# How I Enhance Cinematic Studio Strings For A Closer, Crisper Sound (It's Not Eq, Compression, etc)



## Horacio (Dec 4, 2018)

Hey guys,

Long time lurker on this forum and love CSS (cinematic studio strings) and have noticed it's popularity in this forum. But I see a lot of common complaints about it being "too dark" or "too reverby." I've made this short youtube video to show you how I've tweaked the strings to be closer, clearer, crisper, and better, in my opinion than simply using close mics for a closer sound.



Let me know your thoughts. I also have an additional, creative way to enhance them too, if you all end up liking this.

Also sorry about it saying "Demo Mode" on the video, I have to purchase the software still LOL.


----------



## TheKRock (Dec 4, 2018)

Awesome! I find the same reverby room feel right out of the box, thanks for this!


----------



## Kony (Dec 4, 2018)

Nice - thanks for the tip!


----------



## Fab (Dec 5, 2018)

Nice, I'm going to use that idea on some other stuff. Another thing you might find useful is using transient shaping tools. They are good at removing the room sound too!


----------



## Horacio (Dec 5, 2018)

Fab said:


> Nice, I'm going to use that idea on some other stuff. Another thing you might find useful is using transient shaping tools. They are good at removing the room sound too!



Glad it helped. What transient shaping tools do you use and how? Sounds interesting, I thought transient tools were for just for percussive type stuff wouldn’t mind experimenting it on strings!


----------



## Consona (Dec 5, 2018)

So can anybody explain to me what happens with the sound?


----------



## Henu (Dec 6, 2018)

He makes it more wider and "lush" using psychoacoustics.

First he centers the panning in the Kontakt instance first, so that the close mics aren't so much leaning to the left. Then he uses a stereo widener for the now-centered sound to enhance the stereo image, adds some Haas delaying on top of it and finally pans the instrument back to it's position in the mixer channel.

So basically,

1. Center the panning of the close mic in Kontakt.
2. Widen the stereo image of the now-centered sound in your mixer.
3. Delay the other channel (right in this example) according to taste to make it more wider.
4. Pan the mixer to the position the close mic originally was.

(5. Add reverb, EQ, compression to taste)

This is actually a neat trick, which should suit to many other libraries as well. I use it myself with Spitfire stuff when I want to use the close mics only- just need to be careful with the widening so there will be no phase issues and mono incompability. Thanks for sharing this, @Horacio !


----------



## vicontrolu (Dec 6, 2018)

Thanks for this. So you have some quick audio examples before and after? The dark sound is precisely what i dont like abour this lib.


----------



## Consona (Dec 6, 2018)

@Henu Thank you. That's really interesting, it sounds so cleaner but only via stereo imaging, wow.

If anyone else tries this, please post demos of some other articulations, shorts, pizz, col, bartok, you know...


----------



## Mister Jös (Dec 6, 2018)

Great tip, thank you!  Do you think that trick would work for OT libraries as well? I'm a bit worried that those are a bit to wet for my taste and even the close mics sound a bit roomy...


----------



## Horacio (Dec 6, 2018)

Mister Jös said:


> Great tip, thank you!  Do you think that trick would work for OT libraries as well? I'm a bit worried that those are a bit to wet for my taste and even the close mics sound a bit roomy...


It's worth a try!


----------



## Horacio (Dec 6, 2018)

So this short example is Violins 1 of CSS. I centered the audio, and also wanted it wider / sweeter so I took the direction mix to 200 and also used the 10ms delay on the right side, like I showed in the video.

The cellos are the soft sustains of the Trailer Strings Cellos.

Also I used absolutely no eq, reverb, or anything else.

I can do more articulations if you guys want.

[AUDIOPLUS=https://vi-control.net/community/attachments/violins-mp3.16928/][/AUDIOPLUS]


----------



## Horacio (Dec 6, 2018)

vicontrolu said:


> Thanks for this. So you have some quick audio examples before and after? The dark sound is precisely what i dont like abour this lib.


Yeah I agree about the dark sound, and in the past I would try eqing it to make it brighter but ended up usually getting a unnaturally brittle sound in the process.


----------



## shawnsingh (Dec 7, 2018)

Nice trick, @Horacio =)



Horacio said:


> Yeah I agree about the dark sound, and in the past I would try eqing it to make it brighter but ended up usually getting a unnaturally brittle sound in the process.



You can also try an exciter or parallel distortion of high frequencies. EQ can only bring up the frequencies that already exist - and it's impossible to get right if there are bad resonant frequencies in the same frequency regions that would be boosted for clarity. Instead, a distortion or exciter can add more harmonic content, and you can sculpt it in ways that you cannot for EQ - trying different distortion types, pre-filter/EQ of the signal before distortion, post-filter/EQ of the signal after distortion. 

But it's also extremely easy to make it sound too bright it without realizing, so it's important to mix reference and bias towards using less of the effect.


----------



## muk (Dec 8, 2018)

So why exactly does altering the stereo image make it sound brighter? I understand what you are doing, but I don't get what part of it affects the timbre of the sound.


----------



## leon chevalier (Dec 8, 2018)

muk said:


> So why exactly does altering the stereo image make it sound brighter? I understand what you are doing, but I don't get what part of it affects the timbre of the sound.


I was wondering the same, it sound like a "de-reverb" traitment. That could add brightness and definition. 

I would be curious to compare this processing with a de-reverb traitment but I don't own one. Anybody ?

But I don't deny that it sound nice.


----------



## muk (Dec 9, 2018)

Bump. No explanations why this sounds drier and brighter?


----------



## Jimmy Hellfire (Dec 9, 2018)

Phase cancellation.


----------



## shawnsingh (Dec 9, 2018)

My understanding was that the additional clarity/brightness would come from using the close mic instead of the room or mix, and the panning/delay tricks just helped make the close mic sound more like a room mic?


----------



## NoamL (Dec 9, 2018)

Yes I think you're right Shawn.

Horacio's technique appears to be, use only the close mic, but then widen the image and add a delay to make it sound more like a Decca tree capturing the full section. It sounds brighter and more precise because of the different character of sound captured by the close mics.

I like the sound but I worry that with this technique it's cutting down the apparent ensemble size. This technique seems to be close to what EastWest did when "simulating" divisi in Hollywood Strings by pointing a mic directly at half the musicians in the section. CSS is 35 musicians (including the CSSS solos) and I generally try to get it to sound more like 50 or 60 by layering in SSS or HWS behind it. With this technique I'd worry about CSS starting to sound like 20 or 25 musicians.

It's true that you can't completely authentically brighten up the sound with EQ, but a combination of EQ and close-biased (but not close-solo) mix can do OK.

The out of the box mix for CSS is iirc -1.5, 0, -1 or something like that. I like -0, -1.5, -4.5, as you can see it's close-biased but still with some room sound. Then add a little 5-10k for presence and it sounds nice.


----------



## Jimmy Hellfire (Dec 9, 2018)

I also urge you to switch to mono and take a listen. Unpleasant revelations.


----------



## shawnsingh (Dec 10, 2018)

It is a good point, delays and Haas effect are very prone to phase artifacts... But in this video I hadn't heard it...can you pinpoint a time in the video where you can hear it?

(Edit: when trying to hear the phasing in mono)


----------



## Jimmy Hellfire (Dec 10, 2018)

There was no collapsing to mono in the video, if I recall correctly?

I reproduced the whole thing on my machine and checked in mono for nasty surprises, and sure enough.

It's a bummer really. I'd generally love to experiment more with precedence panning of VIs and stuff, because there's a great promise in there, but in practice it just doesn't pan out. (I swear the pun was not intended)


----------



## spiderfingers (Dec 10, 2018)

I have a mono switch on my monitor controller - I couldn't hear a difference comparing mono/stereo between the different examples. Honestly, sooooo many commercial libraries, especially the orchestral ones have issues with mono compatibility. It's an AB miking issue, but it's also an inherent problem of orchestral instruments, because most of them need a spacious sound to shine. I literally went nuts in the last couple of weeks because of this, but after mono/stereo listening to a couple of commercial productions I don't mind it this much any more.

Other question: Did anyone find a way how to apply this to violas? They mostly are pretty centered, so there doesn't seem much you can't do about them...


----------



## Ashermusic (Dec 10, 2018)

Jimmy Hellfire said:


> I also urge you to switch to mono and take a listen. Unpleasant revelations.



Jimmy, not criticizing just asking. Why would anyone want to listen to an orchestra piece whether with real players or samples, in mono?


----------



## Jimmy Hellfire (Dec 10, 2018)

Ashermusic said:


> Jimmy, not criticizing just asking. Why would anyone want to listen to an orchestra piece whether with real players or samples, in mono?



Admittedly, it matters less if the music isn't likely to be aired through PAs, FM radio or college stations. Depends on the end product of course. I've ran into awkward situations before.

If you're doing video games, web or TV even, mono compatibility may well be a concern. I feel uncomfortable with stuff like that especially in games. There are many "casual" listening situations where the experience is mono or something closely resembling it. There's an interesting movement back to mono these days, with people doing so much stuff on phones and portable devices, and how those Sonos soundbars, powered mini single speakers and similar stuff is getting widespread. So yeah, it depends, and I think it's still good practice to strive for some degree of compatibility.

One could argue of course that these kind of consumers don't care very much either way ...


----------



## shawnsingh (Dec 10, 2018)

For phasing issues in particular - there are enough devices out there like Jimmy Hellfire just mentioned, which are actually still playing back in mono - phones or bluetooth portable speakers.

Also for mixing in general, I think a lot of people's listening environments end up being effectively mono - cars, off-axis room placements, sitting farther away from a stereo setup, outputting audio through TV speakers, etc. Especially with delay and spatialization FX, the relative levels of different parts of a mix can change when summed to mono. For example, I have a guitar lead in a recent track, with a ping-pong stereo delay effect. When summed to mono, it sounds noticeably louder relative to the rest of the mix, because the delays compound on each other.


----------



## Horacio (Dec 10, 2018)

muk said:


> So why exactly does altering the stereo image make it sound brighter? I understand what you are doing, but I don't get what part of it affects the timbre of the sound.


I'm using the close mics, centering them in Kontakt, widening and giving them a little feeling of distance with the direction mixer set to 200 in my audio example (150 in the youtube video). Finally I delay the right or left side (depends what I want) by about 10ms. The drier closer sound is because they are close mics as opposed to the further mix or main mics. Then my tweaks make them feel wider like a decca tree setup as opposed to a narrow upfront close mic, like Shawn mentioned.

NoamL mentioned that it appears to cut down the ensemble size, however, my audio example only includes the Violins 1. When I add in the Violins 2 with this technique and then push them back with some reverb, it sounds VERY real to me and also doesn't seem like I've cut down on the ensemble, just my opinion.


----------



## Horacio (Dec 10, 2018)

Jimmy Hellfire said:


> I also urge you to switch to mono and take a listen. Unpleasant revelations.


Perhaps there's a tweak to my tweak to fix that  I'm not an expert at this and only shared what sounded good to me by experimentation. I'd love to hear anything you all come up with that accomplishes a wide decca tree like feel from simply the close mics while simultaneously avoiding any phase issues in mono! Perhaps some type of phase adjusting plugin could be used after my steps to fix the phasing issues...


----------



## Malo (Dec 10, 2018)

I can't hear any phasing whatsoever in mono. Admittedly, I am no expert on phase issues.


----------



## Ashermusic (Dec 10, 2018)

Malo said:


> I can't hear any phasing whatsoever in mono. Admittedly, I am no expert on phase issues.



And if YOU can't, probably neither can most of the listening public, who listen to crappy mp3s on crappy ear buds.

Maybe this is a legitimate consideration for some, but it has been at least 15 years since I had to bother to check for mono compatibility.


----------



## spiderfingers (Dec 10, 2018)

I wouldn’t exactly think of it as “phasing”. There is a mid and a side signal. The side signal is list in mono and this gives you a lower volume of your music which probably is the main problem, especially if you have other audio like voice over and fx in the final product. And as I said, most orchestral libraries are not mono compatible at all anyway, so just stop worrying...


----------



## Jimmy Hellfire (Dec 10, 2018)

Well not so fast. Orchestral sample libraries of course can't deliver the same degree of phase correlation as a single miked instrument or a mono synth. That's in the nature of the recording methods. But they should come with _acceptable_ mono compatibility. The libraries that I personally use (VSL, Cinematic Studio Series, Spitfire, Orchestral Tools etc.) are all fine in mono. Not quite as exciting of course, but not lossy and _broken_. So I don't know where the claim is coming from that most libraries aren't mono compatible anyway.

But once you start further messing with the channels, you gotta be careful. Try playing around with this exact example - sample-delay the close mic of the CSS violins in mono and see what happens. You'll get a thinned out, garbled, resonant, hollow sound that's absolutely ugly. Try it with some brass samples - chances are it's gonna sound as if you slapped some terrible mute simulation on them.

Again, if you don't need to care about mono playback at all - devil may care I guess, but if it's in any way relevant: it never hurts to listen back in mono and just make sure. Not just because of phasing, but also to get an idea of how your mix actually sounds in this environment.


----------



## neblix (Dec 17, 2018)

Very interesting trick. It's worth mentioning, for those that have it, that Cinematic Studio Solo Strings is programmed & cut at a 1:1 behavior with its big ensemble brother. If you duplicate the midi of CSS into CSSS instruments to layer them, and then bring the solos slightly more front in the mix, you can create an amazing, detailed string ensemble that cuts very smoothly and sharply. Since the behavior is 1:1, all KS will point to the same articulations, the legato transitions have identical latency, etc. It's a very nice workflow with great results, and if you already own the library, would be a better way to get a more detailed sound without resorting to phase manipulations.


----------



## liquidlino (Feb 24, 2022)

Interesting, so I found this thread when searching for how I could improve CSS sound. This is an old mockup I did testing CSS, using Vivaldi intro bars for Spring. It has ISS Solo Violin as well for the leader part. Before and after, everything is exactly the same, same MIDI, same reverb sends everything, except I followed the ideas in this video to use the close mics, used Waves S1 Shuffler to widen the sound, and then little bit of further widener with offset, and then a touch of EQ - a high shelf of 4700hz +1.2db. Before and after below. It's a dramatically different sound, really cool to know that CSS can be transformed to almost Chamber Strings through mixing. And I don't want to hear any critique of the transcription/mockup, this is about the difference in timbre/mix, not trying to win prizes for a mockup here.

View attachment Song 2022-02-06 Vivaldi Four Seasons - Spring.mp3


----------



## liquidlino (Feb 24, 2022)

liquidlino said:


> Interesting, so I found this thread when searching for how I could improve CSS sound. This is an old mockup I did testing CSS, using Vivaldi intro bars for Spring. It has ISS Solo Violin as well for the leader part. Before and after, everything is exactly the same, same MIDI, same reverb sends everything, except I followed the ideas in this video to use the close mics, used Waves S1 Shuffler to widen the sound, and then little bit of further widener with offset, and then a touch of EQ - a high shelf of 4700hz +1.2db. Before and after below. It's a dramatically different sound, really cool to know that CSS can be transformed to almost Chamber Strings through mixing. And I don't want to hear any critique of the transcription/mockup, this is about the difference in timbre/mix, not trying to win prizes for a mockup here.
> 
> View attachment Song 2022-02-06 Vivaldi Four Seasons - Spring.mp3


Hmm, but then following all the concerns about mono compatibility, test below. It definitely isn't mono friendly - the cello loses a lot of db (almost disappears at the low end), and the others get a sort of sordino type effect almost. It's not a complete disaster, but it's not right, the balance definitely changes. And for what I make, I do care about mono compatibility...

View attachment Song 2022-02-06 Vivaldi Four Seasons - Spring Mono Test.mp3


----------



## AudioLoco (Feb 25, 2022)

Mono-compatibility is still 100% relevant today in my opinion.
It doesn't mean the mono collapsed result has to sound exactly the same as the untouched stereo program, because - "what is the point?" and because it is impossible...
But there has to be a coherence and mix intelligiblity and the same intent (levels consistency between crucial elements).
Sometimes incredibly open mixes might sound impressing on cans or in a good environment but completely fail to translate elsewhere. I love me some nice weirdo out of phase destablizing ear candy here and there, but as an exception. 
You can spot inexperienced engineers/producers when they use heavy stereo widening, often on the entire mix, by default.
Having said that, none of the many libraries I have has any issues regarding this aspect, most developers know what they are doing (they use excellent engineers for this reason).


----------



## liquidlino (Feb 25, 2022)

AudioLoco said:


> Mono-compatibility is still 100% relevant today in my opinion.
> It doesn't mean the mono collapsed result has to sound exactly the same as the untouched stereo program, because - "what is the point?" and because it is impossible...
> But there has to be a coherence and mix intelligiblity and the same intent (levels consistency between crucial elements).
> Sometimes incredibly open mixes might sound impressing on cans or in a good environment but completely fail to translate elsewhere. I love me some nice weirdo out of phase destablizing ear candy here and there, but as an exception.
> ...


I'm going to have a further experiment. I really like the close mic sound, I'm sure there must be a mono compatible way to get the width without the phase cancellation in mono. I don't have full kontakt but my thoughts immediately go to doubling using round robins panned hard left and right, but that needs a way to ensure that the same round robin doesn't play in each hard panned track. Or maybe using frequency shuffling instead of Haas effect.


----------



## MartinH. (Feb 25, 2022)

liquidlino said:


> I don't have full kontakt but my thoughts immediately go to doubling using round robins panned hard left and right, but that needs a way to ensure that the same round robin doesn't play in each hard panned track.


Search for "transposition trick". But essentially you'd be doubling the player count. I don't think it achieves what you hope it will. 




liquidlino said:


> Interesting, so I found this thread when searching for how I could improve CSS sound. This is an old mockup I did testing CSS, using Vivaldi intro bars for Spring. It has ISS Solo Violin as well for the leader part. Before and after, everything is exactly the same, same MIDI, same reverb sends everything, except I followed the ideas in this video to use the close mics, used Waves S1 Shuffler to widen the sound, and then little bit of further widener with offset, and then a touch of EQ - a high shelf of 4700hz +1.2db. Before and after below. It's a dramatically different sound, really cool to know that CSS can be transformed to almost Chamber Strings through mixing. And I don't want to hear any critique of the transcription/mockup, this is about the difference in timbre/mix, not trying to win prizes for a mockup here.
> 
> View attachment Song 2022-02-06 Vivaldi Four Seasons - Spring.mp3


First half sounds much more natural to me. 




liquidlino said:


> I'm sure there must be a mono compatible way to get the width without the phase cancellation in mono


Watch those Dan Worral youtube videos about mono compatible mixing, lots of good ideas in there and generally all his videos are fun to watch and educational. An audio engineer that truly deserves to be called an "engineer" imho.


----------



## Gabriel S. (Feb 25, 2022)

I agree with Jimmy about the cancelation thingy, but it is already happening even before listening in mono. Just the way you are panning the stuff + haas + stereo widener is already (in stereo) changing the sound and that's exactly what you were looking for so I guess it is right. And in mono it is of course more dramatic. But like anything: if it sounds right to you, it is right. 

Regarding EQ vs this experiment: basically you are EQ-ing the sound without knowing you are doing it...any phase cancelation effect will boost or reduce certain frequencies...and that's what's happening and why you like it. I'd rather use EQ because I have more control over it, then I can adjust panning and tone/balance independently. But that's me...everything is allowed if it works for somebody so, at least, nice experiment!


----------



## AudioLoco (Feb 25, 2022)

liquidlino said:


> doubling using round robins panned hard left and right, but that needs a way to ensure that the same round robin doesn't play in each hard panned track.


That's pretty clever and would ensure a real stereo image without cancellation. (It sounds technically complex to do, I wouldn't know how to) 

But - orchestral instruments are not like, let's say doubled acoustic guitars in pop music (where you play twice the same part and place them hard left and right to obtain weight and a great stereo width)
Are you going to have the violins on both sides? And the cellos too?
I don't think it would work for natural results, unless you are going for a particular effect (although if it sounds good to you - it's right - no rules).

If you really like the way the close mono mics sound over the room ones (with orchestral instruments I personally never find this to be the case -unless you are doing an Elenor Rigby style track- but everyone is different), I could also suggest :
- It may sound simple and obvious and un-fancy and doh!, but, giving width to mixes with a lot of mono recordings can be done by simple but crucial judicious panning of the different mono sources, the contrast with other instruments panned differently will usually do the job. It is not written anywhere everything HAS to be stereo.
- reverb (which has a fundamental stereo component).
You basically re-create a stereo room you actually like the sound of with your reverb (aka close space simulator), and then you can decide how wide it is.
A lot of stereo widening processing only on the reverb return (if the reverb doesn't have an internal stereo width control) is pretty cool if used right.

Another tip is to send the mono source to a stereo group/aux. Then EQ the left and right channels differently in a way they compliment each other.


----------



## MartinH. (Feb 25, 2022)

Gabriel S. said:


> But like anything: if it sounds right to you, it is right.





Gabriel S. said:


> everything is allowed if it works for somebody



While I sympathize with the "there are no rules in music" sentiment as much as the next guy, I think sometimes this "do whatever the hell you want" recommendation is just bad advice for beginners, because sometimes it really should be "if this sounds right to you... you need to use more reference tracks and train your ears better". I have dialed in tons of bad sounds that sounded good to me at the time. There isn't much (anything?) new to discover in mixing that hasn't been done before, pick a reference track and try to get close, you can learn a lot that way.


----------



## AudioLoco (Feb 25, 2022)

MartinH. said:


> While I sympathize with the "there are no rules in music" sentiment as much as the next guy, I think sometimes this "do whatever the hell you want" recommendation is just bad advice for beginners, because sometimes it really should be "if this sounds right to you... you need to use more reference tracks and train your ears better". I have dialed in tons of bad sounds that sounded good to me at the time. There isn't much (anything?) new to discover in mixing that hasn't been done before, pick a reference track and try to get close, you can learn a lot that way.


While I agree generally and I get where you are coming from....

Nobody told Tchad Blake that by using a Sansamp on basically everything (and inverting phases on it etc etc) and using NO reverb on his mixes he can obtain a killer and original sound.
Nobody told the first New York compression (parallel) adopter that something like that could work etc etc...
And actually somebody did PROHIBIT Mr. Emerick to use microphones close to the instruments and do many other groundbreaking things that he did at, like 19.... (beginner I would say)
Some people told Serban a mix could only sound professional on a big board, and the guy is churning hits for the last 10 years totally in the box.

So while some people still don't have (or never will have) the ears to know what works right away, sometimes, you never know....
I am also imagining that your early "bad sound dialing", like it was for me, represented a good learning tool to experiment and is an important part of our growth path. To make mistakes is also part of it.

So...I think "no rules" does still apply most of the time.
You need a lot of technical skill for mixing, and there are many conventions, but it is still music at the end of the day.


PS the reference track suggestion is really crucial, I agree


----------



## Gabriel S. (Feb 25, 2022)

MartinH. said:


> While I sympathize with the "there are no rules in music" sentiment as much as the next guy, I think sometimes this "do whatever the hell you want" recommendation is just bad advice for beginners, because sometimes it really should be "if this sounds right to you... you need to use more reference tracks and train your ears better". I have dialed in tons of bad sounds that sounded good to me at the time. There isn't much (anything?) new to discover in mixing that hasn't been done before, pick a reference track and try to get close, you can learn a lot that way.



I understand your point, but I personally believe in the "do whatever the hell you want" because many mixing tricks or techniques came by experimenting or doing crazy stuff. I believe in finding your way in mixing, it is an art and like any art it should have some experimentation, personality, etc even if it leads to mistakes...Well, mistakes are needed to learn! Developing your own taste, etc...is crucial.

There you have tons of pros changing their believes constantly, changing the way they work, their tools, etc...creating new tricks, new techniques...there you have Dave Pensado, Michael Brauer, and so on. So...all of that came by doing crazy stuff sometimes. No, not everything is discovered. There you have, for an instance, Dolby Atmos now...and plugins that now can do things that no analog hardware could do so, of course there are still new experiments and new discoveries.

There you have youtube video of Michael Brauer mixing after using Izotope RX Music Rebalance tool to isolate elements of the stem track. Anybody would say "oh, that's horrible, what a concept!". Well, he did it, he mixed it, it sounded great. Done. He is MH.

You said: _it really should be "if this sounds right to you... you need to use more reference tracks and train your ears better"_
I agree with the "you need to use more reference tracks and train your ears". The rest is just an appreciation IMHO...even if I also don't like how it sounds. Right or wrong depends very much on the context, and you most probably know that. So, maybe there is a context where his experiment fits, who knows! Part of being some kind of "artist" is being open to new things...mixing is not just a pure technical thing, if it was that anybody could do it (like anybody can study architecture and design a building)


----------



## MartinH. (Feb 25, 2022)

AudioLoco said:


> While I agree generally and I get where you are coming from....
> 
> Nobody told Tchad Blake that by using a Sansamp on basically everything (and inverting phases on it etc etc) and using NO reverb on his mixes he can obtain a killer and original sound.
> Nobody told the first New York compression (parallel) adopter that something like that could work etc etc...
> ...





Gabriel S. said:


> I understand your point, but I personally believe in the "do whatever the hell you want" because many mixing tricks or techniques came by experimenting or doing crazy stuff. I believe in finding your way in mixing, it is an art and like any art it should have some experimentation, personality, etc even if it leads to mistakes...Well, mistakes are needed to learn! Developing your own taste, etc...is crucial.
> 
> There you have tons of pros changing their believes constantly, changing the way they work, their tools, etc...creating new tricks, new techniques...there you have Dave Pensado, Michael Brauer, and so on. So...all of that came by doing crazy stuff sometimes. No, not everything is discovered. There you have, for an instance, Dolby Atmos now...and plugins that now can do things that no analog hardware could do so, of course there are still new experiments and new discoveries.
> 
> ...


I guess it was to be expected that my slightly tongue in cheek comment gets some pushback, fair enough. I 100% agree on the value of free experimentation and myself I easily spend 10x the time on mixing experiments and going nuts with effects than I spend on actually composing, probably more to be honest. I'll quote myself again and highlight some words that were important to the point I'm making and that I don't think your replies acknowledged enough (to the point where you left them out from quoting me):



> I _think_ *sometimes *this "do whatever the hell you want" recommendation is just bad advice* for beginners*, because *sometimes *it really should be "if this sounds right to you... you need to use more reference tracks and *train your ears *better".



It's just my personal opinion, but I bet of all the endless examples of unusual techniques discovered through experimentation, the vast majority of people had _trained ears_ when they came up with these things. If you don't know what "sounds good", you'll likely always pick whatever is louder or wider or brighter. Working with reference tracks is fantastic for learning, and after having learned a bit that way, you'll get much more from your experimentation time imho. This shouldn't be that controversial of a recommendation I would think.


----------



## liquidlino (Feb 26, 2022)

Ok. So here's the Transpose Doubling method test. I setup three tracks per instrument, so for instance Violins 1 Centre, Violins 2 Left, Violins 2 Right. Centre is not transposed. Left is tranposed up 2 in Kontakt, and Right is tranposed down 2 in Kontakt. For the L and R tracks, I then put a stereo width control plugin at the end of the chain, bring that down to 0% width (makes it mono basically), and then in the DAW, hard pan the track L or R.

First pass is without any stereo mono changes. Second pass smoothly automates between Stereo and Width set to 0% on the master bus.

First pair of passes is just Close mics. Second Pair of passes is Close+Main mics (no room).

Quite successful I think - thoughts? It doesn't give quite the same ultra wide feel that the stereo widening plugin does, but it seems to be mono compatible, and I think it gives a more natural result.

View attachment Song 2022-02-06 Vivaldi Four Seasons - Spring Transpose Doubling Test.mp3


----------



## gohrev (Feb 26, 2022)

AudioLoco said:


> A lot of stereo widening processing only on the reverb return (if the reverb doesn't have an internal stereo width control) is pretty cool if used right



Wouldn't that harm the perceived depth of the room? E.g. brass sitting all the way in the back sounds more centred, even with horns on the left and trumpets on the right, because of the distance. If one were to widen the reverb, I'd imagine that it would erode some of that depth?


----------



## gohrev (Feb 26, 2022)

liquidlino said:


> Ok. So here's the Transpose Doubling method test. I setup three tracks per instrument, so for instance Violins 1 Centre, Violins 2 Left, Violins 2 Right. Centre is not transposed. Left is tranposed up 2 in Kontakt, and Right is tranposed down 2 in Kontakt. For the L and R tracks, I then put a stereo width control plugin at the end of the chain, bring that down to 0% width (makes it mono basically), and then in the DAW, hard pan the track L or R.
> 
> _(respectfully snipped)_


Forgive me if I missed something, and I am not trying to be flippant, but what is it you have achieved here? Did you intend to brighten CSS or to actually thicken the sound while still using Close Mic mostly?


----------



## Lionel Schmitt (Feb 26, 2022)

AudioLoco said:


> That's pretty clever and would ensure a real stereo image without cancellation. (It sounds technically complex to do, I wouldn't know how to)











Fake random round robin script for Kontakt


This little tool spawned from Terrible piano instrument. It's a script for NI Kontakt which simulates round robin functionality. What is do...




waveforms.fairlyconfusing.net




There you can at least pan fake round robins (using neighbour-pitch zones as fake RR's)
You can just insert it in an empty edit slot under the hood in Kontakt and save it as a user preset for easy access


----------



## AudioLoco (Feb 27, 2022)

gohrev said:


> Wouldn't that harm the perceived depth of the room? E.g. brass sitting all the way in the back sounds more centred, even with horns on the left and trumpets on the right, because of the distance. If one were to widen the reverb, I'd imagine that it would erode some of that depth?


Depends what "depth" means exactly.
All the reverb info on the left and right channels would sound more prominent then the center (mid).
So, depending on what you are looking for, possibly actually "deeper" in a way.

Anyway it's a click away on your session for your own ears


----------

