hi guys,
im pretty confused after so many years and having some heavy problems with stem mastering etc.
my whole understanding of the process is confused now.
when i got a session it is like this
arrangements and then sorting all instruments to mixer channels
then or while composing you mix with levels apply effects
NOW the confusing part
some export the mix as stems without any master effects. then open a new session and master these stems. correct?
im doing the same but mostly i skip the export stems part and master in the same session but i apply/switch on my master bus after all the mixing is done.
so shouldnt the process be the same?
DAW chain?
export internally the stems with mixer effects etc. and applying the master effects at the end and optionally convert it to a audio file?
so when i import in a new session the mixed stems and export it after done with mastering it also exports internally the stems and apllies the master effects at the end and optionally convert it to a audio file?
How do DAW chains/processes work? when are master Bus effects applied?
-
- KVRAF
- 9609 posts since 5 Aug, 2009
DAW FL Studio Audio Interface Focusrite Scarlett 1st Gen 2i2 CPU Intel i7-7700K 4.20 GHz, RAM 32 GB Dual-Channel DDR4 @2400MHz Corsair Vengeance. MB Asus Prime Z270-K, GPU Gainward 1070 GTX GS 8GB NT Be Quiet DP 550W OS Win10 64Bit
-
- KVRAF
- 7673 posts since 2 Sep, 2019
I’m having a hard time following what you’re saying here. But I will explain what happens and hopefully that will give you some insight that you’re looking for.
Any buss will combine the channels feeding it into a single output. ⇶➞
Insert effects are applied after the signals are combined into one. This is true whether it’s a submix buss, or the master 2-buss.
The “master” buss is not actually for mastering at all. It is simply the final buss that combines all incoming signals into a single stereo out. It is called the “master” because it affects everything that passes through the mixer. It is the one fader to rule them all.
If you are exporting individual stems with your master buss effects in place, then mixbuss compression won’t really be working to “glue” your mix the way it’s supposed to. So if you are exporting stems to do your final mix, you should NOT apply your master buss effects when exporting stems, and use them only when exporting your final mix from your stems.
Some people like mixing from the start into master buss effects. This is known as “top down mixing.” They start with only master buss effects to shape the entire mix globally, then add channel effects as needed. They say they end up using fewer effects for mixing.
Other people don’t apply any master buss effects until the end, and treat it like pseudo-mastering, which is what it sounds like you’re doing. The problem with this is it changes the sound of your mix after you’ve already perfected it. Why do that?
Personally, I think both approaches are wrong. Instead what I do is somewhere in between. I’ll put on a mixbuss compressor which I mix through from the start, but then largely leave the mixbuss alone and work just on the channels. This is going to be the same process that an engineer would use on an analogue console in the studio, where the mixbuss compressor is always active, to protect speakers and ears from sudden loud transients or slips of the hand.
Now, back to this crucial understand that the “master buss” is not for “mastering.”
Mastering is the process of creating a master copy for duplication in a particular format or medium. You master for vinyl, for CD, for tape, for iTunes, for Spotify, etc. because each format has its own requirements and/or idiosyncrasies. Mastering is all about tailoring the volume, EQ, and dynamics of your final mix for each medium of distribution.
Master buss effects, on the other hand, are still just part of the process of creating that final mix that will be mastered for various distribution media.
Any buss will combine the channels feeding it into a single output. ⇶➞
Insert effects are applied after the signals are combined into one. This is true whether it’s a submix buss, or the master 2-buss.
The “master” buss is not actually for mastering at all. It is simply the final buss that combines all incoming signals into a single stereo out. It is called the “master” because it affects everything that passes through the mixer. It is the one fader to rule them all.
If you are exporting individual stems with your master buss effects in place, then mixbuss compression won’t really be working to “glue” your mix the way it’s supposed to. So if you are exporting stems to do your final mix, you should NOT apply your master buss effects when exporting stems, and use them only when exporting your final mix from your stems.
Some people like mixing from the start into master buss effects. This is known as “top down mixing.” They start with only master buss effects to shape the entire mix globally, then add channel effects as needed. They say they end up using fewer effects for mixing.
Other people don’t apply any master buss effects until the end, and treat it like pseudo-mastering, which is what it sounds like you’re doing. The problem with this is it changes the sound of your mix after you’ve already perfected it. Why do that?
Personally, I think both approaches are wrong. Instead what I do is somewhere in between. I’ll put on a mixbuss compressor which I mix through from the start, but then largely leave the mixbuss alone and work just on the channels. This is going to be the same process that an engineer would use on an analogue console in the studio, where the mixbuss compressor is always active, to protect speakers and ears from sudden loud transients or slips of the hand.
Now, back to this crucial understand that the “master buss” is not for “mastering.”
Mastering is the process of creating a master copy for duplication in a particular format or medium. You master for vinyl, for CD, for tape, for iTunes, for Spotify, etc. because each format has its own requirements and/or idiosyncrasies. Mastering is all about tailoring the volume, EQ, and dynamics of your final mix for each medium of distribution.
Master buss effects, on the other hand, are still just part of the process of creating that final mix that will be mastered for various distribution media.
THIS MUSIC HAS BEEN MIXED TO BE PLAYED LOUD SO TURN IT UP
-
- KVRAF
- 8701 posts since 24 May, 2002 from Tutukaka, New Zealand
Possibly OP is getting confused about routing because he's recording stems. Sure you can do it that way, but you don't have to. I can think of 2 obvious reasons for recording stems:
1. Saving CPU
2. You're sending it out for someone else to do mixing for you.
From what OP says, you're doing your own mixing, so in that case no need for the extra step of recording stems.
Saving CPU is a valid reason - do you have limitations on your system, or work in such a way that you use vast amounts of processing each mix? Or even CPU hog plugins (definitely there are some that use too much even today...Korg spring to mind). If not, then again why record stems?
A potential 3rd reason is storage/redoability. That makes sense if it's real instrument recording and you can't just load up a synth and redo it or recall patches etc. But if it's electronic then I personally don't see the benefit of recording stems, though if you use analogue synths with no patch storage that makes sense, but even then I'd still just keep the midi patterns/channels - not difficult to recreate sounds imo.
I do still render some audio from the odd plugins that are CPU hogs, but I treat them like audio parts, not whole-channel stems. That just seems an extra complication. TBH you might find it simpler to just run everything live and do your mixing on the whole thing. If you really insist on recording stems for whatever reason, makes sense to me to record them all dry with no processing at all. If you're processing them, why record them at all - that's destructive. Surely the point of a stem is the original capture of the recording? Dunno, it seems like it's just a bit archaic and throwback to hw/real instrument days. Fine if that's what you do, but I got the impression you did electronic stuff? If so, you just don't need stems at all...(imo) but obvs you can work in any way you want. DAWs etc negated an awful lot of entrenched methods of recording. I'm an old fart and even I love the way DAWs make the whole process so much easier (mostly). I can look at a DAW like a glorified 8track, but I choose not to. I suspect you do? Apologies if I'm way off track.
1. Saving CPU
2. You're sending it out for someone else to do mixing for you.
From what OP says, you're doing your own mixing, so in that case no need for the extra step of recording stems.
Saving CPU is a valid reason - do you have limitations on your system, or work in such a way that you use vast amounts of processing each mix? Or even CPU hog plugins (definitely there are some that use too much even today...Korg spring to mind). If not, then again why record stems?
A potential 3rd reason is storage/redoability. That makes sense if it's real instrument recording and you can't just load up a synth and redo it or recall patches etc. But if it's electronic then I personally don't see the benefit of recording stems, though if you use analogue synths with no patch storage that makes sense, but even then I'd still just keep the midi patterns/channels - not difficult to recreate sounds imo.
I do still render some audio from the odd plugins that are CPU hogs, but I treat them like audio parts, not whole-channel stems. That just seems an extra complication. TBH you might find it simpler to just run everything live and do your mixing on the whole thing. If you really insist on recording stems for whatever reason, makes sense to me to record them all dry with no processing at all. If you're processing them, why record them at all - that's destructive. Surely the point of a stem is the original capture of the recording? Dunno, it seems like it's just a bit archaic and throwback to hw/real instrument days. Fine if that's what you do, but I got the impression you did electronic stuff? If so, you just don't need stems at all...(imo) but obvs you can work in any way you want. DAWs etc negated an awful lot of entrenched methods of recording. I'm an old fart and even I love the way DAWs make the whole process so much easier (mostly). I can look at a DAW like a glorified 8track, but I choose not to. I suspect you do? Apologies if I'm way off track.
-
- KVRAF
- 8701 posts since 24 May, 2002 from Tutukaka, New Zealand
EDIT - I'll add that I use a lot of analogue synths, so obvs I have to record them. I record them 100% dry, no processing unless there's some specific hw effect I specifically want (usually frequency-dependent VCA compression). But I don't really treat those as stems, rather as audio parts. I bugger about with them the same way I would a midi clip, audio clip, VSTi clip etc.
-
- KVRAF
- 8701 posts since 24 May, 2002 from Tutukaka, New Zealand
I reread OP post. I'm with Jamcat here..not quite sure what the dilemma is?
Seems a bit like: do I mix by effecting only channels or by FX on the stereo out also? But it could also be :do I render a mix and master it separately?
1st question - you can do either or both. 2nd question - you can do either or both.
Mixing can mean a shitload of effects all over every channel AND on the master out. Effectively, many nowadays master when they mix. IRL mastering has changed into meaning the final mix, apart from what sampling rate/bit depth/volume you want, which will be different according to where your target is, but you do that yourself at the same stage. Of course you CAN send out for mixing or mastering if you A) want to and B) can afford it. Also IRL we don't all have the talent to mix/master well enough - I know I'm not the best at mixing. It sounds a bit like you're asking what is the professional way of mixing and mastering - but not going the professional route. In which case, the way pros do it is almost irrelevant. Stems - doing it just because a pro studio does it doesn't make sense to me - you're not a pro studio. Different aims, different business. You're not a customer of a pro studio with deadlines/profits/responsibilities, you're you, recording at home. Dunno, maybe I also didn't understand the question...
Seems a bit like: do I mix by effecting only channels or by FX on the stereo out also? But it could also be :do I render a mix and master it separately?
1st question - you can do either or both. 2nd question - you can do either or both.
Mixing can mean a shitload of effects all over every channel AND on the master out. Effectively, many nowadays master when they mix. IRL mastering has changed into meaning the final mix, apart from what sampling rate/bit depth/volume you want, which will be different according to where your target is, but you do that yourself at the same stage. Of course you CAN send out for mixing or mastering if you A) want to and B) can afford it. Also IRL we don't all have the talent to mix/master well enough - I know I'm not the best at mixing. It sounds a bit like you're asking what is the professional way of mixing and mastering - but not going the professional route. In which case, the way pros do it is almost irrelevant. Stems - doing it just because a pro studio does it doesn't make sense to me - you're not a pro studio. Different aims, different business. You're not a customer of a pro studio with deadlines/profits/responsibilities, you're you, recording at home. Dunno, maybe I also didn't understand the question...
-
- KVRAF
- 2719 posts since 2 Jul, 2010
As far as I know there are two main use cases for stems:
Remixes - providing a manageable number of partially-mixed tracks for e.g. a club remix
"Stem Mastering" - stems can be useful if the engineer intends to butcher your mix for unreasonable loudness
If you are doing your own mastering, or passing to an engineer who respects the source material and isn't on the loudness war frontline, I don't see any need for stems.
Would be interested to hear of other use cases. Soundtrack work, maybe?
Remixes - providing a manageable number of partially-mixed tracks for e.g. a club remix
"Stem Mastering" - stems can be useful if the engineer intends to butcher your mix for unreasonable loudness
If you are doing your own mastering, or passing to an engineer who respects the source material and isn't on the loudness war frontline, I don't see any need for stems.
Would be interested to hear of other use cases. Soundtrack work, maybe?