Print

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

[Bob Olhsson]

bblackwood wrote on Wed, 02 June 2004 20:58

...It's claimed that by recommending stems, less experienced engineers can avoid the common errors.

Not by me!

Commitment needs to begin with tracking. We're way off the deep end of what's expected from mixing and I'd also hate to see an additional lack of commitment slop over into mastering. Still stems are a legitimate tool especially when it comes to surround. Like any tool, they shouldn't be used as a crutch.

[jfrigo]

Bob Olhsson wrote on Thu, 03 June 2004 11:25

Commitment needs to begin with tracking. We're way off the deep end of what's expected from mixing and I'd also hate to see an additional lack of commitment slop over into mastering. Still stems are a legitimate tool especially when it comes to surround. Like any tool, they shouldn't be used as a crutch.

With DVD we don't even have to commit at mastering. We can use the interactivity to deliver stems to the consumer and let them decide on the final mix!
(do I really need the emoticon?)

[Ronny]

Bob Olhsson wrote on Wed, 02 June 2004 20:43

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.

That's what I've always called a yardstick mix. A stem, OTOH, from my interpretation "these days", just means a track that's added later. Stem coming from the root, branch, or to branch out. It can be a single vocal track, or a subgroup of tracks. For one example, the producer decides after the mix that he wants to add 3 background singers. The songs are already into the mastering end of the production and a full re-mix isn't critically required, to save money he provides a stem. I've even recorded amended stems after I've started the mastering and retracked a lead vocal that the client didn't like after the mastering was finished, to add to the song for remastering. Nothing at all wrong with that. However, besides the track amendment, a stem mix can also mean that the mix engineer didn't do a very good job. I've received mixes where the distorted guitars were so loud and in the same frequency range as the vocals, with the vox so buried that nary a word was legible. It was impossible seat the vocal up front enough to understand the lyrics, without bringing the guitars up that much louder. A stem is a logical solution to that predicament for some clients that may not want to have the same engineer remix it. The client typically hears more in the mastering room and some will undoubtedly change their mind on some things, once they listen out of the mix room and their car. I expect it from time to time.

Quote:

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.

I also get the lead vocal stem on several occasions, to provide up and down vocal masters, but I don't know too many mix engineers that think their monitors are insufficient, even if they are.   As far as recommending stem's, nope, that implies that the mix engineer or the producer don't have their sh*t together. It is really their job to have the song finished before it goes to mastering, but of course we are all human and that's not always the case. A well prepared producer doesn't usually need stems, because he knows what he wants ahead of time and takes care of the mixing in the mixing grind. It really boils down to preference, I'm not going to diss an ME, because he wants to recommend stems, that's a personal preference, and I sure would hate to see it become common on every mastering job, but there are benefits to providing or resorting to stems in some situations. All projects are different, I'd rather play it by ear and recommend a stem by project, rather than opting to always master with stems as a manner of normal procedure.

[bblackwood]

Ronny wrote on Fri, 04 June 2004 03:08

Bob Olhsson wrote on Wed, 02 June 2004 20:43 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. That's what I've always called a yardstick mix. A stem, OTOH, from my interpretation "these days", just means a track that's added later.

That's not what stems mean in my world, Ronny. Stems are exactly as Bob stated above...

[Mixerman]

I don't know why so many ME's think it's their job to make a record sound good. It's the mixers job to make the record sound like it's supposed to sound - be that good, bad or ugly. If it's ugly, the mastering engineer should not put the onus on himself to make it sound "good." And if the record sounds good, the ME should not put the onus on himself to make it "loud."

As a mastering engineer, you are to make sure that the mix fits the parameters of the medium. In the case of CD, and unlike vinyl, it can pretty much playback whatever you give it.

MEs are basically tape copy boys who, as a community, have figured out a way to raise their stature in this business by providing sonic homogenization. We as a society have abandoned unique in exchange for familiarity, and it's a tragedy far beyond any ever conceived by Shakespeare. Far be it for me to blame all of societies problems on MEs, as much as I'd like to. And as far as sameness in records is concerned, it was the Majors that drove this trend. MEs merely provided the service. As did some mixers and even recordists.

I'll spare us all the history lesson, complete with rant, on Majors and their efforts to promote homogenization by throwing gobs of money to anyone that could provide such. And believe me, it's all about the money. Because when it comes to money, there is no limit to how far some will go for their piece.

Now MEs want stems. Proof positive that there are no limits to how far some will go for money. I have more respect for a common street hooker than an ME who requests stems.

As far as I'm concerned, any ME that requests stems as a matter of course is merely attempting to to prop himself up even more in the crusade to be King of Homogenization. Discontent in being tape copy boys, these particular MEs seek to completely destroy the artistic merits of recording and mixing by using stems to make the records that they master sound a particular way. Their way. Not the artists' way.

To the MEs that ask for stems as a matter of course, I have two words for you.

Fuck you.

Why the hell this industry ever let Mastering Engineers consider themselves more than transfer technicians is beyond me.

Now back to your regularly scheduled program.

Mixerman

[archtop]

you know as well as I do


we need the ME's so our needle don't skip

[Tim Gilles]

Mixerman wrote on Fri, 04 June 2004 13:04

To the MEs that ask for stems as a matter of course, I have two words for you. Fuck you. Why the hell this industry ever let Mastering Engineers consider themselves more than transfer technicians is beyond me.

Falling on the floor.... LMFBO.

What can I say?

Uhmmmm....

Well.... As a former ME..... Uhmmmm... well....

Erk.

I sure did/do appreciate the PASSION some mix AE's bring to the table.....

OTOH.

A great mastering is a thing of beauty.

Gotta love a great mastering.


Rumblefish.

[davidc]

Mixerman wrote on Fri, 04 June 2004 18:04

I don't know why so many ME's think it's their job to make a record sound good. It's the mixers job to make the record sound like it's supposed to sound - be that good, bad or ugly. If it's ugly, the mastering engineer should not put the onus on himself to make it sound "good." And if the record sounds good, the ME should not put the onus on himself to make it "loud."

Thats not what my clients tell me!

Quote:

As a mastering engineer, you are to make sure that the mix fits the parameters of the medium. In the case of CD, and unlike vinyl, it can pretty much playback whatever you give it.

I thought I was there to turn a group of often differently mixed tracks into an album.

Quote:

MEs are basically tape copy boys who, as a community, have figured out a way to raise their stature in this business by providing sonic homogenization. We as a society have abandoned unique in exchange for familiarity, and it's a tragedy far beyond any ever conceived by Shakespeare. Far be it for me to blame all of societies problems on MEs, as much as I'd like to. And as far as sameness in records is concerned, it was the Majors that drove this trend. MEs merely provided the service. As did some mixers and even recordists. I'll spare us all the history lesson, complete with rant, on Majors and their efforts to promote homogenization by throwing gobs of money to anyone that could provide such. And believe me, it's all about the money. Because when it comes to money, there is no limit to how far some will go for their piece.

Not all ME's are doing it for the money. I would think that most do it because they love music.

Quote:

Now MEs want stems. Proof positive that there are no limits to how far some will go for money. I have more respect for a common street hooker than an ME who requests stems. As far as I'm concerned, any ME that requests stems as a matter of course is merely attempting to to prop himself up even more in the crusade to be King of Homogenization. Discontent in being tape copy boys, these particular MEs seek to completely destroy the artistic merits of recording and mixing by using stems to make the records that they master sound a particular way. Their way. Not the artists' way.

We don't request stems as a matter of course, but we do recommend them for certain problem situations. I can understand someone suggesting it as policy, because it is easier to have them and not use them than need them and not have them. We don't use stems to remix a track, and we encourage the artist producer to be present. Our job is to help maximise the sound that they want.

Quote:

To the MEs that ask for stems as a matter of course, I have two words for you. Fuck you. Why the hell this industry ever let Mastering Engineers consider themselves more than transfer technicians is beyond me. Now back to your regularly scheduled program. Mixerman

Peace to you too!!

David C

[Ronny]

bblackwood wrote on Fri, 04 June 2004 09:55

Ronny wrote on Fri, 04 June 2004 03:08 Bob Olhsson wrote on Wed, 02 June 2004 20:43 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. That's what I've always called a yardstick mix. A stem, OTOH, from my interpretation "these days", just means a track that's added later. That's not what stems mean in my world, Ronny. Stems are exactly as Bob stated above...

Maybe it's a location thing Brad. When all faders are set to zero and it's a perfect mix, in my area, that's what we've been calling a yardstick mix for as long as I can remember. It stems from (stems ha ha ha) the tracking being so good, that you can take a yardstick and move the faders all at the same time. Basically the tracking was so good that no individual fader leveling is necessary. Quite a rare occurance for sure.
When I receive vocal stems, it's a track or tracks and when it's more than one stem, most of the times they are varied and seldom are equal in gain. The stems seldom contain fx and typically are the raw tracks, although some are effected. So, what they call stems here in Okeefenokee and what they really are, may be two different things. I have better sense than correcting Bob O., he's always spot on and has been around longer than I have. I've learned things from him, but I'm just pointing out that people that bring stems to me typically don't bring them from the stem mix that Bob O. is talking about. They are normally taken from the original tracks at the level that they were recorded at.

What's the definition of a yardstick mix to the rest of you guys?

MM, it doesn't matter if the mix engineer calls all ME's tape copy boys or saviours. When the client brings the ME a stem because the mix engineer fuqued up, or they changed their mind post mix, the ME's are going to accommodate them. Their job is not to kiss the mix engineers ass and make them happy campers, it's to faithfully perform the requests of the client, who hired them and who's paying the bill. The best results come from a good working relationship with the producer, the artists and all of the engineers involved, mean mix and mastering engineers, too. You call the ME's on this group cute derogatory names and incinuate that the world would be better off without them, but think about why so many are in business. You are taking the role of the producer, dictating what an ME is supposed to do and placing the mix engineer, on a pedastel that sticks out from the rest of the production chain and you are sadly fooling yourself. You are nothing but a link in the chain, like everybody else. Mix engineers are not king's and ME's are not glorified tape copy serfs, they are all equal in the eyes of the God of Music. Mix and mastering eng's are just two partial elements of the cd production assembly line, nothing more, nothing less. One is not greater, nor inferior to the other.

[bblackwood]

Ronny wrote on Sat, 05 June 2004 02:41

When all faders are set to zero and it's a perfect mix, in my area, that's what we've been calling a yardstick mix for as long as I can remember.

I'm not sure you follow what we are discussing here, Ronny.

Stems are essentially submixes that when left alone create the entire mix. Often you end up with (all stereo tracks) stems of drums, bass, gtrs, vox, and effects, for example. If you open the files and line them all up, you end up with the same mix the mix engineer has at his desk.

Several issues arise from the use of stems that we haven't even touched on yet:

- Summing - engineers all over the place are discussing what summing does (or doesn't do) to their mixes. Analog or dig? Passive or active? Is this something we need to be worrying about in mastering?

- Buss compression - has to occur after summing, so we're taking something away from the mix engineer right away with the use of stems. Without getting into opinions on whether or not buss compression should be recommended, we have to understand that it is an essential tool in many mixer's arsenal - to ask them to forget about that is crazy in many instances.

To me it's just doesn't work. Stems may be advantageous for some truly amateur projects, but even then the mixer only learns to let the mastering engineer fix it. To recommend stems is just wrong, imo.

[Bob Olhsson]

I can't imagine a mix engineer and a producer not being present for the session when stems are being used and it strictly should be the producer and mix engineer's decision. I agree that somebody just sending stems for an unattended mastering session is a really bad idea.

Stems are also much more likely to be part of a surround project than regular stereo because there are far greater monitoring issues if you want really good translation. Stem mixes were first developed as a part of film mixing because of massive translation problems between calibrated theaters.

[Gold]

Mixerman wrote on Fri, 04 June 2004 13:04

As a mastering engineer, you are to make sure that the mix fits the parameters of the medium. In the case of CD, and unlike vinyl, it can pretty much playback whatever you give it. MEs are basically tape copy boys who, as a community, have figured out a way to raise their stature in this business by providing sonic homogenization. .

As a result of CD's being able to playback anything you record the value of a good transfer to vinyl has diminished. Most skip a reference acetate and wait for a test pressing. I don't like doing it that way but my hand is forced. It's even worse since most people don't have first hand knowledge of the process and are easily misled by those shirking responsibility-including themselves. If you pay for a flat transfer you get a flat transfer. If you provide a master that will produce tracing errors you will get tracing errors.  To fix these things it takes time. And this is still for an essentially flat transfer.

For clients of brooklynphono I all but insist on a reference acetate. Unlike a CD (for the most part) there is a difference between a good transfer and a great transfer.

[redfro]

I, too, was at the mastering panel and was shocked by the big time ME talking about stems. Maybe I haven't been in the business long enough, but it never occurred to me to send stems to an ME. When I heard this at the panel, my first thought was "So now the ME's mixing my tracks? What exactly am I here for?" I love anyone with a good ear giving me constructive criticism of my mixes, but I want to be the one turning the knobs. That's why I'm in this business.

[Mixerman]

Ronny wrote on Sat, 05 June 2004 00:41

What's the definition of a yardstick mix to the rest of you guys?

I think the real question here is, should we use the Okeefenokee definition for stems, or the LA, NashVegas and NYC definition of stems? What to do, what to do.

If they happen to call stems a yardstick mix in Okeefenokee, perhaps you guys should consider having a meeting about it, and going along with the rest of the world so we don't have to sidetrack great threads with the reinvention of long standing and widely held definitions.

Quote:

MM, it doesn't matter if the mix engineer calls all ME's tape copy boys or saviours. When the client brings the ME a stem because the mix engineer fuqued up, or they changed their mind post mix, the ME's are going to accommodate them.

If a mix engineer fucked up, you should recommend to them that they remix it. If they changed their mind post mix, again, you should recommend that they remix it. After that, do what you want, but at that point you're mixing. So, if you ask for stems as a matter of course, your ultimate goal is to mix. Do you ask for stems as a matter of course?

Quote:

Their job is not to kiss the mix engineers ass and make them happy campers, it's to faithfully perform the requests of the client, who hired them and who's paying the bill.

Yeah, right. Good one. Is that like when the Producer sends a Master to Butcherson, and both the label and the producer tells him not to make it too loud or bright, and he hits your master with 7db of L2 limiting and 5 db of 18k? Kind of like that?

Or is it like the dude that now asks as a matter of course for stems. Next thing you know, the label is asking me to deliver stems with all stereo mixes. There's a difference between doing what the client tells you to do, and putting thoughts into your clients head.

Quote:

The best results come from a good working relationship with the producer, the artists and all of the engineers involved, mean mix and mastering engineers, too. You call the ME's on this group cute derogatory names and incinuate that the world would be better off without them, but think about why so many are in business.

Good one. Yeah, I want to put all the MEs on a boat and ship them off to an island somewhere.

Quote:

You are taking the role of the producer, dictating what an ME is supposed to do and placing the mix engineer, on a pedastel that sticks out from the rest of the production chain and you are sadly fooling yourself. You are nothing but a link in the chain, like everybody else. Mix engineers are not king's and ME's are not glorified tape copy serfs, they are all equal in the eyes of the God of Music.

OK. Let's do an experiment.

Let's take two top notch Mastering engineers, like Brad or Dave Collins for instance, and two mixers like say myself and Malice. Let's have BB mix a song, and then have DC master Brads mix. Then I'll mix the same song, and have Malice master MY mix. Now, of those two, which mastered mix do you think will come out better? Should we give it a try and find out?

OK, after we finish that experiment. I've got another one for you. Two teams. Once again, mixers v. masterers. Each team will get a song that is ready for mixing. The mixers, not being MEs are not allowed to master their record. They must deliver their record unmastered. The Masterers, not being mixers, are not allowed to mix their record. They must deliver their record unmixed. Now, which team will have the better record? The mixers with their unmastered CD? Or the masterers with their unmixed CD?

Do you still think mastering is just as important as mixing? The bottom line is this: These days you can put out a record without mastering, but you can't put out a record without mixing.

If you think that EQing, limiting and compressing (and whatever else you happen to do) a stereo mix is somehow on equal footing to arranging, balancing and manipulating the instrumentation to provide the means for a physical reaction by the listener, then I'm coming to Okeekenofee to smoke some of that shit you're smoking. 'Casue it's gotta be just killer man.

Quote:

Mix and mastering eng's are just two partial elements of the cd production assembly line, nothing more, nothing less. One is not greater, nor inferior to the other.

Funny, I view what I do as an art. Here I am wasting my energy treating every mix like it was my last, actually trying to make a mix that serves the song, production and lyric in a way that maximizes the impact of the production to its fullest potential, and I come to find out I'm just another guy on an assembly line. Go figure.

For the record, I recognize what a great mastering job can do for a mix. I have a running joke with DC whenever he masters an album for me. "Dave, you saved my ass, man." is what I say to him. I'm half kidding, half serious. I'm kidding because he doesn't really do that much. I'm serious because what he does do, brings the mixes to a whole new level. So believe me, I understand the benefit of having a great Mastering engineer. But that has nothing to do with what I think of MEs that ask for stems as a matter of course.

Those MEs are lower than whale dung.

Mixerman

[Bob Olhsson]

When stems are used properly, it means LESS will be done to the mix than using overall eq and/or limiting. The whole point of stems is preserving MORE of the character of a mix.