# Balancing your template



## flashman (May 26, 2012)

Hi everyone

The biggest battle I have is keeping the template balanced and increasingly the more dynamic the libraries the more difficult that is getting.

All that time ago we used to set the volume at the start of the track and then everything was fine. Now CC11 and CC1 are so important we need to set those as well plus a keyswitch to ensure it starts on the correct patch.

But... as soon as there is any change in the dynamic of the piece the whole thing goes out of the window as different libraries have radically different dynamic ranges. So in effect your first balance setting is just a very rough let's get going setting and thereafter everything has to balanced in real time.

Then it's all grouped so you can bounce everything out and then mix it section by section. Also there are some libraries which are really loud and others that are extremely low level. I also don't think DP is the best sequencer for this. Some seem better at dealing with CC information than others.

I would love some more input on all this


----------



## RiffWraith (May 26, 2012)

flashman @ Sat May 26 said:


> . Also there are some libraries which are really loud and others that are extremely low level. I also don't think DP is the best sequencer for this. Some seem better at dealing with CC information than others.



I find it hard to believe that one sequencer handles CC info better - or differently - than another. A sample player, maybe - but a sequencer? It's just MIDI info (which is not being received by the seq., but sent), and if the above were true, it would seem to me that that part of the seqencer's code was wrong. I guess it's possible, but..... 

As for the balancing, mixing takes alot of time to perfect. Some libs are louder then others, yes. Some libs have more dynamic range than others, yes. It's up to you to balance them out. There are no tricks nor shortcuts; only work. Use CC info. Use faders and automation. Use both in conjuction with one another. Listen to other pro scores, and compare your mix to those. That's really all there is to it. But it is alot of work.

Good luck.


----------



## flashman (May 27, 2012)

That's very true. It is a bit like plate spinning. Trouble is when you're trying to turn out a lot of music fast that doesn't allow for bouncing and tweaking. 

Some sequencers seem easier to manipulate CC than others. Drawing CC data seemed easier in Cubase and Logic to me for some reason than DP. I would love one which allows me to have the same control over controllers as I do over volume using touch latch automation. It would speed things up a lot.


----------



## Justin Miller (Jul 6, 2012)

I agree that DP is a bit harder to write CC data in than Cubase or Logic. In DP you can use the spline tool to write in curves easily. I wish other sequences had this option. Cubase gives you multiple lanes and Logic gives you the ability to have keyboard shortcuts to swap between entering CC data. I've spent a lot of time worrying about making the perfect template thats balanced for every need, but in reality in seems like that you wind up making too many sacrifices in every area to reach something thats just OK in every area. RiffWraith is right about there being a lot of work involved in getting things right for each project. Best of luck finding that perfect template, let me in on the secret if you do!


----------



## José Herring (Jul 6, 2012)

flashman @ Sat May 26 said:


> Hi everyone
> 
> The biggest battle I have is keeping the template balanced and increasingly the more dynamic the libraries the more difficult that is getting.
> 
> ...



Jeez, I forgot all about this thread. I had meant to comment on it and sorry it took a bump to jog my memory.

You've got the idea of "balancing" a template which is good, but you have to dig a little deeper in order to really do it correctly.

Setting cc levels at the beginning of the track is certainly one way to do it, but if you do it that way the only cc you should set is cc7 for overall volume. The rest as you found out will go out of whack as soon as you change dynamics.

Balancing an orchestral template properly takes knowledge of orchestration and the relative resonance of instruments with respect to each other. The problem with balancing most libraries is that I'm starting to question whether the guys creating them really know anything at all about orchestration or if they're just trying to make their libraries sound banging off the walls balls out loud all the time and are afraid to put in the proper dynamics for the instruments.

So... what does this all mean?

There's two processes. First is getting the instruments to sit right in their proper dynamic range. To find this out I got a really good recording of a piece that had a lot of solo and ensemble writing, I think I used Prelude to an Afternoon of a Faun, and put it up in my daw. I checked with score in hand what dynamics were written and what instruments are playing. Then I would hit play and watch the meters. This gave me a general idea of how loud instruments were in general context and where they lay on the meter.

Few surprises crept up. Firstly, in extremely soft passages an entire string section can play softer than a solo woodwind. Even though I've played in orchestras for years that one shocked me. Clarinet can be whisper quiet, but quieter yet can be 60 strings playing a true pp.

I then set up my template to match dynamics.

A few other things cropped up. In most libraries there's been little or no attempt to keep proper balances in the instruments and sections, often p are too loud and f are way too loud. So strings playing f often can take the entire dynamic range of the daw, much less when you start adding other instruments you overload your daw almost instantly. Seems is if there's a loudness war going on. 

So I had to turn down almost all of my older libraries. Then I noticed that a lot of the crossfades are totally wrong. mf kick in where f should be, p too loud, not much difference between the dynamics ect... That was a bitch. So I had to learn to ride cc11 with cc1 to get the correct balances. Sometimes I even edited the patch so dynamics would work properly. It was a lot of work that I really never finished, because.......

I got the Hollywood series and TJ was insistent that the dynamics not be touched, so there was not a bunch of artificial gain applied to instruments and they balanced out with no extra work.

Balancing a template is of utter importance if you're going to create pieces that at all resemble an orchestra with proper dynamics and sense of depth and location.

The libraries that I have now, I make sure that they haven't been tampered with.

HS and HB are the purist balance wise for me. You actually feel like you're working with the real thing orchestration wise when you're working with those libraries together. the instruments blend as they should.

CS2.0 is a close second to HS imo. The only thing is is that the top dynamic has been boosted about 3db across the board so you really can't fly the faders all the way up. but its an easy work around.

I know not about LASS, but I do have LASS LS and it sits pretty well balance wise, plus if it gets too much you can always take out a part of the section, which is nice.

Cinebrass and Cinewinds I don't have but from the numerous demos I've heard, the dynamics are a concern and I've heard that people are riding cc11 to put the instruments back into context. Because of that, I probably won't get much from them, but never say never. :D 

EWQLSO was the worst offender of them all for out of balance instruments. No amount of work would ever get them into balance. That's one collection where your solo flute drowns out your 4 trumpet section. It's that bad. But every patch has cc11 wired in so you can learn to ride it. But after years of doing it, I just got tired of that.

In short. Balancing a template consist of two things primarily. Getting the instruments to sit right dynamically with respect to each other ( don't want your flute to drown out your trumpet playing f) and 2) making sure your xfade patches xfade to the proper dynamic in truth. We've all heard the clarinet that suddenly jumps out at you as soon as you move the fader 5mm. That's a bad crossfade.

If you can get libraries that are balanced right your job is done for you and then your ears will take over (if you know orchestration) and you start to get a proper balance.

I failed to mention VSL because I just don't know much about it. But given I can name 5 people that have actually made that library sound good, I've decided to pass on VSL over the years. Though Daryl's work has me rethinking that decision.

1000 people will now jump up to slam me. It's gotten to be the norm, but in the clamoring chorus of dissenters, please read what I wrote carefully and decide for yourself with experimentation what actually works and doesn't in your template.

Also, remember that a balanced template is much harder to work with. Even I have a tendency to want to boost those strings when my soaring violin lines are getting drowned out by my fhorn accompaniment. But, resist the urge. If you were working with a real orchestra you'd tell the horns to take it down a notch. And often, when playing in orchestras, you'll notice that even though your part is marked ff, you're actually playing much softer so that the lead lines can be heard clearly. 

Takes a bit of getting use to. but in the end, a balanced template is the only chance in the world you have of actually making samples sound beautiful.


----------



## Blakus (Jul 7, 2012)

Great post josejherring. I'm right in the middle of trying to balance my full orchestral template at the moment and it's a crazy mission! Volume levels and cc's are all over the place to try and get the balance right. I agree that this really is the key to getting great sounding virtual performances.

I've been using a bit of Williams' for this particular 'balancing act'
Here's what I've done so far anyway

http://www.blakus.com/music/BattleOfHeroes.mp3
Any comments about balance would be appreciated!


----------



## Kralc (Jul 7, 2012)

Nice blakus, what are the strings in the track?


----------



## Blakus (Jul 7, 2012)

Kralc @ Sat Jul 07 said:


> Nice blakus, what are the strings in the track?



Thanks Kralc,

All strings in that example are LASS 2 except for the basses which I use Albion for.


----------



## José Herring (Jul 7, 2012)

Blakus @ Sat Jul 07 said:


> Great post josejherring. I'm right in the middle of trying to balance my full orchestral template at the moment and it's a crazy mission! Volume levels and cc's are all over the place to try and get the balance right. I agree that this really is the key to getting great sounding virtual performances.
> 
> I've been using a bit of Williams' for this particular 'balancing act'
> Here's what I've done so far anyway
> ...



Sounds great so far! I think LASS is balancing really well with the brass. LASS2.0 sounds really great.

The woodwinds perhaps sound a little too noticeable, but without knowing the orchestration I'd just be guessing at that.

What brass are you using?


----------



## Gabriel Oliveira (Jul 7, 2012)

josejherring @ Sat Jul 07 said:


> What brass are you using?



Horns are Sample Modeling... FOR SHURE!


----------



## bwherry (Jul 7, 2012)

Hey guys,

I developed an application that helps to address this sort of thing, across the board. Watch this if you have a sec:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ncBAlIgwyH0

All the strings, brass, and woodwinds in my current template go through TransMIDIfier, not only to enable me to switch between different articulations from a single MIDI track no matter the sample library or player, but also to "initialize" instrument patches and to "transform" the MIDI data I'm sending out from my sequencer into the MIDI data I want the sample player to receive - all to get the result I'm after. I think I've got transformations on *every* patch!

A couple examples:

- The CineBrass sustain patches, for me, could get a bit quieter for low mod wheel (CC1) values. So I add a "Copy CC" transform to copy the incoming CC1 to CC11 or CC7, then add a "CC Map" to map those newly-generated CC7 or CC11 values to "all 127" except for the lower range, where I want the values to ramp down.

- The Cinematic Strings long notes, on the other hand, go the other direction (to my taste) in that I don't want CC1=0 to be silent. I'd rather it be "really quiet" (like my CineBrass sustains now are) so I can do a similar CC copy and map operation, but also map CC1 so even when I send CC1=0 from my controller, the Cinematic Strings patch will get a CC1=1 (or whatever I want it to see), but have its volume lowered by another controller. For Cinematic Strings long notes I also add a CC1-to-CC2 copy to give me increasing vibrato with louder dynamics. (which isn't always what you want, but a lot of the time it is)

With these little bits of "setup effort" I can basically have all my instruments respond as I want them to, without having to manually enter additional CC data for one instrument vs. another.

These are just two tiny examples, but the possibilities are uhh... vast.  I made that unrehearsed, crappy YouTube video on my development machine that only has the Kontakt player and free sounds, but I'll be making some more involved demos and examples using my studio setup in the near future.

If you think this might help you, please try it out if you have a chance.
Direct link:
http://www.bewaryprods.com/software/pro ... sMIDIfier/

Thanks for reading!

Brian


----------



## Blakus (Jul 7, 2012)

josejherring @ Sun Jul 08 said:


> Sounds great so far! I think LASS is balancing really well with the brass. LASS2.0 sounds really great.
> 
> The woodwinds perhaps sound a little too noticeable, but without knowing the orchestration I'd just be guessing at that.
> 
> What brass are you using?



Thanks Jose, the horns are indeed samplemodeling. All other brass is CineBrass


----------



## ThomasL (Jul 8, 2012)

josejherring @ 2012-07-07 said:


> 1000 people will now jump up to slam me. It's gotten to be the norm, but in the clamoring chorus of dissenters, please read what I wrote carefully and decide for yourself with experimentation what actually works and doesn't in your template.


I would be surprised if they did. This is all very good advise Jose!

I've been struggling myself and have come to the belief that balance is key. Period. Before you even reach for that EQ (or compressor or whatever) make sure the balance between everything is right (ok, at least 80% right). When the balance is right it will be so much easier to "hear" the needed changes in EQ (if any).

And yes, it takes time. I'm still refining mine...


----------



## Dracarys (Jul 30, 2012)

I generally hate mixing all around. Great ideas and notation in my head, then the inspiration and joy is lost once I start with my sequencer. Percussion is the worst, it's either a hit or miss day with me. I've grown biased against myself.


----------

