# Help with production/mix on orchestral mock-up.



## jamieboo (Oct 10, 2018)

Hello folks

I already posted this WiP in 'Members Compositions' but didn't get much response - which is probably telling in itself!
It's clearly unfinished and needs quite a bit of work but I'm reasonably happy (rightly or wrongly) with the compositional/orchestration side of things, but I'm quite at sea with the production/mix side.
I think I've got the orchestral balance roughly right, but there are moments when that seems wrong too.
But apart from that I feel the reverb isn't quite right. And maybe I should be doing some EQ work?

Anyway, this is a WiP for a Piratey/Swashbuckly project (in an old-school, non-Zimmer way).
I'm using Hollywood Orchestra Diamond. I'm using Main Mics for everything apart from Close Mics for the Woodwinds. (I'd read recommendations about using the close mics for woodwinds in this particular library from several seasoned users of HO)
Each instrumental section I am sending to a section-appropriate instance of So Cal Hall in QL Spaces.
I've done no EQing so far generally, but I've rolled off a bit of the low end in each reverb.
Obviously there's lots more CC/dynamics work to do.

It sounds crappy! What do you think are the main areas of its failing?
What can I do to make it sound better?

Soundwise I suppose I'm going for a mid-90s Williams-type soundscape.

Any help or suggestions very welcome.
Thank you.


----------



## jamieboo (Oct 19, 2018)

Hello again folks

Sorry to bounce this but I'm really keen to get some feedback!

Why does it sound crappy?
Is it EQing? Reverb? Panning? Balance?
Of course the problem might simply be my composing and orchestration!

But any suggestions/criticisms would be very helpful.

Thanks


----------



## Farkle (Oct 19, 2018)

jamieboo said:


> Hello folks
> 
> I already posted this WiP in 'Members Compositions' but didn't get much response - which is probably telling in itself!
> It's clearly unfinished and needs quite a bit of work but I'm reasonably happy (rightly or wrongly) with the compositional/orchestration side of things, but I'm quite at sea with the production/mix side.
> ...




I'll take a listen this weekend and give some feedback. I'm a bit slammed today.

Mike


----------



## Beat Kaufmann (Oct 19, 2018)

You say "it sounds crappy". How do you get that? *Do you have a reference sound to compare with? 
If yes, then take this reference.* Bring the reference and your music to the same volume and write down a list of all the differences:


Strings: sound, coloring, distance, position
Wind instruments: sound, coloring, distance, position
Percussion: dito
_In general:_
Balance between the instrument sections

bass-range...
Depths

Transparency over all

Coloring over all
What else is noticeable?
...

Then start with the work to minimize the differences of your list.
You can not just ask, "Is there still a bit of EQ needed?"

By the way, if you've been working a lot with EQs in the mix, then just turn them all off and then hear what the result sounds like ... maybe you'll be surprised.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
*If you do not have a reference yet,* then the next step is to find one.
The problem is that you are too close to the sound and your music. Without a comparison you will not be able to say how your mix sounds.
So find an orchestral sound that you say: This is exactly how my orchestra should sound too.

Remember that mixing involves a good amount of tast. If you now get feedback, one will say: a little more of that. Another says: a little bit more or from this. The path leads only to a reference, because there is not THE mix.

All the best
Beat


----------



## Oguz Sehiralti (Oct 19, 2018)

I don’t think it sounds crappy at all. I’d say great work!

You mention that there’s a lot of dynamics work to do; I would start with that first. Some of the long notes could use some more dynamics in my opinion. 

Have you played the parts in? It sounded a bit quantized to me. Some of the faster sections could benefit from a bit of “fuzziness”. I thought sometimes some of the difficult sections sounded a bit too perfect. 

When it comes to eq or other processing, I’d like to generally only do what’s necessary. You mentioned reverb, maybe that could be a starting point. Even though you’re using main mics and have a reverb, you could send some of the sections to an algorithmic reverb, maybe with the low end rolled off in the input. I would also look into adding some harmonic distortion, especially to brass and fast strings. Also, some of the more rhythmic elements (string tremolos for example) could use a bit of slow attack compression to make the attacks punchier. 

Eq-wise you might want to clean up to low end a bit from some instruments, but I listened with headphones so that’s a bit hard to judge. And most instruments, especially strings could benefit from adding a bit of “air” using a high shelf. 

Overall I think it was a very nice composition and I enjoyed a lot listening to it.


----------



## Beat Kaufmann (Oct 19, 2018)

Jamie
I allowed myself to quickly check your music in the studio. Although I recommended a reference above, I can give you some technical feedback without a reference. Keep in mind, that these are my personal opinions:

The mix has got too much "stereo enhancer effect". > Reduction of the stereo width
The mix is too weak in the bass range. Clean up the bass range in the mix. "Give" the bass instruments more power (Compressor?)

The strings sound nice stereo but the winds (flute etc.) do not sound spatially almost mono and not in the same room as the strings (is it another library?)
There are a few frequencies that dominate (resonances) Maybe they are generated by the reverb or you have misadjusted EQs. e.g. the Timpani sounds very boomy around 150-200Hz. >> Suppress those resonance frequencies.
The percussion instruments (snare and crash) should be mixed a bit "darker".
The dynamic difference is quite large (difference loud-quiet).As a result, your music will never sound as powerful as Williams' mixes. >> Possibility: Lift the quiet music sections by means of parallel compression.

I tried to fix the findings a bit. In that sense, I have "mastered" your music, if you like. But I have to say that you should solve most points in the mix and not in the stereo sum as I had to do it.

http://www.musik-produktion-createc.ch/Jamieboo_original.wav 44,1kHz/24Bit (recorded from your uper link)
http://www.musik-produktion-createc.ch/Jamieboo_m.wav 44,1kHz/24Bit

The two files are volume-compensated. You can compare them directly.
If you like the mastered result, keep in mind that it is sometimes worthwhile judging and mastering a mix by someone else. Again, this is a way to improve a mix as well.

Have fun
Beat


----------



## jamieboo (Oct 19, 2018)

Beat,
thank you so much for taking the time to have a proper listen to my music and to give such a thoughtful response!
Yes, I should get used to using a reference - thanks for the advice.

As to your subsequent points...
- I'm not using any Stereo Enhancer effects so I'm not sure what I can do about that.
- Yes, I should boost the bass range. Is compression the best way to do this or should my first strategy be to simply raise the volume of the Basses, Celli, Tuba, Trombones etc in the mix?
- I'm using close mics for the woodwinds (as per several recommendations when using this library), but maybe that is creating the problem here. Everything is the same library - Hollywood Orchestra Diamond.
- I've not really adjusted EQ yet, but I have also felt there to be a boominess about the timpani, but I never knew how to address it. So you reckon lowering the EQ around 150-200hz should help with that?
- When you say snare and crash should be 'mixed darker', do you mean I should tone down some of the high end EQ?
- Yeah, I've never dabbled with compression. I always think that one of the great beauties of orchestral music is its huge dynamic range. But you think my piece could benefit from some?

Thanks for doing that quick remastering too. Very interesting to hear and compare. Yes, I can hear the boosted bass range.

Once again, thanks so much for taking the time to consider my music so thoughtfully and offering such good advice!

Jamie


----------



## jamieboo (Oct 19, 2018)

Thanks also to you Oguz!

Just a couple of questions about your suggestions...

What would adding an algorithmic reverb on top of my section appropriate reverbs and general Main Micing achieve? I know many people use both algorithmic AND convolution but I've never quite understood why - or the techniques with which to hear the benefit of such an arrangement.
Also, what do you mean by adding harmonic distortion to brass and strings? I've never really heard about that before.
And how would I add 'slow attack compression'?

Apologies if my questions are idiotic!

And thanks for you kind words about the general composition itself!


----------



## jamieboo (Oct 19, 2018)

Farkle said:


> I'll take a listen this weekend and give some feedback. I'm a bit slammed today.
> 
> Mike


Thanks Mike!
I look forward to hearing your thoughts.


----------



## Oguz Sehiralti (Oct 19, 2018)

jamieboo said:


> Thanks also to you Oguz!
> 
> Just a couple of questions about your suggestions...
> 
> ...



No questions are idiotic! Let me try to answer as much as I can. I can try to make some sound examples when I find time in my studio as well.

Disclaimer: I'm certainly not claiming that I know any of these things very well, and I struggle with the same things a lot. So these are just my opinions and experience. Also, apologies for the long post. 

*Reverb: *I think it's best to experiment a lot with reverb to see what kind of difference it makes. But it's also very easy to get ear fatigue doing that. You mentioned mid 90s Williams sound, so I'll try to give some examples with that in mind.
As far as I know, most orchestral music is being recorded with multiple mic setups to enhance the sound of the orchestra. I don't myself use Hollywood Strings but it seems that there is a similar set-up there as well:



EastWest website said:


> HOLLYWOOD STRINGS has five user-controllable mic positions, including main pickup (Decca tree), mid pickup, close pickup, surround pickup, and an alternate vintage circa 1945 RCA ribbon room pickup.



As an example, Star Wars Episode I seems to be recorded with a Decca Tree + Outriggers as well (and incidentally, it's recorded by the same sound engineer that recorded the Hollywood Strings library):



> For the Star Wars prequels, Murphy used three Neumann M50 tube microphones, in accordance with the original specification, for his Decca Tree. The Neumann M50 is a highly regarded microphone that is neither omni directional nor cardioid yet behaves like an omni at low frequencies that becomes highly directional at higher frequencies. “I have six M50s of my own” counted Murphy. 81 “There just isn’t anything manufactured today that does as good a job.” 82 Outriggers were also employed in accordance with Wilkinson’s refinements. These highlight the violins to the left and cellos to the right of the tree. A series of section and spot mikes were employed for additional reinforcement.



Source: http://www.malonedigital.com/starwars.pdf

Such music will usually be mixed with a similar mic setup from multiple angles. In your case, if you're using the Decca Tree + a convolution reverb, you basically have two layers of reverberation. However, during the mix, it's very common to apply one or more layers of reverb (usually a Lexicon or a Bricasti, etc.) depending on the style of music and the sound the engineer is looking for. It is rather counter-intuitive; so I'd recommend not thinking about recreating an orchestral performance as it happens in a live room but produce the music to sound as good as you can make it.

I personally find it that using multiple layers of reverb (as sends, of course, and not a lot), is particulatly crucial with sampled instruments. The room recordings as well as convolution reverb are amazing in recreating a room sound, but they are by their very nature quite static. Also, I sometimes find it so that using a lot of room recordings and convolution reverb can result in a very over-emphasised tail reverb. In that case I sometimes shorten the convolution reverb time and add another tail through an algorhytmic reverb. In general, like @Beat Kaufmann suggested above, do get some reference recordings and compare your sound to the sound you are trying to achieve by experimenting with reverb.

*Harmonic Distortion:* Maybe this was the wrong term to use. I'll give a couple of examples that I've seen used a lot:
https://www.waves.com/plugins/kramer-master-tape#eddie-kramer-on-the-kramer-master-tape
http://www.pspaudioware.com/plugins/dynamic_processors/psp_vintagewarmer2/
https://www.waves.com/plugins/aphex-vintage-aural-exciter#aphex-vintage-aural-exciter-tutorial

There are many other examples of course. These types of plugins usually change the sound by adding or changing some of the harmonics. In my experience this helps with sampled instruments quite a lot. Your DAW might come with one already. If not, here's a free example:

https://www.softube.com/index.php?id=satknob

Similarly, I try to use modelled plugins (eq, compressor, etc.) as much as possible with samples since some of the "inaccuracies" of the modelling does make the samples sound livelier in my opinion.

*Compressor: *As you know, a compressor variably changes the amplitude of a signal in different times. When the attack is slow, the first portion of the sound that is above the threshold is allowed to pass, and then the sound is turned down. This usually makes the attack portion of a sound louder, making the attacks punchier. Please let me know if you'd need examples on this.

Again, just my 2 cents. I hope not everything I said is terribly wrong.


----------



## Beat Kaufmann (Oct 19, 2018)

Hi Jamie

_- I'm not using any Stereo Enhancer effects so I'm not sure what I can do about that._
Could be that your reverbsystem makes this extra width. As soon as I reduced the stereo width (85%), the instruments sat in a better defined position.

_- Yes, I should boost the bass range. Is compression the best way to do this or should my first strategy be to simply raise the volume of the Basses, Celli, Tuba, Trombones etc in the mix?_
You can try to increase all volumes of the bass instruments slightly.
Then look for the lowest reaching Instrument and only boost the low end of this instrument (below 100Hz). This procedure is very complex and different every time. The best way to do this is to learn how to do that in a lesson, because it often requires several effects.

_- I'm using close mics for the woodwinds (as per several recommendations when using this library), but maybe that is creating the problem here. Everything is the same library - Hollywood Orchestra Diamond._
Try with microphones a little further away and spend the instruments a compressor (a little) for compensating the lost presence.

_- I've not really adjusted EQ yet, but I have also felt there to be a boominess about the timpani, but I never knew how to address it. So you reckon lowering the EQ around 150-200hz should help with that?_
Stop stop. You have to find the exact frequency with the Timpani - not "just set a value". Whether you use a dynamic EQ or a fixed EQ for lowering the disturbing resonance you have to try yourself.

_- When you say snare and crash should be 'mixed darker', do you mean I should tone down some of the high end EQ?_
Yes, here I would try to use a dynamic EQ, which dampens the high frequencies, especially when the instruments are played.

_- Yeah, I've never dabbled with compression. I always think that one of the great beauties of orchestral music is its huge dynamic range. But you think my piece could benefit from some?_
It is a great illusion to think that compression is not used in classical music. On the contrary. Imagine having the overall volume of a symphony orchestra in your car. Impossible! So you have to reduce the volume tremendously. But then the quiet parts are too quiet. Play classical music and measure the dynamic difference with a modern EBU meter. You'll be amazed at how little dynamic difference is. Keep in mind: Our brain knows how a violin sounds when played softly. That's why we barely notice when quieter parts are mixed louder. Especially if you want to produce music in the style of J. Williams a certain power is inevitable. Of course you have to use compressors moderately and so that you do not notice them.

Best
Beat


----------



## jamieboo (Oct 22, 2018)

Hello Beat

Cubase has some kind of spatializer plug in which will allow me to reduce the stereo to 85% (or whatever) - so I'll have a play with that.
So actually boosting the low end (below 100Hz) of bass instruments can be a good idea? I've never tried that. Again, I'll have a play.
When you did your quick 'mastering' before, can I ask what changes you made? I loved the enhanced rumble of the bass drum at 1.26 so obviously some bass boosting. But can you tell me exactly what you did? I know applying such things to an audio file is not the way I should be tackling this, but it would still be useful to know.

Thanks again!

And thanks to you too Oguz - I'll look into those plugins you suggested!


----------



## Beat Kaufmann (Oct 25, 2018)

Hello Jamie Boo
I'm sorry for reporting so late. I'm pretty busy right now. As a self-employed man I have to do first of all the work that gives money 

I think believe the bass I amplified with a multiband compressor (only the first band to about 100Hz.) Very often, if you strengthen the bass pretty much (for example, with a Lowshelf EQ), some frequencies are then particularly too strong. They are then too dominant beside a good volume of the bass in average. These peaks can then be lowerd again with a dynamic EQ...
So you see: The whole thing around the bass range is very complex. Therefore, it is best to solve this thing well in the mix itself by choosing an instrument as "the main bass for the lowest frequencies". The instrument that is currently responsible for the deepest bass, of course, can change over a whole piece. Once it's the double basses, then the tubas, then the electric bass (example)... 

So enhance those bass range with an EQ for the certain instrument. After that you can use the track automation get a as constant as possible bass volume from 30 to about 100Hz. All other instruments, which play the same bass melody, you should weaken in this low frequency range (You will not get any phase cancellations this way).

Also note that you can duplicate weak bass instruments with others to create a bit more volume in the bass range. In the following example, I used the double basses of the orchestra library in parallel for the tubas. Above all, I mixed the low bass of the library so that you do not hear the double basses themselves. createc_sample_march.mp3

It is also possible to double the bass with a synthesizer. Mostly this is the most effective method, because Synthetic basses are usually very constant in volume.


One last remark
In each mix, the situation is different and you have to try what is best. Such subtleties are definitely nothing for any preset. Skills are asked here.

Beat


----------



## Sanlky (Oct 26, 2018)

jamieboo said:


> Hello folks
> 
> I already posted this WiP in 'Members Compositions' but didn't get much response - which is probably telling in itself!
> It's clearly unfinished and needs quite a bit of work but I'm reasonably happy (rightly or wrongly) with the compositional/orchestration side of things, but I'm quite at sea with the production/mix side.
> ...



It doesnt sound bad but it needs some mixing, orchestration sounds nice.

The main problem i am hearing are mid frecuencies, also leveling, automating lead, foreground, background can help a lot. Reverb sounds like using an old short plate.

Also, you dont need to always remove bass from reverbs, it can help sometimes, but you might need some to fill stereo image. A big work on balancing/EQ can make your track sound awesome. Spaces sounds very good, but i always felt their impulses to be very static, like they fill up but you want to feel whats happening in the room. Algorithmics reverbs summed up can help a lot, and there are lots of incredible ones.


----------



## enyawg (Oct 26, 2018)

Really like this sir.

What I can suggest is that the piece does sound a bit over quantized. The tone of your instruments stings, woods and brass in particular seems very loud in parts from viola, oboe, trumpet upwards. Percussion has better low frequencies than these sections. And bass strings in particular sound weak, so maybe EQ or select replacement or later cello bass and lower brass and woods. And mix down the mid to high pitched instruments to blend with bass.

Also regarding the arrangement in your 7+ minute piece you have some nice movement, but I would add some grave or largo tempo in there at times. Then maybe thin out the arrangement in these slower areas and optionally add a minimal instrument or combined instruments like cello etc.

Panning may need some looking at.

Good luck.


----------



## jamieboo (Oct 29, 2018)

Thanks everyone for such thoughtful and detailed suggestions! It's hugely appreciated!
I certainly have lots to think about!

One thing, Sanlky… You said that you think SPACES reverb sounds good (apart from being a bit static), but earlier you said you thought the reverb in my piece sounded like an old short plate! I'm using SPACE's So Cal halls - which I always thought were pretty well regarded - so am I using it wrongly somehow?


----------



## Havoc911 (Oct 29, 2018)

Most of us put the reverbs on Fx sends and bus the instruments there. The procedure varies a bit from DAW to DAW. The advantage of using reverbs on sends is that it reduces the number of plugins running and it also allows you easier control of the reverb level in your mix. 

Here's how my routing looks for a typical string section (V1,V2,Va,VC,CB). Everything gets bussed to either a long or short string reverb, whichever is appropriate. The long strings verb has a longer tail than the short string verb, that's the only difference. Each string section also gets bussed to a secondary orchestral reverb (along with all the other orchestral instruments), which is a different plugin (and different tail length) than was used on the section specific reverbs. 

The reverbs then get sent to group channels. This is so that they can be processed separately (EQ, automation, multiband compression). I have groups for all the long reverbs, all the shorts, the secondary reverb with everything, percussion, and usually one or 2 for delays. Then these groups are routed directly to the stereo out and don't get processed again though the mix bus.

Regarding your bass. Not only can you do some boosting with EQ, but you can add a synth (playing a sine wave) an octave below the bass line. This will really fatten up your sound when you want some impact.


----------



## jamieboo (Oct 29, 2018)

Yeah, I use reverbs as Sends.
I haven't made the division between long and short notes (probably because I use Expression Maps so any track could be either a long or short articulation depending on what is triggered at a given point).
All my string instruments are sent to a Strings group. And then that group sends to a Strings Reverb Aux/FX track where SPACES in plugged in with a So Cal Strings impulse at default.
The other instrument sections are similarly routed - except they go to their Section appropriate instance of Spaces So Cal.
I've toyed with the idea of having another reverb on the stereo out but I'm not sure.
In terms of instrument/section specific reverbs on one hand, and a secondary additional 'global' reverb on the other, which should have the longer tail?
The So Cal impulses I use all last around 3.4 seconds I think, if I were to additionally have another reverb on the Stereo Out should that be longer or shorter (and possibly at a lower volume)?


----------



## Havoc911 (Oct 29, 2018)

I wouldn't put the reverb on the stereo out, as that removes a lot of your control. Rather, add another reverb send and bus the whole orchestra to it. My secondary happens to be Spaces II where I use the generic So Cal Hall (3.4s sounds about right). My section specific vary, but are usually longer than 3.4s (except the shorts at 2.xs). It really doesn't matter which has the longer tail. It would be worth experimenting to see which you think sounds better.

Reverb should be mixed like everything else. Generally, I mute the reverb returns until late in the process. My hypothesis is that reverb hides mistakes and, if the mix sounds good dry, it will only sound better with some nice reverb. Also, keep in mind that I'm using some tree mics on the samples themselves (so technically 3 reverbs). This can be a bit much and it's nice to be able to pull up the reverb faders until you can just hear it giving some depth. If you've got a big emotional section or something, you can automate the reverb returns to give that section a lot of warmth.

It's really endless what you can do with some clever routing and processing.


----------



## jamieboo (Nov 2, 2018)

Thanks very much Havoc911!
I'm utterly ignorant about so much of this stuff!


----------

