stereo interleaved or multiple mono to send for pre-master?

[grendizer]

getting songs (24bit, 48k, wav) ready to be sent to mastering house. i did some research on the topic and from what I gathered. my bounce should be, 24bit, 96k, .wav and a peak level of -6dbfs. Fine, but stereo interleaved or multiple mono?

from my google searching, i found many who prefer multiple-mono where others preferred stereo interleaved...i did notice how, importing a multiple-mono bounced file into a new session of the same rate and bit depth will not undergo any processing, but a stereo interleaved files gets processed when importing it into PT.

so is there an official mastering house preference on this? or do mastering studios differ...

thanx in advance
mark

p.s. heres a link to a page that prefers stereo interleaved i thought was nice

http://www.onlinemastering.dk/mastering-faq.html

[albee1952]

I would send files that are in the same sample rate/bit depth as the original session(let the mastering house do any up-sampling if they need to). Personally, while I usually have sent Stereo Interleaved files, I just read about separate mono files actually yielding an improvement. Why not send both?(unless the mastering house has a preference, and maybe ask WHY they have it). Darn good question and I will be watching the replies myself

[crizdee]

Hi,

The file itself doesn't make any difference.

I can't see any benefit in having a multi mono over stereo for the file. it can still be processed using multi mono plugins, and outboard can still process separate left/right or linked.


Chris

[grendizer]

Originally Posted by albee1952

I would send files that are in the same sample rate/bit depth as the original session(let the mastering house do any up-sampling if they need to).

Hi Albee, not sure thats correct. would defeat the whole purpose of a mix down. i don't know much regarding the math behind it but, I'm sure I red in a lot of forums that 96k or 88k is perfect for mastering and that there is no need to go higher due to inter-sampling or something rather

Originally Posted by crizdee

Hi,

The file itself doesn't make any difference.

I can't see any benefit in having a multi mono over stereo for the file. it can still be processed using multi mono plugins, and outboard can still process separate left/right or linked.

Chris

Hi Chris, thanks for the reply. I just wanted to make sure that there wasen't any kind of a blind test obvious difference between the 2, because as i stated earlier... importing a multiple-mono bounced file into a new session of the same rate and bit depth will NOT undergo any processing, but a stereo interleaved file gets processed when importing it into PT... just had to ask because whenever i see pro tools doing processing, i hear a voice in my head yelling "stop!"

I guess a stereo interleaved file would be much easier to deal with when sending it online or threw e-mail, since its one file and not the 2 L-R files multiple-mono creates.

[Cloud_9]

Send both, multiple and interleaved......

[Micks_Mix]

Originally Posted by grendizer

because as i stated earlier... importing a multiple-mono bounced file into a new session of the same rate and bit depth will NOT undergo any processing, but a stereo interleaved file gets processed when importing it into PT... just had to ask because whenever i see pro tools doing processing, i hear a voice in my head yelling "stop!".

PT has always been splitting interleaved stereo into 2 mono files. Doesn't affect the sound! In PT 10 interleaved files are supported natively, but I think you have to enable this in the session properties. I am still working with PT 8.1.1, so I am not sure how you can enable it. Regarding your mastering question, I am pretty sure that any mastering engineer will be able to split your interleaved file if required. So just send the interleaved version and you will be fine.
And yes, albee said it, send it with the same bit depth and sample rate you used in your session (24/48 in your case). A good mastering studios has much better converting capabilities.

[humpback]

Originally Posted by grendizer

getting songs (24bit, 48k, wav) ready to be sent to mastering house. i did some research on the topic and from what I gathered. my bounce should be, 24bit, 96k, .wav and a peak level of -0.6dbfs. Fine, but stereo interleaved or multiple mono?

from my google searching, i found many who prefer multiple-mono where others preferred stereo interleaved...i did notice how, importing a multiple-mono bounced file into a new session of the same rate and bit depth will not undergo any processing, but a stereo interleaved files gets processed when importing it into PT.

so is there an official mastering house preference on this? or do mastering studios differ...

thanx in advance
mark

p.s. heres a link to a page that prefers stereo interleaved i thought was nice

http://www.onlinemastering.dk/mastering-faq.html

Honestly, and I am not being snarky here... but why has no one mentioned just asking the mastering house what they want? Albee says "Why not send both?(unless the mastering house has a preference, and maybe ask WHY they have it)"... but why even go thru that trouble, guys? I'm curious, 'cos it just seems really obvious to me. If you've chosen a mastering house, I'd assume you'd have established a good enough rapport with them to be able to ask. Or am I missing something?

Nathan

[ryan de topanga]

I use Chris Bellman at Bernie Grundman Mastering in Hollywood. They use PT to play back files and then convert to analog (through Lavry d to a), go through their analog board and EQ and use a Lavry a to d to go into into their Cube system (16 bit 44.1 for CD). The whole thing is clocked together through some kind of super esoteric atomic clock. Those guys always prefer multiple mono, as they don't like Pro Tools doing the de-interleaving. They want Pro Tools to do nothing but play back the file.

I also suggest giving the mastering place the native bit depth/sampling rate of your files. If your session is in 24 bit 48K stick with that. Upsampling to 96K won't get you any better sound, and it's another step in processing that you don't need.

Of course the best thing to do is consult with your mastering engineer. Also ask him/her about how "loud" your files should be, not the peak digital level, but how much bus compression/peak limiting you put on your file. Most mastering places don't like it when they get files that are too slammed, it gives them nothing to work with, as they usually have better tools to get things loud enough for a current CD.

[albee1952]

My suggestion re bouncing at the session settings is this; Why upsample? If its to (theoretically) net some improvement(questionable) would you rather do the upsampling on your setup, or leave it to the mastering house(maybe what they use will be way better than what you and I use)? Some will say that sample rate conversion will help, others will say it will hurt(a debate I am not equipped to wage). I tend to feel that any conversion is at least CAPABLE of introducing errors along the way. I am not an expert, so I would leave it to the mastering engineer to do(if they feel it helps). In the end, its all about the final sound(God help us when it ends up as an mp3 download).

[grendizer]

Originally Posted by ryan de topanga

Also ask him/her about how "loud" your files should be, not the peak digital level, but how much bus compression/peak limiting you put on your file.

wow! thanks for the feedback Ryan!...not sure what you mean by (not the peak digital level, but how much bus compression/peak limiting you put on your file) ,do mean how much compression is on individual track files? or on the parallel comps feeding the master track? ...usually i have nothing on the master track, and the highest peak of my song is the snare at -6dbfs). relative to the peak, the rest of the song or body, is hovering around -8dbfs.

Originally Posted by albee1952

would you rather do the up-sampling on your setup, or leave it to the mastering house?

hi Albee, apparently, all the mastering guides and threads I've been reading telling me to up-sample, were based on (master it yourself or in-the-box mastering). i overlooked the mastering-out etiquette. i guess i learn something new everyday

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

in conclusion... I'm sure, whether or not the mix was sent in multiple-mono or stereo interleaved is insignificant relative to how the recording was captured, mixed and mastered, but mastering studios DO differ regarding what format they want. which is no big deal, but some people just want to know why?... calling and asking a mastering studio what format they want? will not satisfy my needs to learn this program i used everyday


this could have been a great line in spinal tap " maybe it should have been mastered in doubly or in multiple-mono