# How to take my mixes to the next level?



## MarcusMaximus (Mar 7, 2017)

I'm working on the mix of a full orchestral track and have reached a familiar 'ceiling' in terms of my mixing abilities. I am a composer and musician and not an engineer but have always done my best when it comes to the mixing stage. Now I'm not sure that my best is really good enough.

I wonder if anyone has any tips or advice on how to take things up a notch? I think the mix so far is ok in terms of balancing the levels, use of reverb, orchestration adjustments (instead of EQ etc.) to improve the sound as far as possible and other basic mixing tasks, i.e. my ears and ability can take me this far. However, when I listen to some reference tracks - I use East-West's Hollywood Orchestra alongside various other real and software (non-orchestral) instruments and so I also use their product demos as references - there is still a long way to go to get to that sort of sound. 

Listening as objectively as I can to my own track in comparison to the reference ones, I am aware of the following:

1. The instruments in the reference tracks sound more separate, distinct and spread out. I don't typically change the panning of the orchestral instruments at all, trusting that it is already built in to the samples, as EW and other developers state. However, I can't imagine that the demo tracks use this default panning. Or do they? If not, what's the best way to achieve a good, proper spread, similar to the reference tracks? Something like MIR or Virtual Sound Stage? To what extent do people use EQ to carve out particular frequency niches for the different instruments, as you might in mixing other types of music? 

2. There is definitely more air, sparkle and definition in the higher frequencies in the reference tracks than in mine. Though not bad, it could certainly do with more edge. How to achieve that? Mastering EQ? Multi band compression? How to boost the right frequencies without doing more damage than good, if that's even the right approach?

3. Similar for the low frequencies. The reference tracks really come to life low down and all the instruments in those frequencies sound clear, punchy and powerful. Mine in comparison do lack a certain definition and 'oomph'. Again, how to achieve that?

I know there are no definitive answers to these questions and that every track requires individual treatment. However, how does a non-engineer like myself get to be good enough at mixing/mastering so that I can achieve similar results to those demo tracks? Practice and experience of course but I do feel the need for some sort of guidance. Would people recommend taking this course, or something similar, for example?

https://thinkspaceeducation.com/om/

Alternatively, does anyone on these boards offer tuition/training in orchestral mixing as applied to mockups?

Thanks for any pointers or suggestions.


----------



## Chandler (Mar 7, 2017)

1 - different people will use different amounts of EQ, but you might try it if things aren't sounding the way you'd like them to. The distinct sound I imagine comes from EQ, compression or automation. Most likely a combination of them. The stereo width can be enhanced using plugins without changing the panning. Some people also use delays and reverb for more width. 

2 - Use EQ, but I'd recommend cutting before boosting. Most of the time a dull sounding mix happens when there is too much going on in the low mids. Taking care of this will make your mix sound brighter. After that you can of course add more ripens using EQ, but I'd check the lowmids before you start boosting the top.

3 - The same advice applied to the bass. Bass frequencies fight each other and if you don't EQ or duck them you won't be able to achieve that punch. Also compression and saturation help.


Of course there is no problem with taking online classes, but there is a ton of info online if you search. Don't be afraid to use ideas from other genres of music. Solid bass or punchy percussion is the same no matter which genre. Just remember its 2017, so if you try something and it doesn't work all you have to do is hit undo. The is no cost in trying something new and even if it doesn't work you've learned something.


----------



## jemu999 (Mar 7, 2017)

Hi Marcus, it would be helpful if you would post your mix here for us to listen to and comment on. Im sure you will get some helpful tips and comments from users here. As you probably already know, mixing is an art form and profession in its own right that can take some time to master, but with some persistence and practice, and some basic guidelines, you will progress.

As far as seeking help, there is nothing wrong with that! As Chandler stated in the above post, there are tons of tutorials online and in youtube land for free, although this could take some time to find useful ones. Again, posting a music file will better help forum users to point you in the right direction.


----------



## MarcusMaximus (Mar 8, 2017)

Many thanks guys for your replies. It's not so much that the mix sounds dull, to my ears anyway. It's more that it doesn't have that big fresh sound that those reference tracks and other similar ones do. All good tips though in terms of EQ for the mids and lows, stereo width etc. Yes, I would generally cut before considering boosting anything. It's just how to get that 'airiness' etc.. What you say Chandler about trying things out and then undoing, you're right of course. The issue I have is to do with not feeling confident enough to be able to e.g. identify the particular low-mid frequencies that are causing the buildup. I often find that when it comes to the engineering side - where to begin or where to focus, or how to make sense of the information that I'm both hearing in the mix and seeing on analysers etc. It can feel somewhat overwhelming and that I can't see the wood for the trees, and that's despite having mixed all my own non-orchestral music over the years. 

The freely available online resources are often very good of course but I haven't really found much that deals with mixing with orchestral samples specifically, more rock and electronic etc. but I'll have another look around. I learned a huge amount from taking online composition lessons over the last few years so I'd be open to doing that with the engineering side of things as well if such tuition was available. Yes, I may well post that mix as you suggest jemu999, once I've taken it as far as I can myself, and once I feel ready to expose it here!


----------



## sazema (Mar 8, 2017)

I will put again this video, it's related to cinematic type of scores, but you will find for sure some useful tips and information.



And this one is interesting (by M.Patti)



Also, this one:


----------



## Mornats (Mar 8, 2017)

I was just reading about eq-ing strings a few days ago here: https://music.tutsplus.com/tutorial...tips-for-producing-sampled-strings--cms-21216 - scroll down to tip 6.


----------



## Smikes77 (Mar 8, 2017)

Are people putting the double basses in the centre of their mix then?


----------



## MarcusMaximus (Mar 8, 2017)

Thanks sazema and Mornats. A lot of useful stuff there for sure. I'll watch them all through. So there _is_ some good material out there for free. It's obviously just knowing where to look..



Smikes77 said:


> Are people putting the double basses in the centre of their mix then?



Personally I leave things with their default panning and for the basses in the EW Hollywood series, they're biased towards the right as they would be in a traditional orchestral setup. If I do anything I'd probably slightly exaggerate that placement rather than centre them but I'm sure there are different views on that.


----------



## Smikes77 (Mar 8, 2017)

MarcusMaximus said:


> Thanks sazema and Mornats. A lot of useful stuff there for sure. I'll watch them all through. So there _is_ some good material out there for free. It's obviously just knowing where to look..
> 
> 
> 
> Personally I leave things with their default panning and for the basses in the EW Hollywood series, they're biased towards the right as they would be in a traditional orchestral setup. If I do anything I'd probably slightly exaggerate that placement rather than centre them but I'm sure there are different views on that.



Well, the rock/pop/etc way is to put the bass right down the middle, but I'm not sure I would do hat with the orchestra as suggested in that tutorial on tutsplus


----------



## MarcusMaximus (Mar 8, 2017)

Yeah, I haven't watched the tutorial yet (if you're referring to one of the above) but I know that's usual practice as you say in the rock etc. world. I do think it's mostly different with orchestral music.


----------



## Chandler (Mar 8, 2017)

MarcusMaximus said:


> Many thanks guys for your replies. It's not so much that the mix sounds dull, to my ears anyway. It's more that it doesn't have that big fresh sound that those reference tracks and other similar ones do. All good tips though in terms of EQ for the mids and lows, stereo width etc. Yes, I would generally cut before considering boosting anything. It's just how to get that 'airiness' etc.. What you say Chandler about trying things out and then undoing, you're right of course. The issue I have is to do with not feeling confident enough to be able to e.g. identify the particular low-mid frequencies that are causing the buildup. I often find that when it comes to the engineering side - where to begin or where to focus, or how to make sense of the information that I'm both hearing in the mix and seeing on analysers etc. It can feel somewhat overwhelming and that I can't see the wood for the trees, and that's despite having mixed all my own non-orchestral music over the years.




As far as the particular frequencies go, the "boost-find-freq-cut" method is always good. Also using something like Melda Mequalizer or fab filters EQ lets you solo frequencies and you can sweep around until you find something that sounds boxy, mudddy, harsh, etc and then cut it. After you do that adjust the overall volume, so the input and output are equal. Then listen again and bypass the EQ. If things sound better good, if not try again.


One thing that has helped me was to stop thinking micro->macro. Think macro->micro. Start with the master bus and EQ /compress that. If you find you're having to do 6-8db cuts or 5-8db of compression to make things sound good, take those plugins off and move down a level. Try EQ/compression on the percussion bus. Then do the same thing on the strings, woodwinds, etc. if that's still not working then EQ the individual insturtments. Of course if you put and EQ on your masterbus, cut 2db at 250hz and boost above 10khz and it sounds amazing you're done. That tip helped me not get caught up in tweaking in circles. Start big and if that doesn't fix everything then go into detail.


----------



## MarcusMaximus (Mar 9, 2017)

I am indeed familiar with the technique of boosting and sweeping a narrow band in order to find a troublesome frequency, and then cutting at that point. The problem I find is when it's less obvious or when there is no particularly audible issue but you just want to create a separate niche for a given instrument or give it more definition etc. Then it's very hard to identify which frequencies to isolate, unless you know what you're looking or listening for.

I like what you're saying about starting big and working down if necessary. Generally I'm loath to use EQ or compression etc. unless I have to in order to deal with an obviously audible issue, especially with orchestral material. So treating the overall sound, mastering if you will, seems 'safer' than meddling with the individual instruments or even sections.

Thanks again for your help.

The dictum 'if it sounds good it is good' comes to mind. It's not necessarily true. Sure, I can tell when something sounds good or bad in a general sense and down to some specifics like overly compressed, muddy, distorted or airy, punchy etc. but how to bridge the gap between 'bad' or even 'ok' and 'good' let alone 'fabulous' can be hard! Is it always wise to trust our ears if those ears aren't trained properly to hear things wisely?!


----------



## JohnG (Mar 9, 2017)

Another trick is to listen _on headphones_ to a commercial recording (CD or Pandora or Spotify or something) that you admire, and is in the same neighbourhood as your own piece. Of course headphones do not typically have the same fidelity that speakers do, but they do allow you to hear mixing tricks -- panning for sure -- much more clearly. 

It is striking, for example, how "extreme" the panning can be in some tracks, and it's easier to hear that with headphones. 

One can learn a lot using both speakers and headphones to diagnose the model recording and then compare with one's own mix.


----------



## babylonwaves (Mar 9, 2017)

MarcusMaximus said:


> I am indeed familiar with the technique of boosting and sweeping a narrow band in order to find a troublesome frequency, and then cutting at that point. The problem I find is when it's less obvious or when there is no particularly audible issue but you just want to create a separate niche for a given instrument or give it more definition etc. Then it's very hard to identify which frequencies to isolate, unless you know what you're looking or listening for.



about high and low frequencies. below is a common task for low frequencies but required for the high end as well:
to create a niche you don't necessarily need to touch the instrument you want to place. sometimes it is more important to remove other instruments. especially synth sounds are very broadband. it always helps to limit them. if you remove a high end from sounds which don't need it, you create the niche you're looking for. and your high end will sound softer because a lot of mixes suffer from an harsh high end created by high frequencies masking each other. but this is not limited to synth sounds. think bells and strings and the same can apply.
the other way to create a niche is arrangement but i guess that's not the focus right now and here.


----------



## gsilbers (Mar 9, 2017)

https://www.samplemagic.com/details/184/magic-ab


----------



## higgs (Mar 9, 2017)

MarcusMaximus said:


> It's not so much that the mix sounds dull, to my ears anyway. It's more that it doesn't have that big fresh sound that those reference tracks and other similar ones do.


Is there an example mix or two you wish to improve that you could share for feedback?


----------



## MarcusMaximus (Mar 9, 2017)

JohnG said:


> Another trick is to listen _on headphones_ to a commercial recording (CD or Pandora or Spotify or something) that you admire, and is in the same neighbourhood as your own piece.



Sorry for the partial quotes here and below but I did that just for brevity. Hope that's ok.

Listening on headphones - yes, I do this too as I have a reasonable pair of Audio Technica mixing ones. I do find it helpful as you describe John but so far I've only used it on my own tracks, which usually involves the same sort of ambiguous experience, i.e. what am I _really _hearing and more importantly, what do I _do_ about it?! So your idea of spending time with the reference track on both speakers and phones and then comparing back is a really good one.

Thanks for the link gsilbers. I have come across that recently, must check it out again.



babylonwaves said:


> about high and low frequencies. below is a common task for low frequencies but required for the high end as well:
> 
> ..the other way to create a niche is arrangement but i guess that's not the focus right now and here.



The application of EQ you describe makes sense but it does beg the question: are people really EQ'ing their tracks created with _orchestral libraries_ as much as with other types of instruments and genres of music? I have come across a lot of people saying that they EQ orchestral material minimally if at all. Yes, arrangement and orchestration are key of course but I'm mostly concerned with the mix at this point. 



higgs said:


> Is there an example mix or two you wish to improve that you could share for feedback?



There is and that was suggested earlier. I have been in touch with someone who has offered to listen to it privately (cos I'm a little shy of the public exposure!) but I may well put it up here at some point as well.


----------



## marclawsonmusic (Mar 9, 2017)

MarcusMaximus said:


> There is and that was suggested earlier. I have been in touch with someone who has offered to listen to it privately (cos I'm a little shy of the public exposure!) but I may well put it up here at some point as well.



I understand your hesitation - this place can be brutal. But, it really is hard to offer any feedback without something to listen to.

If you want another set of ears, I would be happy to listen and offer non-judgmental, constructive feedback. Shoot me a PM if interested.


----------



## sazema (Mar 9, 2017)

One more....


----------



## MarcusMaximus (Mar 9, 2017)

marclawsonmusic said:


> I understand your hesitation - this place can be brutal. But, it really is hard to offer any feedback without something to listen to.
> 
> If you want another set of ears, I would be happy to listen and offer non-judgmental, constructive feedback. Shoot me a PM if interested.



Hey thanks man, I really appreciate the offer and may well take you up on it! Glad you understand the hesitation, though I know that feedback, even if brutally honest, can be really helpful. I'm working up to it! 

That's great sazema thanks, another useful resource I'm sure. Will check it out a bit later along with the others.


----------



## Rodney Money (Mar 9, 2017)

MarcusMaximus said:


> Hey thanks man, I really appreciate the offer and may well take you up on it! Glad you understand the hesitation, though I know that feedback, even if brutally honest, can be really helpful. I'm working up to it!


Hey my friend, go ahead and post. I just posted a piece that uses nothing but Garritan, so no matter what you post it is already going to sound 1000 times better than my last post.


----------



## MarcusMaximus (Mar 9, 2017)

Rodney Money said:


> Hey my friend, go ahead and post. I just posted a piece that uses nothing but Garritan, so no matter what you post it is already going to sound 1000 times better than my last post.



Hah! Now that _is _encouraging!


----------



## emid (Mar 9, 2017)

I really like these from izotope. Watch all five parts. Concepts apply anywhere.



Though FL studio but some good tips.


----------



## Maestro1972 (Mar 9, 2017)

Rodney Money said:


> Hey my friend, go ahead and post. I just posted a piece that uses nothing but Garritan, so no matter what you post it is already going to sound 1000 times better than my last post.



I agree. @MarcusMaximus should post his music. The advice that you would be given will help you to get to the sound that you are trying to achieve not to mention it would help all of us out here that are in a similar situation (by us I mean me!) I often wish I knew someone local who I could pay to take the time to walk me through the entire process. "flutes are too wide,...let's reduce the stereo width down,...it's too close, let's move it back in the orchestra by doing this,...Okay that frequency is clashing with this one....hear that? look what happens when we eq this frequency just a bit..." Omg I would be in heaven!


----------



## MarcusMaximus (Mar 9, 2017)

Thanks emid. Those videos look great. Ah.. I'll be forever going through all these resources but I'm looking forward to digging in just as soon as I get the time! 



Maestro1972 said:


> I agree. @MarcusMaximus should post his music. The advice that you would be given will help you to get to the sound that you are trying to achieve not to mention it would help all of us out here that are in a similar situation (by us I mean me!) I often wish I knew someone local who I could pay to take the time to walk me through the entire process. "flutes are too wide,...let's reduce the stereo width down,...it's too close, let's move it back in the orchestra by doing this,...Okay that frequency is clashing with this one....hear that? look what happens when we eq this frequency just a bit..." Omg I would be in heaven!



I think I'm going to send it to a couple of people who've offered to listen first and then I might well post it here. This is building up a bit of a momentum so at some point I may well cave in to the pressure..

I've been getting some advice to do just what you are talking about in terms of getting an engineer to give me some hands-on help, ideally in that sort of detail. I think it's a great idea. Rather than just getting them to mix it for me, though there could also be a place for that. As you say, it could be such a great learning opportunity!


----------



## Maestro1972 (Mar 9, 2017)

MarcusMaximus said:


> getting an engineer to give me some hands-on help, ideally in that sort of detail.



Whatever route you end up going, keep us updated. Like I said before, others can benefit from what you are learning.


----------



## MarcusMaximus (Mar 9, 2017)

Maestro1972 said:


> Whatever route you end up going, keep us updated. Like I said before, others can benefit from what you are learning.



Sure, will do.


----------



## mc_deli (Mar 10, 2017)

I am also "proud" never to have posted any music here out of fear!

Mix references, mix references, mix references, mix references


----------



## afterlight82 (Mar 10, 2017)

99 times out of 100 - the thing that is missing is not EQ. It's orchestration, balance, compositional stuff. I've heard stunning demos by people using zero EQ. Zero. It's rarely a requirement. Same with compressors. If you watch great orchestral mixers work, it's often about clarity and organization as much as anything. None of them are doing huge 10db boosts or cuts unless something was recorded badly or the orchestration is causing things to fight. EQ is mostly about broadband enhancement, finding the little bit larger than life thing, but most orchestral mixers could do a decent job given no eq at all with the mic tracks alone.

The number one thing is balance. They used to call mixers "balance engineers" back at Abbey Road for a reason. Orchestral mixing is about relationships. Low to high. Cellos to Basses. Flute solo to strings. Internal balances of sections, overall balances. Spots to mains. Mains to Outriggers. Front to Back, left to right. It's also partly about knowing what you are hearing, because what you are hearing from your monitors, no matter how good the room, is only a representation of the signal, and many mix issues arise not from lack of skill, but from the fact we mix to what sounds good, and if that is far from a true representation, translation is impossible.


----------



## karelpsota (Mar 10, 2017)

Hey Marcus,

You seem to know all the basics of mixing. The only thing that will make you better is excellent "*taste*".

Pick pieces you really like, and *remake* them as close as you can.
Its like transcribing but you include the sample selection, mixing and mastering stage too.
By doing this you will internalize your "taste" into your workflow.

As a sound designer, I really enjoy pop and edm production. So I will remake the synths and the drums till it really clicks:


Keep in mind, doing remakes can be painful since it requires high analytical focus and the product will never be identical to the reference. However, the rewards are huge on the long run.

TL:DR stay away from blogs and classes, remake songs instead.


----------



## Ashermusic (Mar 10, 2017)

afterlight82 said:


> 99 times out of 100 - the thing that is missing is not EQ. It's orchestration, balance, compositional stuff. I've heard stunning demos by people using zero EQ. Zero. It's rarely a requirement. Same with compressors. If you watch great orchestral mixers work, it's often about clarity and organization as much as anything. None of them are doing huge 10db boosts or cuts unless something was recorded badly or the orchestration is causing things to fight. EQ is mostly about broadband enhancement, finding the little bit larger than life thing, but most orchestral mixers could do a decent job given no eq at all with the mic tracks alone.
> 
> The number one thing is balance. They used to call mixers "balance engineers" back at Abbey Road for a reason. Orchestral mixing is about relationships. Low to high. Cellos to Basses. Flute solo to strings. Internal balances of sections, overall balances. Spots to mains. Mains to Outriggers. Front to Back, left to right. It's also partly about knowing what you are hearing, because what you are hearing from your monitors, no matter how good the room, is only a representation of the signal, and many mix issues arise not from lack of skill, but from the fact we mix to what sounds good, and if that is far from a true representation, translation is impossible.



I agree with all of the above.


----------



## MarcusMaximus (Mar 10, 2017)

mc_deli said:


> I am also "proud" never to have posted any music here out of fear!
> 
> Mix references, mix references, mix references, mix references



Yeah I hear you! Glad I'm not the only one. Also glad you're proud of it! And mix references for sure, although they can also set up an 'impossible standard' due to them having been so professionally produced. Can't hope to match that at home! But as a ballpark to aim for, absolutely.



Ashermusic said:


> I agree with all of the above.



Yes that's what I believe to be true as well. However, listening to the demos I mentioned at the start I can't believe that they're simply using the same basic libraries that I own and not employing some mixing/mastering tricks beyond orchestration and balance. However when you talk about "broadband enhancement, finding the little bit larger than life thing" afterlight82, that's the sort of thing I mean - the subtle but powerful tweaks and adjustments that can make an already ok orchestration and mix into something that has that extra edge of definition and depth. That's surely where the real skill of mixing comes in. Or perhaps that's more the mastering stage, after the balancing you describe so well has been achieved. However I absolutely agree that orchestration is the primary 'mixing tool'.

Those are some cool 'remakes' Karel and I agree with what you're saying about trying to copy recordings you admire. I've done some of that with orchestral music, most notably a short section of La Mer. Yes, you can learn a lot from doing that there's no doubt. Perhaps I will re-visit that practice. Would love to be able to do that with some of those demos but I doubt any of those composers would share their scores!

Thanks again for your input guys!

Mark


----------



## mc_deli (Mar 10, 2017)

Mix refs can be stuff you don't like or don't appreciate. It's about understanding how the master craftmen and women work. Caveat, the wrong mix ref or paying attention to the wrong detail can of course crush your mix!


----------



## MarcusMaximus (Mar 10, 2017)

mc_deli said:


> Mix refs can be stuff you don't like or don't appreciate. It's about understanding how the master craftmen and women work. Caveat, the wrong mix ref or paying attention to the wrong detail can of course crush your mix!



As long as it's of a similar style so that you're not trying to make apples sound like oranges!


----------



## MarcusMaximus (Mar 10, 2017)

It's interesting.. I watched the first video that sazema linked to earlier in the thread, the one with the 'epic orchestral' track. I had a mixed reaction to it. The guy talks some sense alright in terms of his rationale for applying the various EQ cuts and so on and he definitely seems to know what he's talking about in general. However I don't like the end result - it sounds overly compressed and even distorted to my ears. He plays an extract at the start of the video and I thought he was going to fix that up somehow but that is his final mix it seems. Not something I would aspire to although I do appreciate his know-how and the specific tips he gives.

However it also made me think some more about the argument between the approach that uses plugins and effects, especially EQ and compression, fairly liberally though hopefully wisely, and the approach that afterlight82 was suggesting earlier where little or no effects could be used if the orchestration etc. is right. They do seem to be two quite distinct camps and as I say I favour the latter but I suppose the truth is as usual somewhere in the middle..


----------



## afterlight82 (Mar 11, 2017)

MarcusMaximus said:


> It's interesting.. I watched the first video that sazema linked to earlier in the thread, the one with the 'epic orchestral' track. I had a mixed reaction to it. The guy talks some sense alright in terms of his rationale for applying the various EQ cuts and so on and he definitely seems to know what he's talking about in general. However I don't like the end result - it sounds overly compressed and even distorted to my ears. He plays an extract at the start of the video and I thought he was going to fix that up somehow but that is his final mix it seems. Not something I would aspire to although I do appreciate his know-how and the specific tips he gives.
> 
> However it also made me think some more about the argument between the approach that uses plugins and effects, especially EQ and compression, fairly liberally though hopefully wisely, and the approach that afterlight82 was suggesting earlier where little or no effects could be used if the orchestration etc. is right. They do seem to be two quite distinct camps and as I say I favour the latter but I suppose the truth is as usual somewhere in the middle..



Yes - the truth is definitely in the middle. Few thoughts/clarifications - the extra 10% can involve compression/eq and various other things. There are no "tricks" that a great mixer has, they have exactly the same tools and even though many may say they can't live without x plugin or y plugin (and that may be true of a reverb), most mixers could make a great mix with the stock DAW plugins. Don't like the reverb sound? Filter it, a bad algorithm usually has too much information, not too little. Lexicon reverbs get their sound partly from what the filters do. Use a little delay and tuck it in imperceptibly for depth.

Remember that everything in a mix that isn't additive (delay, distortion, reverb, chorus, etc.) is a volume/gain control. EQ is frequency-selective volume control. Compression is automated, rule based volume control. People worry greatly about the additive stuff - which saturation, which reverb, which delay - if you're feeling the need to add, it's probably lacking something musically and you're trying to compensate for that!

Definitely avoid boosting with EQ, because that eq boost will inevitably have a harmonic center or resonance peak perhaps, and you will be accenting a note region as well as "warmth" or "high end". The 10% extra is largely about cutting conflicting stuff away to leave clarity. If you're eq'ing to fundamentally change an orchestral sound perhaps it's the wrong sound. The larger than life enhancement only works if it's in a decent place to start with. It's like baking a cake. If it comes out all lopsided, SURE, you can cover it in so much icing that nobody will notice, but the moment someone cuts a slice, it's pretty obvious. 

Best way is to cut away things that conflict, which means everything can be pushed that little bit higher. Particularly true of reverb sends/returns (often better to eq the send, bizarrely enough). Putting reverb on choir? If it's playing constantly with orchestra, you simply don't need anything from the verb below 300hz. It's mud. Use more of the higher frequency material and you can use more of it and get a greater sense of depth without pouring milk chocolate over the rest of your mix.

What applies to one track in terms of EQ will never apply to another. What applies to one track in terms of compression will never apply to another. Simply cannot. Mix Refs are generally ok if you're listening to them smartly - bear in mind a mastered mix is never a fair mix ref. Listen for high/low balance overall, but don't go sticking a huge eq on anything to try and make it sound like it. Won't work. It's good for finding out how loud a cello section should be in a mix vs a bass section when playing in octaves, or tonal balance, but you want to try and get that right with the faders, not with EQ. Strings too bright? 9 times out of 10 controller 1 (mod) is too high, not "the samples are too bright". Bass out of control on the percussion? Check velocities. Percussion not beefy enough? Check velocities, perhaps dial them back and turn the track volume up to compensate (drums hit harder are brighter with less bottom end). Reverb is about setting a space. People obsess about panning but a track doesn't suddenly become "more real" by panning the flute 10 clicks to the left to simulate "a stage", nor will it sound vastly better. Try mixing in mono sometime, and really listen to the relationships between instruments that way. Very instructive.

It's largely about cutting away stuff that's unnecessary so you can push things that little bit hotter, then when you use either a Manley Vari-Mu style of compression (gently taking a few db off the top, very softly) or a Massey Limiter/Waves L1 style of compression (hard limiting 2db-3db of the top) then you're just bringing the good to the fore. Master buss eq is then about "let's just lift the air a db or so, 10k+, or a broadband bass boost, or a 1.5-2k cut just to soften it a little - very broadband". That kind of thing....great mixes sound like that because they've had the crap cut away, things that are fighting have been separated a bit, the orchestration/composition are working to full effect, and the 10% enhancement is working its magic on good things. Get a good level on a master on that and you're there. There's a great Antoine De Saint Exupery quote - "perfection is achieved not when there is nothing more to add, but when there is nothing more to take away". That's mixing.


----------



## Ashermusic (Mar 11, 2017)

Here is the one thing I can almost guarantee: if you post a mix and ask 10 really good engineers to comment, while there will be a few things they agree on there will be many more they do not.

1. Please your clients (if it is paid work.)
2. Please yourself.
3. Solicit opinions from others but take them all with a _huge_ amount of grains of salt.


----------



## JohnG (Mar 11, 2017)

MarcusMaximus said:


> I can't believe that they're simply using the same basic libraries that I own and not employing some mixing/mastering tricks beyond orchestration and balance.



Maybe some tricks, but most of it is the composition and orchestration, along with careful selection of mic positions. Some people swear by mixing tricks, but in general they tend to be either into something that features lots of cool contrasts (think the "Dark Knight" scores) or songwriters / electronica-based writers.

For songs, you need a lot of mixing to get where you want. For a very sparse "orchestral" piece, such as a string quartet, I would venture you can never get there properly with samples only. Instead of buying a solo strings library, it's so much better to spend the money on a few recordings of live players. There is nothing like that, _especially_ if it's a small ensemble.

Samples do a pretty good job with "big and loud," even with very little mixing at all. In that context, the faults of the samples get covered to some extent by the presence of percussion and / or synth tracks and all the simultaneous entrances. Even more true with "big / loud / action / fast."

For evidence, look at some of the demos Thomas Bergersen did 10 years ago with libraries that are undoubtedly inferior to what we have today. Some of those are astonishingly convincing.


----------



## sazema (Mar 11, 2017)

MarcusMaximus said:


> It's interesting.. I watched the first video that sazema linked to earlier in the thread, the one with the 'epic orchestral' track. I had a mixed reaction to it. The guy talks some sense alright in terms of his rationale for applying the various EQ cuts and so on and he definitely seems to know what he's talking about in general. However I don't like the end result - it sounds overly compressed and even distorted to my ears. He plays an extract at the start of the video and I thought he was going to fix that up somehow but that is his final mix it seems. Not something I would aspire to although I do appreciate his know-how and the specific tips he gives.
> 
> However it also made me think some more about the argument between the approach that uses plugins and effects, especially EQ and compression, fairly liberally though hopefully wisely, and the approach that afterlight82 was suggesting earlier where little or no effects could be used if the orchestration etc. is right. They do seem to be two quite distinct camps and as I say I favour the latter but I suppose the truth is as usual somewhere in the middle..



I understand you very well.
Re to video... It's a precise demonstration of how to do mixing, in this case "Epic score theme". Guy demonstrate complete sound specter and how to blend high freq with low, where to make space for some other instrument by cutting some freq, etc. And at the end it sounds perfect in a way of nearly perfect mastered hit song like any other EDM, Rock or Pop song  Of course, when we speak about orchestral music rules are not always the same, just about to imagine real orchestra playing at the stage, some violins are certainly louder then other etc (few night ago, I was at chamber concert and overall sound was horrible, but guys are still young)...
Also, I think this video is good just because of "mixing secrets depth covered", and knowing instruments range and freq ranges. Of course, guy is not pro, it's amateur like we are, but it's well presented.
Working with samples is tricky, especially with blending lot of different libraries, and you have to cut sometimes some of freq range for your brass line just to sound clear and to make final effect.
What I like to do, is to put reference song together with my mock-up and tend to achieve nearly same sound.
There is also plugin Magic AB, but someone already mention that I believe.
Also, try to not go deeply into mixing in your mock-up (no eq, no fx, just basic reverb stuff), instead when you finish with your piece, export stems and then make new session with all reverb routing etc, and then do just mixing and mastering. Separate your creativeness and engineering, it's easier


----------



## afterlight82 (Mar 11, 2017)

FWIW...I really didn't like the sound of that "epic score" video. I'm also not a fan of people doing the little 0.4db things like it makes much of a difference. The ear really cannot detect much less than a 1db change...just can't. Doing a 0.4db midrange cut? You needn't bother. Turn it off.


----------



## afterlight82 (Mar 11, 2017)

There's also a great deal out there of what I would call showboat mixing...you can usually see it when there's a surfeit of different plugins doing demonstrably little - little bothering to match RMS and see if you're actually improving things or just making it louder (because louder always sounds better - we're human and that's the way the ears work). And look, to each their own, if you want to chuck three different compressor plugins on your output buss, knock yourself out. If you like the sound that produces, awesome. But let's not pretend that you either need these things to do it right, that it necessarily sounds better, that you always need to cut the low end off sampled strings and brass (you don't, even if a particular method of scoping the audio says there is 20hz information, these things are not gospel just like meters aren't gospel, they are representations with inherent limitations)...and so on. It's like summing buss stuff and people saying well I ran it through a summing buss. And? Did you match levels and really A/B it? That kind of thing. That's not to say these are necessarily bad, just that I'm not convinced they're particularly good examples - with the scope up on the epic one I can see what I hear, which is over-compressed high end and stuff that doesn't sound really good to me. But hey, that's just my opinion and it's worth no more than anybody else's.


----------



## sazema (Mar 11, 2017)

afterlight82 said:


> FWIW...I really didn't like the sound of that "epic score" video. I'm also not a fan of people doing the little 0.4db things like it makes much of a difference. The ear really cannot detect much less than a 1db change...just can't. Doing a 0.4db midrange cut? You needn't bother. Turn it off.



Yes, but that's not the point here, I don't like how some of pop, EMD songs sounds like, but I've learned many things by just watching complete process (on some similar videos), that's the point.
I don't like J.Williams brass sound at all, but with a very stupid hack (trick) M.Verta show me of how to achieve more realistic sound with plain delay offset 
Each of us will make different cake at the end with same ingredients, but someone will add a little bit of cinnamon in eggs and sugar and will have completely different taste... That's how it is. Experience and tricks.

I also forgot to mention to author of this post, please watch *Into the Liar* series on Youtube,


----------



## MarcusMaximus (Mar 11, 2017)

So much great stuff here. I can't possibly respond to it all but rest assured everyone who has taken the time to contribute so thoughtfully and thoroughly, I am reading and watching all this material carefully and using it to build an invaluable resource of information! Of course there are varying views being expressed and not everything is consistent, can't possibly be, but that's ok.

Just want to pick up a few points. Afterlight82, thanks for that highly informative post. When I've said "tricks" I meant that as shorthand for "highly professional skills that have taken years to develop". I know there's no magic here. Great point about EQ boosts boosting note areas as well as 'frequency ranges'. Yes, I've always maintained that using professionally mastered tracks as references is not always that helpful, or at least should be done 'smartly' as you say. So much other great info there..

Ashermusic, very wise point. I totally agree with you which is why I've been reluctant to post my mix here, not that that's a bad thing to do but you have to be ready and able to discern what fits for you amidst the different views being expressed. Not always easy. And although I do solicit help I don't just take everything on board indiscriminately, though I respect and listen to what everyone has to say. However, thanks for the reminder to be careful - that's important.

JohnG, yes in the right hands (Bergersen et al!) samples can be made to sound pretty amazing but of course there's nothing like the real thing. I'd still hold to what I say about how those demos and suchlike were engineered, though I agree that the comp and orchestration are always primary.

Sazema, I did get a lot out of that video in terms of the _specific _information and am now going to watch the others you posted. I agree that he presented it well and very clearly, a lot clearer and more specific than some I've watched. However I also agree with your reactions afterlight82, I don't like the over-use of plugins and I don't like the result he gets. It's definitely loudness war territory I think. Large grains of salt here as Jay suggests - however there is some useful info there nonetheless.


----------



## MarcusMaximus (Mar 11, 2017)

sazema said:


> Yes, but that's not the point here, I don't like how some of pop, EMD songs sounds like, but I've learned many things by just watching complete process (on some similar videos), that's the point.
> I don't like J.Williams brass sound at all, but with a very stupid hack (trick) M.Verta show me of how to achieve more realistic sound with plain delay offset



I agree, the process is really helpful to watch. However we have to beware of information and habits that may be erroneous but sound authoritative just because someone put them on a video!

Don't like J. W.'s brass sound? How could you? That's sacrilege!


----------



## sazema (Mar 11, 2017)

MarcusMaximus said:


> I agree, the process is really helpful to watch. However we have to beware of information and habits that may be erroneous but sound authoritative just because someone put them on a video!
> 
> Don't like J. W.'s brass sound? How could you? That's sacrilege!



He he, I just don't like (I'm shamed)  It sounds too brassy, too Broadway 

Have you watched this one already? Everything is, at the end of the day, experimenting and nothing more 



Also, what you still need is:

- Good pair of monitors
- Good ears
- Good box of tricks or "witch" with spices
- Luck! 

Honestly, why not put something here, link with latest mix, or PM your mix to few members here? Maybe you have a good mix, but you just don't know that yet


----------



## MarcusMaximus (Mar 11, 2017)

No, haven't watched that one yet. I'm still on the 2nd one you posted! It's going to take me weeks to get through all these!


----------



## sazema (Mar 11, 2017)

MarcusMaximus said:


> No, haven't watched that one yet. I'm still on the 2nd one you posted! It's going to take me weeks to get through all these!



Oohhh, you should skip to this one first, I forgot about this one totally!


----------



## afterlight82 (Mar 11, 2017)

Alan knows his stuff. Worked with him for years. His advice is always good.


----------



## afterlight82 (Mar 11, 2017)

sazema said:


> Yes, but that's not the point here, I don't like how some of pop, EMD songs sounds like, but I've learned many things by just watching complete process (on some similar videos), that's the point.
> I don't like J.Williams brass sound at all, but with a very stupid hack (trick) M.Verta show me of how to achieve more realistic sound with plain delay offset
> Each of us will make different cake at the end with same ingredients, but someone will add a little bit of cinnamon in eggs and sugar and will have completely different taste... That's how it is. Experience and tricks.
> 
> I also forgot to mention to author of this post, please watch *Into the Liar* series on Youtube,




I don't really think that JW has a brass sound in that sense. He writes a certain way, Shawn mics a certain way, but it's actually fairly straight up and down the orchestration. There's a little difference between the USA and London recordings he's done due to brass mouthpiece bores. I think much of what people think of as Williams' "sound" evolves from the frequent woodwind doubling, for example, the voicings, and so on. But - yes to using delay offsets etc. and simulating mic bleed and so on and things, but the overriding thing must be - does it actually make it sound _better_?

Like cake, there is also the issue of it being stable, being solid, well made and so on. Whilst the flavor may vary, there are things that are true across the board about good mixes - balance, clarity etc...a cake that does not rise is not going to be good no matter the flavor. 

PS - re JW - basically no eq there! Another good example of it mostly being in the orchestration...and mic placement.


----------



## afterlight82 (Mar 11, 2017)

(a big part of Shawn's arsenal is the M50s which have a peak around 11-12k, then roll slowly off gently in the very top end...big low end too. When these are mains on the tree you get a proportion of the way there already).


----------



## MarcusMaximus (Mar 11, 2017)

sazema said:


> Honestly, why not put something here, link with latest mix, or PM your mix to few members here? Maybe you have a good mix, but you just don't know that yet



Yeah, I've already done that, to a couple of people who offered. I'm just awaiting their replies


----------



## MarcusMaximus (Mar 11, 2017)

afterlight82 said:


> Like cake, there is also the issue of it being stable, being solid, well made and so on. Whilst the flavor may vary, there are things that are true across the board about good mixes - balance, clarity etc...a cake that does not rise is not going to be good no matter the flavor.
> 
> PS - re JW - basically no eq there! Another good example of it mostly being in the orchestration...and mic placement.



Yes, absolutely re. cake and J.W.!


----------



## Maestro1972 (Mar 11, 2017)

afterlight82 said:


> Yes - the truth is definitely in the middle. Few thoughts/clarifications - the extra 10% can involve compression/eq and various other things. There are no "tricks" that a great mixer has, they have exactly the same tools and even though many may say they can't live without x plugin or y plugin (and that may be true of a reverb), most mixers could make a great mix with the stock DAW plugins. Don't like the reverb sound? Filter it, a bad algorithm usually has too much information, not too little. Lexicon reverbs get their sound partly from what the filters do. Use a little delay and tuck it in imperceptibly for depth.
> 
> Remember that everything in a mix that isn't additive (delay, distortion, reverb, chorus, etc.) is a volume/gain control. EQ is frequency-selective volume control. Compression is automated, rule based volume control. People worry greatly about the additive stuff - which saturation, which reverb, which delay - if you're feeling the need to add, it's probably lacking something musically and you're trying to compensate for that!
> 
> ...



Felt like we just went to church! Thanks for this!


----------



## sazema (Mar 11, 2017)

MarcusMaximus said:


> Yeah, I've already done that, to a couple of people who offered. I'm just awaiting their replies.



Here one thing also missing, a thesis:
"Someone else's mix sounds always better then it's own "


----------



## MarcusMaximus (Mar 11, 2017)

MarcusMaximus said:


> Yeah, I've already done that, to a couple of people who offered. I'm just awaiting their replies



Bowl of salt at the ready of course!


----------



## Maestro1972 (Mar 11, 2017)

I think that maybe we should be "obsessing" more over good orchestration than good mixing. I found this video and thought that it was pretty cool.


----------



## afterlight82 (Mar 11, 2017)

sazema said:


> Here one thing also missing, a thesis:
> "Someone else's mix sounds always better then it's own "



This is almost always true. The one thing I know when I've handed things off to well any good mixer is I listen to their mix and think...hey, why didn't my mix sound that good? I think the truth of it is the composer hears things differently, we know what it sounds like and we have this mental picture in our head; we're always working on it. We never have that neutral perspective. So it's almost like our ears are tuned differently to the track. I've had big drum hits that I thought were awesome and huge and another person has looked at it and gone..."er...they're a bit loud, are they not?"


----------



## MarcusMaximus (Mar 12, 2017)

Maestro1972 said:


> I think that maybe we should be "obsessing" more over good orchestration than good mixing. I found this video and thought that it was pretty cool.




That is cool. Alan Belkin is really great, a true expert when it comes to all things orchestral. I remember his excellent input into the Northern Sounds R. K. orchestration course. Thanks for posting this.



afterlight82 said:


> This is almost always true. The one thing I know when I've handed things off to well any good mixer is I listen to their mix and think...hey, why didn't my mix sound that good? I think the truth of it is the composer hears things differently, we know what it sounds like and we have this mental picture in our head; we're always working on it. We never have that neutral perspective. So it's almost like our ears are tuned differently to the track. I've had big drum hits that I thought were awesome and huge and another person has looked at it and gone..."er...they're a bit loud, are they not?"



This is so true. I've had those moments too when someone else has unintentionally trashed something I thought sounded wonderful! It can be hard to step back from our own material at all stages from initial composition to finished mix in order to evaluate it more objectively. Maybe there's no such thing and everything is ultimately subjective but as someone said earlier, there are certain fundamental things we do need to get right especially when it comes to engineering and mixing (and of course orchestration as A. B. reminds us above). I suppose that's where the judicious use of _appropriate _reference tracks can come in. And no doubt over time and with experience we get better at recognising what 'good' really does sound like and more importantly, how to achieve that good (as opposed to just louder) sound. My composition teacher used to say to try and listen to a piece from the audience's perspective. Easier said than done though!


----------



## babylonwaves (Mar 12, 2017)

MarcusMaximus said:


> The application of EQ you describe makes sense but it does beg the question: are people really EQ'ing their tracks created with _orchestral libraries_ as much as with other types of instruments and genres of music? I have come across a lot of people saying that they EQ orchestral material minimally if at all. Yes, arrangement and orchestration are key of course but I'm mostly concerned with the mix at this point.



i personally don't use much EQ on orchestral libs. but if i need to EQ, i don't shy away from it. why so? unless it sounds shit nobody will complain (or even know). i'm not religious about the use of my tools


----------



## MarcusMaximus (Mar 12, 2017)

babylonwaves said:


> i personally don't use much EQ on orchestral libs. but if i need to EQ, i don't shy away from it. why so? unless it sounds shit nobody will complain (or even know). i'm not religious about the use of my tools



It's true that beyond a certain point many of the finer points we worry about get lost on our listeners anyway. So it pays to be pragmatic and to know when it's good enough, and to move on.


----------



## sazema (Mar 13, 2017)

There is a few videos on Marc's channel on Vimeo



He is indeed member here and maybe can help also.


----------



## Maestro1972 (Mar 13, 2017)

sazema said:


> There is a few videos on Marc's channel on Vimeo
> 
> 
> 
> He is indeed member here and maybe can help also.



Have you taken the course? If so, how much detail does he go in to balancing and mixing? I am always weary of courses in that they seldom meet my expectation. Thanks for any feedback.


----------



## MarcusMaximus (Mar 13, 2017)

Maestro1972 said:


> Have you taken the course? If so, how much detail does he go in to balancing and mixing? I am always weary of courses in that they seldom meet my expectation. Thanks for any feedback.



That course looks great. I've had mixed experiences with courses in general but this one is certainly tempting. I just signed up for the free mini-course! I too would be interested in hearing from anyone who has taken the full one.

I studied composition and orchestration 1-1 with Alain Mayrand who is fantastic and is also a member here. It's mostly for real orchestra though. Here's what he's doing now teaching-wise and I would strongly recommend it (no affiliation beyond personal experience of his excellent teaching).

https://scoreclub.net


----------



## Maestro1972 (Mar 13, 2017)

I think that I have all of those courses and they are awesome. On the topic of better sounds I am also thinking about taking Marc's course called Symphonic Virtual Orchestration. Pretty pricy but I applied some of his advise in his free webinar and I think it helped with the separation and definition in my mix. If you go to his page and sign up for the email you get access to the free webinar. I noticed in his mixing stage he used what I considered a lot of plug ins. It appears as something was on every buss. It's interesting to see/hear from people with different views...some say don't do anything to it but balance...others say, cut this, tweak this....I will say that the consistent theme from all is balance and orchestration.


----------



## MarcusMaximus (Mar 13, 2017)

Maestro1972 said:


> I think that I have all of those courses and they are awesome. On the topic of better sounds I am also thinking about taking Marc's course called Symphonic Virtual Orchestration. Pretty pricy but I applied some of his advise in his free webinar and I think it helped with the separation and definition in my mix. If you go to his page and sign up for the email you get access to the free webinar. I noticed in his mixing stage he used what I considered a lot of plug ins. It appears as something was on every buss. It's interesting to see/hear from people with different views...some say don't do anything to it but balance...others say, cut this, tweak this....I will say that the consistent theme from all is balance and orchestration.



That's the one I was referring to in the first part of my post. It looks great and as I say I did sign up for the free email course but my head does start to spin when people start applying loads of processing so I'm not sure. Plus it is pretty pricey as you say.. 

I'm also still considering the ThinkSpace one I linked to at the start of the thread, though it's just about the mixing stage whereas Marc's seems to be about the whole process from start to finish.


----------



## sazema (Mar 13, 2017)

Maestro1972 said:


> Have you taken the course? If so, how much detail does he go in to balancing and mixing? I am always weary of courses in that they seldom meet my expectation. Thanks for any feedback.



No, but sounds very convenient to me, and very serious.


----------



## Maestro1972 (Mar 13, 2017)

I'm also still considering the ThinkSpace one I linked to at the start of the thread, though it's just about the mixing stage whereas Marc's seems to be about the whole process from start to finish.[/QUOTE]

I have done the ThinkSpace one and it is very good for mixing with very little plugins...a couple of verbs, delay and a bit of eq. I think where it lacks IMO is in stage presence. I didn't feel like I was among the orchestra. Hard to put into words but i didn't get (or how to get) the separation clarity yet cohesiveness that I am looking for. It's been a while since I took the course so maybe I should revisit it.


----------



## sazema (Mar 13, 2017)

Marcus, do you have any feedback yet? I'm so interested now


----------



## Maestro1972 (Mar 13, 2017)

I just enrolled in the symphonic virtual orchestration course so I will let you guys know how it is. Customer service is amazing so far!


----------



## synthetic (Mar 13, 2017)

This is one of my favorite mixing videos on YouTube, George Massenburg EQing piano. My mixes sound better when I start listening closely like this. 



Those frequency buildups are much worse in sampled instruments than in acoustic recordings, because any room resonance in the sample starts to compound with every note you play. 

There's a whole series of videos with George Massenburg in the studio that you should check out.


----------



## MarcusMaximus (Mar 13, 2017)

sazema said:


> Marcus, do you have any feedback yet? I'm so interested now



I've received feedback from one member who clearly knows what he's talking about, still awaiting another. Very helpful and I agree with his feedback. Once I've heard from the other member I'll let you guys know the gist. Thanks for your interest!



Maestro1972 said:


> I just enrolled in the symphonic virtual orchestration course so I will let you guys know how it is. Customer service is amazing so far!



I'd love to hear how you get on with that so yeah, do let us know. And good to hear about the ThinkSpace course. Sounds like an approach that might fit well for me, apart from your reservations.

Thanks synthetic for posting that video. Haven't watched it yet but I'll definitely get around to it over the next couple of days. Excellent stuff I'm sure from Massenburg.


----------



## MarcusMaximus (Mar 14, 2017)

You know, watching these videos from true masters like Meyerson, Massenburg and the others as well as reading through a lot of these posts, it strikes me that sound engineering is such a complex and specific craft / set of skills that it is very difficult to master if your focus is primarily on something else, i.e. composing and orchestrating. Meyerson says it most clearly towards the end of that video. He says something like that he never writes anything, he just serves the composer. So I wonder how realistic it is to try and do both well? It really is attempting to reach a level of expertise in two very different fields, each of which requires a huge amount of practice and experience to master. I know a lot of people manage to develop skills in both areas but really, how many great composers are also great engineers and vice versa? If Stravinsky was alive today, would he attempt to mix and master his own music? I'm just thinking about this having watched through these videos and finding them both informative and a little depressing: If that's the level of skill required to mix well then surely it is best to leave that stage to the professionals and just focus on the writing. How can I hope to get that good, or even good enough, without dedicating myself to years of learning a whole new set of skills? Which I really don't have time for at my stage in life!

I'm not drawing any conclusions here, just thinking out loud. Along the lines of 'If I can't do it as well as a pro then is it wise to do it at all?' The other side of the coin is something that one of my jazz teachers once said to me when I was despairing of ever getting my playing to the level of the guitarists I admire. He said "Never forget that there are a lot of good places between here and there." That's always stayed with me.


----------



## gsilbers (Mar 14, 2017)

MarcusMaximus said:


> You know, watching these videos from true masters like Meyerson, Massenburg and the others as well as reading through a lot of these posts, it strikes me that sound engineering is such a complex and specific craft / set of skills that it is very difficult to master if your focus is primarily on something else, i.e. composing and orchestrating. Meyerson says it most clearly towards the end of that video. He says something like that he never writes anything, he just serves the composer. So I wonder how realistic it is to try and do both well? It really is attempting to reach a level of expertise in two very different fields, each of which requires a huge amount of practice and experience to master. I know a lot of people manage to develop skills in both areas but really, how many great composers are also great engineers and vice versa? If Stravinsky was alive today, would he attempt to mix and master his own music? I'm just thinking about this having watched through these videos and finding them both informative and a little depressing: If that's the level of skill required to mix well then surely it is best to leave that stage to the professionals and just focus on the writing. How can I hope to get that good, or even good enough, without dedicating myself to years of learning a whole new set of skills? Which I really don't have time for at my stage in life!
> 
> I'm not drawing any conclusions here, just thinking out loud. Along the lines of 'If I can't do it as well as a pro then is it wise to do it at all?' The other side of the coin is something that one of my jazz teachers once said to me when I was despairing of ever getting my playing to the level of the guitarists I admire. He said "Never forget that there are a lot of good places between here and there." That's always stayed with me.




true but you can get good mixes yourself. there are plenty of guys here getting decent mixes on their own. its not easy though.

one thing that I've learned is that the engineers (or putting your engineering hat) is to start on a new session and getting organized. getting the right busses and working on each group of instruments individually and then mixing them with the other groups. for me it is like seeing the track as a new thing again if I start from pro tools and only do the mix.
one of the things I learn is also are my shortcomings in a track. should of worked better orchestration, arrangement, structure etc. sometimes I go back to logic to fix the music side of things.
so for me , the mixing process is also about getting organized and seeing it from a new perspective like a new daw or holding from mixing for at least a few days or weeks so you can come back to it new.
it also helps to compare it to other mixes in the same style , orchestration and sound.


----------



## Illico (Mar 14, 2017)

MarcusMaximus said:


> ...He says something like that he never writes anything, he just serves the composer. So I wonder how realistic it is to try and do both well? It really is attempting to reach a level of expertise in two very different fields, each of which requires a huge amount of practice and experience to master.



It's like film photography process (chimical). There is one artist who captures the moment (composer) and there is another artist that reveals it (mixer).


----------



## chimuelo (Mar 14, 2017)

I'd suggest getting custom IEMs to not only allow more detail to be heard, but protect your ears.
You only get one pair.
I mix everyday.
People tell me my presets, mixes and use of FX sound great.
I think I suck, so I just keep mixing everyday....


----------



## MarcusMaximus (Mar 14, 2017)

gsilbers said:


> true but you can get good mixes yourself. there are plenty of guys here getting decent mixes on their own. its not easy though.
> 
> one thing that I've learned is that the engineers (or putting your engineering hat) is to start on a new session and getting organized. getting the right busses and working on each group of instruments individually and then mixing them with the other groups. for me it is like seeing the track as a new thing again if I start from pro tools and only do the mix.
> one of the things I learn is also are my shortcomings in a track. should of worked better orchestration, arrangement, structure etc. sometimes I go back to logic to fix the music side of things.
> ...



I have no doubt that there are plenty of people here who are getting great mixes. Didn't mean to imply that there aren't. It's just that I think there is an argument for separating the two unless you have the time, confidence and skills to do it well. As you say Illico, two different artists. (This is also something someone else suggested to me in an exchange of messages a few days ago.) However the process you describe is definitely the way to go if doing it yourself and is familiar to me - I always bounce everything to audio and then open a new Logic project and set up and do the mix there. I think I probably just need to stay with that for now and experiment with applying some of the concepts I've picked up in this thread and through the feedback. If at the end of the day I'm still feeling hampered by my relative lack of skill I might well go for one of those courses, or else consider getting a pro engineer to at least co-mix my tracks. However, I like the 'putting on your engineering hat' idea. Suits the DIY'er in me! 



chimuelo said:


> I think I suck, so I just keep mixing everyday....



Practice, practice, practice I guess..


----------



## MarcusMaximus (Mar 24, 2017)

I know this thread has gone beyond its sell-by date a bit but I thought I'd just give a quick update. I have received excellent feedback on my latest mix from 2 members here. The gist of it was that mostly the EQ is ok with no real problems in terms of muddiness etc. in the low end but perhaps the need for slight enhancement in the high end. Some other EQ suggestions were made but nothing too radical. Balance of the sections needs to be worked on a bit, especially to bring down some too prominent woodwinds. It would also benefit from some more panning and attention to the space in terms of reverb. One person felt that the parts were too well-aligned although I didn't quantize anything and played it all in by hand. (I did however correct some of the more obviously out-of-time notes and may well have gone a bit too far there.) Composition, dynamics and orchestration got generally good marks!

There was lots more great stuff in the feedback but these were the main points - I hope I have represented it accurately enough without going into too much detail. I have to say that I am extremely grateful to both members for the care, sensitivity and detail they put into their feedback. They were both constructively critical, obviously very knowledgeable and also really supportive and encouraging. So, much appreciation guys!

I have also been doing the ThinkSpace Orchestral Mixing course and am finding it hugely helpful and informative. The ability to watch an experienced engineer mix a couple of pieces and then apply those techniques myself is just invaluable. I would recommend that course to anyone. Once I finish it, and there's quite a lot to get through, I'm going to re-do my own mix incorporating what I've learned from all this.

So it's onwards and upwards. Always so much more to learn but between all the info in this thread, that course and the excellent specific feedback I have received I do feel a lot better equipped to - you got it - "take my mixes to the next level"!


----------



## Maestro1972 (Mar 24, 2017)

MarcusMaximus said:


> I know this thread has gone beyond its sell-by date a bit but I thought I'd just give a quick update. I have received excellent feedback on my latest mix from 2 members here. The gist of it was that mostly the EQ is ok with no real problems in terms of muddiness etc. in the low end but perhaps the need for slight enhancement in the high end. Some other EQ suggestions were made but nothing too radical. Balance of the sections needs to be worked on a bit, especially to bring down some too prominent woodwinds. It would also benefit from some more panning and attention to the space in terms of reverb. One person felt that the parts were too well-aligned although I didn't quantize anything and played it all in by hand. (I did however correct some of the more obviously out-of-time notes and may well have gone a bit too far there.) Composition, dynamics and orchestration got generally good marks!
> 
> There was lots more great stuff in the feedback but these were the main points - I hope I have represented it accurately enough without going into too much detail. I have to say that I am extremely grateful to both members for the care, sensitivity and detail they put into their feedback. They were both constructively critical, obviously very knowledgeable and also really supportive and encouraging. So, much appreciation guys!
> 
> ...



That is awesome and great news to hear! I am taking the Symphonic Virtual Orchestration class with Marc Jovani...WOW I love this course! Everything from set up to mastering...challenging, but with every ounce of effort I put towards this I am getting big results! I mention all this as another avenue for those who really want to improve their sound.


----------



## MarcusMaximus (Mar 24, 2017)

Thanks Maestro! I have received all the free emails from Marc that are an introduction to his course and yeah, it looks really excellent as well. Maybe at some point I'll take that further but for now the mixing one fits my immediate need. There are some really fantastic resources out there though - great to know.


----------

