Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Tim Gilles]

Now hear the word of the Lord.......

Ahh me.

A good friend of mine, and a reliable source of information for me in the past was in NOLA @ the Tape-Op mastering panel this past week.

He told me a story about a certain very well known ME, who had openly stated on the forum that he prefers to assemble his 'Masters' from audio stems(as opposed -   I'm supposing - to full mixes). and appreciates when Mix AE's send him mix stems for this purpose.

Uhmmm....

I'm gonna be very forthright here.

I get paid for the WAY I HEAR as a Mix AE.

Plain and simple.

Like it or lump it.

I am the "MIX AUTHOR".

And for the last 20 years or so.... I live or die by virtue of the common/ popular perception of the sonic/artistic outcome of my efforts.

The aforementioned request from this ME shows me such a staggering lack of 'task specific' procedural insight/experience, and utter dearth of wisdom regarding WHAT it takes to mix a record properly, and the nature of HOW ya 'land the craft', to say nothing of the MASSIVE and WILDLY APPARENT number of delicate intersections/interactions of audio at the 2 buss and the 2 track medium itself, that this ME stands a better chance of playing handball in a tutu with the Pope in Lagos, than receiving any work from me in the future.

Having said that...

Please don't get under the impression I am not open to other POV's on the subject.... this is simply an unvarnished window into my current mindset on this subject.

Happy to hear the dissenters, if any.

FWIW I was a gainfully employed ME for a decade. I know what you deal with.

Rumblefish

[jfrigo]

Tim Gilles wrote on Tue, 01 June 2004 13:08

I am the "MIX AUTHOR". And for the last 20 years or so.... I live or die by virtue of the common/ popular perception of the sonic/artistic outcome of my efforts. The aforementioned request from this ME shows me such a staggering lack of 'task specific' procedural insight/experience, and utter dearth of wisdom regarding WHAT it takes to mix a record properly, and the nature of HOW ya 'land the craft', to say nothing of the MASSIVE and WILDLY APPARENT number of delicate intersections/interactions of audio at the 2 buss and the 2 track medium itself, that this ME stands a better chance of playing handball in a tutu with the Pope in Lagos, than receiving any work from me in the future.

I certainly prefer to receive full mixes, not stems, but occasionally there's an emergency fix that needs to get made and the client produces stems that we can use as necessary. One recent example was a client who had a couple mix problems and due to time and budget contraints really wanted to avoid re-booking the expensive 9000J room to do recalls for these fixes. Instead, I got a couple pro-tools tracks for a missing 808 bass drum in one song and some missing vocal ad libs in another, and we mixed them into the main mix track before mastering.

In these cases, I can complain all day that it's not true to the original mix, and that a remix is a better idea, and the mix engineer can be insulted 'til he's blue in the face, but it's not up to us. The producer or artist is the one is in charge, whose vision we are trying to realize, and if they want to change the mix, that's their choice.

Now, if somebody came in with no final mixes, just a bunch of stems, I'd ask them what kind of drugs they were taking; but to have an instrumental, a capella, or some other mix elements available somewhere on earth in case of emergency is not a bad idea. I won't have to see them or even know that they exist unless the producer has an emergency, but in that (hopefully rare) case, the day is saved and everybody is happy, including the mix engineer who gets hired again since he provided all the parts necessary to avoid or at least correct a potentially costly error.

I'm sure there are those who will say "never change the mix," or "never use stems or even offer the possibility of changing the mix," or "never compress the mix bus," or "never give the client hotter levels than you are comfortable with no matter what they say." In all these cases, the "never" goes out the window once the client makes an informed decision to do otherwise. I serve them - not myself, not the mix engineer, not another mastering engineer. Now, if the client happens also to be the mix engineer, then feel free to tell me to edit the PQ and cut if flat if you like.

[Tim Gilles]

jfrigo wrote on Tue, 01 June 2004 18:07

I certainly prefer to receive full mixes, not stems, but occasionally there's an emergency fix that needs to get made and the client produces stems that we can use as necessary.

Business as usual, when the client requests/can afford it.

For all the obvious/stated reasons.

Not the scenerio I'm speaking about.

In case I've been unclear.

I'm talking about "Please submit mix stems, so I can put your work together in mastering, because that's when we're(ME/whomever/A&R??HAHAHAHAHA) gonna know WHAT the fuck is going on......" as a modus-operandi for mastering Rock and Popular music records.

Thanx for your response, Jay.

I don't get my "Feelings" hurt by ME's.

Only my records.

...........That was a joke BTW.

Best regards.

Rumblefish.

[David Glasser]

I was on that panel, and yes, several of us talked about stems, but nobody said they wanted them in order to remix the record or change the mix, And everyone agreed that would be an unwieldy, time-consuming, costly, and probably inappropriate thing to do. IIRC, it was stated: if the definition of mastering is to put the finishing touches on a record, than anything that helps to achieve that goal is potentially useful.  The use of stems for mastering, I guess, is borne, not from a desire by mastering engineers to screw around with the mixes, but by the frustration sometimes shared by MEs and their clients of not being able to fully optimize the end result when there is just the stereo mix to work with. If it's easy to bring in stems and - for example - separately EQ  the bass stem to achieve the desired results, than why not?

If you don't want or need to make those kind of changes in mastering, than it's simple: keep on delivering a stereo mix. If you want that kind of flexibility and have the budget to book longer mastering sessions, and the discipline to not go nuts with this, than think about stems. There are many paths, grasshopper.

I've only mastered stereo projects from stems a few times, and everyone involved was very happy with the process and the results. I've also mastered a couple surround projects from stems; working in surround it's great to have those options since there are so many variables and unknowns in that realm.

[bblackwood]

David Glasser wrote on Tue, 01 June 2004 18:48

And everyone agreed that would be an unwieldy, time-consuming, costly, and probably inappropriate thing to do.

Hrmm...

I distinctly recall GC stating that he recommended it, as it gave more control to attain 'better product'.

That's why I spoke up, David.

Anyway, I was cut off before I could ask what happened to the forest and the trees as it relates to mastering. And no one seemed to be interested in answering how eningeers were supposed to grasp what they were doing if they left it to the almighty mastering engineer. No one even answered what had ever happened to committing to something for the sake of art.

[dcollins]

bblackwood wrote on Tue, 01 June 2004 17:36

Quote:

Anyway, I was cut off before I could ask what happened to the forest and the trees as it relates to mastering. And no one seemed to be interested in answering how eningeers were supposed to grasp what they were doing if they left it to the almighty mastering engineer. No one even answered what had ever happened to committing to something for the sake of art.

Talk of stems always makes me wonder.  Leave the mixing to the mixers and the mastering to me (or B-rad, I guess)

I think proponents of stems must be frustrated mixers, or they just like to meddle... Right up to the end...

Going from the micro to macro and back is not what mastering is all about.  You heard it here first.

Listen.  Commit.  Move on.

B-rad, were you the lone voice of reason at that seminar, or did the audience turn around to see what yahoo dared question the masters?

DC

[David Glasser]

So Dave & Brad - when a client calls and says they're bringing in stems, what do you tell him or her? This is not a snotty, sarcastic question; I really want to know.

And I'm not advocating mixing to stems. I do see, though, that it's an inevitable development, and some folks will want to work that way, for better or worse. Hopefully for better. My few stem-mastering sessions have been good experiences.

[bblackwood]

On the few occasions they ask to do it, I do it. Client wins every time around here.

That's a long way from advocating or recommending it...

[davidc]

I have had several projects where I have been brought stems, and it has helped me achieve a better result than I would have without them. Most of the time you don't need them, but there are times when it helps.

Best Regards

David C

[Fibes]

Although I can see the reasons for stems that Jay alluded to, i find the concept of them being reccomended as assanine as it is brilliant. Kidding about the brilliant part. I know some tracking engineers that would rather send stems to mixers than have them spooge all over their hard work, howdoo yoo like dem apples Mr. Rumblefish? tee hee. "Don't box me in-"with stems.  

[drumsound]

I was at that panel and was glad when Brad spoke up.  He implied that it is not his job to mix and he was right.  When I saw him in the hall later I told him thanks for speaking up about committing.  

To reiterate:
Tracking is not Mixing
Mixing is not Mastering
Mastering is not Mixing!

[Bob Olhsson]

I think the term stem is being misunderstood. A stem mix by definition is a perfect mix when all the faders are set to zero. A vocal stem, for example, would be a complete stereo or surround mix of the vocal and ALL of the related processing and effects. The same is true for each of the additional elements.

There's a huge difference between mixing and rebalancing stems. Stems are used exactly the same way vocal-up or vocal down mixes are used, when a mixer has no way of knowing how the mix ought to be fine-tuned for its position within an album or when the mixer feels the quality of monitoring available isn't sufficient.

Stems are a powerful tool well worth knowing how to use but obviously also a tool which could be subject to misuse.

[Ed Littman]

Bob,
Thanks for the definition.

I have this tune that no matter what you do to it messes with the lead vocals. It's a decent off the board live mix where I can make the band as a whole sound better,but it changes the vocal. if I had the stem of the lead vocal I could get what I want. I know thats not the subject, but.....
Ed

[bblackwood]

Bob Olhsson wrote on Wed, 02 June 2004 19:43

I think the term stem is being misunderstood. A stem mix by definition is a perfect mix when all the faders are set to zero. A vocal stem, for example, would be a complete stereo or surround mix of the vocal and ALL of the related processing and effects. The same is true for each of the additional elements.

Thanks, Bob, but I know what stems are and have worked with them on occasion. The one thing mastering engineers bring to the session is fresh perspective which you cannnot get by focusing on parts, but by focusing on the art as a whole.

I mean, what ever happened to commitment?

You think top mixers send stems to mastering? They don't.

You will not convince me that recommending this pattern of work is beneficial. It's claimed that by recommending stems, less experienced engineers can avoid the common errors. I want to help mix engineers to know how to mix, to have the confidence in their ability to make decisions. Between stems and buss compression, I see mastering engineers who seem to be more interested in mixing or in their bottom line (or both) than in helping less experienced mixers learn to do their job instead of relying on others to finish it for them.

[davidc]

Brad,

I understand your position, of keeping the two roles separate, and encouraging mix engineers to be good at their profession.

However, I often get projects where I am asked to bring the vocal up or down, or to make the vocal less bright whilst brightening the guitars. In other words, they didn't get it right in the mix. Although you can do things with careful use of eq and compression or MS processing, I find stems give a better result.

I recently did a blues rock album where the backing was bass heavy and muddy, whilst the vocal could have stripped paint at 30 yards. By working on the vocal separately I was able to get a very balanced sound that I could never have got with a final mix.

If I was getting mixes from Bob Clearmountain I am sure that I would always be happy with 2 tracks.

Best Regards

David C