Print

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

[djwaudio]

I'm thinking about the playback side here.  I've been getting mixes with vocals separately on occasion lately and it may be time to get properly set up to handle these with grace. 

Normally, I'm using Wavelab to pitch for Stereo projects and catch with Sadie. For stems, I'm looking for something better in the event that I need to put some processing on an element, etc. 

One thing occurs to me, is I could use the System 6000 for levels & summing as well as a bit of processing, I'll just need to get a multi-channel I/O to interface for the PC.  Or maybe just get Pro Tools once and for all (though I prefer using hardware for workflow, etc). 

How are you doing it?

[MoreSpaceEcho]

For stems, I'm looking for something better in the event that I need to put some processing on an element, etc. 

maybe i misread, but you can do this just fine in wavelab, just put the stems on separate tracks in a montage. you can have plugs on the individual tracks or the clips themselves. you can also assign the channels to different outputs in the event you want to process the stems with separate pieces of analog stuff.

for me, i've only had a few projects come in with stems, and i just processed them differently ITB then ran the whole thing out to analog and mastered as usual.

[Jerry Tubb]

Pro Tools HD pitching to soundBlade HD.

Easy as Pie!

JT

[Twerk]

I prefer to handle stems ITB as far as individual processing is concerned, and then master outboard with my analog gear as a stereo file.

[pmx]

I try to stick to a post workflow when doing multichannel. PT functions as playback, digital summing in the 6000 before the analog chain and then back into PT or sB. if analog processing is needed/preferred I have a nice 16 ch Studer desk which is fed by a SSL Alphalink and then into the analog mastering chain.

[Thomas W. Bethel]

Samplitude or Wavelab here for stem mastering, Works GREAT!!!

[Hermetech Mastering]

I've only done stem mastering a couple of times, but really didn't like it. I've refused to do it since then, lost a job but really prefer to work on finished setreo mixes. Not set up for surround here yet, otherwise it would be a consideration again. Having said that, when I did do it, I'd return the mastered stems to the mix engineer and let him line them up again.

[djwaudio]

I prefer the stereo mix too.  I find the stems to change what mastering is. I think I'd appreciate it more if I had the workflow really dialed in.

@  MoreSpaceEcho, I'm using WL 5, so the montage is a little more clumsy than the later versions.  I was about to upgrade to WL 6 when they brought out 7.  Once I heard the tales of whoa with that version, I held off.

Anyone not using their copy of WL 6?

[Jerry Tubb]

I'd return the mastered stems to the mix engineer and let him line them up again.

Hi Gregg, isn't the point of stems, to adjust the level balances (and perhaps EQ) on the stems, with the timeline(s) intact, and then master it as a stereo mix?

Cheers, JT

[Hermetech Mastering]

I'm not really sure Jerry, as I said, I've only done it a couple of times, the client was a friend and was happy to do the lining up himself. He basically wanted me to process the drum stem, synth/pad stem, and percussion/noises stem separately.

If I had to do stem mastering as you suggest, I'd want to run each stem through the analogue chain, but I only have a stereo chain, so it would mean multiple passes, and then figuring out some way of lining them up sample accurately after the fact.

If stem mastering is really about adjusting level balances between individual tracks, then I'd much rather leave that to the mix engineer!

[Twerk]

Stem mastering in my opinion, really should be treated as close to regular ol' mastering as possible. Where it differs is when you have something you want to EQ, you don't end up pulling out or cutting frequencies from another instrument that was fine as it was.

A typical stem project for me means mastering it as a stereo file through the outboard, and making any specific tweaks to an individual sound in the box before it hits the analog chain.

Example: I've got a good mix but there's some pretty obvious resonance in the vocal at 280hz. Rather than apply an EQ cut globally to the problem area, which affects everything in the mix, I can load up something like FabFilter Pro-Q on just the vocal stem, make the necessary cuts and then continue to process the entire mix as normal through the outboard chain.

I really just see stems as having more control over what you don't want to affect, rather than tweaking every stem for maximum potential. I tell my clients that their stem mix should be as close to done as they can possibly get it.

[Hermetech Mastering]

Twerk, that would make a lot of sense to me, in that everything would then just be hitting the analogue chain as a regular stereo file, but don't you ever find you'd like to use your outboard on individual stems?

Is there a known/good way to be able to line everything up sample accurately, if you have to process stems individually?

[Miguel P. Marques]

Stem mastering in my opinion, really should be treated as close to regular ol' mastering as possible. Where it differs is when you have something you want to EQ, you don't end up pulling out or cutting frequencies from another instrument that was fine as it was.

A typical stem project for me means mastering it as a stereo file through the outboard, and making any specific tweaks to an individual sound in the box before it hits the analog chain.

Example: I've got a good mix but there's some pretty obvious resonance in the vocal at 280hz. Rather than apply an EQ cut globally to the problem area, which affects everything in the mix, I can load up something like FabFilter Pro-Q on just the vocal stem, make the necessary cuts and then continue to process the entire mix as normal through the outboard chain.

I really just see stems as having more control over what you don't want to affect, rather than tweaking every stem for maximum potential. I tell my clients that their stem mix should be as close to done as they can possibly get it.

Same here!

I don't mind receiving stems or even tracks but most of the times it is a waste of bandwidth.

Other times, like in your example, you can fine tune some track or stem without affecting everything else. Or, client loves the master but wants the vocal one dB up, easy!

In this cases I'll use a plug-in to fix the stem and process the whole mix as it was a stereo file.

[djwaudio]

Is there a known/good way to be able to line everything up sample accurately, if you have to process stems individually?

You could use something like they do in film sync, a 2-pop.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2-pop


I treat stems like a regular stereo mix, with the option of making adjustments.  The more you invite this kind of thing, the less finished a mix you're likely to get, in my experience.  When those deadlines loom... I've been roped into mixing records this way.  Not that I mind, and sometimes it's a fun departure, but at some point it's not mastering as we know it. 

Something that I've enjoyed doing is having the DIY folks bring in their laptop & interface and master from that.  Then, they get a little education/feedback and a final sound that is better than what we would have had otherwise. Most of the time we are turning insane amounts of mix processing off. ;-)

[Twerk]

Twerk, that would make a lot of sense to me, in that everything would then just be hitting the analogue chain as a regular stereo file, but don't you ever find you'd like to use your outboard on individual stems?

Well, I'm usually only doing some very specific EQ work with the stems, and I'm pretty happy with plug-in EQ's for this task. And occasionally, I'll work with some transient shapers on the kick/snare to help cut through the mix and I don't have anything in the analog domain to do it. So I'm pretty happy doing my tweaks digitally before it hits the analog chain.