Stem mastering

[jazzius II]

I'm full of shit.

I don't know if you all remember but a while ago there was a thread on GS about mastering from stems. I, amongst others, slagged it off, saying that there was no place for it in mastering (apart from ER situations).

Well, i've changed my mind. After a few recent experiments and sessions where people brought stems, i've come to the conclusion that you can get much better results then with normal mastering. I knew this before, anyway. But my aversion to stem mastering stems ( ) from the fear of a mastering session becoming a mix session. But i think the key to stopping this happening is the fact that with mastering, you charge by the hour, so if someone wants to spend an hour trying to decide if the vox is loud enough, s'ok by me! So 'i'm thinking of actively promoting it as a service to my clients.

I'm kinda thinking aloud at this point.......but i'd be interested to hear:

Any stems mastering (SM) good news stories?

Any SM horror stories?

Is SM something many of you think you'd want to use instead of normal mastering?

Any other views on it?

[meteor]

i took a track i had mixed in a decent studio here in town to a well-respected mastering dude here in my area. it was honestly pretty astonishing how much you can here between a really good room and a mostly perfect room. kind of when i decided to at least do a stem of the lead vox for future applications, because the mixed track forced me into a compromise between the snare/hats and the lead vox in the mastering session. all that too say, maybe you can master from stems without getting too carried away with making your mastering session a mixing session. maybe just a drum stem, an instrument stem and a vox stem - taken from a mix that you already think is pretty damn perfect to begin with. i guess i could see myself using this as a crutch when i mix, but with a little discipline it might do wonders for my final product and provide a little flexibilty in the final stage of a project. peace...

[Brad Blackwood]

I work from stems when clients request it, have done so for years. I think it's beneficial for inexperienced clients, but generally don't think it should happen in mastering as it does two things:
1] makes me focus on 'trees' instead of 'the forest', and,
2] the tweaking causes me to listen longer, which in turn removes the perspective I can bring.

I still do it for clients that wish to work that way, but prefer working from complete mixes. And though I don't think it's your motivation, I would add that doing anything just to bill more is misguided...

[jazzius II]

Meteor....interesting thoughts...thanks..

....Brad, you're right, billing more is not my prime motivation....on the other hand, we are running a business here, so if i think i can offer a service which is both (artistically) beneficial to my clients and (financially) benificial to me, i don't see anything wrong with that.....stem mastering would take longer so would cost more...but the end result would be better.....so the extra cost could be justified for certain clients........yes, it wouldn't be necessary for all clients but for many it could make a big difference......

....i really brought up the cost thing to argue why it wouldn't likely turn into a mixing session.....unless the client actually wants 100 euro per hour mixing......

As for the wood/trees, that's an individual thing. Of course, you should only do what you feel confident and comfortable with.

[Brad Blackwood]

Originally posted by jazzius II
]As for the wood/trees, that's an individual thing. Of course, you should only do what you feel confident and comfortable with.

I am supremely confident in my abilities regarding the treatment of mixes; however, I think side-stepping mix decisions until mastering benefits only a small portion of clients (and the mastering engineer's bank account).

[Bob Olhsson]

Stems should never represent a delayed mix decision. I don't condone mixing in the mastering room because it compromises the mastering engineer's objectivity.

Where I think they will become standard is in surround titles. Surround monitoring that really translates well is nearly unaffordable so it makes sense to me that the final touches will need to be done in a top mastering facility in order to hold mixing budgets within their current range.

[echorec]

I don´t think it´s a good thing to push mixing decisions to the mastering stage. With this way of working you will both mix and master the same day and I don´t think that´s good. It´s better to make a few different mixes if you´re uncertain: vocal up, vocal down etc...

[Brad Blackwood]

Originally posted by Bob Olhsson
Where I think they will become standard is in surround titles. Surround monitoring that really translates well is nearly unaffordable so it makes sense to me that the final touches will need to be done in a top mastering facility in order to hold mixing budgets within their current range.

Indeed. The last surround title I did was sent with optional stems for mastering in case the processing made reverberation pop out and such and it was useful on a couple of pieces...

[Bob Olhsson]

The film business already learned this the hard way...

[grahluk]

I don't know if this adds more trees or a larger forest but consider how it's done for broadcast and film. Stems and final mix format are done at the same time. Only the final mix format is delivered (stereo, 5.1, LT/RT encoded, etc). Stems are produced for archive and revision. Implementing this for music might be more problematic. In post where I work elements are mixed through the stem devices (DA88's, digital dubbers) that are then mixed down to the playback format. Music mixes being a game of scrutinized, minimal signal chains would be conceptually compromised by the labarynthian signal chains in post. I guess how efficiently you could add this sort of thing to your mix path depends on how you are mixing. Depending on your disposition you could either buss out your stems parallel to your main mix buss to not muck up the chain or mix film style and mix through your stem recorder. Wait a second where was that forest? In any case having stem mixes is a value added service (especially in the possibility of future mixes in other delivery formats). If anthing got real sticky in mastering you can provide quickly revised mixes of your stem archives. In any case if your mixes are so compromised that in mastering having stems available is a regular neccessity either you have a ME that really wants to be the mixer or you might want to find someone else to do your mixes.

[jazzius II]

I'm well aware of the standard ME's view that you shouldn't mix and master at the same time, and i concur. That's not what I'm talking about. I would have thought that was fairly obvious, but apparently not.

I'm just throwing some ideas around here....trying to think "outside the box"......humor me......

Music production is changing....a lot more people are doing complete albums in home studio's.....using plugins and DAW summing....they want to get closer to THAT sound...they can't.......i dunno about you guys, but not all the people i work with are on the same level of Dave Pensado or Tony Maserati or whoever.......maybe things are different in the US.....maybe everyone's brilliant at mixing.....but not here.....here you could easily spend 15k mixing an album and get a horrible result.....

.......gonna have to finish this later.......time to go to work......D.

[The MPCist]

I think it's a great idea. I do use it time-to-time depending on the song. Some songs I feel don't need it at all while some tunes need some tweaking of the music while not touching the vocals at all... things like that...

Also at sessions like that, I do have the ME step outside so he doesn't get 'influenced' by the stuff I do to the stems and only when I get it to where I like it, then he comes in and gives his input.. I like it that way.

[7rojo7]

it's actually for the projects that get done in home or project studios that can benefit the most from this. I think it would work better if you bring your whole session to the mastering studio. I also like to send the hard disk for mastering, I'm waiting for cable to come to my area or Satellite if it doesn't for FTP, it seems convenient but I'm not sure about the reliability.
Back to stems, It would be the first time for many music makers to hear their stuff in an intelligible manner and one could make fast decisions on a track by track basis. But it's not really mastering, it's really mixing like this. It would need another type of engineer, one that would take a mix that someone has been working on at home and tweek and nudge in a professional atmosphere, which is not really a mix engineer either. It would probably need a diffeent type of studio than mastering studio or you would have to rent some more gear than a traditional mastering studio normally has. How many mastering studios can handle more than 8 tracks of audio and have that many quality pieces of gear to use. Ergonomically it would seem a little tight, with extra gear around maybe with no good place to put it or cabling to hook it up etc... grumpy engineer not doing the job he likes to do.
Stem mastering has been used now for a long time and has different techniques for different purposes. I wouldn't swear by it as a way to go for music but some producers do. If I was stuck mixing in a studio I didn't trust, I might opt for it as a way out of the studio, but if I was producing , I would surely keep an eye on the costs and most likely wouldn't book a studio I couldn't trust. I like the instrumental taken after the main mix and an A Capella version along with a vox+1 and a vox-1, sync'em up and cut and mix'em how you like. With stems it's easy to lose the balance of the effects, at some point a recall at the mix studio would be easier than trying to muck around with something that is supposed to have been done already.
For films delivering the music as stems is preferable to 2 mixes and way preferable to delivering a multichannel mix, but that has nothing to do with mastering.
I worked on 1 record where we sent stems to mastering on a DA-88 and it worked out well, the mix engineer went to the mastering session and they rented some extra gear there. It cost more money and took more time=money.

[JohnMcD]

I think Bob O. has the right statement about the film industry learning from experience. Is there anyone who works in that type of field around in these forums?

Personally, I have not worked with stems, but the whole idea is exciting to me. I do a few mixes, and if/when I do send out for mastering, it would actually make me feel more secure in sending out stems. For example, I'm unsure about the bottom end, so I send a stem of the kit and bass. The other with the rest of the ensemble. In theory, I suppose the ME would listen and say yay or nay on the bottom end: he would adjust accordingly. This to me looks like it would present more of a connection between the ME and tracking/mixing engineer.

In conclusion, it would also seem more cost effective as opposed to prohibitive. You're getting a second chance at the whole. In the previous example, the mixing engineer would probably spend a few more hours on the desicion for the bottom end if he/she were to not have the stem option available. But if the ME gets a stem, the few min/hr they spend would be equivelant to the mixing engineer rustling about. But you get two professional ears for the price of one!

I don't consider ME's working with stems to be "mixing". Not at all, they could very well be making adjustments, but it wouldn't be as unforgiving with the whole entire mix. Remember the teeter totter effect? Eq one side and keep an eye on the other. Compression could get dangerous, but with stems, it would actually make the result more engaging.

Surround stems? I have no clue and I get scared thinking of the unknown possibilities.

Get it? I can't read my own stuff.

Later,

-John

[jazzius II]

.......great replies, there.......That's more like it.
.....let's have a little creative, positive thinking rather then just grumpy negativity........

blimey, 7rojo7, are you a mind reader or something?....you took most of my words right out of my mouth!.....i don't have time now but i'm coming back to this (it's been a long day).......

D.

[jazzius II]

Originally posted by 7rojo7
it's actually for the projects that get done in home or project studios that can benefit the most from this. I think it would work better if you bring your whole session to the mastering studio. I also like to send the hard disk for mastering, I'm waiting for cable to come to my area or Satellite if it doesn't for FTP, it seems convenient but I'm not sure about the reliability.

ooh, that sounds a bit scary!....the mixer/producer having access to tweak the full multi-track mix at stem-mastering time?..looks like mixing, smells like mixing!........but again, as long as it's billing by the hour, OK with me!

Back to stems, It would be the first time for many music makers to hear their stuff in an intelligible manner and one could make fast decisions on a track by track basis. But it's not really mastering, it's really mixing like this. It would need another type of engineer, one that would take a mix that someone has been working on at home and tweek and nudge in a professional atmosphere, which is not really a mix engineer either. It would probably need a diffeent type of studio than mastering studio or you would have to rent some more gear than a traditional mastering studio normally has. How many mastering studios can handle more than 8 tracks of audio and have that many quality pieces of gear to use.

This is thinking out-da-box.....could there be a place for a new sort of studio?....mastering quality monitoring
...16 channels of top-class DA.......feeding mastering quality outboard...lot's of it...different flavours.......summing on something like a dangerous 2-buss.......people would bring up to 8 stereo (or mono) stems.....all FX, automation already done.......a way for DAW/home (and even pro) mixers to get a bigger sound then normally possible?.....with better balances

sort of a half-way house (soundwise) between big console-outboard mixing and DAW production?......

and a sort of half-way house (studio) between a traditional mastering and mixing studio?

again, just throwin' some ideas up in the air!

[deft_bonz]

this is a very interesting thread. i've tried it hard and again and again, but i'm still not sure what stem mastering does mean.

can anyone help me out please ???

regards deft:::

[kevinc]

Originally posted by jazzius II
ooh, that sounds a bit scary!....the mixer/producer having access to tweak the full multi-track mix at stem-mastering time?..looks like mixing, smells like mixing!........but again, as long as it's billing by the hour, OK with me!



This is thinking out-da-box.....could there be a place for a new sort of studio?....mastering quality monitoring
...16 channels of top-class DA.......feeding mastering quality outboard...lot's of it...different flavours.......summing on something like a dangerous 2-buss.......people would bring up to 8 stereo (or mono) stems.....all FX, automation already done.......a way for DAW/home (and even pro) mixers to get a bigger sound then normally possible?.....with better balances

sort of a half-way house (soundwise) between big console-outboard mixing and DAW production?......

and a sort of half-way house (studio) between a traditional mastering and mixing studio?

again, just throwin' some ideas up in the air!

Yeah and be sure to buy some microphones also. You may want to add tracking into the "mastering session" also.

(Just kidding around Jazzius )

In a way that`s not such a bad idea but that`s not really mastering anymore is it ?

It almost sounds like you want to get into real mixing with your really kick ass mastering gear.
I`d say just buy a console and go for it!

[jazzius II]

Originally posted by kevinc
Yeah and be sure to buy some microphones also. You may want to add tracking into the "mastering session" also.

(Just kidding around Jazzius )

In a way that`s not such a bad idea but that`s not really mastering anymore is it ?

It almost sounds like you want to get into real mixing with your really kick ass mastering gear.
I`d say just buy a console and go for it!

no no a thousand times no! (more later)

[Stizz]

Originally posted by deft_bonz
this is a very interesting thread. i've tried it hard and again and again, but i'm still not sure what stem mastering does mean.

can anyone help me out please ???

regards deft:::

When you break your "final" mix into it's separate components - a pass of vocals, a pass of drums , a pass of bass, guitars, etc.

[deft_bonz]

Originally posted by Stizz
When you break your "final" mix into it's separate components - a pass of vocals, a pass of drums , a pass of bass, guitars, etc.

so i'd take e.g. a stereo track for drums and few mono tracks for vocals, bass etc with me to the mastering house. and they master these one individually and mix them together in their house. so the mastering engineer becomes also a little bit of mixing engineer.

the plus would be that there is a almost perfect acoustic room with highend equipment. and a new pair of ears, thus more objective and open minded, will treat the track in a better way.

minus: i think this going to be more expensive, doesn't it?

[doorknocker]

Originally posted by deft_bonz
the plus would be that there is a almost perfect acoustic room with highend equipment. and a new pair of ears, thus more objective and open minded, will treat the track in a better way.

I dunno, given that you've got some experience with mixing, deciding how loud the vocal is, etc. is an artistic decision that I absolutely want to make myself. If you're not experienced....well, you learn by commiting to something.
I always thought that mixing is about the balance of an individual track while mastering is about making an album out of hopefully good sounding individual tracks.

Andi

[Bob Olhsson]

Mastering from stems is not about changing the mix balance. It's about being able to adjust the overall eq, dynamics and translation of a mix without compromising the mix balance.

[jazzius II]

what we're really talking about is a new stage in between mixing and mastering.....called stem mixing (or whatever you like).......but not really in between, more instead of (big console) mixing.....'specially useful for clients working in-da-box in less then steller mixing enviroments...let's be honest, anyone working out of a big studio that needs stem mixing should probably be looking elsewhere (career-wise)

they could mix the whole thing in terms of automation/FX etc but leave the final choice of general energy placement (EQ-wise....i just made that up ) and levels......bouncing out to a maximum of maybe 8 (stereo) stems....

could be an interesting area to get into for ME's like myself who've absolutely no interest in surround......

.....i think the point is, a good stem mixer would (could/might?) be able to deliver mixes that needed almost no mastering.......especially if the stem mixer would also be doing the mastering.......in the same room.......note i'm talking about a ME who becomes a stem mixer, not a mixer who decides to become a stem mixer......

i dunno, my mental jury is still out.....i've done a couple of stem mixers in the last few days.....one turned out 50x better then could've been achieved in normal mastering...in the other, the producer ended up choosing his original mix over the stem mix......i've a feeling this is something that'd be most useful for lower ability mixers......kinda obvious really......still, that's quite a big market......

[Brad Blackwood]

I wouldn't call it new - I've been doing it for years and got the idea from a guy that stared doing it probably close to 15 years ago. I'm not interested in it as the times I've done it, the trees become the focus, and I don't think there's any way around that.

But I do think it has a place for the guy who's in a less-than-ideal environment. The question becomes - do you really need twice or more of the equipment or can it be done at a high level with your current rig? Figure that out and you're rolling in cash!

[jazzius II]

But i'm talking about a set-up that offers 8 stereo channels of analogue mastering quality gear that can then be summed to stereo......in a mastering quality monitoring enviroment....that is new isn't it?.......

of course you can do it in your DAW with plugs or just changing levels, but doing it analogue does require more gear......

......i think the key would be communication.....and knowing your clients well enough to know which ones are suited to it and which aren't........like i mentioned earlier, i've seen many people blow 15k on getting an album mixed with.......horrible results.......and i'm supposed to fix (for 8 or 900 euro) what someone managed to botch-up for 15k......see where i'm coming from?

[Bob Olhsson]

Originally posted by Brad Blackwood
...I'm not interested in it as the times I've done it, the trees become the focus, and I don't think there's any way around that. ...

The best one I know is charging 3-500 an hour! If it isn't lots more expensive than a mix room, lots of people will tend to delay balance decisions.

[teleharmonic]

My band is currently looking at a two stage mix process for our current project... the first is us working out the critical issues with regards to the artistic presentation of the project... levels, arrangement, balance, mood and vibe etc.

We don't want to give up this aspect as we are confident that it is what we are actually good at... plus it is what DAWs are good at... we can refine a mix over time and trade files for comparison.

When we have made these decisions we are bringing what we have done to a mix engineer to really delve into the sonic details in a way that we are not able to (from an experience level for one but also from an objectivity level as we have now heard the songs a thousand times). We are trusting our mix engineer to bring a fresh perspective so that we can have a final mix that has energy but is also well explored.

I think it is likely a burgeoning niche market for mix engineers to specialize in. But I also think that a mix engineer specializing in such a niche market would require different gear than a mastering engineer... i would want them to have a larger collection of character/coloured signal processors and less of the surgical/clean kind... i would want them to be a specialist in knowing how to capture, or reclaim, energy and vibe from an already in progress mix. So, for example. i could describe a certain type of drum sound/mood i was after and have them be able to use whatever processing gear (expensive or trashy) to get that....

I mean, we're basically talking a mix engineer here but one who takes an already in progress DAW mix and fleshes it out sonically. Their monitoring chain would need to be decent but not mastering quality... i think that that might price them out of the market of the very people who would be interested in such a service.

I would, personally, rather have the mastering engineer focus on the stereo mix.

cheers,
greg

[jlotto]

in the midst of a major label album project where the SSL mixes have just lost something that our ruff ITB mixes had. A few records we have mixed 3X already and still dont have it.

We r now taking the stems to mastering from the original ITB mixes and we've been happy so far.

[NathanEldred]

I could see this for lead and background vocals but that's about it....with a lot of inexperienced mix engineers whose music I master I notice many times either the vocal is bright (or sibilant) with darkish music, or the other way around making it somewhat difficult to do what is necessary. Having seperate control of both would be great.