Print

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

[davidc]

Bob Olhsson wrote on Sun, 06 June 2004 17:14

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.

Bob,

You have an amazing way of being able to get a point across in the most essenceful way.  

Best Regards

David C

[Level]

Really, this all depends on protocol. Nothing I love better than a mix that sits perfect and needs such a minimal approach in mastering such as tail silience inserts or crops and maybe a shade of bass augmentation.

However, with the growing sector of indie producers, mixdown engineers with buried vocals and 2 buss compression that is over the top, it is impossible for me to balance a project where anything I do with it...requires the use of carefully mixed stems to put the project in balance.

Case in point:

XXX mixed a project in his thick sounding room and lives 2000 miles away. Anything to get the bottom end balance in the pocket results in vocals that sound horrid. In this case I would request a vocal mix and the instumental separate due to the fact the mixing engineer lacked the talent, did not have a calibrated system or simply made too many mistakes in the mixdown. Really great mixdowns are one thing, bad mixdowns are entirely different. If a project comes through and I deem it a restoration project, well, figure, what I first got was the mixdown engineers final and if it can be improved, then it should be. Not everyone is a "Mixerman" and many fall short in this department. IF PROTOCOL exsist where the oppurtunity affords itself to do whatever it takes to make the project a "happening thing"...beyond what I received, then it happens.

All to often we get caught up with a ego problem where sometimes..you just have to point out mistakes and problems and let the show begin. Their is no way to correct a bad edit in the vocal mix on the 2mix if the mix has been finalized. This requires re-editing the vox tracks and folding them in at the proper level. One persons "proper" may not translate at all.

Not everyone can afford the luxury of having a great mixdown artist on hand. If my job is to balance the master and this is the only way it can be done properly, this is what I request.

I don't think of myself as only a mastering engineer. My job (again if protocol embraces it) is to send out something that is press ready. I have requested remixes that have gone from "bad" to "worse" and this is the most cost effective way to get the project back to a form of sanity.

We have all heard mainstream works that suck. I would consider the fault of this to be everywhere in the chain and it falls on the mastering engineers lap. If it sucks bad enough and I don't have carte'blanche to do what is required to make it "not suck" then I simply pass the project on to someone else.

[Mixerman]

Bob Olhsson wrote on Sun, 06 June 2004 09:14

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.

I contend there is no mix if you are using stems. A mix is a commitment. Bad mixes should be fixed by remixing or hiring a better (or more appropriate) mixer.

If the mixer is using a compressor on the stereo bus, then the stems will not accurately replicate the stereo version. Therefore, the stems are not a mix, and furthermore, the stems can't be used to preserve the character of the mix.

Once stems are being used in mastering, it is a crude form of mixing. Stems should only be used as a last resort. Anyone that suggests the printing of, and delivery of stems as a matter of course, is interested in one thing and one thing only. They want to adjust the mix. That's mixing. If a mastering engineer wants to become a mixer, they should do so.

I stand by my position in this matter. Stems are a dangerous and slippery slope in an industry that finds no limits to its procrastination of commitment.

Mixerman

[Level]

In an ideal world, I agree with Mixerman..however, things are getting farther and farther away from the ideal every day. Notice the rubbish that is coming out and is on billboard. Folding in a vox mixdown that is 2 track with an instrumental that is two track and both of these have been rebalanced in mastering before the 2/2 mix, then remixed, then rebalanced again is something that has been going on now..."since I can remember" and even back in the 70's. Sometimes this happens. I had a mixdown engineer pass away before he was finished with a project. We did a much better job this way than anything else that was in budget. After 4 mixdown engineers steered the project far away from what he had, this was requested and it worked very well. We kept all the good and made it better.

IF Protocol is followed like we have been accustomed to over the years, the above writings are moot. Unfortunantly, some of us work with amateurs

[TotalSonic]

I think MM might be being "deliberately provocative" but it does bring up some interesting points regarding the historical processes done for mastering and where I think it's evolved to now and where it might be going - and whether these are good things or not.

I also think MM's perspective is coming from a place where he and the mix engineers he know basically are experienced and know how to do their jobs, and work in good facilities, for artists and labels that have the budgets to make sure things get done right.  In other words - the mixes they produce will usually sound good right off the bat.  I, on the other hand, often work for independent artsts who have limited means, and who often provide mixes for mastering that were recorded in home and project studios, tracked & mixed in limited time, with poor equipment and inexperienced engineers.  By the time they are in the mastering studio with me I've also often seen for a wide variety of circumstance they do not have the option of getting some or all of the tracks remixed.  And when they bring in mixes I've yet to hear the artist say "you know - the recording for this song that I really love and worked hard to get recorded sounds pretty bad - but I think we should honor the intentions of the mix engineer and just leave it as it is on the CD"!!!  Instead they look at me and say "is there anything you can do to make this sound better?" - and 9 times out of 10 there is.

I've never ever requested stems and I've yet to receive them.  But I can't tell you the amount of times an artists has asked me "is there any way to bring out that vocal phrase there?" - and then I have to explain that while I can subtly bring it out by automating an eq boost of certain frequencies for just that area that this sometimes has some sonic drawbacks and can be limited to its effectiveness - and that it is much better if these kind of level changes happen during mixing.  Obviously stems would solve this problem in that I would be able to open them up and honor the clients request.

I've also received a number of mixes where the vocal or lead instrument was recorded with a radically different sound than the rest of the track - i.e. the vocal has a brutal poke you in the ear with an ice pick kind of sound with a giant peak of 3.7kHz on every note - while the backing tracks are dull dull dull where a couple of db centered around just that point would do wonders (or the opposite - where the vocal is extremely dull and undefined sounding - while the backing tracks have way too much around say 5kHz where I'd want to try and boost a db or 2 to try and help define the vox).  What to do when they client tells you they can't get this remixed because the mix engineer closed their studio, or is a psycho, or deleted all their mix session data?  While there are possible solutions around the sonic problems of the track, like a multiband comp, it obviously would be better to do much more minor processing on the stems so that the overall intentions of the mix engineer and the sound of the original mix could be honored more.  In these cases stems would allow me instead of having to reach a compromise between these 2 disparate elements instead do more direct and less radical tweaks to be able to get a better overall sound - and again to make the artist happier with the end result.

So - are these kinds of things mixing or mastering??  I'd say that at this point in time the borders are getting blurred.  I happen to have a few tools at the studio where I work where if someone does want to re-mix a number of tracks in the box they could - and to date I've done a bit of this for a number of clients who requested it.  But in this case what I am doing is mixing and not mastering, and in general I would say in most circumstances they would be better off going to a dedicated mixing studio for these things.  But for very minor gain changes of particular parts - or to correct really serious sonic problems created by tracking engineers that simply were clueless - having the stems available could streamline the work flow to getting a satisfying final release out for the only one who truly matters in all of this - the artist.

But I agree with the general consensus - to have a ME start working from stems as default - especially if you know that the mixes are coming from a good studio with an experienced engineer- seems totally ridiculous.  To me stems would be safety insurance as a way of quickly, and with the least amount of sonic degradation, addressing minor changes or extreme problems, and only used as a last resort.  

Regarding where mastering was - and where it is going:
Historically production parts for duplicates and the originals were in radically different formats requiring a true technician to make the transfer.  To go from tape to laqcuer to father to mother to stamper involves a heck of a lot of mechanical processes that have to be carefully addressed to try and retain as much of what was originally on tape.  But back in the day the person creating the mixes to tape were in general working in great facilities with some serious experience - so that the idea of mastering was not generally enhancement but instead retention.

Initially transfer to CD - where you had to from tape to PCM1630 to glass master - still involved more equipment to do the transfer than could be had easily  by John Q Public.  With PMCD - and then CD-R - and just as importantly the globalization of manufacturing where Chinese made goods have driven down the costs of pro audio gear considerably - nearly anyone can create a master that can be delivered to the plant for replication.  Yet, because the circumstances that things are recorded now is often not ideal, overall the quality of the sonics on these masters has degraded and more and more people are looking towards the mastering process as ways of making their release sound better.  SO - the goal these days of mastering more often than not has become enhancement - instead of retention.  This is not to say that I consider ridiculous amounts digital brickwall peak limiting or some insane boost of the ultrahighs as "enhancement" - I consider those poor mastering decisions.

I think as time moves forward and that more and more recordings are done in project studios that the role of mastering engineer in trying to improve the overall sonics of the mixes will only increase.  It is very possible that we will also see an increase in the blurring between the roles of mixing and mastering as facilities open designed as hybrid mixing/mastering suites or dedicated mastering houses adapt to accomodate these trends.  Is this a good thing?  Maybe not.  But does it seem there is a trend towards this??  I think so.

With many many geologists and energy industry experts now predicting that the global petroleum production peak will happen within the next decade we're going to see a radical increase in costs of things like trucking, polycarbonate, and optical disc manufacturing (and vinyl too!) -  so that optical discs & records in the next 20 years will become less and less economically feasible and digital transmission more and more economically attractive.  The mastering engineer is going to have to eventually adapt to the fact that the transfer from one format to another via mechanical means could possibly become not a part of the mastering process at all!

And finally - regarding MM's question of who is more important in the recording process - mix eng. or mastering eng. - I'd say neither - it's the artist who created the music in the first place.  We're here to honor the artists intentions - full, stop.  Right now in the replication process mastering is the final step to trying to do this.  

Best regards,
Steve Berson

[Level]

Steve, you nailed my points. We can all agree that the "other set of ears" provided by the mastering suite by very nature is the major role of the mastering realm. If this were not the case, mastering engineers would not be needed. This begs the question: Can a mastering engineer be trusted to do a mixdown?

Some of us can do quite well in both roles if we learn how to shift gears. Very many cannot (have not) learned this. I know of several mixdown engineers that will not entertain the thought of mastering their own mixes and vis/vis.

I do whatever has to be done to get the project at the stage to be pressed. I only wish it were simply as simple as having great mixes on every project. If so..my income would quadruple per hour. It simply is not the case anymore.

[Mixerman]

TotalSonic wrote on Sun, 06 June 2004 11:39

] And finally - regarding MM's question of who is more important in the recording process - mix eng. or mastering eng. - I'd say neither - it's the artist who created the music in the first place.  We're here to honor the artists intentions - full, stop. Best regards, Steve Berson

Personally, I'm always fighting for the Artist. And if we were to apply my second experiment to Artists and mixers, wheras the mixer may not actually perform a song, and the Artist may not actually mix it, we would come to the conclusion that the Artist is the most important part of the process. Further emphasizing my point. Making a record is not an assemblyline where we are all a part of the process.

Mixerman

[Bob Olhsson]

Mixerman wrote on Sun, 06 June 2004 12:53

If the mixer is using a compressor on the stereo bus, then the stems will not accurately replicate the stereo version.

Indeed and this mixer can not use stems when doing this kind of a mix. Still there are other kinds of mixes. I just disagree that it's any more of a slippery slope than using eq, limiting, compression or "vocal-up" mixes in mastering.

I know a lot of other old farts from the '60s who shudder at the idea of pop records that have been so poorly arranged, tracked and produced that they require more than a half hour to mix.

Making a record is indeed not an assemblyline where we are all a part of the process. Every single tool we have is potentially an enhancement for the artist's vision, a crutch to hide bad performances or something that might be used heavy-handedly in a way that destroys the emotional connection between an artist and their audience.

Shotguns and stilettos can both save lives or be lethal. The important thing is for us all to focus on truly great performances and productions. Then we can all have a ball being tape copy boys which I believe ought to be the goal of every engineer.

[Level]

My Best work is a mono out from a professionally played Kurzweil Mk10 direct to Hard drive at 24/192K without any manipulation other than raising the gain 3.0dB across the board and converting to DVD-A , in Mono.

L=Mono/R=Mono , Null to LR/RR and Center. No LFQ ch.

Entire production, real time of 54 mins, mastering 8 mins, and DVD-A authoring, 12 mins.

The least I do, the better it is. Period.

[j.hall]

mixerman writes:

Quote:

We as a society have abandoned unique in exchange for familiarity, and it's a tragedy far beyond any ever conceived by Shakespeare.

from a purely historical stand point, humans, as a whole, have never accepted unique.  familiar has always been more prized, so it doesn't really surprise me that this crept it's way into audio......as you stated much better then i could.....it's just sad that this is how "we" embrace familiarity.

davidc writes:

Quote:

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

i could write for pages how i feel about this.....but i'll merely say this one thing

i'd like to personally, and publicly, thank DC for NOT homogenizing soundgarden (as a whole, across many records) into on sonic sound per record.  Thank you for mastering those records so brililantly, and allowing the mixes to maintain their uniqueness from track to track.

bblackwood writes:

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.

and you're surprised that no one answered you?

how many times have i called you a vented about things like this

music is art.....where is the thought, where is the respect....blah blah blah.....i'm surprised you even wasted your breathe

mixerman writes

Quote:

I contend there is no mix if you are using stems. A mix is a commitment. Bad mixes should be fixed by remixing or hiring a better (or more appropriate) mixer.

AMEN......

i'll also add:
sometimes what one person initially thinks is a bad mix, is quite the opposite......it's just what was needed to convey the proper thought....

i've heard plenty of people comment on records i love that sound "different" as being "mixed poorly".

when asked what the music is about they will comment, "i couldn't tell you because the mix is so bad"

well, maybe that's the point.....stop making assumptions
assumptions are bad......

you have to let the music hit you as the band, producer, and mixer intended it to.....

TotalSonic writes:

Quote:

I think MM might be being "deliberately provocative" but it does bring up some interesting points regarding the historical processes done for mastering and where I think it's evolved to now and where it might be going - and whether these are good things or not.

i think he's speaking his mind, and being as clear as he possibly can.  and personally, i think he's right.....no scratch that, i KNOW he's right.....

TotalSonic writes:

Quote:

And finally - regarding MM's question of who is more important in the recording process - mix eng. or mastering eng. - I'd say neither - it's the artist who created the music in the first place. We're here to honor the artists intentions - full, stop

actually, i think the artist is not the most important entity in this process

i think whomever is ensuring and/or helping the artist get their vision out is the most important, often times that the producer.......and often times it's the producer AND mixer.

but i have yet to hear anyone show me, or tell me about a specific record where the ME was the connection between the artist and the end vision.........

[Level]

Quote:

but i have yet to hear anyone show me, or tell me about a specific record where the ME was the connection between the artist and the end vision.........

Well J.Hall, even that my main services are that of a mastering engineer, the last 4 albums, I was honored with the position of doing just that.

The end vison being "you made it sound like I heard it in my head before I started" (Racquel Turbinton)

That is one. No need to expound.

[Mixerman]

Level wrote on Mon, 07 June 2004 14:08

Quote: but i have yet to hear anyone show me, or tell me about a specific record where the ME was the connection between the artist and the end vision......... Well J.Hall, even that my main services are that of a mastering engineer, the last 4 albums, I was honored with the position of doing just that. The end vison being "you made it sound like I heard it in my head before I started" (Racquel Turbinton)

She says that to all the engineers...

Don't be a sucker.

Mixerman

[Level]

Before I got the project, she could not say it to anyone! She was cold blooded because everything sounded "not good" to her. This was the reason I got it, we clicked and it happened. I was convinced...I could do it for her right. It took catching the artist as it happened, not manipulating her to ad nausium. You would not fathom how far off her earlier stuff was. Just not there (bragging, I know)

As for the other 3 artists this year...well, I rest/

[Mixerman]

Level wrote on Mon, 07 June 2004 17:02

Before I got the project, she could not say it to anyone! She was cold blooded because everything sounded "not good" to her. This was the reason I got it, we clicked and it happened. I was convinced...I could do it for her right. It took catching the artist as it happened, not manipulating her to ad nausium. You would not fathom how far off her earlier stuff was. Just not there (bragging, I know) As for the other 3 artists this year...well, I rest/

You rest, and you prove my point. Mastering Engineers have propped themselves up to be the savior of modern day records. Occasionally, that might actually be the case, but more often than not, the opposite is true.

What are the available tensions of a flat nine chord? (Yes, I realize you can look it up, it's a rhetorical question)

Enjoy,

Mixerman

[Level]

MM, My College scholorship was in music but that is also rhetorical. I compose, as well as conduct a full wind symphony each spring...whether that matters. The deal is to be whatever it takes to do the project and I choose my main profession as project director and mastering engineer.

The other stuff is pure fun!!

Sometimes I go on tour playing lead Trombone with a few Jazz bands. That is also a good vacation! I also love to play my electric bass and upright when I have the time. Too bad I sold my Cello. I need to purchase another one. Loved playing it for relaxation purposes.

MM, I am living in my 6th decade...but even that is of no consequence.