# Mixing orchestral music - KNOWLEDGE BASE



## Adam Lukas (Jan 21, 2016)

Hello guys!

I was just looking for a thread here on v.i.control that deals with mixing orchestral/hybrid music in depth but couldn't find one in particular. So can we make this thread a great source of knowledge and inspiration, by posting:

.) Articles
.) Book recommendations
.) Tutorials
.) Course recommendations
.) Our own techniques
.) Tips, hints

We're heading for the top notch/cinema-ready sound here, so we might skip the beginner/basic hints and get pro: 
- What are the cutting edge hints?
- The tweaks or plug-ins that REALLY make the difference? 
- What are the biggest mistakes/myths/legends?

*A few impulses:
*
- Setting up the mix: What's the best method in your opinion? Routing, Grouping, etc.

- Mix busses on STEMS like STRINGS, BRASS, PERC - how do you deal with compression and make sure that all parts of the orchestra are glued together and sound 'tight'- on their own and in tutti?

- Do you even compress? Which instruments need it, which instruments shouldn't have much or any?

- Achieving depth and 3D feeling using the EQ(!)

- Panning: We all know how to pan orchestral instruments. But what are the exakt numbers? -20 for the 1.violins? (Logic X)- too much? is it -10? What about other settings where both the violin sections are outside and 'frame' the orchestra? What works best for you? Especially the Low end is tricky - do you have your low sine wave set up in the middle and panned the basses to the right?

- How to deal with frequency issues caused by heavy percussion and low strings playing along together?

- Reverb techniques - do you EQ your Reverb?

- How to achieve great depth using reverb? How much wetter is your brass than your strings?

- Into the mix: Mixing MIDI vs Mixing rendered Audio

- Into the mix: How to achieve a great spectrum of: Balance, Frequency, Volume, Depth?

Thank you all for posting your hints, recommendations and tips here. Let's make this world a better place! Of course I will gather some infos too and share it with you as soon I'm out of the studio-shift today. 
All the best from Vienna,
Adam


----------



## EC2 (Jan 21, 2016)

Hey Adam, I´ll start with these:




and Gareth Coker´s post:

http://audiojungle.net/forums/thread/trouble-with-mastering-mixing/105382?page=2

Cheers
Emre


----------



## emid (Jan 22, 2016)

Adam Lukas said:


> - Panning: We all know how to pan orchestral instruments. But what are the exakt numbers?
> 
> - Reverb techniques - do you EQ your Reverb?
> 
> - How to achieve great depth using reverb? How much wetter is your brass than your strings?



Hi Lukas,

I cannot answer all your questions but only that I am sure of.
*
Depths*: I strongly advocate to read this thread: http://vi-control.net/community/threads/considering-vahalla-room-or-breeze.50957/

All replies are helpful but read *Beat Kaufmann* replies. There is no other method I have tried which is as realistically close to what Beat has described here. I made a quick track using his technique and the result was awesome. Keep in mind that you should use dry instruments.

*Panning*: I usually refer to these settings with here and there changes,








*Reverb techniques*: Watch this video and tune the technique according to your need,



Hope this helps, sort of!


----------



## Adam Lukas (Jan 22, 2016)

Those are already some great posts. Can't wait to look into that!
Thanks a lot guys and keep them coming!


----------



## bcarwell (Jan 22, 2016)

Adam, I hope you propose making a Sticky of this, although perhaps it is too broad a topic.


----------



## Michael Rajecki (Jan 25, 2016)

Fantastic stuff so far. I'll definitely be looking through all of these.


----------



## Richard Wilkinson (Jan 25, 2016)

this second one isn't orchestral but it's just as good


----------



## EC2 (Jan 25, 2016)

Here´s a little tutorial series by Greg Townley on "Sonic Dimension in Mixing":



This SOS feature on the recording and mixing of Disney´s Frozen was also quite entertaining: http://www.soundonsound.com/sos/apr14/articles/inside-track-0414.htm

As well as this interview on the making of Sonoton´s Trailer Tracks: http://www.apmmusic.com/sonoton/behind-the-scenes-of-sonotons-trailer-tracks-series


----------



## skyy38 (Jan 30, 2016)

emid said:


> Hi Lukas,
> 
> I cannot answer all your questions but only that I am sure of.
> *
> ...




I've always liked this orchestra diagram:

http://www.davesguitarroom.com/orchastralayout_files/stacks_image_806.png


----------



## JohnG (Jan 30, 2016)

You probably need to specify what you want to learn how to mix -- samples or real orchestra.

Either way it is a long process to learn.


----------



## skyy38 (Jan 31, 2016)

JohnG said:


> You probably need to specify what you want to learn how to mix -- samples or real orchestra.
> 
> Either way it is a long process to learn.



I'm assuming samples. from the jist of the OP.

As concerns samples, why would it be a "long process?"


----------



## Stiltzkin (Jan 31, 2016)

skyy38 said:


> I'm assuming samples. from the jist of the OP.
> 
> As concerns samples, why would it be a "long process?"



Because not every project is the same - and you can't rush experience


----------



## milesito (Jan 31, 2016)

emid said:


> Hi Lukas,
> 
> I cannot answer all your questions but only that I am sure of.
> *
> ...



Had anyone tried this abbey roads reverb trick with logic equalizer and east west spaces on orchestral instruments (strings brass wws percussion)? It sucks all of the life out of the reverb when I put the band pass filter before the reverb on the aux channel. Anyone else have an opinion on Using this technique? Bus it just for guitars and vocals and not for orchestral mixes??

Thanks for the insight


----------



## Vin (Jan 31, 2016)

milesito said:


> Had anyone tried this abbey roads reverb trick with logic equalizer and east west spaces on orchestral instruments (strings brass wws percussion)? It sucks all of the life out of the reverb when I put the band pass filter before the reverb on the aux channel. Anyone else have an opinion on Using this technique? Bus it just for guitars and vocals and not for orchestral mixes??
> 
> Thanks for the insight



I use it on every mix, works great for my purposes (orchestral/modern advertising/hybrid music etc.).

I mainly use one general reverb on FX channel as a send (Lexicon most of the time) and put an EQ right before it.


----------



## milesito (Feb 2, 2016)

Thanks Vin. Is this in logic or cubase? Which eq do you use?


----------



## Vin (Feb 2, 2016)

milesito said:


> Thanks Vin. Is this in logic or cubase? Which eq do you use?



It's in Cubase with FabFilter, but should be the same with any DAW and stock plugins.

Could you post an before & after example?


----------



## Gunvor (Feb 4, 2016)

Awesome thread guys, i have been looking for something like this.

Great stuff!

Thank you for sharing and keep it coming =)


----------



## playz123 (Feb 4, 2016)

Just found this thread. I too can recommend (and use) Fab Filter in Cubase. But when I was experimenting with the Abbey Road idea awhile ago, I also tried it with Cubase's own Voxengo Curve EQ, and created a curve similar to the one in the video. If you only have Cubase's EQ, you can create one there. I tried to save the Voxengo curve preset I created so I could share it with you, but alas it doesn't save correctly. So I have shared it (see attached zip file) as a CSV file which can easily be loaded in the plugin.


----------



## Harry (Feb 5, 2016)

I usually put a EQ after the reverb on the send, not before. Is there a difference?


----------



## Rodney Money (Feb 5, 2016)

playz123 said:


> Just found this thread. I too can recommend (and use) Fab Filter in Cubase. But when I was experimenting with the Abbey Road idea awhile ago, I also tried it with Cubase's own Voxengo Curve EQ, and created a curve similar to the one in the video. If you only have Cubase's EQ, you can create one there. I tried to save the Voxengo curve preset I created so I could share it with you, but alas it doesn't save correctly. So I have shared it (see attached zip file) as a CSV file which can easily be loaded in the plugin.


Does Spaces need this type of treatment also?


----------



## Rodney Money (Feb 5, 2016)

Harry said:


> I usually put a EQ after the reverb on the send, not before. Is there a difference?


 I am wondering the exact same thing.


----------



## AlexanderSchiborr (Feb 5, 2016)

Rodney Money said:


> I am wondering the exact same thing.



On the FX Channel? So you having the eq setting done on the wet reverb signal. That is different because the dry signal stil is untouched by eq. When you eq the dry signal it affects the send because it sends the eq dry signal to the reverb which sounds then also different. But I am not sure if you meant that?

Just one thing here: Don´t eq too much. Ecspecially don´t and that is (just from my philosophy a big "do not") push too much eq bands up. The sounds get in many cases just harsh and flat and not better. It even ruins the sound when not executed right. Better look that you spent most of your time in achieving a natural balance by just moving volume faders and spending time looking for the right sample sounds which harmonize together in a natural way. Another thing is: The right orchestration. But I guess the exceeds the topic here.

My advice for orchestral mixing: Go and listen to good live recordings of orchestra music


----------



## playz123 (Feb 5, 2016)

Rodney Money said:


> Does Spaces need this type of treatment also?


I wouldn't say "need", but yes that approach can indeed be used with Spaces. If you look at the Filters display in Spaces, you will note the presets only have a very slight roll off on the bottom end. But the Abbey Road curve that is being discussed adds much more EQ to the reverb than does Spaces.


----------



## playz123 (Feb 5, 2016)

Rodney Money said:


> I am wondering the exact same thing.


Again, with Cubase, many people do seem to recommend putting the EQ after the reverb, but you'll note in that Abbey Road video, the presenter likes it before (in Pro Tools). Rather than go with what someone tells you though, why not try a little experiment yourself, and see where it sounds best for your track?


----------



## marclawsonmusic (Feb 5, 2016)

Harry said:


> I usually put a EQ after the reverb on the send, not before. Is there a difference?



There is a huge difference.

Think about it... if you filter frequencies BEFORE they hit the reverb, there is less 'sonic data' triggering the reverb (and being processed by the reverb).

One problem with reverbs is sending them too much low frequencies... the reverb processes the lows (and mid-lows) and voila... you now have have nice low rumble as part of your (cloudy) mix.

Yes, you can filter (some of) this on the way out, but why not just filter it on the way in?

(PS - the same problem applies to compressors - as I have also painfully learned!)


----------



## Hannes_F (Feb 6, 2016)

marclawsonmusic said:


> There is a huge difference.
> 
> Think about it... if you filter frequencies BEFORE they hit the reverb, there is less 'sonic data' triggering the reverb (and being processed by the reverb).



You are sure about that?

You are right actually but only if the reverb contains nonlinear components (like distortion/saturation or a bent volume curve->compression) - which means that these components of the outgoing signal are dependent on the incoming volume. A (real) room response usually does not have nonlinear components (at least not much) but some reverbs do.

Same if the EQ contains nonlinear components (like compression or saturation).

For a linear type of reverb and a linear type of EQ you can reverse the order like in a mathematical formula:

E * R = R * E


----------



## Hannes_F (Feb 6, 2016)

BTW similarly you can apply a linear type of reverb or/and a linear type of EQ either to different signals before summing or after summing with the same result:

S1 * R + S2 * R = (S1 + S2) * R

Only if there are nonlinear components these will make a difference.

PS.: Linear means here exactly that the output of a device is not dependent of the input volume of the signal save a simple (linear) factor (the amplification). Not necessarily linear _phase_.


----------



## Saxer (Feb 6, 2016)

But there will be a big difference when using reverb for more than one instrument. The reverb eq should be rather untouched when it has to process a piccolo flute and a contra bassoon in one instance. If you eq some low rumble out of the picc (i.e. room noise) after the reverb there will be no bass left for the bassoon.

And so there will be the mathematical formular:

Bassoon - Bass = oon*

* might be useful when making music for "High n*oon*" or "Plat*oon*"


----------



## marclawsonmusic (Feb 6, 2016)

Hannes_F said:


> You are sure about that?



Hi Hannes, 

After reading your post maybe I am not so sure!  

Previously, I would just send the entire source into the reverb... but I always seemed to struggle with too much lows / low-mids (mud) in my output. Even filtering the output of the reverb did not take away this sludge.

I recently tried experimenting with passing the dry signal _before _it hits the reverb and the results were night-and-day (a huge difference, like I said)... particularly if the source material has low and low-mid frequencies.

This seemed to make sense to my IT / programmer brain that if there were less 'mud' frequencies coming *in* to the reverb, it wouldn't be processing those frequencies (bouncing around in there), thus less 'mud' coming *out *- very standard garbage in / garbage out concept. 

But perhaps I am 100% wrong. I guess I need to do more experimenting with it.

FWIW - I tested this with Spaces, Valhalla and PhoenixVerb and all had similar results. I used (sampled) Piano, Strings and Brass in my testing. Maybe I will do some A/B comparison later today and post the results.

Best,
Marc


----------



## Rob Elliott (Feb 6, 2016)

Great thread. Been EQ'ing verb (post) for years. I will test out this Abbey Road trick. Logic seems sound.


----------



## Baron Greuner (Feb 6, 2016)

Rob Elliott said:


> Great thread. Been EQ'ing verb (post) for years. I will test out this Abbey Road trick. Logic seems sound.



It's good. Tried it yesterday and it works. Works on just about anything and not just vocals. There's another video on the same lines from Dave Pensado in which he refers to this original video and puts another, although similar, slant to the technique. There are lots of variations you can make. It's brilliant.


----------



## Rob Elliott (Feb 6, 2016)

Cool. Do you have a link to Dave's vid?


----------



## Rob Elliott (Feb 6, 2016)

Here's Dave's link.


----------



## milesito (Feb 6, 2016)

So for those trying this have you noticed having to send a significant amount of more dry signal to hear any effect of the reverb when the eq is placed before the reverb versus after?


----------



## marclawsonmusic (Feb 6, 2016)

milesito said:


> So for those trying this have you noticed having to send a significant amount of more dry signal to hear any effect of the reverb when the eq is placed before the reverb versus after?



Yes. I used Spaces input gain knob for this.


----------



## Hannes_F (Feb 6, 2016)

Saxer said:


> But there will be a big difference when using reverb for more than one instrument. The reverb eq should be rather untouched when it has to process a piccolo flute and a contra bassoon in one instance. If you eq some low rumble out of the picc (i.e. room noise) after the reverb there will be no bass left for the bassoon.



... right on, because then your sources are already suboptimal and it is better to fix this where the problem is instead of after the summing.


----------



## playz123 (Feb 6, 2016)

I think the bottom line here is that one can't just say put the reverb before (or after) the verb without also considering the other factors in the equations, such as what is being sent to the reverb, how many and what types of instruments are involved, and what problems are present initially (or after). It really boils down to a combination of using one's ears and remaining alert to the effect the EQ'd plug-in is having on the source. And I think most people would agree that the Abbey Road approach is not meant to be applied in every situation either. On the other hand, it often does work well in the situations described by the presenter. But no 'cook book' recipe can be applied every time or with every track. Experiment and listen.


----------



## wbacer (Feb 6, 2016)

I did a little experimenting with the Abbey Road Trick. I bussed my Berlin Violin's 1 and 2, Violas, Cellos and Basses to a String Reverb Aux where I placed a Fabfilter EQ set at 600 and 10K in front Altiverb and it sucks all of the life and low end out of the string section.

So instead, I placed a separate EQ on each channel strip and changed the LPF and HPF to match the frequency band of the specific stringed instrument then again bussed each channel strip to the reverb aux. Since I could only post 5 pics, I used the same frequency band for Violins I and 2. This appeared to sound a lot cleaner to my tin ear.
I'm sure this would work with any EQ and reverb. See below. Anyway, food for thought.


----------



## afterlight82 (Feb 6, 2016)

My favorite abbey road reverb trick is the 777 in the penthouse. That thing is awesome, especially when you have to shove the harp player or piano in the booth for separation.

I'd reckon EQ on the send buss is only applicable where it's necessary - which it often is - but many algorithms have the highs and lows rolled off already in the patch design anyhow. Many impulses of hardware of an algorithm therefore basically have this kind of idea implemented already, and taking much more out might just suck all the presence out of the reverb. I can see how shelving the highs might also be interesting (or not being too aggressive on the filter slope if a filter). It'd be interesting to try the REDD.17 plugin "tone high" and "tone low" controls for that purpose. Not sure what they'd have patched in back in the day, but it does sound like something that might have been done on the chamber in 2 and the EMT plates.


----------



## Baron Greuner (Feb 8, 2016)

edited


----------



## Rob Elliott (Feb 8, 2016)

Baron Greuner said:


> Yes sorry Rob I went off line for a while. That's the one. What do you think? I think a mutual friend of ours certainly found it very interesting.


 - this is a great 'starting point' - of course as mentioned it is highly material driven. A mix today came out at 500 and 9K (wanted more 'body' and less 'highs'). The thing I like most is the 'immediacy' of the mix. Such a simple thing.....


----------



## ed buller (Feb 8, 2016)

a good variation of this is to mult the send to the reverb and eq them, so that one is highs and one lows. Or two separate reverbs !.....This is essential viewing for me....( every 6 months or so ) some fantastic advice from the Master.

 17;20


e


----------



## CorgiKing (Feb 10, 2016)

Thanks to everyone that has contributed thus far. I'd love to hear if anyone else had more on grouping, especially when it comes to mixing so many different orchestral libraries.

And here's something I enjoyed a bit back from HGW


----------

