# Mixing Orchestral libraries...?



## Puzzlefactory (Nov 26, 2016)

im really not sure how to approach this. 

I come from an electronic music background and with that type of music you can be pretty heavy handed with EQ's and compression, saturation etc etc to get a mix sounding right and to make certain parts stand out.

I'm very reluctant to do this with orchestral libraries because I feel it will detract from the realism of the sound. I'm even reluctant to touch the faders to make certain instruments louder than others. Instead I just adjust the mod wheel automation. 

What are other people approaches to mixing orchestral libraries?

The reason I ask is that a couple of tracks I've written recently sound a bit muddy and a bit subby or boomy. 

Normally I would just go in and start eq'ing, compressing etc etc to fix the mix but like I say, I'm a little reluctant to do that.

I'm wondering if I should approach mix problems like this from a compositional/orchestration angle? Instead of mixing to fix a problem of muddiness in the mix, I should change the parts of the composition to remove instruments with mid range frequencies...?

What are people thoughts?


----------



## JohnG (Nov 26, 2016)

Puzzlefactory said:


> I'm wondering if I should approach mix problems like this from a compositional/orchestration angle? Instead of mixing to fix a problem of muddiness in the mix, I should change the parts of the composition to remove instruments with mid range frequencies...?



^^this is a good place to start

I think you are wise to be careful not to start carving too aggressively if you want a natural orchestral sound. Here are some things many people do:

1. EQ: With sample libraries, there is often quite a bit of harmonic "junk" produced. In addition, as one plays more notes from many instruments, inevitably there is a buildup of room tone, which is even more of an issue if there are lots of release tails going on, so that you may only have, say, 20 notes audibly sounding but with release tails it could be 3x that or more.

Some people EQ this away with a filter. Some people put compression on sections (strings or brass). I'm not sure what my engineer does, but when I'm writing and preparing demos for a producer or director, I rarely bother, honestly, but I mention it because I see a lot of people swearing by this.

2. Orchestrate with space: The old-fashioned way to do things is to keep plenty of space in the low end. If you are writing triad-based harmony, for example, you put bass at the very bottom, double at an octave above, then play the fifth above that, then the next octave speaks, with closely-bunched notes only in the higher registers. This loosely follows the harmonic series and is often recommended / followed by orchestrators.

3. Orchestrate with variety: Some composers nowadays have "everybody plays all the time" as a mantra, which is muddy and boring. Better writers create variety with frequent orchestration changes, maybe at cadences where the brass punctuates. Also, brass and percussion don't have to be f-fff all the time, as one often finds in beginning sample-based compositions. Brass, timpani, and snares can play softly and strings can really take over on their own.

Apologies if you know all this.

If you want to look further, Peter Alexander's orchestration course at alexander publishing dot com is pretty popular, there are Thinkspace courses on this I believe, and there is Adler's book on orchestration as well. All of these address these issues.


----------



## Puzzlefactory (Nov 26, 2016)

Thanks for the advice. Alders Orchestration book? Is it called Midi Orchestration? I may have that somewhere.


----------



## Karma (Nov 26, 2016)

Puzzlefactory said:


> Thanks for the advice. Alders Orchestration book? Is it called Midi Orchestration? I may have that somewhere.


No, MIDI Orchestration is Paul Gilreath, Samuel Adler's is "The Study of Orchestration".

Both are good. However if you are transitioning from Electronic music I think MIDI Orchestration will be somewhat more beneficial to you for now. I would still definitely recommend purchasing The Study of Orchestration too.


----------



## JohnG (Nov 26, 2016)

Puzzlefactory said:


> Alders Orchestration book? Is it called Midi Orchestration?



no, it's the one Karmarghh mentioned. I don't know the midi book personally.

Thanks @Karmarghh


----------



## jsmithsebasto (Nov 26, 2016)

@JohnG covered a lot of great ground as far as writing/orchestrating to avoid a plethora of potential mix problems. One thought I'd like to add to the conversation is the idea of realism vs. hyper-realism. 

Duncan Watt gives a fantastic lecture on this topic in one of the video game scoring classes that he teaches at the Berklee College of Music. The basic idea is, at the outset of your work/job, to identify and determine if your goal is to present a realistic sounding mock-up of an orchestra, or if conversely, (perhaps even more commonly required these days) your goal is to create a sound beyond reality. I am referring to the "larger than life", "over the top", hybrid-orchestral sound (even if "hybrid" is not explicitly the desired sound); a sound that would be impossible to achieve in a live setting with just an orchestra, but in some cases can suit the work/job better. The "hybrid, but not noticeably hybrid" sound is a very subtle art that delves into a multitude of intricacies. I digress...
*
The point is:
*
If your goal is realism; than yes, absolutely use a conservative hand when applying processing. BUT, it is worth pausing at least to consider in the first place if realism is truly one of the job's highest priorities, or if perhaps the job calls for something more or different.


----------



## JohnG (Nov 26, 2016)

Of course, but the OP's talking about "the realism of the sound," specifically. If you want to get into modern scoring, trailers, hybrid, that introduces other matters.


----------



## jsmithsebasto (Nov 26, 2016)

@JohnG I'm not necessarily limiting my comment to just trailers or modern scoring. I'm speaking much more generally.

I see OP mentioned his hesitation to "_detract from the realism of the sound_", but I wasn't sure the specifics behind his reasoning for that feeling. If the urge is merely resultant of his transition from his electronic music background to work with orchestral music libraries as a "common sense" reaction, then my previous post serves simply as a re-examination of this line of thinking.

It is certainly an understandable leap to make that, for example, violins (samples in this case, but regardless...) vs. synths in EDM must require greater attention to the details that collectively make-up "realism", as there is a pre-existing sonic frame of reference for the instrument; this being the instrument itself, or more accurately the sounds it regularly produces. 

My comments are not intended to question the merit of that idea (as it is makes sense!), but in a broader sense to question the merits of "realism"* as an inherent requirement* when working with "real instruments" or samples of "real instruments".

It all depends on your motivations @Puzzlefactory . If you're striving for realism for specific artistic purposes, disregard and abandon this and my previous post!  If however, you may have (very reasonably) assumed that "realism" was implicitly mandatory within the territory of orchestral production due to the use of "real instruments", I'd invite you to offer the matter further consideration on the aforementioned grounds.


----------



## Puzzlefactory (Nov 27, 2016)

I think for the sake of this argument I'm talking about mixing for a realistic orchestra sound. 

I have been writing hybrid tracks (you can hear one over on the "members compositions" forum). But I still want to learn the conventions for getting it sounding realistic and then later down the line I can break the rules for making it sound bigger. 

I've already kind of done by having far too many string parts playing at the same time (sustain and shorts).


----------



## JohnG (Nov 27, 2016)

Puzzlefactory said:


> I've already kind of done by having far too many string parts playing at the same time (sustain and shorts).



I hear you on this one but then again the string section can be divided and subdivided many times and still sound good, even when you don't have that many players. I've divided larger sections at times with four different v1 and v2 parts, divided violas and cellos into two each, and sometimes divide bass (though not that frequently -- it's mostly octaves or having half pizz, half short notes or something like that).

Debussy is a good source to see it in action.

If you have a chamber string library you don't get too much buildup.

@jsmithsebasto to be blunt, your posts sound like pedantic condescension, given the question. He's not asking the question you're asking.


----------



## nas (Nov 30, 2016)

A lot of the realism comes from using MIDI CC to control dynamics, vibrato, legato and phrasing, etc. you actually have to "play the samples" and massage all your controller data. Once you get that, then you can start going for things like EQ and filters on individual tracks as well as groups. Balance all the sections' levels (and this is by no means a static process) and also consider how you place the sections together with respect to panning and to depth (reverbs) This will help to glue the orchestra together and put them in a shared space - particularly if you're using different libraries.

You can also smooth out dynamics with a gentle touch of compression and limiting, but in _most_ cases I would go for a very transparent approach (and use "clean" comps and EQ's without too much color). 

The most important thing is to listen and see if any processing is needed... and this depends on the orchestration and on the sound of the samples themselves. Some libraries may be more prone to build-up in certain frequencies due to the spaces they were recorded in, others will require more processing to effectively creat a sense of space and sit them in with the rest of the orchestra. So have a basic concept of the aural landscape you're going for, listen critically and assess what's needed (and perhaps more importantly what's not) ... and don't be afraid to experiment if you think it will get you the results you're after - it may just work.

cheers,
nas


----------



## Puzzlefactory (Nov 30, 2016)

I did think that a lot of it comes down to the "dynamic" (mod wheel) modulation. Which is kind of what I've been doing. 

I was just wondering if it was common practice to eq parts to make them fit better in the mix...?


----------



## Kejero (Nov 30, 2016)

I'm not particularly happy with my own mixes so far, but I think generally the same rules apply for orchestral music as with purely electronic music, except you have to be more subtle about it. To the point where if you can actually hear the change that you've made to the track when you solo the track, you've probably gone too far.

Some interesting stuff in this course: http://thinkspaceeducation.com/om/


----------



## synthpunk (Dec 1, 2016)

Great course and they can split up the payments for you which is very helpful as well

There are also a couple of freebies with Jake here that you may find helpful


----------



## Parsifal666 (Dec 1, 2016)

Karmarghh said:


> Samuel Adler's is "The Study of Orchestration".
> 
> Both are good. However if you are transitioning from Electronic music I think MIDI Orchestration will be somewhat more beneficial to you for now. I would still definitely recommend purchasing The Study of Orchestration too.



I can't recommend the Adler enough. Whatever your focus is on, that book's lessons are absolutely mandatory imo. And make sure you have access to an mp3 account/Spotify (or whatever) so you can isolate the examples. I wouldn't particularly recommend the workbook though, it's easier to just read and listen.


----------



## jsmithsebasto (Dec 5, 2016)

@JohnG , I assure you “pedantic condescension” was not my intention. I'm sorry you felt that way.

I don’t find my posts to be outside the realm of the discussion, being as the title of the thread is simply “Mixing Orchestral libraries…?”, and OP’s original questions were fairly broad. For example: “What are other people’s approaches to mixing orchestral libraries?” (regarding realism). 

I saw that your first response went in a technical/executive direction, and thought I could add to the conversation in a more conceptual/theoretical direction. I don’t believe the two to be mutually exclusive. To the contrary, I believe that in any good discourse there is room for both technical AND conceptual considerations of any given topic.


----------

