# Template mixing or mix with stems?



## Darthmorphling (Aug 15, 2013)

Just curious as to which method most of you use. Mike Verta mentioned in one of his masterclasses that his cue is mixed straight from the template. I know that many tweak their templates to be as mixed as possible, but does any one render to stems and mix that way?


----------



## wanmingyan (Aug 15, 2013)

[EDITED]

Actually, i believe mixing in audio is preferred as it does not distract you to make any tempting changes to your music. It should have been finalised during the recording/composition stage.

-WMY :D


----------



## mscottweber (Aug 15, 2013)

Especially for large projects, I mix from stems. Its the whole right/left brain thing. Although I do a little bit of cursory mixing during the composition phase (levels/pan, some basic EQ), I feel like I mix better when I am only concentrating on mixing and not composing.


Also, my computer can't handle a mix with all of those kontakt instruments up...


----------



## rgames (Aug 15, 2013)

Straight from the template. Fastest and most flexible way. Many years ago you couldn't do it but I don't know why you wouldn't do it that way now that we can.

However, once a track is finished I create stems for archiving because it's almost impossible to re-load the entire project a year or two later.

rgames


----------



## EastWest Lurker (Aug 15, 2013)

Sometimes stems, sometimes individual audio files, but unless it is a small combo of instruments, always audio.


----------



## Darthmorphling (Aug 15, 2013)

This is very interesting, thanks!

My issue is I am slowly going through my template and getting everything in the orchestra matched up is not too difficult. When adding things like Zebra and ProjectAlpha, they seem to be a lot hotter and it just throws off the entire balance. 

I thought mixing from stems might help in that regard. I'm going to render the stems for one of my past projects and see if mixing it that way is better for me.

Thanks again!

Don


----------



## Tanuj Tiku (Aug 15, 2013)

When you start out there are a lot of problems that need solving.

Firstly, you do not have a team yet. Or at least one you can trust or have in house.

This means, you have to do pretty much everything yourself. This is where you put your skill and technology to the maximum effect.

Like others, time is a big issue for me and even though I have an assistant and I can hire a couple of guys...we are mostly busy writing music and doing more musical things. 

The problem is compounded by the fact that India does not have many engineers who know how to mix orchestral music - specially film music. This is why I try and collaborate with a friend as often as I can. We are trying to build a language and a system.

This takes time and we grow with each project. Every project has different needs. So you want someone who is knowledgeable and also open minded about fusing different instruments and problem solving at the sonic level. 

For my last project, I had to edit and balance all the live recordings, do the reverb processing - ambient mics and all. It is not enough that you just do the score sheet and show up on the recording. You ARE the producer of the whole thing as much as you are the composer. You have to constantly be at it. So, I gave ambient stems separate for the surround and mixed a lot of the programmed/live recordings myself simply because there was no time or person available to do this. They are all relying on you do get things done and make them sound as good. With time as the budgets increase and you build relationships, you can get more people involved and sort of lead them.

Work longer and harder is the thing I suppose. 

I work with audio whenever there is time to do that but for the most part because of huge time constraints, it has to be more or less done in the template. When there is recorded material involved, then you have to work with audio in a new mix environment. 

So, I have designed a modular on-the-fly mixing approach in my template. I can sort of balance most elements inside my template if I need to.

It costs me in terms of computer power that is why whenever I reach a point where I may have to freeze tracks etc - I just buy a new computer. Who wants to wait and freeze tracks, waste time thinking of resources at least on a computer level - we are already very pressed! 

Leave lots of headroom when you are doing hybrid tracks. For each project, the template will be modified and then I save it as a default for all other cues - so that the sound and settings some what remain common and I am not wasting time setting up the same stuff again.

I make track presets all the time for different projects. Even folders for each project inside various synths once I have developed a sound or a language for the score. So when you are in an audio-only environment and you feel a sound needs to be added, I can go ahead open the track preset and do it because of course the mix environment is tempo locked. 

This helps in saving time and maintains your sonic character through the score. Just because last minute - it cannot sound bad or lame. 

Catalog and organize your stuff - very important.

You need to know what kind of a track you are doing from the start before you begin writing. 

I used to be afraid to mess with my balance before because of the mess it can cause, shifting projects and merging audio. But, over time with deadlines and producer/director shifts all the time, I have made myself flexible. 

The technology is there to handle this - its you who has to take over and carefully design each process.

Sure in Hollywood on big projects you will have a massive team but we have to start somewhere and our challenges are different/unique. 

This is why planning ahead and problem solving is important. Once you get used to this, writing the music becomes easier and the tech stuff does not interfere but rather becomes your friend.

Do the ground work before you start something and keep experimenting whether you are on a job or not because when you do get gig - you may not have time to sharpen your skills. 

And ask for help when you need it - opinions from trusted friends. There is no shame in asking for a little help here and there. You are always learning!

Tanuj.


----------



## wanmingyan (Aug 15, 2013)

vibrato @ August 16th 2013 said:


> When you start out there are a lot of problems that need solving.
> 
> Firstly, you do not have a team yet. Or at least one you can trust or have in house.
> 
> ...



Very True! After all, we need to know our tools well to use our tools well! How? By experimenting with them! Only after failure should there be success!

-WMY =)


----------



## yikes (Aug 17, 2013)

wanmingyan @ Fri 16 Aug said:


> vibrato @ August 16th 2013 said:
> 
> 
> > When you start out there are a lot of problems that need solving.
> ...



Thats a great post vibrato, you always give some great advise.


----------



## Darthmorphling (Aug 17, 2013)

@vibrato

Excellent post! I have actually been listening to your Soundcloud and using Ambush as a sort of a reference for my mixes. Please point me to where I can buy a higher quality version.

My assistants are my kids and their only talent is getting me water, and playing my keyboard when I am trying to record :D 

When you say leave lots of headroom, how much do you mean? Currently I have the levels around -6db. How do you get your final volume levels? After you have the mix pretty much balanced, do you then just raise all the levels? I have been told to never compress the orchestra. How do you balance the nonorchestral elements? They always seem to overpower the orchestra. Do you put a limiter on the master?

Lots of questions I know. Slowly getting better at this, but mixing is a whole separate art.

Thanks,

Don


----------



## Tanuj Tiku (Aug 21, 2013)

It is not an exact science as far as I understand. I mean, there are rules but then there are no rules as well.

I find myself doing different things with different tracks. I find that my approach is similar though. You sort of mix with 'feeling' - with your ears not so much always with tech stuff. 

Cross-referencing also helps specially because I do not have a great sounding studio. I will play it in the car, oh my headphones, in my room. After sometime, your ears remember the sonic foot print of these various playback systems and you understand what is going to translate better.

But once again, getting it mixed by an engineer who also shares similar passion and is able to bring out your ideas in a nicer way is the way to go at the end of the day.

I think generally, I will have about 6-8 dB of headroom before I put the limiter on. But it is only limiting the peaks - may be by 1 or 2 dB in the loudest part.

I have various other things going on the master if my mix is more or less going to be final. Of course, when handing it over for the final mix, you must remove the limiter because you need to give them headroom and some processing space for corrections to be made.

I do not compress a lot. Percussion, yes but I have not yet had a great effect with compressing the orchestra. I think its very dynamic and I like that. I have never compressed my orchestra even in the most hybrid of tracks.

However, I do mangle with the orchestra a lot. I play with audio and such. When you are using it as an effect, then it makes sense to compress if it requires that.

I start hating my tracks when I have pushed them too much. It just does not sound that nice. I am ok with it being a little softer but retaining the dynamics. 

I am not always able to achieve this but that is my general aim nonetheless.

I keep making terrible mistakes in between and learn something from it. 

The main difference to my mixes came when I started trusting my ears a lot more and experimented with different settings. Relying too much on technique does not yield good results for me. 

I opened up to possibilities and not blindly following something I heard in a tutorial by a top mixing engineer. See, these are all starting points and very case specific. Also a lot of the advice is for recorded music and we already have pre-processed samples. They have already gone through mixers/ribbon mics/tape etc. So you have to be careful. It is a different world for us indeed. 

Best thing to do is absorb all these different ideas and see what works for you. In the process you will come up with your own combination which will work for you.


I used to not understand what Daryl and Piet used to talk about earlier. I can see it now. There is more in the arrangement and the programming than there is in the best of reverbs etc. I think even before the time of mock-ups, it was all about the playing, the performance and the basic tone one would get out of an instrument. And much to my surprise this basic fundamental of music making has not changed in the era of computers. It is an instrument and in the end if how well you play it.

It is our denial that leads us to believe that there are perhaps some settings or reverbs that just make it sound good. Demos and videos can often be misleading.

Something sounds good in a demo because the guy who wrote it knows how to write and it sounds like something an orchestra would do. 

More often I find that mixing tracks that are difficult are either too experimental or that my orchestration is not as clear and the programming is sloppy. 

There is a lot to be done in the programming itself than just mixing. Specially with dynamics, note values, transitions, masking - the design of the track, rhythm etc. 

there is so much to be done on a musical level that it is very much possible that we neglect it many times. And we will not know that we did that - because we are neglecting it or taking it for granted - so how would you know? 

So I find sometimes being artistically objective is a really nice way to approach the sound of your music.

Sorry for the long post which probably makes no sense at all!


Tanuj.


----------



## mikebarry (Aug 21, 2013)

after years of thinking on this.... stay midi as LONG as possible for as FAR as possible.


----------



## SimonCharlesHanna (Aug 22, 2013)

I use VEP and slaves just for reference - So my midi tracks aren't the same as the signal track. 

I like to tweak performances and get everything perfect and then RENDER out a final version ready to mix (in stems) 

This way I feel like I get a fresh start and *audio* is *audio* - It will never change because you bumped the keyboard or accidentally deleted a keyswitch and now something doesnt sound right. Especially in a big mix...Hate to hand something to a client and one day realise there's a bung note in the track somewhere.

render out final performances - ready to mix. Free's up ALL your computers resources and you'll always be playing with the same unaltered version.


----------



## Jdiggity1 (Aug 22, 2013)

Once i _think_ I am happy with how it sounds, I save my project and keep it as my MIDI project. Then i bounce the audio down and 'save as' a new project, and delete the MIDI from that one. This way i can work with just the bounced audio without midi data and samples hogging my resources, but i have the MIDI project still there if i need to re-bounce.


----------



## germancomponist (Aug 22, 2013)

mikebarry @ Thu Aug 22 said:


> after years of thinking on this.... stay midi as LONG as possible for as FAR as possible.



+1

Yes, but then there is a moment (*or must be the moment*) when I say to myself: "Ok, thats it". Then I render all individual instruments separately and do the mix completely within the "audio world". But yeah, sometimes I have to visit the midiworld again to do little changes (composing wise or when I found a sound what fits better than what I had used already...)


----------



## Jem7 (Aug 22, 2013)

I mix as I compose too. It helps to get the sound while writing the piece then I go back and retouch mixing.


----------



## Tanuj Tiku (Aug 22, 2013)

Agree with all the fine gentlemen above. Mixing as you go is sort of part of composing if you are using a computer.

You sculpt the sound as you compose. A final mix stage - if you chose to do so like I do on certain occasions must be only a final touch up - a microscopic view on the whole thing.

But I think it will be very difficult to do just a basic thing in MIDI and mix the whole thing later. 

However, this is different for people who use Sibelius and other such programs to do their basic sketch or even complete compositions. 

For them MIDI is entirely a different approach. Both are valid and its about your own approach.

I rarely write traditional orchestral music and I am not formally trained in it so the MIDI world is like notation for me. 


Tanuj.


----------



## EastWest Lurker (Aug 22, 2013)

Could not disagree more. Mixing is about starting at Point A, going to point B, then point C, etc.

When you are at point A you cannot knew for sure the dynamic journey you need to take so you will paint yourself into corners if you do too much mix as you go unless, as many do today, you are composing a cue that is one level only, i.e all loud.

But if you compose cues that actually shift moods and have instruments enter and exit instead of noxious pads with percussion banging away underneath (sorry, my prejudice, I know) then a little mixing as you go is fine. But then don't be afraid of committment. Commitment is good. Bounce to audio, pull all the faders down, and then do some serious automating.


----------



## Marius Masalar (Aug 22, 2013)

I'm with the mix-as-you-go crowd. I don't think I've ever bounced to audio and then mixed.

To be honest, it's just always seemed to me to be a holistic effort: crafting the cue isn't just about the music these days, it's about the sound, so to me that's important enough that I can't separate it from the writing of notes.

Plus, I'm not convinced that adding an extra step to my process would produce better results. Worth trying at some point though, I guess. Interesting to hear everyone's points of view on this, in any case!


----------



## EastWest Lurker (Aug 22, 2013)

I will make one last argument then defer to others. 

Composing/orchestrating, and mixing are different skills. Almost nobody does both as well as someone who has focused on only one. 

In the past, I bounced my MIDI to audio and sent it to my Mixer and he mixed it in ProTools. But economic necessity has made it so that on many projects I cannot afford to hire a mixer, so I must do it. And I have become decent, if not great in my estimation and apparently in the estimation of my clients.

It is only logical to me then to wear the first hat and compose/orchestrate and then bounce to audio and put on the second hat and emulate what my hired mixer would do.


----------



## TimJohnson (Aug 22, 2013)

Just food for thought more than a specific argument:

To what extend has altering the dynamics of MIDI instruments using CC1 (usually) become part of the mixing process. Once a good balance of all the instruments has been achieved with them all playing FFF I tend to leave the faders well alone (as much as possible anyway) and simply ride the mod wheel to get the right dynamic balance from there. Of course we all do this... kids stuff right? But how often is it do you think that a Pro mixer will get stems and begin riding the faders thinking to themselves "man I wish they had brought those dynamics down naturally (CC1)" rather than having to automate the volume.

My personal view is that most composers with enough practice can get a mix to be 85% of the way there as we all tend to mix as we go (at the very least in the way I just described), but if the gig warrants it then sending it to a mixer as audio seems the logical thing to do.
[note: I am well aware that mixing is _far_ more than just automating dynamic levels]

I would be interested to know how many "composers" (as opposed to mixers) could do a better job of mixing audio than they could the MIDI project... 

The best mixers are freaks/mutants/wizards/all the above - If a project needs it, let them work their magic and I would never pretend to do what they do (black magic/witchcraft).


----------



## murrthecat (Aug 22, 2013)

Hi everyone,

in my view, it is not always a matter of replicating the dynamics of a live orchestra. 

Composing has always been quite bound to an idea of mixing-balancing the single elements and instruments, even in a totally acoustic situation, especially when writing for larger ensembles. But with the advent of music recording, and later with what we call music production, the rules changed, since some elements could be used against the recorded reality, for example going against the actual level at which an instrument was recorded (or in our case the dynamic layer of a sample) for many artistic purposes.

I think it would be a more artistic and freer way of approaching composition to make use of the potential of the recording medium, especially in a digital domain.

I try to conceive the sound and mix while composing, but I see many advantages in wearing the mixer hat, as Jay said, or working on purely audio material for different purposes.

Thanks for the very interesting discussion.


----------



## Darthmorphling (Aug 22, 2013)

This really has been an interesting discussion. What I have learned is that some things are going to more difficult to have a balanced level for in a general template. My orchestral libraries are much easier to balance, especially since they are all Spitfire. It's just that some of the sound design libraries seem to be much hotter than the orchestral libraries.

I am also very aware that my orchestration, as it improves, will make this all a bit easier for me. 

Thanks!

Don


----------



## Andrew Christie (Aug 23, 2013)

EastWest Lurker @ Fri Aug 23 said:


> I will make one last argument then defer to others.
> Composing/orchestrating, and mixing are different skills. Almost nobody does both as well as someone who has focused on only one.



Tell that to Thomas Bergersen 8)


----------



## germancomponist (Aug 23, 2013)

EastWest Lurker @ Thu Aug 22 said:


> It is only logical to me then to wear the first hat and compose/orchestrate and then bounce to audio and put on the second hat and emulate what my hired mixer would do.



+1

This is what I meant in my earlier post. I compose and arrange at the same time, and sure there is also a bit mixing included, but after I think I got it, I bounce all midi to audio and do the mix by using all my fine plugs and hardware... .


----------



## M.L. (Nov 20, 2013)

I'm struggling to decide which I prefer, and there are good points to both sides in this thread.

For those of you who bounce to stems, what is your gain stage like when exporting your channels?

I usually set very rough fader levels on my channels while in my composition session, but I'm unsure of what to aim for on the master bus regarding RMS/peak dBFS.

And sometimes, based on my rough fader levels on some channels, the resulting stems are extremely quiet. I'm not sure if it's fine to simply raise the gain in the mix or if that's just raising noise.

I realize I shouldn't be exporting channels at 0dB, but how quiet is too quiet for a stem?

I hope that makes sense..


----------



## germancomponist (Nov 20, 2013)

If you mix with subgroups that are your stems later, you better leave it as is in the mix. 

Don't change anything.


----------



## SamGarnerStudios (Nov 20, 2013)

I think it has a lot to do with what style you're writing in. If you're doing a hybrid piece, I think it's unreasonable to just load up sounds and go. A pad might not work at full volume, but it'll work at a soft volume with low frequencies shelved out and reverb added. I think trying to figure out what elements will work go hand in hand with adding EQ, compression, FX, etc... 

If you're doing a straight up orchestral work then I usually don't touch it till afterwards. 

I think the main question is at what point does what you're doing become mixing, and when does it stay inside the compositional process. Is adding a compressor you wearing the composer hat or mixer? Is the reverb for effect or to fit in the mix? Etc etc etc. Just my two cents.


----------



## Mark III (Nov 21, 2013)

I think the confusion here is in the "Production overlap".

For me they are different journeys/processes or "STUDIO HATS"

I compose/get creative with sound from the off, if that means adding reverb, eqing, compression, distortion, layering, bouncing audio & other FX then so be it, I don't really class that as "mixing" but production, though I will say I do bypass everything on the orchestral elements as I like to have my orchestra dry as a bone before I render everything off ready for mixing.

Then there's the mixing part, - more automation, eqing, compression, reverb, layering one shots, bussing, and so on, only with different goals in mind.

You could go one step further and talk about mastering etc..which is yet another overlap. :shock: 

All the best.


----------



## KingIdiot (Nov 21, 2013)

it depends on the person, but in metaphor it's about keeping your ego in check, those egos personified by the hats you wear.

I find working on mixes in stems, even when mixing pop/rock much easier and more manageable, and my mixes benefit from it.

I listen MUCH more to the overall sound and energy, and less about what is real sounding, or working on placement in a stage sense.

It takes me so much further away from the logic/modelling real space zone and puts me into the frequency/energy/vibe zone.

I'm able to push faders around in a more musical mixing way. Plus I can just chop and edit/clone tracks to try EQ/comp changes without automation. It opens me up to trying more things mix wise.

but this doesn't work for people on super short deadlines. Which is why sometimes it's jsut cool to have an awesome sounding template mix and bash a few compressors in here and there, a few EQ's in line that you just bypass/unbypass instead of automating.

All depends on who you are at the moment.


----------



## Peter Alexander (Dec 8, 2013)

SamGarnerStudios @ Wed Nov 20 said:


> I think the main question is at what point does what you're doing become mixing, and when does it stay inside the compositional process.



I just want to comment on this little bit, because I think it's important. When you are composing/orchestrating, as you listen to the composition in your musical imagination, you are hearing the comp mixed including spatial placement. So in that sense, you are mixing as you go. 

The physical task of mixing is finding the steps and the tools to help you realize what you're hearing within.


----------

