# Mixing into groups by instrument group or frequency group?



## Hasen6 (May 3, 2018)

Just wondering if when mixing do people typically route instruments to groups by frequency ie bass instruments together like contrabassoon, bass trombones etc or high instruments like violins, flutes, piccolo etc, or do you route to groups by instrument section like woodwinds, strings, brass or even smaller groups like violins+violas, celli, etc?

Not sure which way works best from a mixing point of view. Also with each group there is reverb to consider but personally I don't use it these days.


----------



## Hasen6 (May 3, 2018)

Ok I guess it's just me that routes instruments to groups for mixing.


----------



## Hunter123 (May 3, 2018)

I'm no expert but I just group by instrument type. You don't use reverb??


----------



## Hasen6 (May 3, 2018)

Hunter123 said:


> I'm no expert but I just group by instrument type. You don't use reverb??


Ok I see, so you mean strings, woodwinds, brass and percussion? Four groups?

Yeah I don't use reverb because modern libraries are recorded with hall ambience, are normally positioned pretty much correctly and include release notes. They all have mic positions so you can adjust everything to perfection - why ruin it with artificial reverb? I just achieve what I need to with volume balancing and EQ.

If I had a bricasti maybe I could add reverb, but the reverbs I've used all make the instruments sound..fake. To me it's always the biggest giveaway that it's not a real orchestra. I've tried all the top software reverbs.


----------



## OleJoergensen (May 3, 2018)

Im not an expert but I group High ww, Low ww, High strings, low strings etc...


----------



## Hasen6 (May 3, 2018)

OleJoergensen said:


> Im not an expert but I group High ww, Low ww, High strings, low strings etc...


You mean high ww as an individual group or high ww and high strings together? Sounds like you're grouping by a combination of frequency and instrument type. May be that's the ultimate way.


----------



## fretti (May 3, 2018)

I have 8 groups for every instrument type/ style of sounds (strings, Brass etc.) is easiest for me... but I don‘t have a few hundred tracks so it‘s possible not the best way in larger templates/projects...


----------



## Jdiggity1 (May 3, 2018)

There is no 'ultimate' way.
There are many benefits to grouping, and as time goes on you'll discover which ones apply to your workflow.
Some people group tracks to *use less resources* - ie. Applying your hip new reverb to a group instead of several individual tracks.
Many will group as a way of *simplifying the mix* process - eg. a group to represent the woodwind ensemble instead of adjusting each individual woodwind instrument (volume, eq, stereo imaging, etc.).
Another reason to group is to *aid with exporting stems* and alt. mixes. - ie. you have your groups set up as Orchestra, Drums, Vocals, FX, Bass, etc.
And then others will simply use groups because they read on the internet that you should probably be using groups.

P.S. It's totally ok to do it one way this week, and a completely different way next week. Don't fall into the trap of thinking there is some secret formula for the ultimate professional template, and you simply can't do any work until you've cracked the code! There's 100 ways to skin a cat..... or something along those lines.


----------



## OleJoergensen (May 3, 2018)

Hasen6 said:


> You mean high ww as an individual group or high ww and high strings together? Sounds like you're grouping by a combination of frequency and instrument type. May be that's the ultimate way.


High ww alone, low ww alone etc...


----------



## wickedw (May 4, 2018)

strings short, strings long, strings all, brass low, brass high, brass all, etc... I keep on doing revisions as I work more and more with my template setup to get into what works best for me. 

It's really just about what works for your workflow the best. 

If you haven't already, check out JunkieXL his mixing template video as well which might give you some ideas too:


----------



## dciurlizza (May 4, 2018)

Definitely depends on the job. I work on trailers where they're re-editing the music to picture, and films where I only have to focus on delivering to the re-recording mixer. In both cases, I'll send around 9 to 13 stems (especially for trailers and short films).

Goes something like this:

Strings
Woodwinds
Brass
Booms
Big Hits
Perc (Timp and Cymbals)
Drums (kits)
Risers
Atmos
And 10 - 13 might be guitars, lead synths, vocals, etc.

I don't worry too much about the highs and lows at this point because I engineer my own music, so there's no need for them to be re-mixing. If they need to duck stuff down, they can easily do it with EQ - especially because I tend to get out of the way of dialogue and SFX anyway.

If you're not already sending individual instruments, I imagine sending batched highs and lows of stuff can be good if someone wants to do final mixes of a score, or master your work for a CD-quality commercial release.


----------



## Hasen6 (May 4, 2018)

wickedw said:


> strings short, strings long, strings all, brass low, brass high, brass all, etc... I keep on doing revisions as I work more and more with my template setup to get into what works best for me.
> 
> It's really just about what works for your workflow the best.
> 
> If you haven't already, check out JunkieXL his mixing template video as well which might give you some ideas too:




Ok so you split by articulation type between long and short? Is that for mixing purposes or for some other purpose like reverb? I mean do they require different eq or otherwise because they are short or long articulations?

Thanks for the link, I'll check out the video now.


----------



## wickedw (May 4, 2018)

Hasen6 said:


> Ok so you split by articulation type between long and short? Is that for mixing purposes or for some other purpose like reverb? I mean do they require different eq or otherwise because they are short or long articulations?
> 
> Thanks for the link, I'll check out the video now.



It's a bit of both, it also makes it easy to just bounce the shorts and treat the audio with some fx to create a different sound. Quite often they have the same amount of reverb on it though, really depends what's going on musically ofcourse. Which is the main reason why I did the split, I like to have the option of doing something different.


----------



## Mihkel Zilmer (May 4, 2018)

My approach might sound completely over-the-top, but here is what I do:

1) Each instrument has short and long articulations separately for different processing and reverb levels (single MIDI track feeding 2 separate audio tracks). 
2) Those get grouped by library (Spitfire Brass, Berlin Brass etc) for easy blending of libraries (volume, EQ, stereo width etc.) - this is where 95% of mixing happens, I normally set and and forget individual instrument levels. 
3) Finally they get grouped into stems: Woodwinds, Brass, Percussion, Ethnic, Harps+Keys, Voices, Strings, Synths, Guitars, Live, SFX/Impacts, Sub.

This way I can deliver pretty much whatever is required (mostly stems), and at the same time have a lot of control over balancing the mix.


----------



## Hasen6 (May 4, 2018)

Mihkel Zilmer said:


> My approach might sound completely over-the-top, but here is what I do:
> 
> 1) Each instrument has short and long articulations separately for different processing and reverb levels (single MIDI track feeding 2 separate audio tracks).
> 2) Those get grouped by library (Spitfire Brass, Berlin Brass etc) for easy blending of libraries (volume, EQ, stereo width etc.) - this is where 95% of mixing happens, I normally set and and forget individual instrument levels.
> ...



That does sound over the top, you literally have more mixing tracks than midi tracks it seems.  Once the template is set up I guess it can't be too bad though and probably worth it for the control you get.


----------



## Hasen6 (May 4, 2018)

Jdiggity1 said:


> There is no 'ultimate' way.
> There are many benefits to grouping, and as time goes on you'll discover which ones apply to your workflow.
> Some people group tracks to *use less resources* - ie. Applying your hip new reverb to a group instead of several individual tracks.
> Many will group as a way of *simplifying the mix* process - eg. a group to represent the woodwind ensemble instead of adjusting each individual woodwind instrument (volume, eq, stereo imaging, etc.).
> ...



I guess I'm in two minds as to which is best. I normally always grouped by instrument section but later on I found separating at least the bass part of each section seem to work better. It seemed logical with orchestral music to separate by sections but I guess in other genres they're more likely to separate by frequency.


----------



## Replicant (May 4, 2018)

Instrument families


----------



## fretti (May 5, 2018)

Hasen6 said:


> I guess I'm in two minds as to which is best. I normally always grouped by instrument section but later on I found separating at least the bass part of each section seem to work better. It seemed logical with orchestral music to separate by sections but I guess in other genres they're more likely to separate by frequency.


Well it also always depends on how your midi tracks are laid out...
I for instance have it a little like Daniel James, so a group for Strings, Brass, Woodwinds etc. but in these groups no specific instruments but 8 empty Midi-Tracks (called then Strings 1, Strings 2 etc.) +HZ Strings or so as instrument tracks, as I don't have patches I always use and want to start with... mostly I load in a piano somewhere and then see what I come up with and what VI suites it the best.
On the other hand if you have one track for every articulation then it might make sense from a certain size of your template to do Groups for each instrument (Violins 1 with legato, spiccato, staccato, sustain, marcato, fx and so on). For example from John Powells Facebook page if you haven't seen it already:





Here or for JXL and all other composers with hundreds or even thousands of tracks it makes sense imo to lay your mixing etc. out for specific instrument groups and not high, mid, low. But if you have like 60 tracks or so it might make more sense if it suits your workflow best.


----------



## Beat Kaufmann (May 5, 2018)

Whatever the midi side looks like, split into 1000 tracks for having each articulation separately or just one midi track per instrument - I'd like to make the following considerations for the audio mix:
Basically there must be a balance within the instrument sections (strings, Woodwinds etc.). tc.). Logically, it would be good to combine them into a single group. Now you are able to adjust the strings with just one fader.
If all instrument groups are in tune, you can balance the different groups among each other.
Now one can, like a conductor, play the strings or e.g. change the woodwinds with just one control (also dynamic). The internal balance is then always OK.
As far as the individual sections.

Furthermore, there are always a few solo instruments - either as real soloists ("in front of the orchestra" or even those who have special positions within the sections. All these tracks / instruments could indeed be treated separately and possibly also summarized in a soloist track. This group track
for soloists could then contain a Maximizer for example so that basically all solo instruments get a little more power...
Also treat separately the deepest bass tracks. Double bass, contra-tuba, etc. could be passed over the reverb - directly into the output channel.

All the best
Beat


----------



## DMDComposer (May 7, 2018)

Mihkel Zilmer said:


> My approach might sound completely over-the-top, but here is what I do:
> 
> 1) Each instrument has short and long articulations separately for different processing and reverb levels (single MIDI track feeding 2 separate audio tracks).
> 2) Those get grouped by library (Spitfire Brass, Berlin Brass etc) for easy blending of libraries (volume, EQ, stereo width etc.) - this is where 95% of mixing happens, I normally set and and forget individual instrument levels.
> ...



Hey Mihkel, do you have a reverb, 1 for short, 1 for long, and 1 for every stem? So thats like 12x2 = 24 reverbs? I'm probably thinking about this wrong. But how are you able to print stems with the reverb doing this routing?


----------



## Mihkel Zilmer (May 7, 2018)

DMDComposer said:


> Hey Mihkel, do you have a reverb, 1 for short, 1 for long, and 1 for every stem? So thats like 12x2 = 24 reverbs? I'm probably thinking about this wrong. But how are you able to print stems with the reverb doing this routing?



I am using 1 reverb per stem, so 12 total. They are VST3 plugins that support suspending processing - only channels with signal going through them are using up resources. Long and short articulations have different amounts of send levels going into the reverb.


----------



## dgburns (May 7, 2018)

One day we won't do stems- we'll just send it all over to mix as is.


----------



## DMDComposer (May 7, 2018)

dgburns said:


> One day we won't do stems- we'll just send it all over to mix as is.


I personally can't wait til I don't have to deal with daws, stems, mixing, audio... I rather work from score. Or even better my head instantly to audio concept lol :D


----------



## OleJoergensen (May 7, 2018)

Why different reverbs for short and long?


----------



## Mihkel Zilmer (May 8, 2018)

OleJoergensen said:


> Why different reverbs for short and long?



Same reverb, different levels. Main reason being that in some libraries short notes excite the room a lot more / have more ambience than long notes.


----------



## Divico (May 8, 2018)

It is really awkward to have a loud reverb after short notes and percussive elements since it becomes quite obviouse even to the point where it sounds like a slap back. Long notes can get away with more which also helps to thicken them up. A big part of big string and brass sounds is the right reverb.


----------



## OleJoergensen (May 8, 2018)

Thank you.


----------



## Nite Sun (Aug 18, 2018)

Mihkel Zilmer said:


> I am using 1 reverb per stem, so 12 total. They are VST3 plugins that support suspending processing - only channels with signal going through them are using up resources. Long and short articulations have different amounts of send levels going into the reverb.



Out of interest which VST3 reverb are you using that supports suspended processing?


----------



## Mihkel Zilmer (Sep 2, 2018)

Nite Sun said:


> Out of interest which VST3 reverb are you using that supports suspended processing?



Sorry, forgot to reply to you! I'm using Nimbus.


----------



## Nite Sun (Sep 2, 2018)

Thanks!


----------

