, is processing on the stereo bus during mixing mastering in the mixing room?

Nope. Mix buss compression radically alters the balance of the instruments - it's a mix issue. We use it in mastering to help the client achieve what they want (or if given the latitude, what we think it needs).

It's all grey ...

Not really.

The reality is in a perfect world, we turn the mixes up a touch and load them in. I've had a few of those over the years, but they are rare birds. In an ideal world, the mixes are done when they get to mastering and the mastering engineers do nothing but load-in, assemble, and QC. That would be boring, but those would be some of the best sounding records...

 

[pingu]

I got the point, it was a joke P.

If this is mixing in the mastering room, is processing on the stereo bus during mixing mastering in the mixing room?

It's all grey ...

Sorry man.

 

[masteringhouse]

Nope. Mix buss compression radically alters the balance of the instruments - it's a mix issue. We use it in mastering to help the client achieve what they want (or if given the latitude, what we think it needs).

If mix buss compression radically alters the balance of the instruments, why wouldn't compression/limiting on the overall mix? Same with EQ and any other processing. One can change a mix just as easily by focusing in on particular freqs, M/S processing, etc.

For example if you need to raise a vocal in mastering (when someone is twisting your arm), wouldn't it be less of a compromise to simply raise the level than trying to process it and affecting other instruments?

The reality is in a perfect world, we turn the mixes up a touch and load them in. I've had a few of those over the years, but they are rare birds. In an ideal world, the mixes are done when they get to mastering and the mastering engineers do nothing but load-in, assemble, and QC. That would be boring, but those would be some of the best sounding records...

Hey we agree on that one!

 

[pingu]

For example if you need to raise a vocal in mastering (when someone is twisting your arm), wouldn't it be less of a compromise to simply raise the level than trying to process it and affecting other instruments?

Yes it would be.

In this scenario this would mean that a little more eqing than desired is taking

place and stems are probably warranted.

And again this is mixing.

 

[bblackwood]

If mix buss compression radically alters the balance of the instruments, why wouldn't compression/limiting on the overall mix?

It does! That's the whole point - it needs to be done in the mix room. The only reason we have compressors in our rooms now are for color and as a holdover of when they were necessary due to the medium (vinyl). CD's can take whatever dynamic range you can throw at them, so the overall character of the mix should be determined during the mix.

Same with EQ and any other processing. One can change a mix just as easily by focusing in on particular freqs, M/S processing, etc.

Of course, but let's not be pedantic. Everything we do is to help the artist achieve their goals, but we need to keep in mind what we are capable of doing that is best for the art, not just what's easiest.

Again I ask: Do you think that you'd get better results by working from stems or from working from a stereo mix that's right from the get go?

For example if you need to raise a vocal in mastering (when someone is twisting your arm), wouldn't it be less of a compromise to simply raise the level than trying to process it and affecting other instruments?

If every stem tweak were that simple, and every stem mix was done ITB with ITB buss compression, then yes.

I imagine it's rarely the case that all of those things are true.

FWIW, I'm unaware of any well-known mixer that prints stems. Doesn't that tell you something?

 

[masteringhouse]

Again I ask: Do you think that you'd get better results by working from stems or from working from a stereo mix that's right from the get go?

FWIW, I'm unaware of any well-known mixer that prints stems. Doesn't that tell you something?

B. please check my original post:

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

I think that answers the above.

 

[bblackwood]

B. please check my original post:

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

I think that answers the above.

Exactly.

So why not work towards that end?

 

[masteringhouse]

Exactly.

So why not work towards that end?

I try, but there's also the reality of getting jobs done in time for CD release parties, not being able to recall mixes, dealing with skill levels that are not "great" and therefore take time to develop, engineers that may be good but don't have the finances for equipment good enough to acheive high quality results, politics, etc.

There's also clients that don't have a good understanding of mastering or hear hype that makes them believe that they can turn a $100 recording into a multimillion dollar production. They want to be able to go in and tweak the sound of the cymbals even though we're at the mastering stage, or change the sound of the guitars, etc. Yes, this is mixing to a degree but at a somewhat higher level. At least we're not dealing with individual tracks, though I've even had people request that I master from a complete Pro Tools session.

I'm with you B. I prefer working from a great mix over one that has to be labored over, and the less processing at any stage the better the overall quality. I'm just not living in that world 100% of the time, I would be happy if it was just 50%.

 

[chessrock]

Is this about stem cell research?

Cuz' I'm against killing babies.

.