# Mixing Orchestral Strings with 2CAudio Precedence & Breeze2



## gh0stwrit3r (Apr 9, 2020)

This week I received an email with a question about the use of Precedence from 2CAudio. "David, where do you put the Precedence plugin? Is it always in the insert chain? And in what order? Is it placed after or before the EQ, Compression, Delays etc.?" 

I thought this was a good question from Martijn. He told me that he had this plugin for quite a while, but never really found a good tutorial about it. So I replied: I’ll make a special video about it. Showing you how I have used Precedence for my orchestral music track Valse Mystique.


----------



## bryla (Apr 9, 2020)

I'm sorry but all those plug-ins yield no better result than the origin. For every plug-in you deactivate on the violins the sounds is better. Your result is very unnatural in spacing and timbre making the violins sound very synthy. Granted some of it also comes for the clumsy phrasing of the playing but the EQ'ing to me doesn't make it sound like a string section.

Sorry if this sounds harsh but I think you a) are using the plug-ins in a wrong way or b) should put your focus elsewhere in the production.


----------



## prodigalson (Apr 9, 2020)

I think part of the issue here is specifically using precedence and breeze on Spitfire Symphonic Strings. I'm not sure why you would ever want/need to take make such aggressive spatialization changes to some of the wettest and most naturally spatialized samples available. 

They're also some of the best recorded samples available so, personally, I wouldn't take a hatchet to everything below 300HZ across the board by default. That, in addition to boosting the Highs on the bus I think gives it that synthy sound.

Though, of course, I haven't heard the rest of the mix so perhaps theres a reason for such dramatic cuts in the strings.


----------



## gh0stwrit3r (Apr 9, 2020)

bryla said:


> I'm sorry but all those plug-ins yield no better result than the origin. For every plug-in you deactivate on the violins the sounds is better. Your result is very unnatural in spacing and timbre making the violins sound very synthy. Granted some of it also comes for the clumsy phrasing of the playing but the EQ'ing to me doesn't make it sound like a string section.
> 
> Sorry if this sounds harsh but I think you a) are using the plug-ins in a wrong way or b) should put your focus elsewhere in the production.


I can only appreciate honest and direct comments. So thank you, not taking it personally and neither experience it as harsh. Your intentions are good, so that's fine 

I was wondering ... do you still have this opinion when listening to the final music track? If so, I would really love to hear that! Cause then I'm really doing something wrong. I know we have lots of professionals in this area and opinions likewise, but I'm eager to learn. And get some tips/advice to improve my skills.






Valse Mystique


Valse Mystique - Gaston Coute A mon ami Abel Renault. Le soir, quand paraît la première étoile, Les coeurs de tous ceux qui sont morts d'amour Viennent vers la terre et fendent le voile Qui les cache aux yeux des vivants, le jour. Alors, dans la nuit brune et fantastique, Leur sang meurtri...




vi-control.net


----------



## gh0stwrit3r (Apr 9, 2020)

prodigalson said:


> I think part of the issue here is specifically using precedence and breeze on Spitfire Symphonic Strings. I'm not sure why you would ever want/need to take make such aggressive spatialization changes to some of the wettest and most naturally spatialized samples available.
> 
> They're also some of the best recorded samples available so, personally, I wouldn't take a hatchet to everything below 300HZ across the board by default. That, in addition to boosting the Highs on the bus I think gives it that synthy sound.
> 
> Though, of course, I haven't heard the rest of the mix so perhaps theres a reason for such dramatic cuts in the strings.


Does this mean that you are against any spatialization changes on the Spitfire Audio libraries? I've used Precedence to add a little bit of panning to the instruments to make the mix a little bit wider. The changes are small, just like panning them around 15 or 10 in your DAW. So I guessed that these changes were minor. Do you really hear such a difference?

About the wetness. Yes, these libraries are wet of their own. But I can remember a video from Spitfire with Christian and Jake using lots of reverb on their samples. I guess it is a matter of taste. Or I'm I wrong?

Love to hear your opinion!


----------



## bryla (Apr 9, 2020)

gh0stwrit3r said:


> I was wondering ... do you still have this opinion when listening to the final music track?


Yes.


----------



## Beat Kaufmann (Apr 10, 2020)

Thanks for your great effort and the video for using Precedence together with Breeze.
The discussion is now (unfortunately) not on the actual topic. So I am sorry if I say something similar to what the previous speakers have said - and again not to the topic.

*THE "EQ-TRAP"*

_Let's just talk about EQing the strings as an example... _
Many of the well known sample library manufacturers (Spitfire, Berlin, VSL etc.) really try hard to create good sounding (natural sounding) libraries. They use the highest quality monitoring equipment etc.

Many users then "bend" these natural sounding libraries with a whole armada of tools. I don't mean the low cuts of frequencies that an instrument doesn't produce at all. I don't mean a sound-shaping EQ that deliberately gives the whole orchestra a slightly darker sound. So what do users do with those tools?

They find resonances, they cut the highs, they bring an Air-EQ into play, they use this and that trick seen on youtube. Users prefer to boost frequencies with the EQs at +6.5dB rather than just with +0.5dB. They love to use presets and because an award-winning engineer created them. Besides, the user already used those presets in the mix before...or our user once set up a template that basically loads all these tools with their settings for the strings.
After all these edits in the individual tracks, "our user" will do similar things in the sum channel once more ... Sure - everything a bit exaggerated. But the sense is that such users have stepped into the mentioned "EQ-Trap".

Once the strings have been processed in this way, the rest of the orchestra usually has to follow. So you can imagine how completely different such an orchestra sounds from what the sample producer once thought...

*How can I protect myself from this in order not to step into this EQ trap?*

When you have finished the mix and you bounce it, do it twice Once in the way you set everything up and once by turning off all effects that change the sound. I'm thinking especially of all the EQs.
Compare the overall sound with any naturally recorded similar reference track. You can do this separately for the strings, winds etc. as well. Now you know relatively quickly whether you have corrected in the wrong or right direction with your EQ settings.


Search for References (Youtube will be a help). Adjust your mixing procedure for the next session.
----------------------------------------
I think you actually got caught in the EQ trap and obviously in a way that makes it stand out.


Beat


----------



## gh0stwrit3r (Apr 11, 2020)

Thanks Beat! This is some great advise! Much appreciated!


----------



## prodigalson (Apr 11, 2020)

gh0stwrit3r said:


> Does this mean that you are against any spatialization changes on the Spitfire Audio libraries? I've used Precedence to add a little bit of panning to the instruments to make the mix a little bit wider. The changes are small, just like panning them around 15 or 10 in your DAW. So I guessed that these changes were minor. Do you really hear such a difference?
> 
> About the wetness. Yes, these libraries are wet of their own. But I can remember a video from Spitfire with Christian and Jake using lots of reverb on their samples. I guess it is a matter of taste. Or I'm I wrong?
> 
> Love to hear your opinion!



This is all just my opinion but I'm not necessarily against ANY spatialization changes in terms of width its more that the combination of these particular plugins is actually doing quite a lot more by default on the program material, much more than simply panning even if all you do is move the instruments a little wider in the precedence GUI. They're both doing very complicated calculations of EQ and Delays under the hood that affects the stereo image and depth much more than simply panning and widening, especially if you're using them in combination. There's nothing wrong with that if you like the sound and its not that you can't get wider results that way, of course you will, it's just that by doing so you're adding conflicting spacial and soundstage information to samples that already have A LOT of spatial and sound stage information. To my ear, it sounds a lot more heavy handed than simply widening the image. 

With respect to reverbs, thats a different issue, and of course, most people will add some reverb of their own, though I prefer a single classic algorithmic to the double-convolution technique of Jake's. Adding a simple IR (or two) of a larger space or throwing on a Lexicon 224 or TC6000 or Bricasti is, to my ear, simply adding more tail and more sheen but not doing the same thing as what Precedence and Breeze are doing together. 

Just my two cents.


----------



## bengoss (Jun 12, 2020)

I never found use of precedence. It’s only useful for mono signals which you can achieve with any panner. Plus the clicks when you move the panner or any parameter are so annoying that I can’t believe its priced 150$. Hopefully there will be an update soon and this problem fixed.


----------

