# "Mixing Modern Orchestral Music" by Joel Dollie



## Aceituna (Aug 16, 2020)

I am trying to improve my mixing and mastering skills.
I compose mainly orchestral (hybrid) and piano music for Production Libraries.
I am working on Joel Dollie book "Mixing Modern Orchestral Music". I bought it this week on Amazon.
I would like to share this space with other users in the same situation than myself.
He is member (active member) of the forum as well.
I have a bunch of questions, but I´ll start with a few of them:
* For EQ matching, the only tool I know about, is the one in Ozone. Do you know any other alternative?
* Is it possible to get a good mix with headphones?
* Does Youtube videos enough quality to be used as reference tracks?
* In Hollywood Orchestra, which mic position is the best in terms of mixing?
I hope Joel not to be disappointed and participates as much as possible to help us.
On the other hand, I absolutely recommend his book.


----------



## ChrisSiuMusic (Aug 16, 2020)

I know @Joël Dollié is more than happy to help!


----------



## Joël Dollié (Aug 16, 2020)

Hello! Happy to answer some questions.

1: Fabfilter proQ3 does it really well too and is less CPU heavy. I'm sure other plugins do it but I think ProQ3 is really worth having, best all purpose EQ in the world by far.

2: Yes, if you know what to watch out for, Open headphones often lack a bit of bass so it's easy to overcompensate. The stereo field also feels different on headphones. As long as you know what it's supposed to sound like, it's fine. You're better off using headphones than speakers in a bad room as well. You can use reference tracks to help keep more direction.

3: Yes, just remember that you're not getting the "air" above 15k on youtube, but it's a minor thing.

4: I'm not sure for HW orchestra in particular, but in many situations, the "default" mix of a library is pretty good. If you make your own mic mix, In general I would recommend starting with a "tree" perspective. For combining different libraries, you want a sound that's not too wet as it might get messy and would prevent you from adding any of your own reverb, but you also don't wanna start from close mics as more reverb will never be able to completely get rid of a nasty proximity spot/close mic timbre. Too much close mic causes tonal and dynamic changes which tends to make ensemble instument groups feel less lush and "realistic" sounding. Of course the mix you choose might vary from track to track but hopefully that gives you an idea on what to aim for. I would say that if you're not sure how to tweak the mics, go with the default.


----------



## Aceituna (Aug 16, 2020)

Really thanks Joel.
I have more for tomorrow.


----------



## Aceituna (Aug 16, 2020)

Joël Dollié said:


> 1: Fabfilter proQ3 does it really well too and is less CPU heavy. I'm sure other plugins do it but I think ProQ3 is really worth having, best all purpose EQ in the world by far.


At the moment, I am trying to get the most from my current tools (EWHO, Komplete, Studio One, Omnisphere and some NI and Spitfire Essentials)
Focused on improve my skills in Composition and Production.
To be honest, I was thinking to try to mix and master just with stock plugins.
After read first chapters of your book, I thought to upgrade my tools. I own Ozone Elements, and the upgrade to Advanced is about 150€ and includes several tools.
So, I am hesitating among:
* Try to get the most from stock plugins
* Upgrade Ozone
* Get FB Pro Q3
What do you recommend to me?
Is it possible to get PRO results with stock plugins?


----------



## MartinH. (Aug 16, 2020)

Aceituna said:


> * Try to get the most from stock plugins


Great for learning imho. I still use Reaper stock plugins on every project. If you can't make a good mix with stock plugins, you probably can't do it with the fancy ones either.



Aceituna said:


> * Upgrade Ozone


I have Ozone Advanced (not the most recent version though), worth the upgrade in a sale imho. I also use something from it on every project.



Aceituna said:


> * Get FB Pro Q3


Probably a great EQ, but imho you're better off buying other stuff first. I don't have it and I don't feel like I'm missing out yet. Probably will take a long time till I'm at a level where I can really appreciate the differences between different EQs.



Aceituna said:


> Komplete


Depending on which version you have, there's probably a _ton _of stuff worth exploring in there. Like RC48, solid EQ, etc. etc..


----------



## Aceituna (Aug 16, 2020)

MartinH. said:


> Depending on which version you have, there's probably a _ton _of stuff worth exploring in there. Like RC48, solid EQ, etc. etc..



Thanks for your reply.
I got Ultimate


----------



## Joël Dollié (Aug 16, 2020)

Aceituna said:


> At the moment, I am trying to get the most from my current tools (EWHO, Komplete, Studio One, Omnisphere and some NI and Spitfire Essentials)
> Focused on improve my skills in Composition and Production.
> To be honest, I was thinking to try to mix and master just with stock plugins.
> After read first chapters of your book, I thought to upgrade my tools. I own Ozone Elements, and the upgrade to Advanced is about 150€ and includes several tools.
> ...



You can absolutely get pro results with stock plugins. However there are certain plugins that can help speed up your workflow. Tonal Balance Control, which is included in ozone advanced is extremely good for quickly judging the frequency response of your track and is also really useful if you mix with headphones to double check the bass, among other things.

FF Pro Q3 will not necessarily sound much better than any other digital EQ but it is probably the quickest EQ in terms of workflow, also it includes a dynamic EQ which is something I use a lot. Ozone does as well though so if you already have that, it might be a less important upgrade to consider.


One thing though, I would get a nice reverb. This can make a pretty big difference compared to stock reverbs. Liquidsonics seventh heaven or VSS3 are fantastic.

With that said it's important to prioritize things. All the plugins above aren't as important as having good samples to begin with. The NI orchestral samples aren't that great. EWHO is decent too but not as good as other more modern libraries.

If anything i'd get tonal balance control as it's an amazing learning tool and then keep your money for good quality samples.


----------



## Aceituna (Aug 16, 2020)

Joël Dollié said:


> You can absolutely get pro results with stock plugins. However there are certain plugins that can help speed up your workflow. Tonal Balance Control, which is included in ozone advanced is extremely good for quickly judging the frequency response of your track and is also really useful if you mix with headphones to double check the bass, among other things.
> 
> FF Pro Q3 will not necessarily sound much better than any other digital EQ but it is probably the quickest EQ in terms of workflow, also it includes a dynamic EQ which is something I use a lot. Ozone does as well though so if you already have that, it might be a less important upgrade to consider.
> 
> ...



Thank you Joel.
Talking about 7th Heaven, do you prefer it over Cinematic Rooms?
Are they almost the same?


----------



## jcrosby (Aug 16, 2020)

Aceituna said:


> * For EQ matching, the only tool I know about, is the one in Ozone. Do you know any other alternative?


On the off chance you use Logic, it has a phenomenal match-EQ built in. It actually has more features than Ozone's and uses a little less CPU than both Ozone and Pro-Q3... Pro-Q3's a great option if not in Logic... Ozone as well if you already have that... (I use both Logic and Ozone's...)


----------



## Aceituna (Aug 16, 2020)

jcrosby said:


> On the off chance you use Logic, it has a phenomenal match-EQ built in. It actually has more features than Ozone's and uses a little less CPU than both Ozone and Pro-Q3... Pro-Q3's a great option if not in Logic... Ozone as well if you already have that... (I use both.)



Thanks.
I´m Studio One user.


----------



## Aceituna (Aug 16, 2020)

Joël Dollié said:


> One thing though, I would get a nice reverb. This can make a pretty big difference compared to stock reverbs. Liquidsonics seventh heaven or VSS3 are fantastic.



Which option do you think is the better for me now:
* 7th Heaven Standard $69 (I could upgrade it in the future to 7th Heaven Pro or any C. Rooms)
* Verbsuite Classics $149 (FG-BM7 expansion is included, among others)


----------



## doctoremmet (Aug 17, 2020)

7H core is a very good choice. The pro version adds some tweakable parameters and models / emulates an additional Bricasti firmware update, i.e. it comes with more presets / IRs. Core sounds very good though and I guess would suffice for most if not all orchestral mixing purposes.


----------



## I like music (Aug 17, 2020)

doctoremmet said:


> 7H core is a very good choice. The pro version adds some tweakable parameters and models / emulates an additional Bricasti firmware update, i.e. it comes with more presets / IRs. Core sounds very good though and I guess would suffice for most if not all orchestral mixing purposes.


I have reverberate 2. Does anyone know the difference? I only care for the purposes of orchestral mixing. Sorry if off topic!


----------



## doctoremmet (Aug 17, 2020)

I like music said:


> I have reverberate 2. Does anyone know the difference? I only care for the purposes of orchestral mixing. Sorry if off topic!


If I am not mistaken Reverberate 2 was the first LiquidSonic reverb based on their Fusion IR technology, some kind of convolution / algo hybrid modeling. I figure they later used that same technology to create Bricasti M7 IRs in Seventh Heaven. So my guess is the underlying tech may very well be shared between the two, but soundwise there will likely be differences, because they both use different impulse responses. I don’t have Reverberate 2, so soundwise I can’t say anything in an informed way.


----------



## I like music (Aug 17, 2020)

doctoremmet said:


> If I am not mistaken Reverberate 2 was the first LiquidSonic reverb based on their Fusion IR technology, some kind of convolution / algo hybrid modeling. I figure they later used that same technology to create Bricasti M7 IRs in Seventh Heaven. So my guess is the underlying tech may very well be shared between the two, but soundwise there will likely be differences, because they both use different impulse responses. I don’t have Reverberate 2, so soundwise I can’t say anything in an informed way.


Thank you! Will dig into reverberate 2 more and see what I can do with it!


----------



## doctoremmet (Aug 17, 2020)

I like music said:


> Thank you! Will dig into reverberate 2 more and see what I can do with it!


LiquidSonic stuff typically is very good, so I think you’ll get nice results


----------



## YaniDee (Aug 17, 2020)

Aceituna said:


> For EQ matching, the only tool I know about, is the one in Ozone. Do you know any other alternative?


IK Multimedia has a plugin called Master Match..works pretty well.


----------



## Aceituna (Aug 18, 2020)

One of areas I mostly compose is Piano based tracks (piano solos maybe with a touch of pads, strings or light perc)
I use mostly NI pianos (pack and Noire) as well as "rare" ones from Pianobook.
From a mixing/mastering perspective (a creative perspective), how should I approach the proccess?
How to get creative/Pro results?
Thanks in advance.


----------



## Aceituna (Aug 18, 2020)

Joel, on the "Stereo Field" chapter, you talk about "...look at phase correlation meter and check the track in mono..."
The free Voxengo Correlometer would be enough?: 








Multi-Band Correlation Meter Plugin [VST, AU, AAX] - Correlometer - Voxengo


Free Multi-band correlation meter plugin. Allows you to spot phase issues and check track phase alignment across the whole frequency range.




www.voxengo.com


----------



## Joël Dollié (Aug 18, 2020)

Aceituna said:


> Joel, on the "Stereo Field" chapter, you talk about "...look at phase correlation meter and check the track in mono..."
> The free Voxengo Correlometer would be enough?:
> 
> 
> ...



Yes that will work, but a big mistake is to worry too much about being out of phase. For some sounds it's fine, for example pads, or super wide stuff. 

Nowdays I don't really care about the correlation meter, but I check in mono if I do drastic stereo field processing to make sure that I'm not losing too much information in the signal.


----------



## Aceituna (Aug 19, 2020)

Joël Dollié said:


> 1: Fabfilter proQ3 does it really well too and is less CPU heavy. I'm sure other plugins do it but I think ProQ3 is really worth having, best all purpose EQ in the world by far.



Hi Joel,
Sorry I am asking again.
I just Upgrade Izotope Advanced (Ozone, Neutron, Tonal Balance,...)
Baring in mind that, which Fabfilter product would match better my neccesities, ProQ 3, or MB?


----------



## Joël Dollié (Aug 19, 2020)

Aceituna said:


> Hi Joel,
> Sorry I am asking again.
> I just Upgrade Izotope Advanced (Ozone, Neutron, Tonal Balance,...)
> Baring in mind that, which Fabfilter product would match better my neccesities, ProQ 3, or MB?



ProQ3 for sure, it also has a dynamic EQ element which is really useful for orchestral music. You'll end up using it a lot more than ProMB


----------



## Pier (Aug 19, 2020)

MartinH. said:


> Probably a great EQ, but imho you're better off buying other stuff first. I don't have it and I don't feel like I'm missing out yet. Probably will take a long time till I'm at a level where I can really appreciate the differences between different EQs.



Yes, but there other important points besides the sonic differences. For example, Pro Q has a a couple of features like dynamic EQ and matching that you won't find in the majority of EQs. Also the UI is simply the best in the industry.

A dynamic EQ is somewhat similar to a multiband compressor, but instead of broad bands you do that on each EQ parameter. So each EQ parameter can respond dynamically to the material. It's incredibly intuitive to use and allows to shape sound in ways I wouldn't have thought possible.


----------



## MartinH. (Aug 19, 2020)

Pier said:


> Yes, but there other important points besides the sonic differences. For example, Pro Q has a a couple of features like dynamic EQ and matching that you won't find in the majority of EQs. Also the UI is simply the best in the industry.
> 
> A dynamic EQ is somewhat similar to a multiband compressor, but instead of broad bands you do that on each EQ parameter. So each EQ parameter can respond dynamically to the material. It's incredibly intuitive to use and allows to shape sound in ways I wouldn't have thought possible.





Yes, but one of the alternative options @Aceituna mentioned was getting Ozone Advanced, which also has Match EQ and dynamic EQ, plus a bunch of other useful tools like Exciter, Limiter, Tape Emulation etc.. Simply seems like a better bang for the buck to me if you don't have all these bases covered yet. Once you have, I can totally see an EQ with better workflow being worth it. I have Ozone 8 Advanced but I mostly use ReaEQ (Reaper's stock EQ) or TDR Nova, because I like their workflow more. From what I've seen Pro Q3 seems to be even better, I might get it too one day.


----------



## Sean J (Aug 19, 2020)

I own CraveEQ, Pro-Q, Gullfoss, TDR, IIEQ, have used UAD, Vienna Suite, and others.

CraveEQ is far better for orchestral instruments, especially than Pro-Q IMHO. It's one of the few plugins where I put it on a Tuba, grabbed a band, bumped it and instantly heard a far more "accurate-to-the-original" sound. The character of the instrument didn't change. It just sounded more rich at what was already in the recording. Pro-Q's freq match feature isn't accurate for timbre, but it's otherwise a great EQ. But Crave easily beat it in an A/B test for me. And on daily use it just never disappoints me... ever.









While some criticized him early on for looking like Pro-Q... I'd have to say Pro-Q looks a bit like Voxengo's EQ in more ways than Crave compares to Pro-Q. It's not the same thing under the hood. You learn that quickly when you demo it. This thread and this one have more people talking about it than VI-Control, as the developer has been active on there.

That said...

Edit: (still trying to find the right way to word this)

My best tip would be to not process the sound as much as you can. Instead of transient shapers, change the envelope. A lot of tools just alter, distort, and dirty signal. DSP often just doesn't really do a sound any favors. Subtractive thinking is almost always better than adding. Just some sound for thought.


----------



## Pier (Aug 19, 2020)

MartinH. said:


> Yes, but one of the alternative options @Aceituna mentioned was getting Ozone Advanced, which also has Match EQ and dynamic EQ, plus a bunch of other useful tools like Exciter, Limiter, Tape Emulation etc.. Simply seems like a better bang for the buck to me if you don't have all these bases covered yet. Once you have, I can totally see an EQ with better workflow being worth it. I have Ozone 8 Advanced but I mostly use ReaEQ (Reaper's stock EQ) or TDR Nova, because I like their workflow more. From what I've seen Pro Q3 seems to be even better, I might get it too one day.



Ah you're right I missed that!


----------



## Aceituna (Aug 21, 2020)

I have to mix/master some piano albums coauthored with a friend.
One is "flamenco" flavor, another "nordic noir" and another with little orchestration.
I got some questions about:
* references:
- which and where? 
* Reverb: is better to work with the ones included in the same library? Or with an external (better)?
Thanks in advance.


----------



## Macrawn (Aug 22, 2020)

What are you folks using the eq matching features for? Are you feeding a reference type track into the daw or something and matching the eq to it?


----------

