Mastering With Separations

This content is brought to you by Audiocourses dot com

Challenging The Last “Sacred Cow” Of The Recording Process: The 2-Track Final Mix

Introduction:

The arranging, editing, sweetening sessions are complete and the mixes sound pretty good. Any lingering doubts concern that last couple of percent, the overall refinement layer of the final mix. Should the vocal be nudged up just a tad, is the synth maybe just a shade too bright after all? In the end these doubts must be put aside because you have to commit to a 2-track stereo bounce so the project can be sent to mastering, the mix has to get locked down.

But why is this 2-track final mix “lock down” necessary? Why do you have to deliver your project to mastering this way? Obviously, the final output of the mastering process will be 2-track stereo and the goal of the mastering engineer is to preserve your mix intent and not remix your sound. Plus, it’s been done this way for 50 years. Perhaps there is some overriding technical or sonic reason why you must continue to deliver your final mix to mastering in 2-track format.

The short answer? It isn’t necessary anymore and it doesn’t give you better sound. This article will explore why by looking at the history of the 2-track recording to mastering transfer protocol, it’s relevance to today’s DAW recording realities and then detail an alternative transfer process which has been quietly gaining enthusiastic converts around the globe. Can this process, called Separation Mastering, really deliver better sounding masters while making your final mixing process easier?

Back In The Day: 2-Track to 2-Track Delivery

In the late 1950’s vinyl was king and “stereo” (2 channels, Left and Right) was just being introduced. All recording was done to tape with recorders having more than 2 or 3 tracks being very rare. At that time, “mastering” was more of an industrial process. It was where the 2-track stereo tape from the recording studio was played in to a 2 channel electro-mechanical lathe which “cut” grooves into a lacquer-coated master disc in real time (hence the phrase “cutting a record”). It was a straightforward 2-track tape to 2-track lathe hand off and worked very efficiently.

As technology marched forward in the 1960’s and 70’s, recording studios gained more and more tracks to record on and channels to mix with but the end result was still a final reduction to 2-track stereo tape to feed the 2-track vinyl mastering process. Mastering studios eventually added additional signal processing before the lathe (e.g. limiters, elliptical filtering, etc.) to pack more sound onto the vinyl record but the 2-track tape to 2-track lathe recording studio to mastering studio transfer protocol remained the same. With the advent of commercial tape (i.e. cassettes) the lathe was simply replaced by a 2-track mastering tape deck so the 2-track to 2-track transfer protocol did not change.

Digital Sticker Shock: Large Studios Rule

CD’s were introduced in the early 1980’s and fairly quickly phased out vinyl and cassette album formats. The attendant digital audio technology began the conversion from completely analog to mostly or totally digital recording and signal processing. While the devices used to transfer digital projects from the recording studio to the mastering studio became more and more complex and varied (e.g. DAT, Bit-Split ADAT) it was still a 2-track final mix delivered to 2-track mastering.

Why? Because there wasn’t a problem and like they say, if it ain’t broke... To understand this and how it relates to today we need to examine the pre-DAW recording environment of the 80’s and 90’s. During this time the vast majority of recordings that went to mastering came from large, well-equipped studio facilities that were staffed by highly trained, experienced and skilled engineers. Due to the high cost of pro quality multi-track recording equipment in those days there was a distinct lack of mid-level recording. Projects were either pristine from a great studio or noisy, DIY “basement demo tapes.” Except for the independently wealthy, you needed a record contract with recording advance money from a label to be able to afford sessions at these facilities. But the mixes you ended up with were almost guaranteed to be at a high level of quality. It was essentially a given that the 2-track final mixes sent to mastering were not going to need much if any corrective measures or balancing. Mastering studios armed with increasingly more sophisticated 2-track stereo signal processing tools and being handed well balanced mixes, were therefore able to focus primarily on sonic enhancements. Great 2-track mixes resulting in great mastering; all was well, still no problem.

But (theoretically) the days of having to record at a major recording facility with experienced and skilled staff engineers in order to get pro quality sound were becoming numbered. Starting with small, affordable multi-track recorders, audio products that would enable virtually anyone to record with pro quality technical spec’s were rapidly being developed. What would this mean to the tried and true 2-track final mix tradition? Recording was about to jump to light speed and we would find out very soon.

It is said that to write a great novel all you’ve ever needed is a pencil and paper. Today, to record with audio technology that would have made engineers for The Beatles gently weep with sonic lust and track envy, all you need is... a DAW.

Power To The People: The DAW Revolution

The explosion of sophisticated and affordable DAW technology in recent years has completely altered the recording landscape. The Who, What, Where and How of recording music has forever changed and decentralized from large studios for the vast majority of artists. Combined with the power of Internet music distribution, today’s DAW enables virtually anyone with a song in their heart to produce their musical vision and get it out on the wire to an audience. Combined with professional mastering, DAW projects can achieve a sonic quality major labels would have paid dearly for just a few years ago. And this has been a great and good thing for musical artists worldwide.

But as with many good things, an unforeseen Achilles Heel or weak link has emerged in the chain from musical idea to finished, mastered album. The symptoms are overall frequency, level and element imbalances in more and more DAW mixes that are submitted for mastering. While incredible numbers of DAW owners are excelling at creating, editing, sweetening and rough mixing great sounding projects, achieving that last final refinement layer of overall sonic mix balance has turned out to be somewhat of a difficult challenge. Maybe the vocals sound perfect but then again are they sitting at just the right place in the mix for clarity? Is the keyboard solo maybe a bit too bright compared to the rhythm guitars? These are subtle balance and refinement skills that go way beyond just creating music and a mix that sounds pretty darned close. These small adjustments make a huge difference and the ability to make them really does require experience, training, a very accurate playback environment (room and monitors) and a knowledgeable hand that can sense when to barely nudge a fader. It’s the subtle difference between sounding amateurish and sounding pro. It’s also the area where the skilled and experienced engineer’s at large, expensive studios earn their high rates.

It’s important to note that we are talking about balancing major elements here (e.g. vocals, guitars, etc). This is not about mix details such as whether the flanger on the guitar is modulating too fast or the compression on the synth needs a faster attack time. Those are creative mix and musical performance decisions. This is about when the mix is played in the audiophile environment of a professional mastering room is the bass blurring the kick drum, is the vocal getting slightly lost behind the strings, etc. The mastering engineer will try and correct these imbalances but remember traditional 2-track mastering operates on the entire 2-track mix. Everything is already “soup.” Trying to adjust one major element (e.g. a sibilant vocal) will affect other elements in the same frequency range. When an unbalanced mix is submitted, mastering can quickly turn into decisions about which compromise affects the mix the least. Mastering should be about enhancing the sonic presentation (e.g. clearer, bigger, and fuller) and making your music translate well to all types of playback systems (e.g. car, living room, porta-pod, etc) without compromising your mix intent.

What can be done to overcome this unforeseen 2-track mix refinement hurdle short of routing all of your mixes to a major studio for that last bit of overall balance adjustment before sending it to mastering? As we have seen, since there is nothing sacred about having to create a 2-track final mix for mastering other than tradition. Let’s look at an alternate approach.

Mastering With Separations: Working Smarter Not Harder

The high-end multi-band processor, one of the most powerful tools of the modern mastering studio, works by dividing the entire 2-track mix into a small number of separated frequency bands (typically 4 or more). This allows processing some frequency regions of the mix (with compression, limiting and/or EQ, etc) without affecting others. Again, if the frequency ranges of individual elements (e.g. vocals, guitars, etc) overlap within one of these bands then adjustments become a series of compromises. How much do you brighten a guitar sound without also brightening the vocal too much?

But what if instead of the mastering multi-band processor separating your mix into 4 frequency bands, you simply submitted your mix separated into 4 major element groups (e.g. vocals, bass, drums, remaining instruments). 4 separated files instead of 1 without touching any levels on each bounce. These separated element files would then be summed back together in the mastering input DAW, recreating your mix. A small process change but think of the mastering power you have just enabled. Now, the overall major musical balancing can be accomplished without mix compromise. Using the above examples, that sibilant vocal can now be de-essed without dulling the strings or keyboards, the bass can be nudged separately so it stops blurring the kick drum, the guitar can be brightened without affecting the vocal, etc. You craft your most creative mix, get it musically right and sonically pretty close but now the overall presentation balancing and translation that occurs in mastering will not compromise your mix intent. In fact, the majority of time spent mastering will now be focused on true mastering sonic enhancements instead of dicey audio surgery on the entire 2-track mix. Experience shows the master can now be made to sound fuller, with more detail and clarity and the frustrations of final mix refinement or generating alternate mixes eliminated. And you have not violated some sacred audio rule or recording engineering law!

Separation Mastering: What It IS / What It Is NOT

Separation Mastering IS a “process” that enables you to integrate the audiophile technology and engineering skill of the mastering engineer into the overall sonic design of your recording; YOUR sound, YOUR design. It establishes a sonically superior, standardized handshake protocol between the recording studio DAW and the mastering studio DAW which maximizes mastering effectiveness and efficiency while eliminating the need for alternate mixes, costly or inaccurate recall sessions and the mix compromises common during mastering. It also provides a natural mix file base for eventually creating new versions of projects (e.g. film or video game mixes).

Most significantly, experience proves it always results in a clearer more detailed sound, especially on projects where artists and/or label A&R want an aggressive, full, competitive sound and overall level. When traditional multi-band mastering attempts to squeeze out a hot level, mix proportions can change due to the extreme actions of the mastering compressors and limiter’s. Separation Mastering allows any changes to be dialed back into place by adjusting the Separations on the front end.

Separation Mastering is NOT “mixing while mastering” anymore than using a multi-band processor to try and affect only a vocal part can be considered re-mixing the song. It is also NOT “stems”, a confusing, over-used catchall term that means channel files in surround film work, sub-groups for “out of the box” analog mixing, control elements for broadcast work, etc. While individual “stems” have been used at times in mastering, they have been used mainly for backup or salvage (e.g. trying to revive a buried part by overlaying a sync’ed stem).

In contrast, Separation Mastering was created to be the first up, preferred method of project submittal to mastering. Your final mix is simply separated into a small number of standardized major element files similar to the way professional page layout software splits artwork into color separations for high-end offset printing. The real empowerment here is in making use of the process not technology, linking your studio and sound vision to your mastering studio.

Separations: “I Can’t Go Back To The Old Way...”

Artist responses to the process of Separation Mastering have been overwhelming from around the globe. Typical responses have ranged from “You’ve saved my project” and “It just makes sense” to “I can’t go back to the old way...” As a result we have contacted several major DAW software companies and mastering hardware manufacturers about facilitating the use of Separations in their products. Discussions have yielded a unanimous “We get this, we see how DAW owners will jump on this...” On the DAW software side, discussions have centered on adapting existing multi-channel surround mix busses for “dual use” by including a “stereo” configuration for assigning and automatically creating multiple Separation files. The obvious hardware product would be converting a multi-band processor into a 4 in / 4 out, 4 full band configuration retaining the existing DSP mastering processing.

The response from recording industry professionals has also been positive. Veteran Engineer/Producer Matt Forger (Michael Jackson, Yuming) views Separation Mastering as the right solution at the right time for a changing industry. He observes: “We need to realize that the majority of recording happening around the world today is being done in smaller, highly creative DAW environments that were not designed (or staffed) for precision mixing. Imagine the uncertainty of not knowing how your mixes will stack up in the competitive marketplace or the frustration of making final mix decisions when you’re not trusting what you’re hearing. Separation Mastering is a huge life raft to all of those artists facing critical balance decisions concerning their final mixes. It lets the artist stay focused on the music and the sound rather than on technical issues, and it also allows the mastering engineer to be part of your production team.”

Multiple Grammy winning Engineer Erik Zobler (George Duke, Anita Baker) puts it another way: "Major label artists and engineers know that the real advantage of mastering comes from the experience and ears of a trained mastering engineer. For Indie projects, Separation Mastering taps into that advantage by giving the mastering engineer increased flexibility in sculpting a high-level sonic presentation without compromising your mix or your music in the process.”

Better sounding masters while making the final mixing process easier? It’s working every day!

Separations: It’s YOUR music... NO Compromises!

-----------------------------------------------------
About the Authors:

Don B. Sundstrom worked an electronics engineer in the defense industry before returning to his first love of engineering and mastering music. He is currently the protégé of John Vestman at Vestman Mastering, Westminster CA, USA. Together, they have evolved Separation Mastering as a process to enable DAW artists to get incredible sounding masters in an easier, more straightforward manner. It’s your music that counts! Don is also an honors graduate of the Musicians Institute in Hollywood CA, USA.

John Vestman is a 30-year veteran recording and mastering engineer/studio owner whose credits include George Duke, Sting (Warner Bros. Web Site), Juice Newton, Andre Crouch, The Wynans, Dr. John Gray, Lesiem, Ambrosia, Hole, Great White, Billy Davis Jr./Marilyn McCoo, and more. He is an industry author and public speaker and also founded Nautilus Master Technology (NautilusPro.com), a manufacturer of high-end pro audio gear.

www.VestmanMastering.com
Over 65 FREE articles on getting great sound (NO sign-ups, registrations or log-ins)!

Copyright 2005: Don B. Sundstrom

--------------------------------------------------