Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
think about it…. Re-Mix engineers usually like less compression not more. It makes their job easier and sounds better. So for most feature applications, I’d say no compression is added, but we’re definitely in a transition phase as those coming into the power positions have never heard music that isn’t smashed to ****
Alan – wthout getting too detailed, IMO, this is the best way to mix stems if you KNOW you are going to mix stems. IMO of course…
For the random sake of argument, let’s say the stems we need are : 1.) Orchestra (input bus 1/2), 2.) Solo instruments (input bus 3/4), 3.) Rhythm section (input bus 5/6), 4.) Synths (input bus 7/8), 5.) Vocals (input bus 9/10). Then a stereo two mix – (input bus 11/12). Adjust whatever stems you decide on to suit your particular piece of music’s requirements and/or client requests. Put all tracks into “input” and “solo safe” them.
So….you will end up printing 6 Stereo tracks when you print your mix. 5 Stems tracks that ultimately feed the 6th track which is your 2 mix bus. Send the output of all Orchestra tracks and associated reverb and FX to internal bus 1/2, the Solo Instruments outputs and their reverb and FX to internal bus 3/4, and etc. This should have all your individual track outputs feeding their respective stem inputs properly. Then, feed ALL the stem track outputs to bus 11/12 which will end up being your 2 Bus stereo mix. Go ahead and put whatever 2 bus processing you use (I use analog gear on hardware inserts) on your mix bus. Monitor your stems tracks and 2 bus mix track on input while you mix, and your stems and your 2 bus will be perfect level wise. Or at least they will be where you want them. 🙂
This type of mixing can get quite elaborate, but saves a HUGE amount of time, and creates stems that are properly designed and mixed.
And to answer your question – yes, the stem outputs combined should recreate your mix bus – sans processing on the mix bus.
Sure, you’re welcome. thumbsup
Printing audio tracks and automating those instead of midi renders a lot of future-proof sessions and the ability to transfer sessions to someone else to work on them seamlessly. Plus working with audio is so much smoother and more enjoyable than automating midi.
OK. I finally think I see where you’re coming from.
When I have soft synths in “midi-land” I ALWAYS print them as audio tracks before I start mixing. The only time I use midi automation is if I’m affecting filters or other synth / sampler parameters, or for the very rare volume move. I always automate levels, etc. and mix in PTHD. Never in midi. That may answer your question.
IME – always print midi tracks as individual audio tracks dry or dry-ish (if a sound has verb on it and I like it, I’ll print it with the verb) for mixing, and for later remixes. For stems, FX and automation always get printed.
No, stems are not dry without automation. They are singled out categories of the mix, and as such need have their fx, eq, etc. printed with them. They are grouped elements of the mix and should sound like they would if you solo’d “percussion” or “guitars” or “keys” during a mix. They would have their FX.
If you’re remixing and just doing a few mix tweaks in the future, go ahead and print FX and automation.
If you’re starting the mix over from scratch, changing the arrangement, adding or deleting parts, re-writing, etc.., at that point I’d print without automation or FX.
That is the only time AFAIC. Otherwise I’d be printing FX.
Sounds like you’re mixing terminology – printed tracks w/ FX vs. Stems. Stems are a group of like tracks such as Orchestra stem, Rhythm Tracks stem, Synths stem, etc.. To me it sounds like you’re talking about printing tracks with FX which are technically not stems.
Once you figure out which it is you’re after, the next question would be “why”? And at this point I can’t discern that. If it’s for future remix, I’d print everything dry, and possibly without automation. If it’s so you can come back and tweak an instrument slightly, then print auto and FX. If it’s for REAL stems, then absolutely wet and affected. When you define your intent, you can make a decision as to whether or not to print FX and/or automation.
Personally, I don’t do stems unless asked for them. I do alt mixes instead. When I do stems (real stems, not individual tracks) ALL fx, verb, EQ, etc are printed so that the combined total of the stems equals exactly the 2 mix – making sure that no FX or verb cross polinate between stems.
In my world, Stems are not for recall (that’s the DAW’s job), they are for re-mixiing engineers who want to rebalance the mix, or remove elements, etc..
Nope. That’s not the guy. LOL There are probably a ton of people doing this….
There was a thread about that a few years ago.
I think I know the guy you mean Michael.
Hey, by any chance can you point me to this thread? Now you’ve piqued my curiosityu. I bet one of the instances I’m referring to is the same guy…. LOL
At least the guy asked. I’ve got people buying instrumental tracks all the time, writing *&^%$#$ lyrics and singing over the track with a CRAPPY voice. It used to really burn me, and I wanted to hunt every one down and stop them cold, but at this point, I chalk it up to “spoilage”. Cost of doing business.
It’s a bit difficult to completely understand the original intent of the client and I think additional info is needed, but as a possible side note and warning :
In Pond5 speak :
“Cleared for Sampling” if selected when you input the track means that the end user who licenses the track can use it to create their own musical work. They can rap over it, put a vocal w/ lyrics on it, etc.. Essentially, you’re giving away the rights to your music without consent of specific usages.
Beware!!!!!!
Jesse – from my personal perspective – becoming “attached” to songs in a production music setting is extremely non-productive. That’s an “artist” perspective. Which is perfectly OK, just not too conducive to making good production music. Sounds like you may be trying to shoehorn your music into a niche that it doesn’t really belong in. For what it’s worth…
anyone have success in doing this kinds of stuff, any suggestions of what do to revitalize or otherwise draw attention to older tracks that have underperformed that you still believe in?
I always push forward and produce new stuff instead of revising old stuff – no matter how hard the emotional tug is. Bottom line : Skill level is always improving. Gear is always improving. Redoing things is moving sideways at best, and the pull is always there because a song is never finished – only abandoned. 🙂
To go back and re-do things instead of taking that time to write/produce new music is a backwards thinking gamble for me. That’s just my personal perspective.
Where I think the bigger PMA libs come into play is with their foreign sub pubs. More penetration in foreign markets, but even that has been proven wrong in a few circumstances of my experiences.
If it is already been a “full year” you should have seen some sync fees come in,.
Agreed. It’s too early for back end, but you should have seen some sync splits unless they are doing blankets only – in which case the sync split is essentially useless unless they get a random sync.
I’d be looking elsewhere, or at least holding back a bit until I saw some results, or had some form of communication from the library that gives you significant hope….
And BTW, the biggest of the PMA libraries have done the least for my back end. Just a perspective.
Amen to your Amen Art.
Personally, I’d rather drive a UPS truck and make music on weekends than devalue my business and make pennies on the dollar trying to be a “professional” by whoring out my catalog.