# Your "go-to" EQ tricks and tips when mixing orchestral music?



## tokatila

I have been EQ-referencing my template under-development to various film score recordings, but mostly to How to train your dragon 1&2. 

What I have noticed that 

1)I have a real problem with accumulation of frequencies with full orchestra approximately at 250-500 Hz (boxiness). So I usually slap an EQ to mix buss and "cut the sweater" so to speak. But I need some drastic cuts, like 6-8 db to it sound "ok" to my ears. Do you find this normal?

2) With string sections it seems I have harshness in 1k-3k area, where I need to cut quite drastically, Violas seems to be the main culprit. And I need to add "Air" to Violins them to cut through. Cut the volume or just the offending area? 

Edit - It seems that the harshness comes from close mics mostly, if I add more tree and drop the close ones the situation improves without any EQ:ing, but then sound is more distant than preferred.

3) Also it seems that double basses clash quite a lot with low/ethnic drums, what are you experiences handling that? I have tried EQ, compressor, multiband-compressor and dynamicEQ. Currently I like to side-chain dynamic EQ to contrabass and duck the low drums. Anyone with similar experiences?

What are your go-to EQ cuts/boosts with instruments, groups or in main buss, to which you seem to return again and again?


----------



## gsilbers

what libraries are you using? 
also, have you tried a dynamic EQ?


----------



## EastWest Lurker

The UAD Precision Multiband has a preset named Punch and Clarity and I am embarrassed to admit how often I resort to it to help my mixes.


----------



## tokatila

gsilbers @ Mon Sep 15 said:


> what libraries are you using?
> also, have you tried a dynamic EQ?



On my work-in-progress template I have Mural (vol.1) for strings, winds combination of VSL and Spitfire libs, brass Cinebrass Core&Pro.

Dyneq only for bass control, thx for tip. I will try them with other problematic frequencies too.


----------



## tokatila

I mocked-up 12 bars from the score of Powell's HTTYD Romantic Flight and tried to check with Automatching EQ how far my balance is, turns out it had quite many problematic areas. I think I had 3 EQs in a row doing different kind of stuff.

Then...I took them all of, slapped an U-he's excellent Satin tape emulation plugin on the orchestra buss with readymade-preset activated. And just added a bit of air with Maag EQ4 (+7db at 40k).

And, EQ comparison results below.

And it even sounds pretty decent to my untrained ears (Don't have yet subbass and haven't rolled off the high frequency content). Nothing prolike, but the best amateur-balance I have reached so far.

More is less and Urs Heckmann is the man. o-[][]-o


----------



## JohnG

I don't use Mural (though it sounds great), but I would just suggest two things:

1. Close mics are popular with engineers because they can control the sound better, which they like. I don't like that sound and believe it's very different from the sound that actually hits the main mice in an orchestral recording session. So I use little or no Close.

2. Don't go too crazy with EQ. It's easy when mixing to gradually get oneself into trouble; to tweak and tweak and, by degrees, work one's way into a very stylised, unnatural sound.


----------



## synthetic

I think I've gotten better at mixing in the last year, using a different approach to EQ. I went from "those horns are too soft" to "I'm not hearing enough bite in those horns." Using it like the faders on your console, only now instead of all frequencies of a channel moving up and down I select just what I want up and down. Or pulling down what I don't want. As Michelangelo said, "Just cut away everything that's not the statue." That frequency band mindset is something that's helped me out lately. 

I still use an EQ on the mix buss. I used to think of it as a crutch, like I'm not working hard enough on the mix, but I don't care anymore if it sounds better. Usually a bit of sparkle on top and a small cut around 250-320 Hz. That range seems to build up when using a lot of Kontakt sample tracks. I mostly use stock EQs except on the mix buss (DMG Equality) or when a track needs major surgery. 

If you want a cleaner sound, use a bunch of low cut filters on channels with no low frequencies. Like woodwinds, shaker, or choir. That can clean things up in the low end, although too much of that can sound Steely Dan. 

Sometimes I'll use a colored (distorted) compressor on the mix buss. Usually Kush Audio UBK1. But usually it's not doing very much, just nudging down the peaks. And 80% of the times I try it on orchestral stuff, I get rid of it.


----------



## The Darris

For me, I try to not mess with the EQ aside from removing build up frequencies. If you were to open up a Violin's short patch from mural with a frequency spectrum analyzer on, you will notice a pretty low build up from Air. This is how the room naturally speaks. However, when you play with multiple repeated lines, that low frequency will build up very quickly so I tend to practice using a low cut on that specific range for my high instruments in my template. Low instruments just need to be taken care of when orchestrating your parts as, like a real orchestra, a lot of low notes together can become mud. 

I can't remember who told this to me on here when I asked this similar question a few years ago but I took this to heart and it helped my mixes out a lot. 'Good orchestrations tend to equalize themselves. You just have to treat those little freq spikes from build ups with a little EQ taming>" I am obviously para-phrasing but those words significantly helped my mixes and the best part is, I don't have to spend too much time in the mixer/plugins to get the sound that I really like.

Best,

Chris


----------



## rgames

There are basically two types of EQ (or any processing for that matter)

1. Problem-correcting EQ
2. Sweetening EQ

#1 is generally independent of the style of music you're producing - it's EQ to remove room resonances, odd instrument resonances, etc. If you look at 10 different setups from 10 different people, you'll find certain patterns that are consistent to all of them. Those are the problem-correcting EQ's and, because those problems are problems for all styles of music, they're the same for all styles of music.

Where the difference lies is in the sweetening EQ - that's dependent upon the style of music you're writing and. more specifically, what you like to hear. A recording of concert music is going to use a much more transparent and natural sound than a film score (in general). For that reason, people who are accustomed to hearing film scores often think concert scores sound unnatural and vice-versa.

So, as far as common practice goes, it's really only #1 that applies. However, it's library dependent - the problem-correcting EQ for LASS is different than that for VSL and both are different from the other string libraries, all of which are different from each other (there have been threads on those settings). However, they're easy to identify: just take each patch and play chromatically from the lowest note. You'll hear certain overtones that repeatedly "pop out" and need to be attenuated. Also, you can pretty confidently apply a high-pass filter to everything except bass instruments. A bit of "smile EQ" across the mids is also a good idea to prevent the organ effect.

Other than that, season to taste.

rgames


----------



## tokatila

The Darris @ Tue Sep 16 said:


> I can't remember who told this to me on here when I asked this similar question a few years ago but I took this to heart and it helped my mixes out a lot. 'Good orchestrations tend to equalize themselves. You just have to treat those little freq spikes from build ups with a little EQ taming>" I am obviously para-phrasing but those words significantly helped my mixes and the best part is, I don't have to spend too much time in the mixer/plugins to get the sound that I really like.
> 
> Best,
> 
> Chris



Interesting and easily believable quote, however do you think that applies to sampled orchestras as well (in comparison to live ones)? What I noticed that when doing that 12-bar mockup of Romantic flight is that the que starts with strings so much together on the middle C area (C-3) that seems to cause the harshness (what I don't hear in the recording).


----------



## jcs88

Does anyone use any Native Instruments effects on mixing? It's all I've got other than the built in logic stuff. I'm in the mindset now that if I really learn how to use it both the solid-state and VC stuff can be quite good. My mixing is terrible and I'm trying to get better at it, but often find it hard to hear subtle differences/colours.


----------



## bryla

I second what John said. 

Generally I low cut instruments where needed. This way I prevent the build-up of mids. On the busses it is then easier to do "tone adjustment" eq'ing to color the sound. 

It's been a while since I mixed sampled orchestras but this is my procedure in mixing orchestral recordings anyway.


----------



## waveheavy

tokatila @ 15/9/2014 said:


> What I have noticed that
> 
> 1)I have a real problem with accumulation of frequencies with full orchestra approximately at 250-500 Hz (boxiness). So I usually slap an EQ to mix buss and "cut the sweater" so to speak. But I need some drastic cuts, like 6-8 db to it sound "ok" to my ears. Do you find this normal?
> 
> ....



Yep, that's a normal frequency range that needs a cut. It's because just about all instruments have frequencies in that range, so it causes 'mud' when they pile up there. With most non-orchestral music, the snare is going to be in that area around 170-200Hz with a boost, lot of bass too that's not needed, and low end of vocals (be careful with cuts on vocals there, it's lose warmth, like 200-300Hz). Common to do a heavy cut of bass in the area around 250Hz. Guitar body dwells around 400-500Hz. 

I recommend looking at a spectral analyzer with each instrument in solo, so you learn where the ranges are for the different instruments. Setup up a High Pass filter or Low Pass filter and slide it up and down and listen to where the frequency ranges change, that's how to learn them too.

Common to do a slight cut around 2kHz for strings, and a boost from there upwards for 'air'.

Common to do a slight boost around 150Hz for brass, fullness.

With most low drums, a spectral analyzer will reveal usually 2 primary peak areas. For a bass drum a low end peak around 60Hz, and higher peak around 3.5kHz to 6kHz. Toms will be higher, snare even higher, like 8kHz, 10kHz. Vocal clarity around 10kHz also. Vocal fullness around 5kHz, beef anywhere from 100Hz to 500Hz. Telephone freq. is 3.5kHz.

Learn that and I'd say you got one third of mixing down. The other is compression, and then phase.


----------



## Vin

HP everything that doesn't need low end.


----------



## dgburns

JohnG @ Mon Sep 15 said:


> I don't use Mural (though it sounds great), but I would just suggest two things:
> 
> 1. Close mics are popular with engineers because they can control the sound better, which they like. I don't like that sound and believe it's very different from the sound that actually hits the main mice in an orchestral recording session. So I use little or no Close.
> 
> 2. Don't go too crazy with EQ. It's easy when mixing to gradually get oneself into trouble; to tweak and tweak and, by degrees, work one's way into a very stylised, unnatural sound.



lots of good advice coming back.One thing I have done recently however,is to actually favor close mics!what I'm after is more definition and not so worried about size.It seems working with samples things can get mushy fast,and I'm always looking to get as much detail in the playing as possible first.oh well,to each their own ....


----------



## chimuelo

These sample libraries we use are always pretty sweet out of the box but low end stereo samples can kill a mix, especially when you start adding more instruments.

This even causes guys to constantly tweak their mix and you end up chasing ghosts.

I usually find the Brainrox Digita V2's Mono maker a great way to get the low end frequencies focused better by taking stereo woofy frequencies and turning them into a mono signal.
Better focused low end sound leaving the mids and highs separate so when any further EQ is needed I don't drag along transients from others instruments low end.

I demo'd this on some stereo kick drums the first time and made my material punchier which left space for synths and samples much easier.

Contras and Cellos, Tympani's etc. Much more fun mixing with higher track counts.


----------



## dgburns

chimuelo @ Fri Sep 26 said:


> These sample libraries we use are always pretty sweet out of the box but low end stereo samples can kill a mix, especially when you start adding more instruments.
> 
> This even causes guys to constantly tweak their mix and you end up chasing ghosts.
> 
> I usually find the Brainrox Digita V2's Mono maker a great way to get the low end frequencies focused better by taking stereo woofy frequencies and turning them into a mono signal.
> Better focused low end sound leaving the mids and highs separate so when any further EQ is needed I don't drag along transients from others instruments low end.
> 
> I demo'd this on some stereo kick drums the first time and made my material punchier which left space for synths and samples much easier.
> 
> Contras and Cellos, Tympani's etc. Much more fun mixing with higher track counts.



damn,that plug was one of my secrets!oh well,cat's out of the bag 8)


----------



## Rob Elliott

Vin @ Fri Sep 26 said:


> HP everything that doesn't need low end.



+1 (built into my orchestral template)- also, cut only (better have darn good reason to do any additive eq - usually 'subtracting's needed let's the proper things have their day.)


----------



## EastWest Lurker

Rob et al, I tried that approach years ago and found little benefit to it, much more benfit to EQ'ing the muddiness out of Altiverb IRs at the time.

But I am always open to having my mind changed. Here is Logic's Channel EQ analyzing a HS Vlin 1 legato patch. As you can see there is virtually no energy in the range the lowest band controls and if I turn it on, I hear no change. 

So where is the benefit of doing so on this? People say it is cumulative but I am leery of one size fits all formulas frankly.


----------



## The Darris

tokatila @ Mon Sep 15 said:


> Interesting and easily believable quote, however do you think that applies to sampled orchestras as well (in comparison to live ones)? What I noticed that when doing that 12-bar mockup of Romantic flight is that the que starts with strings so much together on the middle C area (C-3) that seems to cause the harshness (what I don't hear in the recording).



Yes and no. What you don't hear in the recording is the fact that it is one singular room sound versus a sampled room. What I mean by this is the real recording only has the performance/ensemble sound where as a sampled version will contain multiple recordings of a single note performance in a room. Thus, when you write divisi five-part chords, you will have 5 recordings of the room sound which will create mud. There isn't a wrong or right way to orchestrate necessarily. Understanding how instruments interact TOGETHER is the key to a good orchestration. The effect of having them all centered around C3 is quite cool in a real space with real players but you would need to do a lot of corrective EQ to get that to sound good with single samples as you will just be building up the room's natural harmonics/resonance of singles notes versus an ensemble playing the chords. 

Ways to work around this are to have some libraries like CineOrch, Vivace, Tutti, PS' Orchestrator, etc. These ensemble based libraries help to give you a 'more realistic' sound of a performance versus writing it out note for note with samples. 

If you don't have that, than you need to consider using High and Low pass filters to help cut out the room sound build ups in wet libraries. Berlin Woodwinds is rather dry but actually has a pretty significant low end spike to it. Being conscious of those frequencies and harnessing them will help clear up your mixes. The other thing that helps is positioning which that topic has been beat to death on this forum, just do a search.

Best,

Chris


----------



## Marius Masalar

EastWest Lurker @ Fri Sep 26 said:


> Rob et al, I tried that approach years ago and found little benefit to it, much more benfit to EQ'ing the muddiness out of Altiverb IRs at the time.
> 
> But I am always open to having my mind changed. Here is Logic's Channel EQ analyzing a HS Vlin 1 legato patch. As you can see there is virtually no energy in the range the lowest band controls and if I turn it on, I hear no change.
> 
> So where is the benefit of doing so on this? People say it is cumulative but I am leery of one size fits all formulas frankly.


Jay,

Here's a quick example, also using HS, to demonstrate not only that there is energy in the low end, but that it can accumulate quickly and unexpectedly (notice the sudden leap at 0:15):

http://d.pr/v/10rJ3

Keeping in mind that this is only one mic position of one instrument from one section of the orchestra, it becomes easier to understand why high-passing that information out can contribute to a cleaner mix.

As for whether or not it's audible, that's not why I highpass; whether or not I can hear those sub frequencies, my compressors can and do. Phantom lows can cause all sorts of downstream processing plugins to react strangely, overcompensating and creating very audible pumping or artifacts even using gentle settings in passages where no such thing should occur.

Highpassing reverb sends is also helpful, but for me that tames any "bloom" from the low instruments rather than anything to do with the higher-range stuff, because I've already removed those errant lows using EQ before they hit the reverb.


----------



## EastWest Lurker

Marius, I guess hearing the significance of that requires better hearing than my 66 year old (as of this coming Sunday) ears can deliver. I would love to hear "before" and "after" mix bounces with this to see if then I can hear it then.

Also, unless I am going for a special effect I never compress string samples. I leave that to the big trailer sound and Zimmer wannabee guys


----------



## chimuelo

dgburns @ Fri Sep 26 said:


> damn,that plug was one of my secrets!oh well,cat's out of the bag 8)



Fear not my brotha',
Mine is the original DSP version for Scope DSP cards/XITE-1 DSP racks.
Mostly used for live stage monitors. Can't even buy it anymore.

On our ELO and Slade covers I use LASS bowed Cello tones and get mono and 
stereo treatment due to their over lapping range and people comment on the sound 
at every gig.

I tell Dirk everytime I get a chance it was worth every dollar spent (600 USD back in 2004 ).


----------



## The Darris

EastWest Lurker @ Fri Sep 26 said:


> Marius, I guess hearing the significance of that requires better hearing than my 66 year old (as of this coming Sunday) ears can deliver.



For me, it is really hard to hear as well in a single instrument but much more prominent when you are working in larger track cues. Fast strings runs tutti with woodwinds and a low string shorts accenting can really lead to that type of build up especially with Spitfire libraries. That is to be expected though, considering the room. You just keeping adding to that 2 sec+ tail and those low frequencies build up fast. I don't have anything I can demonstrate currently for ABing purposes but this technique, in my opinion, really works well for fairly wet libraries like Spitfire's and CineSamples' products.


----------



## EastWest Lurker

Well I mostly use the Hollywood series,Kirk Hunter and Sonic Implants, and they are all pretty dry.


----------



## AC986

You can add as well as subtract. Cutting is usually what happens most.

Dan Worrel for Fabfilters.


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


----------

