# Mixing experts... would you be so kind to give some brutal feedback?-Revised version added



## Iskra (Jan 23, 2017)

Hi all!

I took some free time this past weekend to make a mockup of one of my favorites scores: Back to the future by Alan Silvestri. Love this since I saw the movie when I was a kid, and made the mockup mainly to learn about that 80s orchestration techniques (very similar to those of JW of the time if you ask me), and also to have a little insight on the motif development in this piece (top class development of ideas).
Now it's all done, I know the programming could be better in some places, but I wanted to finish it in the time I had available and scheduled for it. Besides the compositional & orchestrational stuff that I've learned while doing this mock-up, I also noticed that in such a huge arrangement it's difficult to have the different depths and EQ/reverb setups right. I usualy write for *less epic* instrumental combinations, so a piece for a huge orchestra is something I need to learn how to mix and balance.
Mixing/depths/reverb/etc can be improved greatly in this mockup, I'm not totally happy with the result. So, I ask for your help, fellow forum members, and I would be really grateful if you can give any critical feedback or opinion regarding mixing and sound (or any other issue you'd like) regarding the piece.
Many thanks in advance for your help!


----------



## Paul T McGraw (Jan 23, 2017)

I'm sorry you haven't had any feedback. Perhaps everyone is too modest to respond since you asked for mixing experts? I am NOT a mixing expert, but I thought you would appreciate some feedback, even from a NON-expert such as myself.

As you pointed out, there are some flaws in your mockup. There are some good things, but the best thing is that you got the experience of doing this and learning from the process. I am certain you learned a lot about composition and orchestration by doing this mockup. Rather than swamp you with a big list of things to improve, I will just give you a few things that seem to me most important to address first.

1) You really, really, really need better samples. You are going to be severely limited in what you can achieve until you get better samples. There is lots of advice available on VI Control about what libraries to pick. Since money is probably a major issue (it is with most people) you might want to focus on companies that give you affordable beginning tools with a clear pathway for adding and upgrading without wasting what you already spent. Prices for professional level libraries are actually very competitive and you get a lot more for your money today than 10 years ago. 

2) Strings should be closest to the front, then woodwinds, then brass, then percussion furthest away. If you have a major brand sequencer you probably already have the tools you need to get this feeling of depth, using the delay and reverb tools included in your sequencer. Many people purchase and use very elaborate and expensive reverb and spatialization tools, but you can do a lot with the free things that came with your sequencer. There are many threads on this forum, and videos on YouTube about these issues. Just search for them.

Good luck in you journey.


----------



## JohnG (Jan 23, 2017)

Hi Sergio,

It's a pretty good start, and good on you for tackling a busy piece -- very brave to do something so well known!

A few thoughts:

1. It sounds like you're over-doing it with EQ. I would be tempted to suggest re-posting it with all the EQ off. If you're not, in fact, using EQ, then there is something really weird about the strings in particular but some of the other instruments as well sound like they have been bottled up too much.

2. There is too much difference in reverb treatment. Some instruments sound very dry, others quite a bit wetter.

3. Since what you're going for is a "natural orchestra," when in doubt, consider selecting samples that sound like they're in a hall, or at least on a recording stage.

Paul is right that your samples are only ok, and it will be tough to take this "all the way" with what it sounds like you have. There are any number of companies that have better samples out there you could choose; I felt the brass were particularly weak, but of course if you have better brass, the next thing you'll want better strings and so on.

If you are a hobbyist and don't feel like spending a lot of money, then consider the suggestions above using your existing sample libraries, and maybe re-post. Alternatively, if you want to try some different samples, you could buy other libraries from Spitfire, 8dio, Cinesamples or others, or investigate East West's subscription plan; it's inexpensive if you are a student.

[note: I have received free products from East West]


----------



## Iskra (Jan 24, 2017)

Paul & John,

Many many thanks for dropping by, take the time for a listen and your feedback. I agree with all you've said!
Plus, thanks for the encouraging words first (it really felt good) 
I'll rework a bit the brass - and a few other programming things-, and also remove EQ and the strange reverb settings as much as possible. I will upload a revision as soon as possible to check back if some of the issues have improved a little.


JohnG said:


> 3. Since what you're going for is a "natural orchestra," when in doubt, consider selecting samples that sound like they're in a hall, or at least on a recording stage.


Just for clarification, I'm guessing you recommend to use the mic positions (not close mic) of the library as starting point and not mess too much with any external reverb for starters, right?

Again, thanks to you both for your time and feedback!


----------



## AlexanderSchiborr (Jan 24, 2017)

Iskra said:


> Paul & John,
> 
> Many many thanks for dropping by, take the time for a listen and your feedback. I agree with all you've said!
> Plus, thanks for the encouraging works first (it really felt good)
> ...



Hi,
I really like your work here, and sure it is not perfect but what is?
And so great that you decide to mockup that piece and surely a great exercise and such a fantastic piece by Silvestri. What did you learn by the way? Anything you noticed? I tried myself transcribing by ear some tids and bits from it..like the theme melody and its underpinning chords etc.
To your question regarding the mockup:

Aside what Paul and John G pointed out which is a very good point so I won´t repeat them. I think your very fast lines, e.g. the runs could need a bit more of a treatment I think. For instance the one at 25 seconds. There is too many things just "too much" on point playing. Try to perform those things or when you don´t want try to make them more "imperfect" and more dynamic by moving the midi notes around and using more the modwheel. A run is often not so audible in the first few notes and starts to be recognized at its peak to support the melody line as a dynamic device here. Also your cymbals have a little bit of harsh sound at the higher frequencies. Hope you don´t mind saying that and though I am no expert in mixing I thought to give a feedback

Looking forward to your next version!


----------



## Iskra (Jan 24, 2017)

Thanks for your comments Alexander!
Will definitely work on the runs, definitely they are standing out too much and sound 'fakey'  Many of the runs are strings plus the doubling on the woodwinds (e.g. V1+Flutes, or Vla+Clarinets), and I'm finding difficult to balance both things, as my ear get used to the sound of a single chorus and then I tend to overdo the 'full run' (this happens not only with runs but with everything, of course, but probably in the runs it's more noticeable).

Orchestration-wise and composition-wise, I think it's a great piece and found out that the orchestration in most of the places is not that fancy (don't get me wrong, it is wonderful, but not as fancy as Ravel, let's say).
The doublings are as expected, very academic (Violins+flutes and oboes, violas+clarinets, low strings+low brass+basoon and contrabasoon like in The Planets), but it's so inspiring to see how the sections are moving around and how the main melody is moving from one place to another (horns, then trumpets, then strings, then add chimes, etc).
I love some devices that also JW uses (maybe they worked with the same orchestrators back then? Maybe they just learnt from each other?): Xylo+trumpets for accents, timpani providing the foundation and keeping the bassdrum for a few spots to add a surprise depth, harp glissandi to go to those accents... Very similar devices to the 80s John Williams (nice) 

I love the composition, although I haven't got into a detailed analysis. I love the motivic development, how he uses the lidian sound to navigate between two tonalities all the time to be able to play with and modulate the two main melodies. I love how the initial mixolidian fanfare seems to be outside of the piece to discover later that's not the case at all... Also it's nice to see how Silvestri manipulates the rhythmic 'cell' of the tune to derive everything from there (and the rhythmic quality is often overlooked).

Many many things to get out from this piece, as you can notice from the long read!!


----------



## Gerhard Westphalen (Jan 24, 2017)

I agree with John that this is a good start. I'm not sure if this comment reflects the programming/choice of samples or the mixing but I feel like there's no attack on anything (except percussion). It's sort of "wah wah wah." I think the brass in a cue like this need a lot more definition in the attacks for the fanfare quality.


----------



## AVaudio (Jan 24, 2017)

Lots of good advice already. For me the balance between the different sections is quite good, the brass and percussion sound on top of strings and woodwinds, like in that kind of score. Strings sound a lot louder in today's recordings than they did in all these eighties arrangements. In terms of reverb, Strings sound quite dry, specially the longs in comparison to the brass. But overall the mixing is good, I would say it just needs better performance in places.

I once did a similar exercise mocing up Superman's march and I learned a ton of combinations, doublings, runs techniques, effects, balancing... So I think it's a great idea to do this. All these devices are super useful.

The samples could be better, of course, but they are not going to "magically" make your mockup better. I always remember some of the old mockups by Thomas Bergesen when we didn't have all these libraries available. I think that Alexander is spot on: most things sound too "perfectly" played. Try to perform some of the melodic lines instead of writing them down or quantizing them too much.

For runs, there are a few techniques to make them more realistic: they never sound "perfect" in real life. The beginnings of the individual notes are often blurred because of differences between players of a section. Two things that work great for me, apart from a dynamic curve peaking on the highest notes:

1) Use a half step trill patch instead of a legato one.
2) If you have prerecorded runs, play one similar to what you want to achieve to the mocked up one for the "sweep". (I read that from Craig Sharmat).

Also, some of the brass sounds a bit too soft on attacks. A good technique to make them more agressive is to have an staccato patch layered on top of the legato one on accents.

I think when we work with samples is useful to have a "sound design" approach on top of the "scoring" one. What matters is the result. Just because we set our velocity to 127 on a legato patch that doesn't mean that it sounds "triple or double forte" like in real life. If you have to mix other patches on top, then do it.

I hope that was helpful!


----------



## Iskra (Jan 24, 2017)

Gerhard Westphalen said:


> It's sort of "wah wah wah." I think the brass in a cue like this need a lot more definition in the attacks for the fanfare quality.


Thanks for your comment Gerhard! 
I also think it needs more attack, also I think this has to do with maybe too much reverb? That for sure add a washing effect...


----------



## Iskra (Jan 24, 2017)

Gràcies AVAudio! 
Many thanks for your comments, really super-helpful!


AVaudio said:


> For me the balance between the different sections is quite good, the brass and percussion sound on top of strings and woodwinds, like in that kind of score. Strings sound a lot louder in today's recordings than they did in all these eighties arrangements.



I agree with that, that's why in my mockup the strings are lower in volume than I use to have them, in the original piece the strings are really buried behind the brass. Actually in the original recording it sounds like it's a small section (which probably wasn't!). That being said, still I need to put them in the correct ambience, so not too dry but still in front (hmm... difficult) 

Regarding the brass, it's the most difficult part for me, as I don't usually write much for brass. So that's kinda a snake that's bitting its tail: not programming too much brass makes me bad at it, so I keep not writing for brass that much.  I have to rework the horns and trumpets to add more definition and bite to it.

Great tips on the runs by you and Alexander. I'll rework those with your T&T!


----------



## AVaudio (Jan 24, 2017)

Iskra said:


> Gràcies AVAudio!
> Many thanks for your comments, really super-helpful!
> 
> 
> ...



Glad it was helpful for you!

In regards of reverb, some people try do it in a really scientific way, but it's all about experimenting. With strings, for me anyway, I find that the trickiest part is to find the right amount of predelay that works with long and short articulations.

Also, equing out the low end of the reverb (HP around 250-300 hz) normally works quite well. I usually shelve the whole string section itself (not the reverb) around 250-300 like 3 dbs in very busy tracks. I find it helps them blend with the brass.

For Brass programming, there's a really good video by Alex Pfeffer about it:


----------



## Gerhard Westphalen (Jan 24, 2017)

Iskra said:


> Thanks for your comment Gerhard!
> I also think it needs more attack, also I think this has to do with maybe too much reverb? That for sure add a washing effect...



If your samples don't provide the attack that you're after you could try layering some shorts but it can be tricky to get it to blend seamlessly with the longer articulations providing sustain.


----------



## Joram (Jan 24, 2017)

There is a lot to be done before you can start mixing. As mentioned above, the quality of your samples could be better and perhaps the programming of the samples as well. Of course it is important to be able to hear the sounds well enough when arranging and programming. When you work with a good library you don't have to tweak to get a proper sound. 

Regarding mixing for beginners: start with levels and panning only. Don't touch any eq, compression or whatever. Just concentrate on levels and panning. Make it sound as a real orchestra. Spend all day on this and you will learn a lot.


----------



## Baron Greuner (Jan 24, 2017)

Pretty good. I'm not really a big orchestral animal unfortunately. Sounds like a lot of fun to me and jolly good attempt.


----------



## Iskra (Jan 24, 2017)

Joram said:


> perhaps the programming of the samples as well


Thanks for the feedback. I will focus on the programming first.  Then just levels ana panning (and maybe a little EQ, I can't promise not to touch it!).


Baron Greuner said:


> Sounds like a lot of fun to me and jolly good attempt.


Thanks Baron! Actually that was the point about doing the mockup, learning, but above all it was really a LOT of fun.


----------



## tokatila (Jan 24, 2017)

I actually "mocked-up" a beginning of this.

There is some CC1 control, but notes are drawed straight to the grid...etc...so no real effort to make it lifelike, because I did the mockup only for balancing the level of instruments in the template. This still might be interesting for you, it's full Spitfire.

The balance might not be perfect since I have over 20+ snippets from different orchestral music and I am trying to find an average balance to work with everything.

Here it is:


----------



## Iskra (Jan 24, 2017)

tokatila said:


> beginning of this.


Nice!!!!


----------



## Joram (Jan 24, 2017)

Iskra said:


> Thanks for the feedback. I will focus on the programming first.  Then just levels ana panning (and maybe a little EQ, I can't promise not to touch it!).


NO EQ !!  Ok, you probably need some eq to control the low end. Working with a low cut filter is a could start to clean up the low end. As a very general rule: use a wide q when you add, use a narrow q when you subtract. Take another day for eq-ing and you will learn a lot.


----------



## Iskra (Jan 26, 2017)

Ok gentlemen, I tried to improve the many, many, many things that were so-so. I fixed some of the programming issues, also fixed some errors (on some doublings, octaves, etc) and also listened to the original piece to try to bring the mockup closer, although not exactly the original tempo.

Listening to the original piece helped me found many things about the trombones and how the runs and fills sounded. Runs and fills are not perfect, but I think at least they better than before. I also think the brass is better now (hopefully) and that the mockup is more focused now... What do you think?


----------

