# Eq & the orchestra



## mwarsell (Jul 21, 2012)

Suppose I make a short orchestral piece. After finishing it I have no idea whether to use eq on it - on each instrument group, each articulation, on the entire mix? And if the answer is yes, then what to eq? (cut mainly, right?) This is one aspect of orchestral music production I'm rather lost. What should I do? Or where to learn this? I understand that I should use my ears - if it sounds good, no eq needed? But how do I know if I can make it sound even better with eq?

Any insights will be gratefully accepted.


----------



## Ganvai (Jul 21, 2012)

Just compare your song to other tracks which have the sound you wish to have. That's the best way to hear if you should or could change something.

First you should compare the instrument-sounds. So first bass, then cello, then violas aso. 

When you think you can do something for the instrument to sound better, do it. But everytime you should compare what you have done to the original. You should analyse and everytime ask yourself "what did this frequency with my instrument sound?" Is it brighter now or is it now a dead sound? Waht do you need for your instrument. Doe you want it to bring it in front of the mix, or should it be in the background (btw: this is something loudness can handle much better then eq)

You should always remember: Taking frequency gain sounds always better than to push the gain of a frequency.

But if you are not really common with equaliser, you should read some tutorials just for the beginning that you know where to start.

A fast look on google showed me this:
http://www.soundonsound.com/sos/1995_articles/mar95/eq.html 

Looks helpfull for beginners. 

When you have done this, you should compare the instrument you worked on to the others. Do they still fit into the song? Do they push other instruments away? If you begin, there is a lot of work waiting for you after the first steps 

When you have done this, listen to the complete song. To finalize the entire song is mastering. When you know what you are doing, everything will get better. If you don't, you can ruin everything.

For every cd I have done, I ask a mastering-engineer to master my cds. But if I understand you correctly, you're not at this point, right?

I know some helpfull books for mixing and eqing in german, but I think it will not help you.

Greetings,
Jan


----------



## mwarsell (Jul 21, 2012)

Thanks. Is this worth learning on $400 monitors (a pair, m-audio bx8a) or should I save and upgrade and then begin?


----------



## Ganvai (Jul 21, 2012)

I think for learning the basics it's okay. But if you want to get high-quality-results you will have to get some other monitors and a good room.

I recommend Genelec Monitors. I'm working in my studio with Genelec since years and I like their neutral and straight sound.

Building up a room is quity difficult, but there i can recommend the german company HOFA-GmbH. They sell really good acoustic-sets to a very good price. And fortunately they have a website in german and english 

http://hofa-akustik.de/pages/startseite_eng/akustiksets_en.php

But before you spend thousands of dollars, just learn the basics. That will take a few months/years until you need better equipment.


----------



## mwarsell (Jul 22, 2012)

Yeah, Genelecs are great, that's a local company for me. I test-listened them at a friend's home studio.


----------



## snattack (Jul 24, 2012)

mwarsell @ Sun Jul 22 said:


> Yeah, Genelecs are great, that's a local company for me. I test-listened them at a friend's home studio.



+1, Got a pair of the 8030

/A


----------



## RiffWraith (Jul 24, 2012)

mwarsell @ Sat Jul 21 said:


> Suppose I make a short orchestral piece. After finishing it I have no idea whether to use eq on it - on each instrument group, each articulation, on the entire mix?



Many times all of the above, but not always.



mwarsell @ Sat Jul 21 said:


> And if the answer is yes, then what to eq?



See above answer.



mwarsell @ Sat Jul 21 said:


> (cut mainly, right?)



Not necessarily. Generally speaking, it is better to start by cutting, but that is not always the case. Sometimes, you will find yourself adding, rather than cutting; it all depends.



mwarsell @ Sat Jul 21 said:


> What should I do? Or where to learn this?



Best place to learn is your own studio. As Ganvai said, _Just compare your song to other tracks which have the sound you wish to have. That's the best way to hear if you should or could change something_. Very true - learning to eq is like riding a bike. Tho a lot more complicated, it's something that you need to do in order to learn how, and to get better at. Practice, practice, practice.



mwarsell @ Sat Jul 21 said:


> I understand that I should use my ears - if it sounds good, no eq needed?



No, not necessarily. If your ears aren't developed enough, and you don't yet know what "sounds good", how can you use your ears to tell yourself, "yes - it sounds good!"? Just because it sounds good to you, that doesn't mean it actually sounds good. 

Learning to eq and to mix, takes a long time, a lot of work, and a lot of patience. As alluded to earlier, a good set of monitors and a good room is key. Without those, you are flying blind - at least to an extent, because you are not hearing things as they should be heard. 

Sit down, and start to eq individual instuments, trying to match pro CDs. Do the same for an entire mix. Do this at least 20-30 min a day EVERY DAY OF YOUR EXISTENCE, and in a few years, you will be very good at detecting which freqs to cut or boost, and how things work (or do not work) in a mix. Practice, practice, practice.

Best of luck.


----------



## Kejero (Jul 27, 2012)

Being just a beginner, I won't write this as "advice". It's just what I often do to my own tracks; I'll leave it to the pros to judge this and call it good advice or not.

I simply cut some frequencies for instrument(group)s that I feel don't "need" those frequencies. That often means in the low end: I've found that it can clear the "mud" a little. Even if the result played solo may not sound as amazing as it originally did, chances are that it actually works better for the mix, because the frequencies you may have felt that made it sound better when played solo, would probably lose the frequency-fight in the full mix anyway. In other words: in the full mix you won't hear any difference for this particular instrument/group, while the instruments/groups that you WANT to occupy those frequencies or now not fighting for them anymore.

Other than that I usually don't do a whole of EQ'ing on orchestral tracks. I like to think that if you find some instruments are fighting for frequencies, maybe your orchestration or composition needs fixing. I've more than once found myself cutting entire instruments, instead of some of their frequency ranges.


----------



## EastWest Lurker (Jul 27, 2012)

Ganvai @ Sat Jul 21 said:


> I recommend Genelec Monitors. I'm working in my studio with Genelec since years and I like their neutral and straight sound.



Genelecs sound great, but "neutral"is not a word I would ever use to describe them.


----------



## Benji (Jul 27, 2012)

EastWest Lurker @ 27/7/2012 said:


> Ganvai @ Sat Jul 21 said:
> 
> 
> > I recommend Genelec Monitors. I'm working in my studio with Genelec since years and I like their neutral and straight sound.
> ...



+1
Although I like them, Genelec Monitors sound too sweet to be called neutral.

I use a pair of Makie HR624 MKII, it really sounds far more neutral to me and it feels intuitive to mix with. I'm just carefull with low frequencies since it's a pair of 6 inches speakers. But unlike the HR824 MkII which can handle sub frequencies, I find the HR624 MkII to be more precise in the mid frequencies.
At the end of a mix, when it sounds great on the mackies, it sounds even better on any other audio system. 

There are a lot of good monitors out there, what matters most, is what your ears are used to work with. As always, it's a matter of taste.


----------



## mwarsell (Jul 27, 2012)

Great advice on eq, thanks guys.


----------



## EastWest Lurker (Jul 27, 2012)

Benji @ Fri Jul 27 said:


> EastWest Lurker @ 27/7/2012 said:
> 
> 
> > [quote="Ganvai @ Sat Jul 21, 2012 4:19 pm"
> ...



+1
Although I like them, Genelec Monitors sound too sweet to be called neutral.

I use a pair of Makie HR624 MKII, it really sounds far more neutral to me and it feels intuitive to mix with. I'm just carefull with low frequencies since it's a pair of 6 inches speakers. But unlike the HR824 MkII which can handle sub frequencies, I find the HR624 MkII to be more precise in the mid frequencies.
At the end of a mix, when it sounds great on the mackies, it sounds even better on any other audio system. 

There are a lot of good monitors out there, what matters most, is what your ears are used to work with. As always, it's a matter of taste.[/quote]

Actually, I think the Mackie's are even more hyped than the Genelecs 

When I think "flat" I think more of Focal, Dynaudio, etc.


----------



## Benji (Jul 27, 2012)

EastWest Lurker @ 27/7/2012 said:


> Benji @ Fri Jul 27 said:
> 
> 
> > EastWest Lurker @ 27/7/2012 said:
> ...



I've worked with both, Genelecs and Mackies, they are both very soft and silky with the high frequencies (such as the A7X) which prevents from ear fatigue. 

What I have observed is that the mackies are less flattering (nice) than the Genelecs. At first I was a bit frustrated with my previous mixes. As a result trying to make the Makies sound as good as you would expect them to sound, improved my mix.

It's only my opinion, making this discussion sterile, we could both argue days and days. But in the end, if you're used to a decent pair of monitors and you know them well, this makes no difference.

No hard feelings Jay  (you're a dead man :twisted: )

Otherwise Mwarsell, Kejero's advice is the way to go to start with, if you feel the need to EQ an Orchestral track. As he said, solo sections may not sound as good as the original version, but if you listen carefully to the latest pop song, the mid and high instruments including the voice have some serious low cuts applied to it, when playing solo, they doesn't sound "full", but in the full mix they have their voice.

Think as if audio frequencies where colours, so if you got :
-Blue/Purple Bass
-Purple/Red Cello 
Playing together, you might want to :
-Reduce a selected amount of high frequencies of the Bass so that it's more Blue
-Cut the low freq + reduce a selected amout of mid freq of the Cello so that it's more purple and not too much Red, letting more Red to the Violins.

This serie of FabFilter Pro Q videos might help also:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kSNYBbPAvKE
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p_-PjWts3nI
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ESVRCT28d5o
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nlS0XC5CLNU


----------



## Goran (Jul 28, 2012)

mwarsell @ Sat Jul 21 said:


> Suppose I make a short orchestral piece. After finishing it I have no idea whether to use eq on it - on each instrument group, each articulation, on the entire mix? And if the answer is yes, then what to eq? (cut mainly, right?) This is one aspect of orchestral music production I'm rather lost. What should I do? Or where to learn this? I understand that I should use my ears - if it sounds good, no eq needed? But how do I know if I can make it sound even better with eq?
> 
> Any insights will be gratefully accepted.




This can be answered on case basis only - the better and cleaner your orchestra was recorded, the less eqing you will need for the final mix. Preferably, you'll need very little or none 

A word on eqing separate articulations of the same instrument: this normally makes sense only if these sound different and you wish to unify their sound into sounding more like one and not different instruments. Otherwise it is pointless (unless your aim is to have different articulations of the same instrument to sound as if played by different instruments).

General advice I would give on the subject: if you are new to eqing you should start with a serious eq ear training using pink noise eqing excercises.


----------



## re-peat (Jul 29, 2012)

Goran @ Sun Jul 29 said:


> (...) Preferably, you'll need very little or none. (...)


Actually, you do. And rather a lot. No matter how good or clean your orchestra was recorded. We are talking sample libraries here, right? Well, the problem with samples is, they’re very stupid creatures, completely self-centered and, unlike real live sound, in no way inclined to osmotically co-exist with whatever is happening around them. They crawl on top of one another like there is no tomorrow, but they never have sex. 
In reality this means that the frequency content of any such sample is simply getting added to the frequency content of the other samples and this will inevitably result in concentrations of frequencies — at first in the low mids and bass range, but just as well higher up the frequency spectrum — which are much too dense and pronounced to result in a naturally balanced sound. Sure, there may be bit of self-cancellation going on here and there, but generally speaking, when you pile several samples on top of one another, you’re heading straight for Mount Mud. Or Harsh Hill.

Every single sample is a complete (and lifeless) recording in its own right. That’s the source of all our problems. A recording (sample) of high violins has activity in the low end of the frequency spectrum which, in real life isn't there. And it's when all this static recorded activity — in frequency ranges relevant to the sound or not — gets combined, that problems arise. Unavoidably.

Just try it: combine, say, the celli and basses of CinematicStrings with some low brass and woodwinds from, say, ProjectSAM or whatever, and then listen to the sound: much too boomy and heavy. Always. Solution: EQ’ing.
Same thing higher up: combining forte violins with trumpets invariably results in a harsh and unpleasantly piercing sound that can only be made digestible by reducing some of the high mids (often somewhere between 700kHz and 2000 kHz).
Or, other example: low pizzicati and timpani. If you let this dangerous combination loose in your mix without any EQ’ing, the result will be a complete disaster.
Or, final example: a sampled harp glissando (from *any* library). The energy of the low end in these glissandi is often waaaaaaaay too much for it to sound good in a mix without some amount of EQ’ing.

Listen to any mock-up: 99 times out of a 100, you’ll hear what I like to call a ‘clustered sound’ (a typical mock-up phenomenon), a sound which is seriously compromised by clusters of frequencies that are simply too strong (and unmusically static as well). Different (combinations of) libraries produce different clusters, but these clusters are ALWAYS there. And one of the necessary ways to minimize their unwelcome presence is tasteful EQ’ing. (Me, I prefer dynamic EQ’ing for this kind of work. And a good spectrum analyzer to accurately define the range my ears have informed me as being problematic.)

And then we haven’t even discussed reverb yet. If you spatialize a sample that has lots of low frequency content, the reverb will — obviously — sound very heavy and/or boomy too. (Yes, you can EQ the send, or put a highpass filter before the reverb, but you can’t be too drastic here, otherwise the reverb will sound thin and unnatural). And all this boomyness gets added to the mix as well, causing even more problems in combination with the ones discussed in previous paragraphs.

In a real concert hall or recording studio, none (or hardly any) of these problems manifest themselves (unless you’re in a very poor building that resonates certain frequency ranges). Real sound, no matter how complex in composition, has this way of always balancing itself to glorious perfection. Samples, unfortunately, don’t have this amazing capacity, dead and stupid as they are. So, they need our help. By applying wise and musical EQ’ing.

_


----------



## EastWest Lurker (Jul 29, 2012)

re-peat @ Sun Jul 29 said:


> Goran @ Sun Jul 29 said:
> 
> 
> > (...) Preferably, you'll need very little or none. (...)
> ...



Yep.


----------



## germancomponist (Jul 29, 2012)

Very well explained, re-peat!


----------



## Ryan Scully (Jul 29, 2012)

re-peat @ Sun Jul 29 said:


> Goran @ Sun Jul 29 said:
> 
> 
> > (...) Preferably, you'll need very little or none. (...)
> ...




+2 - Totally agree. Very well organized and executed re-peat. I would consider this a must read for anyone getting into working with sampled orchestral elements.


Ryan


----------



## Goran (Jul 30, 2012)

@re-peat

I believe we had a misunderstanding. The question was (if I understood it correctly) if eqing should be applied to stems or the mix "after the piece was finished", that is, after all the individual instrument tracks were shaped, recorded and mixed (to stems or final mix). 

In my experience, *preferably none should be applied in this phase* - all the problems you (correctly) mention should have been solved *before the stems or the whole orchestra were mixed*. If one needs to do heavy eqing on stems or the final mix, this usually only means the eqing of individual tracks wasn't done properly and in time, resulting in the mess which now has to be corrected to save what can be saved - usually with, at best, mixed results (for obvious reasons). 

That is, I agree completely with all the examples of frequency problems you mention and the neccessity to resolve them using eqing - however, eqing the stems or (even worse) the final mix *is not the place to do this* (because at that stage they usually cannot be properly solved, or can be solved only at the expense of compromising some other aspect of overall sound).

I myself use only minimal stem/mix eqing - and *never* as a means of correcting anything - only as a shaping tool for the final overall sound.


----------



## Kejero (Jul 30, 2012)

+3 re-peat. Some very good points!


----------



## mwarsell (Jul 31, 2012)

re-peat...what a wonderful post. Thank you.

Listened to the BBC Proms last week, Beethoven symphonies by Barenboim and his orchestra; just wow...the sound, so elegant, 'osmotic', organic, the higher strings sounded exquisite even on my poor monitors. Wish I had this sound. With EQ...I can? At least close? Nowhere near?


----------



## re-peat (Jul 31, 2012)

Mika,

I watched a couple of those Beethoven concerts too. Yes, verrrrry good. Did you also watch the documentary "Barenboim on Beethoven" which followed the last concert? Hope you did. It was most interesting.

I don't know if you know, but you can buy the complete Beethoven cycle by Barenboim and his West-Eastern Divan Orchestra, in high-definition (96kHz/24bit) and at an unbelievably low price (only $35 for the entire set!) online at HDtracks: https://www.hdtracks.com/index.php?file ... 8947835110
I went for it (even though, only a few weeks ago, I also bought the new Chailly set, also out on DECCA, but that was a serious disappointment, I must say) and it's just wonderful: strong performances, stellar sound and ... of course ... nearly 6 hours of some of the best music ever written. Highly-highly-highly recommended. Even if you already own one or more Beethoven sets.

(In case you, or anyone else who's interested, might be worried: I buy fairly regularly at HDtracks. It's completely safe, they also have a great after-sale service and their download app works flawlessly. And their catalogue gets better and better every day. Very addictive website.)

_


----------



## JohnG (Jul 31, 2012)

Nice post, re-peat.


----------



## mwarsell (Jul 31, 2012)

2 re-peat, missed the docu, maybe there's a re-peat (eh) later on. I realized, after the commentator told me , that Barenboim places his 2nd violins on the right, so 1st and 2nd sit opposite to each other. This was one of the keys to the amazing sound I think. Sounds much more balanced.


----------



## Goran (Aug 2, 2012)

mwarsell @ Tue Jul 31 said:


> 2 re-peat, missed the docu, maybe there's a re-peat (eh) later on. I realized, after the commentator told me , that Barenboim places his 2nd violins on the right, so 1st and 2nd sit opposite to each other. This was one of the keys to the amazing sound I think. Sounds much more balanced.



It's probably the old German orchestral setup he is using (if the double basses are behind the 1st violins) - this setup does wonders for Bruckner as well, as it emphasizes the antiphonal character of much 1st-2nd violins writing in his scores.


----------



## adg21 (Aug 2, 2012)

Does anyone else think that pretty much every single string library is too bright? A lot brighter than strings you hear on recordings if you don't do something about it?


----------



## Bernard Quatermass (Aug 2, 2012)

adg21 @ Thu Aug 02 said:


> Does anyone else think that pretty much every single string library is too bright? A lot brighter than strings you hear on recordings if you don't do something about it?



Forget recordings. Sit in front of a full string section in concert or in a studio and you will get a good idea of tone. And amplitude.


----------

