# Getting a mix like Thomas Bergersen



## Black Light Recordings

Guys

I was listening to some of the great pieces from this forum post:

http://www.vi-control.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=43822&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=0

Thomas Bergersen's piece jumped right out at me for the dynamics and the expressiveness that came through in the mix.

https://soundcloud.com/frederickruss/1-thomas-j-bergersen-mojo-madness

I know that mixing is an art and not a science. I also know that there is no magic bullet for getting this type of high quality sound. I'll try to keep my questions specific. 

Is this type of sound achievable "in the box"? 
I've got the Waves Platinum bundle, Ozone, Alloy and Pro-Q. 

Assuming we have a well written (balanced from an orchestration stand point) composition, what would a solid mixing workflow look like? Again, I know there is no one right way to do this but I'm starting from scratch.

Where would one begin to become technically proficient at mixing and mastering like this? Mike Verta touts transcription as the best way to learn composition and orchestration. Is there a similar discipline to learning the nuances of mixing? 

At present I A/B my compositions with commercial recordings (sometimes live recordings; sometimes studio recordings depending on the sound I'm going for). Despite my best efforts I still seem light years off. I'm ready to put in the time I just need to know the general direction to start.

Thanks in advance.


----------



## gsilbers

its definitely hard. there are tricks and also each person does it differently. 
when mixing you can use plugins like Sample Magic A/b so you can compare side by side easily at the same volume. 

do you have a song we could listen to see what your talking about?


----------



## RiffWraith

_I know that mixing is an art and not a science._

It's actually both. You could argue more an art, but def both.

_Is this type of sound achievable "in the box"?_ 

Yes. But you need to have the right tools, and you need to REALLY know WTF you are doing. That said, I am pretty sure Thomas does a hybrid of ITB/OTB... Thomas feel free to correct me if I am wrong!

_What would a solid mixing workflow look like? _

That's like asking what a four-legged animal looks like. Everyone has their own way of doing things, and everyone's workflow looks different. And I am sure that Thomas is not going to simply show everyone else.

_Where would one begin to become technically proficient at mixing and mastering like this? _

Practice, practice practice. It starts with having a good mixing environment and good monitors. From there, it takes a ton of practice and time and effort dedicated to getting better. There is no secret sauce, and there are no shortcuts. Mixing is like a fine wine - it takes a long time to get good.

_Mike Verta touts transcription as the best way to learn composition and orchestration. Is there a similar discipline to learning the nuances of mixing? _

Not really. Discipline is required here, but composition and orchestration are completely different animals than mixing. You are on the right track with doing an A/B between your mix and pro mixes. How long have you been at this? It takes years to get good, and fine tune your ears... well, technically, your brain. A lot of people do this for a year, maybe two, and wonder why they can't get their mixes close to being pro. Well, that's b/c they haven't been doing it long enough.

Try this - I found this helped me: focus on one freq spectrum at a time. So, write a cue, mix it best you can, and then compare it to a pro mix that is orchestrated similarly. Focus only on the lows. Blank out everything else, and try to get your low end like "their" low end. Make that your priority for a few weeks. Then, the mids, then the his, then, low mids, etc. When you feel you are improved in all areas separately, then tackle the mix as a whole. Also, try and single out instruments, and sections. I know this is hard, as there is no availability of the stems for all of these pro recordings, but there are scores where the orchestration is sparse at times. Try to get your hands on some - "13th Warrior" is one good ex. - and try best you can to match instruments and sections from your mixes to the pro recordings.

When learning to mix, the most important virtue is patience.

Cheers.


----------



## Black Light Recordings

gsilbers @ Tue Feb 17 said:


> do you have a song we could listen to see what your talking about?



Here is something I did a bit back. I decided to compose my own Superman soundtrack and this was my favorite piece from that effort.
https://soundcloud.com/blacklightrecordings/growing-up-kent

Here is one more that I did more recently:
https://soundcloud.com/blacklightrecordings/the-ballad-of-the-369th-infantry-the-harlem-hellfighters

Riff - Thanks for the nuggets. Mixing environment is a place I need to devote some time. Because of my living situation I'm stuck mixing on pair of Sienhiser HD595s. One day I'll have a room dedicated to mixing but that is not today :cry: As for the patience, I've spent years studying harmony composition and orchestration in my spare time. I'm in no hurry. Just want to study and practice efficiently.

G


----------



## gsilbers

not bad imo. the first pieace has some minor perspective issues (crash being too loud sometimes etc) but overall its good and present. 

the second , newer track is good. mix is good. 

i think thmoas mix there more use of loudness maximizers used to good taste so it elevates the music. same as EQ and compression. 
you can try plugins like kush parallel EQ, waves one knob loud, airwondows channel 3 and so on. 
those type of mastering processors to make the track shine. 
mixing in headphones will yeild more darker , closer mixes so if you can check in your car or somehwere else i think it will help.


----------



## Black Light Recordings

gsilbers @ Tue Feb 17 said:


> you can try plugins like kush parallel EQ, waves one knob loud, airwondows channel 3 and so on.
> those type of mastering processors to make the track shine.



Thanks for the leads gsilbers. I've played around with parallel compression here and there but Kush and Airwondows seem to be completly different beasts. I run on Cubase so I would have to do the Patchwork thing to make Airwondows work but my curiosity is peaked. I'll be investigating more over the next few weeks.

g


----------



## wst3

All excellent questions! My take, and please keep in mind this is my opinion, based on my experience...



Black Light Recordings @ Tue Feb 17 said:


> Thomas Bergersen



Thomas has it all, writing, arranging, tracking, mixing... he is somewhat unique in that. He is an excellent person to (try to) emulate!

[quote="Black Light Recordings]
Is this type of sound achievable "in the box"? 
I've got the Waves Platinum bundle, Ozone, Alloy and Pro-Q. [/quote]

I think it is, but I've heard tracks that were mixed through external hardware that were really stupendous, and I just can't prove - one way or the other - that the external hardware played a role. So I guess I will leave it as possible that external hardware can make a difference, but if it does it is definitely that last 1-2%.

As far as tools go, Ozone is a remarkable toolset, but I tend to reserve it for processing the stereo mix after I've done everything else I can possible do. Alloy is pretty cool too, and I think you could use either of them as instructors - take apart their presets and see how they get the effect they get.

I have Waves Gold, and if that was all I had I'd still have 100 times the firepower I need. You really can' t go wrong with them. And I'd recommend starting with them on your individual tracks.

I've not used Pro-Q.

[quote="Black Light Recordings]Assuming we have a well written (balanced from an orchestration stand point) composition, what would a solid mixing workflow look like? Again, I know there is no one right way to do this but I'm starting from scratch.[/quote]

First things first - you clearly appreciate the value of a coog composition, and well recorded (or rendered) tracks. That is probably the most important step. I don't say that in jest, it really is key.

The workflow... that is going to depend solely on you, your ears, your experience, etc. So don't be afraid to try a few different approaches.

My approach - and this will not work for everyone - is pretty simple:
1) I start with the best "faders up" mix I can get. It probably is a little foolish with all the tools at our disposal, but it has always given me a solid starting point.

By "Faders Up" I mean no processing, no automation, basically set all the faders to unity and let it rip. How does it sound? How is the balance between tracks?

A HUGE part of my appreciation for this approach is that I started recording in small studios with limited resources, 8 tape tracks, maybe 3 or 4 channels of compressors, maybe one or two channels of outboard EQ, no automation, and one (two if I was lucky) mechanical reverbs (always a spring, sometimes a plate.)

We had to allocate things carefully, so I learned to think ahead. From the start we were more-or-less mixing as we tracked. Certainly we were mixing if we had to apply compression or EQ to an incoming take. And even more so if we had to bounce tracks!

It was essential that we had at least an idea of what the finished product should sound like.

In a similar vein, we tried to do as much dynamics processing and filtering as possible with just microphone selection and placement. If we got that part right we could reserve the compressors and filters for effects!

2) I tend to apply dynamics processors first, filters second, track effects next, and global effects last. This lets me hear what I am doing quite clearly. It is not a hard and fast rule, but it is my starting point.

3) Once I have all my plug-ins working more-or-less the way I want I start automating things. I really like DAW based automation! It is about as close as one can get to a "fix it in the mix" tool. And you can do so many creating things with it!

4) lather, rinse, repeat - but stop before you empty the bottle!

Once I've "finished" the mix I go back and review relative levels, processing, and automation. I'm still finding things I can fix, or make better, so reviewing my work seems to be an essential part of the workflow.

5) Keep the difference between mixing and pre-mastering in mind.

I do almost no processing on the 2-mix. That is reserved for the next stage, which I call pre-mastering. Some folks refer to it as mastering, but since I do not have a dedicated mastering facility I don't try to master my tracks.

I do, however, run them through a multi-band compressor, and sometimes a final limiter, and by that I mean I am working on the final stereo mix at this point. Amazing what one can do with just that stereo track!

[quote="Black Light Recordings]Where would one begin to become technically proficient at mixing and mastering like this? Mike Verta touts transcription as the best way to learn composition and orchestration. Is there a similar discipline to learning the nuances of mixing? [/quote]

I think there is. There are a handful of sites that can provide well done tracks, sometimes for famous recordings, sometimes not. Get some!

If you can remove tracking from the list of variables you can really focus on mixing.

And if you know what it is "supposed" to sound like you have a target to work towards.

The other thing - learn as much as you can about all the tricks of the trade. Read interviews, read books, learn EXACTLY how a compressor works, and why you might choose an optically controlled gain stage over a FET or variable gain tube stage. Learn why you might choose parallel filters over serial filters. Learn when you might want to use a side-chain or key input, when might you want to use parallel compression. And so on. Learn the tricks!

[quote="Black Light Recordings]At present I A/B my compositions with commercial recordings (sometimes live recordings; sometimes studio recordings depending on the sound I'm going for). Despite my best efforts I still seem light years off. I'm ready to put in the time I just need to know the general direction to start.[/quote]

Step One:
------------
I have no financial relationship with Dave Moulton, but at this stage I should<G>!

Buy Golden Ears (available from http://www.moultonlabs.com/full/product01 ) and spend some time with it. It is the single best investment you can make, and about as close to a shortcut as you will find.

Step Two:
-------------
Discard any and every metering tool that pretends to let you compare the audible spectrum. Once you are better at mixing you may find these to be useful, but right now they will just slow you down. We mix with our ears, and that is how it should be.

Step Three:
---------------
Mix someone elses tracks, preferably someone elses well recorded tracks, and even better, grab tracks from a well known (to you) song.

Step Four:
-------------
Practice. And if you love epic trailer tracks practice on indie pop, or string quartets as well as on epic trailer tracks.

The key to mixing (at least to me) is being able to hear not just what is there, but also what you want the finished product to sound like... AND, knowing how to get from point A to point B.

Well now, that turned out to be a tad longer than I expected! I hope it helps! And I hope I didn't leave anything out!!


----------



## gsilbers

Black Light Recordings @ Wed Feb 18 said:


> gsilbers @ Tue Feb 17 said:
> 
> 
> 
> you can try plugins like kush parallel EQ, waves one knob loud, airwondows channel 3 and so on.
> those type of mastering processors to make the track shine.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks for the leads gsilbers. I've played around with parallel compression here and there but Kush and Airwondows seem to be completly different beasts. I run on Cubase so I would have to do the Patchwork thing to make Airwondows work but my curiosity is peaked. I'll be investigating more over the next few weeks.
> 
> g
Click to expand...


oh , forgot to mention. airwindows mostly copies what slate digital goes at half the price and improves on stuf. so the fg-x slate plugin will add that loudness/presence and its vst.


also, if you are adventurous enough, and after you do what wst3 says, you can try out ik multimedia tr3 meter. in that meter there is a loudness meter which is very specific and not found elsewere. it gives you a range of loudness based on the style you want and with that, you can aim for that loud present sound. so you can load up Thomas mixes and see where he is at and then mix and master your track to match the loudness. its very very difficult to reach those levels and still get it to sound good. outboard and very expensive mastering tools will do the tricks and also very good ears and practice.


----------



## mbagalacomposer

Didn't quite get a chance to do much more then speed read whats already been posted but I thought I'd throw my two cents in. 

First thing being, from an engineering perspective, the equivalent of reading scores is really listening to others mixes and try to break down what you're hearing sonically (Similar to going through someone elses score with a fine tooth comb and identifying how chord voicings and orchestration and trying to identify why it works). 

The approach is a little problematic if you have absolutely zero experience with audio, but I think its safe to assume almost all of us understand how a EQ works and what a compressor does…..if not then I can point you towards some good texts to get your started in the art of mixing.

But assuming you do, I think the first step is listening to mixes your really like and admire and try to figure out why they sound so good. Ask yourself, is this live or samples? If its live what kind of space did they record in? If samples, can you identify what libraries or are they custom? Did the mixer work ITB or out (Usually a little research can reveal what most of these guys preferences are)? Basically figure out exactly how far or how close your starting point is to your reference….then you can start to think about how to achieve a similar sound.

Then it should just be a matter of A/Bing your music with whatever your reference is and some educated guessing about how to handle things. Does the perc sound compressed? To the strings have some fizzle to them or are they a little smoother….basically just going through the laundry list of each section. 

That said the most important part for someone mixing a digital orchestra and whatever else you've got going on (and I think the OP said this) is a really well done sequence…thats more then half the battle. The samples we all use are usually incredibly well produced and have been mixed by professionals already so anything that you're doing is on top of that and in most cases you should just shapping and nudging things to sit better within the mix or to emulate a sound that the libraries don't quite sound like (be it live or otherwise).


----------



## mbagalacomposer

oh! I just add one more thing….I personally find it a lot easier to mix with stems in a fresh session. 

Technically speaking its obviously way easier on the CPU and I like to have the flexibility to use a lot of plugins. 

Intellectually it really encourages me to make sure whatever I'm spitting out of my sequencing DAW is as closed to finished as it can be before I dump it into Pro Tools and start the mixing process and discourages random tweaking of the composition and sequence once I'm in the mixing phase, which for me is important because I will tweak things till the world ends if I had my way….


----------



## HD Audio

In my opinion, Thomas Bergersen is using a full surround monitoring setup. The depth of his orchestration sounds like to have full surround setting. 
To challenge this, you need to upgrade your monitoring system first. His music is definitely not coming from bedroom stereo speaker's perspective.


----------



## Black Light Recordings

You guys rock,

wst3 thanks for the in-depth write. 

Lots to think on. I'll be pulling up one of my completed tracks this weekend just to try and did deeper on the mix with a good A/B reference.

g


----------



## madbulk

Psst... you know that's a 10 year old track? And not that it'll give you the keys to the kingdom or anything, but he did a whole article on it, including some or all of the score for some guy's magazine. I think I've still got a copy around here someplace.

Makes one nostalgic.


----------



## Black Light Recordings

madbulk @ Wed Feb 18 said:


> Psst... you know that's a 10 year old track? And not that it'll give you the keys to the kingdom or anything, but he did a whole article on it, including some or all of the score for some guy's magazine. I think I've still got a copy around here someplace.
> 
> Makes one nostalgic.



Thanks for pointing that out. Would love to track down the interview.


----------



## RiffWraith

http://www.scribd.com/doc/233656997/Vir ... 006#scribd

http://www.virtualinstrumentsmag.com/down/6-7-06/From_Sketch_Score/Mojo_Madness_Stage_1.pdf (http://www.virtualinstrumentsmag.com/do ... tage_1.pdf)

http://www.virtualinstrumentsmag.com/down/6-7-06/From_Sketch_Score/Mojo_Madness_Stage_2.pdf (http://www.virtualinstrumentsmag.com/do ... tage_2.pdf)


----------



## Mike Marino

Great links, Jeff; thanks!


----------



## Mike Marino

Hey Black Light: Just a thought. Maybe to also learn more, search Thomas' screenname, go to his profile, view his history of posts, and start reading through everything (in the threads) from Page 1 (which is about 10 years ago). I'm almost positive that you'll find lots of useful information and conversation there.


----------



## madbulk

You might also enjoy trying to imagine the day were heard this.

Someone posts the track. We all just know that "TJ" is the best, and we know who has this private lib and who doesn't, or think we do, but this is a leap forward that we can't comprehend.

Can that be samples?

One guy, Jamey Scott, if I recall correctly says, "That's dripping with money. I'll eat my hand if that's not a real orchestra."

THIS IS 8 YEARS AGO. There's VSL and there's ESQLSO, and we've never heard anything like Mojo.

And Sharmat says, "It's samples. Enjoy that hand." And you know he knows, so the truth washes over you.

And then TJ eventually pops in to modestly thank everyone for the gushing, but tosses a grenade... 
"yeah, I did this in like a day." Or something like that... I don't remember if it was hours or days, but it wasn't a week. Doesn't matter.

And for the rest of, I dunno, a month, you just tried to imagine how. The bar was set so high that you realized you weren't even on the same train to the same place.

And like in that other thread here from a year ago, where we talk about his newer private lib that isn't even involved with mojo, we then got diverted toward wanting to know what was in the lib. 

But it wasn't the fiddle.


----------



## Black Light Recordings

madbulk @ Thu Feb 19 said:


> And then TJ eventually pops in to modestly thank everyone for the gushing, but tosses a grenade...
> "yeah, I did this in like a day." Or something like that... I don't remember if it was hours or days, but it wasn't a week. Doesn't matter.



I can imagine!

I just read another post where TJ said he spent 10 days mixing "That's A Wrap"

http://www.vi-control.net/forum/viewtop ... t=#3853819

What is most encouraging about all of this - the key ingredient appears to be hard work. If there is one thing we all can do, it's put in the work!


----------



## Black Light Recordings

Transcribed and mixed this today to get a little practice.

https://soundcloud.com/blacklightrecordings/buckbeaks-flight-harry-potter-transcription-exercise


----------



## zacnelson

Hello Gharun, this is a great topic you have started here, and plenty to be learnt from the replies you've received so far. I have listened to the 2 tracks you linked and I really love them both! There is a lot of colour and emotion in your compositions. My only suggestion (apart from mixing) is that the bell sound that features a lot in the second half of the Hellfighters track sounds a bit weird and unconvincing to me. And I think that's the most important step in mixing sampled orchestral music; so much of it is about getting the samples to behave correctly. From what I've heard you have a good bunch of libraries and you clearly know how to get a lot out of them, your work doesn't sound static or lifeless.

There are a LOT of articles and forum threads all over the internet that discuss the alchemy of mixing and you have to be careful when you read people's advice. The first thing you need to do is weigh up the advice you are reading by listening to the music that individual has created; you will find people spouting off very confidently about various topics or telling you certain must-haves in terms of gear or technique, and then you listen to their music and it's really poorly mixed. And PLEASE I urge you to apply the same criteria to me! I most definitely do NOT rate myself as a mixer, I am constantly second-guessing myself and doubting all my mix decisions. I think I mix better than SOME people, and I'm far more comfortable with pop/rock mixing, however I am a relative beginner when it comes to mixing orchestral - and it's a VERY different skill set. If you check out my soundcloud page you'll see some pop songs and some orchestral stuff, and if you hear anything in particular that you'd like to emulate, I'm more than happy to discuss specifics.

Coming from a pop background, the focus is always about taming transients because everything is recorded very close and dry, and mixed very dry too. Therefore there is a lot of emphasis on compressors and limiters and trying to get the loudest most in-your-face mix, so someone like me is very comfortable mixing vocalists and drums etc, but then I turn to an orchestral mix and I feel like I'm completely lost! From what I've observed, there is a much greater emphasis on reverb in the sample world, there are some real experts on this forum who are masters of manipulating the sound field to create a sense that the orchestra was all in the same room.

COMPRESSION:

I don't think it is necessary to know all the different types of compressors and their characteristics; don't get bogged down with tangents like that, particularly when a lot of that is obsolete with software. A lot of the fabled compressors that pop mix engineers will reference are discussed in the context of slamming pop vocals and snare drums etc, whereas with orchestral music you have far less transients to deal with. There is also a lot more of a tolerance for overall dynamics in an orchestral mix, it is not expected to be at around 0dB from start to finish; the climaxes and emotional swells in orchestral music are largely dependent on allowing a huge volume range. When I do orchestral mixes I don't use compressors on ANY of my sub-groups except for percussion and choir (and only if I have a choir doing chants or staccato). BUT there is definitely a purpose for gentle compression on the mix buss. My main approach to this is actually not to control volume, but to `gel' the instruments together. Recently I got the ProAudioDSP plugin `DSM V2' (DSM means Dynamic Spectrum Mapper). It's a Plugin Alliance product, and I was lucky enough to get it for 70% off in their annual pre-Xmas sale. It has taken me ages to really understand, and it is capable of doing real damage when used incorrectly. It is a multiband compressor with dozens of bands and because of this it really has the unique ability to saturate everything, it's like when you make a sandwich and it's 6 inches tall and you press down and make it half that height, and all the ingredients blend together and intertwine, instead of sitting near each other. I don't want you to think I'm proposing a `squashed' mix in the rock mixing sense, but when you work with midi there are a lot of clunky volume and mod wheel moves which tend to sound a bit jumpy and `stepped' and the fast-acting multiple bands of compression really smooth out a lot of that, and it brings out the air and detail in the instruments without needing to add high eq.

LIMITING:

My final plugin on the master bus is the A.O.M. Invisible Limiter. This is a hidden gem, it's ridiculously cheap and does a phenomenal job. With rock mixes I can achieve far greater volume without artifacts using AOM than any other limiter I've tried, and what I love most about it is that when you limit your mix it manages to preserve clarity and top end, unlike cheaper limiters which make everything sound dull and lifeless. But from what you wrote, it appears that you have a good arsenal of mastering plugins so you will be just fine, especially with orchestral mixes where limiting is more a case of just catching the occasional peak in a climactic moment, rather than shaping the entire song.

PANNING:

Panning is more complicated with samples; many libraries have each patch as a big wide lush stereo spread, and when you are layering dozens of these together everything can become un-defined and messy. And even when some sample libraries have each section recorded `in place' they tend to still be only panned a little and the problems remain. It can be difficult to narrow the sounds because they sound so awesome on their own! But if you make each individual patch narrower, the cumulative effect of various instruments panned around the spectrum can sound FAR wider than when you stack lots of wide sounds on top of each other.

Originally I used to mix tracks like that leaving all the instruments really wide, but unfortunately they would each sound BRILLIANT individually but the final mix actually didn't sound very wide at all! So I discovered that if I make each instrument much more narrow, (even though it might sound a little too `mono' on it's own), the final effect with all those mono-ish instruments was SO MUCH WIDER when they're all playing together!!! It's hard to appreciate of course until the track is completed, when you start working on the track it can be a bit depressing, because there is a natural urge to want to hear the current solo-ed instrument as wide and full as it can be!

Also, instead of just panning stereo tracks to one side, I often use a plugin on the tracks called S1 Imager (by WAVES) which somehow makes panning more interesting, I have no idea what it does, I just play around with the sliders and make a panned instrument still have a sense of subtle width or depth or 3-D. Sometimes it sounds crap and I remove it, other times it sounds better. I just continually use `bypass' to compare the sound with S1 versus the sound of normal panning. I'm sorry I can't explain it better  But you said you have Waves Platinum so you'll definitely have S1 Imager.

EQ:

If you listen to good mixes there will be some things that are lower (ie deeper) and other things that are brighter; but not EVERY instrument is fully bright and fully deep.

The challenge is to choose which parts of your mix are going to occupy different territories frequency-wise. Often I will actually use a low-pass filter or a hi-shelf eq to REMOVE top end from some instruments, which ends up having the effect of actually brightening the overall mix because you can allow certain instruments to shine in the top end (especially vocals/choirs, cymbals, maybe brass--- give all those instruments lots of nice bright top end). Also you really need to hi-pass heaps of instruments to allow the deep instruments to filll in the bottom end for you; the other instruments may sound a bit weird on their own but once the bass parts are there it all makes sense. Also I put more reverb on things that are meant to be in the background.

Another important tip is to give different instruments their own zone in the mid range; you want everything to sound separate, but not to sound SMALL - the sum of the parts should make you think that EVERY part of the mix is as big as it could be, when in fact there are EQ holes that are dug out of one instrument to allow another instrument to focus on that sweet spot. Not every instrument sounds good in all parts of the spectrum; for example sometimes I will actually boost the low mids of a violin, whereas with a lot of percussion I will reduce the EQ in the low mids and bottom end. (And yet the percussion will still be perceived as `under' the mix, or deeper than the other melodic instruments, despite me cutting the bottom end eq on the percussion). Sometimes to make a deep instrument like a cello or contrabss to be heard, it works better to increase the upper mids and highs, instead of just increasing the volume of that instrument. Increasing the volume of the cello might just add a lot of boomy lows and low mids, whereas enhancing some of the bow noise and sparkle can lead the ears to the cello notes, and the deepness will be felt at the same time, but without being overpowering.

Lastly, plesae don't get diverted by any nonsense about mixing in-the-box or with outboard gear. That entire discussion is completely irrelevant and the answer to your quandary is NOT to go buying expensive outboard gear, or to blame your mix deficiencies on the fact you don't have some mysterious magical tool that is creating some huge gap in sound quality. Invest your money in the sound libraries, not in more mixing gear. At least you don't have to spend money on microphones and expensive instruments like real pianos!!!!

There is absolutely no reason why somebody with enough practice and critical listening could produce brilliant mixes uses the plugins you have, and of course with a selection of top sample libraries. Outboard gear in most people's hands would actually worsen the experience, because you can't be as nimble in shifting between projects and it takes up more room etc.

Also don't get side-tracked by the endless internet discussions about which converter sounds better or the advantages of working at higher sample rates. None of that is going to make for a better mix.


----------



## EwigWanderer

zacnelson @ 22nd February 2015 said:


> Also, instead of just panning stereo tracks to one side, I often use a plugin on the tracks called S1 Imager (by WAVES) which somehow makes panning more interesting.



a good alternative to S1 is A1stereo control and it's free! It has a function called "safe bass" which is great. I use this plugin almost in every channel.

http://a1audio.de/index.php/a1stereocontrol


----------



## zacnelson

Thanks, I have downloaded it!


----------



## Black Light Recordings

EwigWanderer @ Sun Feb 22 said:


> zacnelson @ 22nd February 2015 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Also, instead of just panning stereo tracks to one side, I often use a plugin on the tracks called S1 Imager (by WAVES) which somehow makes panning more interesting.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> a good alternative to S1 is A1stereo control and it's free! It has a function called "safe bass" which is great. I use this plugin almost in every channel.
> 
> http://a1audio.de/index.php/a1stereocontrol
Click to expand...


I like the Stereo Pan in VEPro. Plus I use Virtual Sound Stage on a few BWW patches to move them where I want them. For the most part though, I stick with the recorded in place position. Most of my template is Spitfire.


----------



## zacnelson

I have a lot of spitfire libraries and even though they're recorded in place, I find it still to be overly wide and un-focussed once I start adding lots of stuff into the mix.


----------



## Black Light Recordings

zacnelson @ Sun Feb 22 said:


> I have a lot of spitfire libraries and even though they're recorded in place, I find it still to be overly wide and un-focussed once I start adding lots of stuff into the mix.



Interesting. So you use S1 to narrow the field of a particular instrument? What about that "Air Lyndhurst" tail? Whenever I narrowed down wet instruments, it always sounded a little weird to me because you also narrow the early reflection and the reverb tail. Do you notice that? Do you account for it latter?


----------



## zacnelson

I would think that the reverb is still there, it's the same sound, I just think the overall mix works better when things are in a smaller location. I don't know anyway you could REMOVE the tail, it's there in the recording. I don't think I do it well, my main point was to raise the issue and hopefully you'll do a better job at this than I do!


----------



## Dan Drebing

Black Light Recordings @ Sun Feb 22 said:


> Interesting. So you use S1 to narrow the field of a particular instrument? What about that "Air Lyndhurst" tail? Whenever I narrowed down wet instruments, it always sounded a little weird to me because you also narrow the early reflection and the reverb tail. Do you notice that? Do you account for it latter?



I make not claims to being a quality mixer, but I have Albion, and sometimes what I'll do is narrow different groups, even when wet, so that they sound somewhat narrow individually, but a little better when together. Then I'll put one reverb over everything to put them in a room together.

I also read this really interesting post by Alan Meyerson on GS (there link is lurking somewhere in VI control) where he talks about using a short delay panned way hard right/left for each instrument to give it the sound of that instrument bouncing off the opposite wall. The delay is similar/the same as an early reflection and clues your brain into which side of the room the instrument is on.

I use that too sometimes, so I'll end up with each instrument wet with AIR reverb, narrowed down with S1 (Albion has a narrowing feature in one of it's utility pages FYI) and panned to it's spot. Then on each of those instrument channels I'll add a subchannel (sorry for the lingo, I don't know how to communicate this) which is hard panned opposite the instrument and on a small delay (~30 ms) w/ HPF. Then overtop everything I add a little reverb to group it all together.


----------



## zacnelson

So what you're describing is almost like the Haas delay technique


----------



## todo10

RiffWraith @ Wed 18 Feb said:


> http://www.scribd.com/doc/233656997/Virtual-Instruments-V02-03-June-July-2006#scribd
> 
> http://www.virtualinstrumentsmag.com/down/6-7-06/From_Sketch_Score/Mojo_Madness_Stage_1.pdf (http://www.virtualinstrumentsmag.com/do ... tage_1.pdf)
> 
> http://www.virtualinstrumentsmag.com/down/6-7-06/From_Sketch_Score/Mojo_Madness_Stage_2.pdf (http://www.virtualinstrumentsmag.com/do ... tage_2.pdf)



Another less discussed aspect of this particular mix (plus many other of TJ's mixes including his work with Two Steps and epic trailer stuff) has been the presence of multiple incarnations of custom sampling projects he has spearheaded and become deeply involved in including Project Prague 1 & 2 (PP1 & 2) which included strings and brass recordings and the addition of VI-PRO (another custom sampling project - a 40 member coalition aligned with this forum inspired by PP) and satellite custom sampling groups including a custom choir library (ten member team) etc. 

The idea behind the custom libraries was to define articulations and player executions that would be nearly impossible to achieve using the array of sample libraries available in the past. Sample libraries have improved significantly since then but I believe PP, VI-PRO and some of the custom choral libraries are still being used as a secret weapon in many mockups even now. 

Thomas J does so many things right in terms of creating the illusion that what you're listening to is close to a realistic rendition. Things we all used to discuss even before VI Control was put together. Years ago, there used to be a chat group called midimockup where we would talk about subjects like the narrowness of field or even creating mono versions of sample instruments to create the illusion of more refined distance in the mix. Balance of the instruments - where they sit in the mix, how wide the image is, how loud the instrument group is, and how early, late and long reflections were utilized skillfully in creating the illusion of how live instruments excite a room and hall. 

According to the old midimockup group, balance is everything . TJ and a few others really got it right. It helps to listen to many, many orchestral recordings and truly study not only the musical content and orchestration aspects but also minute specifics including natural tuning (how string players will adjust their tunings ever so slightly to match the tuning of the other players), chorusing (how larger sets of string ensemble groups excite the room versus how smaller sections do so), etc.

I used to have my own column in Virtual Instruments Magazine called MIDI Mockup Microscope where i would interview composers and dissect their mockup process. It was a fascinating exercise and one that I miss to this day.


----------



## JohnG

Look, I don't know everything, but I think some people are overthinking this.

Thomas does have some custom samples, but he also just uses a few patches from his libraries sometimes and rips out pieces. The guy can write like 4 minutes a day and it sounds pretty good first pass.


----------



## jcs88

Some great info here, appreciate the opinions. Mixing is also something I struggle with, but am starting to bounce down sections then start a new project to mix. Cleans up the whole thing and somehow feels fresh.

On a side note, if I ever become half the musician TJ is I'll die a happy man. Nothing but inspiration from him and as OP said, the key is hard work. I need to work harder.


----------



## MR F

admin @ Fri Feb 27 said:


> Another less discussed aspect of this particular mix (plus many other of TJ's mixes including his work with Two Steps and epic trailer stuff) has been the presence of multiple incarnations of custom sampling projects....



Thank you for that post, amazing stuff. What a great informative thread! o-[][]-o


----------



## Tanuj Tiku

More than the mix, it's his writing, his imagination and the feel of real orchestral music in terms of composition and just writing those parts. 

If you get that down, the mix and other things follow naturally if you have good skills. 

I always feel that there is more in the writing and the arrangement than a mix. 

In mock-ups the writing becomes even more important because you have to overcome the programming limitations. You write to the strength of the samples. The rest is trusting your ears and knowing your gear. 

Just bloody good music here I think 


Tanuj.


----------



## Black Light Recordings

Tanuj Tiku @ Fri Feb 27 said:


> More than the mix, it's his writing, his imagination and the feel of real orchestral music in terms of composition and just writing those parts.
> 
> If you get that down, the mix and other things follow naturally if you have good skills.
> 
> I always feel that there is more in the writing and the arrangement than a mix.
> 
> In mock-ups the writing becomes even more important because you have to overcome the programming limitations. You write to the strength of the samples. The rest is trusting your ears and knowing your gear.
> 
> Just bloody good music here I think
> 
> 
> Tanuj.



I agree completely. As my composition and orchestration have gotten better, so have my mixes proportionally. When I transcribed that John Williams piece, the mix jumped out of the speakers. The balance of the orchestration made polishing up the mix that much easier.


----------



## Vartio

yeah i think it all falls down to the fact that a well orchestrated track is easier to produce and mix (not saying it takes no skill ofc ). having tools that actually let you orchestrate well/properly and not cheat around and just go both hands to the bag of tricks all day long is very very helpful.


----------



## sinkd

I don't think I've found anyone reinforcing this yet, but one thing that Thomas emphasizes is _to balance your template first._

This is enormously important, because we all use instruments from different libraries. For example, I have all of my VSL brass instruments pre balanced to CC11 @100 or lower for starters. I find that gives me comparable velocity based dynamic ranges that are compatible with the modwheel dynamic layers of my HB and Albion brasses. And If you have your template pre-balanced and mixed so that all of the instruments sound like they are coming from the correct placement on a "virtual" scoring stage in front of you, then it will do two things:

1. It will help you to *mix through orchestration* because when you drown out the flute melody with the brass that's not a mixing challenge it's an opportunity to improve the arrangement and instrumentation.

2. It will make your mixes come together much faster from basic stems because everything already sounds like an orchestra

You will also need fewer mixing tools. A good mix can be had with ER/Tail reverb, EQ to help place "bossy" instrument patches in their proper place on stage and scoop out some mud, a little touch of leveling warmth in some cases (PSP Vintage Warmer for me--just a bit on some VI families) and judicious multiband comp at the end.


----------



## Vision

Late to the conversation, and just skimmed through a bit of this thread, so sorry if I sound redundant. Imo, Thomas's sound is a combination of fantastic writing, great samples, and incredibly intimate MIDI programming skills.. which is an art/science in itself. The mix is just a bonus. Not to mention, I get the impression he has great keyboard chops. 

It's important to find the right instruments (samples) for the job. Which means being critical about what your samples can, and can't do. Setting up a template, I try to treat my samples as if I'm auditioning them for the LSO. I try not to add instruments to my template just for the sake of having them there. If a particular sample doesn't sound good enough, it won't make the cut. If I don't feel I have an instrument in my repertoire that simply isn't good enough to represent my template, I won't use the sound period. Being critical about the samples you use is half the battle, because that will help create "suspension of disbelief". Just my 2 cents.


----------



## EastWest Lurker

Vision @ Sun Mar 08 said:


> Setting up a template, I try to treat my samples as if I'm auditioning them for the LSO.



if you do that, you will have no sample libraries


----------



## JohnG

I understand the joke, Jay, but I think Vision is making a very good point. Each sample has to really perform something, not just act as a placeholder.

I also think that's how those mockups come together -- intense focus on each sound.


----------



## EastWest Lurker

JohnG @ Sun Mar 08 said:


> I understand the joke, Jay, but I think Vision is making a very good point. Each sample has to really perform something, not just act as a placeholder.
> 
> I also think that's how those mockups come together -- intense focus on each sound.



Not a joke. Anyone who thinks the words "LSO" and "sample libraries" belong in the same headspace is....I can't even finish the sentence.


----------



## Vision

EastWest Lurker @ Sun Mar 08 said:


> JohnG @ Sun Mar 08 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I understand the joke, Jay, but I think Vision is making a very good point. Each sample has to really perform something, not just act as a placeholder.
> 
> I also think that's how those mockups come together -- intense focus on each sound.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not a joke. Anyone who thinks the words "LSO" and "sample libraries" belong in the same headspace is....I can't even finish the sentence.
Click to expand...


You entirely missed the point. No one here said samples = LSO. It's just my way of saying use the very best samples at your disposal, with no compromise.. understand? Good.


----------



## EastWest Lurker

I got that, I just think it is an unfortunate way to make the point because it is like trying to hold pictures of paintings that are masterpieces to a standard that is similar to the masterpieces. When I play a new sample library comparing it to a great orchestra simply never even occurs to me. But whatever works for you.


----------



## Vision

EastWest Lurker @ Sun Mar 08 said:


> I got that, I just think it is an unfortunate way to make the point because it is like trying to hold pictures of paintings that are masterpieces to a standard that is similar to the masterpieces.



I'm just giving an opinion, I find nothing unfortunate about it. That's how I would choose to approach things. 



EastWest Lurker @ Sun Mar 08 said:


> When I play a new sample library comparing it to a great orchestra simply never even occurs to me.



Some people have different methods. That's what makes life interesting.


----------



## Mike Marino

> Thomas's sound is a combination of fantastic writing, great samples, and incredibly intimate MIDI programming skills.. which is an art/science in itself. The mix is just a bonus.



+1 to Peter's point.


----------



## Vision

EastWest Lurker @ Sun Mar 08 said:


> But whatever works for you.



Nice edit.. So impartial now. :roll:


----------



## EastWest Lurker

Vision @ Mon Mar 09 said:


> EastWest Lurker @ Sun Mar 08 said:
> 
> 
> 
> But whatever works for you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nice edit.. So impartial now. :roll:
Click to expand...


Yeah you're right, I didn't dig your approach before and I don't now


----------



## Patrick de Caumette

EastWest Lurker @ Mon Mar 09 said:


> Vision @ Mon Mar 09 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EastWest Lurker @ Sun Mar 08 said:
> 
> 
> 
> But whatever works for you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nice edit.. So impartial now. :roll:
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah you're right, I didn't dig your approach before and I don't now
Click to expand...


Jay, why so bitter?
Like John, I think that Vision was making a perfectly good point.

If you tried to understand the overall intent, rather than look for the small things that you can make fun of, you'd come off a lot less like an arrogant, bitter, contributor...


----------



## EastWest Lurker

Not bitter at all. But I want to push back against the pernicious idea that orchestral samples are anything close to a good orchestra, because they are not.


----------



## RiffWraith

EastWest Lurker @ Tue Mar 10 said:


> I want to push back against the pernicious idea that orchestral samples are anything close to a good orchestra, because they are not.



For the record, I didn't see anyone say that _orchestral samples are anything close to a good orchestra.
_
Cheers.


----------



## Patrick de Caumette

Jay, no one is saying that here.
We are all aware of that fact.
All Vision was saying is that he tries to only include instruments that have a bit of mojo in his template.
It often seems that you are looking for small bits in one's post where you can demonstrate your great knowledge, rather than try to understand the overall arc, and leave the petty stuff aside...


----------



## EastWest Lurker

I am sorry you see it that way because I have no intention of that. Had he said that the way you just did I would have said nothing. And btw my first response was a JOKE saying that held to an LSO standard there would be no samples anyone could use. So who overreacted actually?


----------



## Patrick de Caumette

EastWest Lurker @ Sun Mar 08 said:


> JohnG @ Sun Mar 08 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I understand the joke, Jay, but I think Vision is making a very good point. Each sample has to really perform something, not just act as a placeholder.
> 
> I also think that's how those mockups come together -- intense focus on each sound.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not a joke. Anyone who thinks the words "LSO" and "sample libraries" belong in the same headspace is....I can't even finish the sentence.
Click to expand...


----------



## EastWest Lurker

Ok so it was half a joke. Either way, why such a big reaction? Are people really that insecure about their own opinions? 

It was intended as a little off-hand remark to make a point that it is ludicrous to compare samples to the LSO. Because believe it or not, there ARE newbies who don't get that. But if Vision was offended, let me offer him my apology.

And yes, each sound choice matters, but there will never be consensus as to what does and does not pass muster.


----------



## Vision

EastWest Lurker @ Mon Mar 09 said:


> Ok so it was half a joke. Either way, why such a big reaction? Are people really that insecure about their own opinions?
> 
> It was intended as a little off-hand remark to make a point that it is ludicrous to compare samples to the LSO. Because believe it or not, there ARE newbies who don't get that. But if Vision was offended, let me offer him my apology.
> 
> And yes, each sound choice matters, but there will never be consensus as to what does and does not pass muster.



Jay, I'm not offended, and I am actually very secure. I personally just feel that you give bad advice. 

I beg to differ.. It isn't ludicrous to compare samples to a real orchestra. If you personally can't fathom it, that's your limitation. That's your world, and that is perfectly fine, but understand that: I-don’t-live-on-your-planet.

Obviously, most commercial libraries will be hard pressed to sound *exactly* like an official LSO human sounding orchestra. At least at the stage of technology, and processing power.

But to say they can't come close… you realize you contradict yourself by even being in this thread right? Samples can be close to a good orchestra.. if in the right hands, and with great sounding detailed samples. Why the hell do you think we are even talking about TJ’s mock up skills in this thread? If done right, with great sounding samples, great writing, and *great attention to detail MIDI/mock up skills*, you can do great things. Hell, just for the sake of having a level playing field with a real orchestra, lets hypothetically have Alan Meyerson doing the mix. 

This isn't 1995 or even 2005. Samples and technology have come a long way, and will only continue to get better.

Just a thought, perhaps examine your own personal method, and body of work before admonishing others.

To the "Newbies".. especially the ones out their that show promise, my advise is to shoot for the stars.. go interstellar. It’s a mindset. That way, you can at the very least find your own planet. Steer clear of Jay’s planet, because it doesn’t supply enough oxygen to breathe.


----------



## EastWest Lurker

Nonsense. T.J. would make great sounding music with an Emu Proteus. it is his skill set, not his tools, that are the most determinative factor.

And btw newbies on final word of advice: before you spend much time considering anyone's opinion, including mine, a quick trip to that person's website or Soundcloud page can be revealing. Listen and ask yourself, "Is that what I want my music to sound like?"

OK, I'm done.


----------



## Saxer

we all know: samples libraries are not musicians.

but i don't think you get a good mockup when you treat everything hopelessly as 'just samples'. take care of each part of the music. and when you have nothing more than samples take care of them. it's at least a chair holder for the real thing. and it represents the music you are writing.

anyway... i think there are some non-musical tricks for getting a fat mockup. adding synth sub-basses, adding noise (i had some luck with adding the athmo of a railway station to a mix), making cuts after bouncing midi to audio to get smoother transitions, resample complete orchestra parts to add them elsewhere as add ons (like crescendos), library stacking, adding synth pads and arpeggios, even adding real instruments 

endless list of things you can do even before the 'mixing' starts.


----------



## kfirpr

Saxer @ Tue Mar 10 said:


> we all know: samples libraries are not musicians.
> 
> but i don't think you get a good mockup when you treat everything hopelessly as 'just samples'. take care of each part of the music. and when you have nothing more than samples take care of them. it's at least a chair holder for the real thing. and it represents the music you are writing.
> 
> anyway... i think there are some non-musical tricks for getting a fat mockup. adding synth sub-basses, *adding noise*



This is very interesting can you give us example in context?


----------



## Vision

EastWest Lurker @ Mon Mar 09 said:


> Nonsense. T.J. would make great sounding music with an Emu Proteus. it is his skill set, not his tools, that are the most determinative factor.



You're cherry picking a singular statement from my post, because you know you have nothing to work with. Either that or your reading comprehension is lacking.. Or both. I clearly said that his compositional skill, and MIDI skill set is a huge factor. But treating samples with care does matter. You just don't want to accept that fact for some reason. 



EastWest Lurker @ Mon Mar 09 said:


> And btw newbies on final word of advice: before you spend much time considering anyone's opinion, including mine, a quick trip to that person's website or Soundcloud page can be revealing. Listen and ask yourself, "Is that what I want my music to sound like?"
> 
> OK, I'm done.



I agree. I thought this was a given. I don't see a link to your music btw..


----------



## EastWest Lurker

Vision @ Tue Mar 10 said:


> EastWest Lurker @ Mon Mar 09 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nonsense. T.J. would make great sounding music with an Emu Proteus. it is his skill set, not his tools, that are the most determinative factor.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're cherry picking a singular statement from my post, because you know you have nothing to work with. Either that or your reading comprehension is lacking.. Or both. I clearly said that his compositional skill, and MIDI skill set is a huge factor. But treating samples with care does matter. You just don't want to accept that fact for some reason.
> 
> 
> 
> EastWest Lurker @ Mon Mar 09 said:
> 
> 
> 
> And btw newbies on final word of advice: before you spend much time considering anyone's opinion, including mine, a quick trip to that person's website or Soundcloud page can be revealing. Listen and ask yourself, "Is that what I want my music to sound like?"
> 
> OK, I'm done.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I agree. I thought this was a given. I don't see a link to your music btw..
Click to expand...


Of course everyone should use the samples they think sound best. Why wouldn't they?

If you want to get into swapping insults you are going to have to do so with someone else. 

And anyone can listen to my music on the listen page of my website. www.jayasher.com


----------



## Vision

EastWest Lurker @ Tue Mar 10 said:


> Vision @ Tue Mar 10 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EastWest Lurker @ Mon Mar 09 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nonsense. T.J. would make great sounding music with an Emu Proteus. it is his skill set, not his tools, that are the most determinative factor.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're cherry picking a singular statement from my post, because you know you have nothing to work with. Either that or your reading comprehension is lacking.. Or both. I clearly said that his compositional skill, and MIDI skill set is a huge factor. But treating samples with care does matter. You just don't want to accept that fact for some reason.
> 
> 
> 
> EastWest Lurker @ Mon Mar 09 said:
> 
> 
> 
> And btw newbies on final word of advice: before you spend much time considering anyone's opinion, including mine, a quick trip to that person's website or Soundcloud page can be revealing. Listen and ask yourself, "Is that what I want my music to sound like?"
> 
> OK, I'm done.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I agree. I thought this was a given. I don't see a link to your music btw..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Of course everyone should use the samples they think sound best. Why wouldn't they?
> 
> If you want to get into swapping insults you are going to have to do so with someone else.
> 
> And anyone can listen to my music on the listen page of my website. www.jayasher.com
Click to expand...



I'm peace loving.. you bring it on yourself. What I said probably sounds insulting to you because it has elements of truth that you can't handle. I just don't have a filter for you.. because 99% of the people here can read between your bs, even if they don't say it here. If you want to settle this in a "civil" way, I have no problem taking this to PM.


----------



## EastWest Lurker

I have devoted as much time to you as I care to, thanks.


----------



## Rv5

I'm really keen to know if he mixes the TSFH stuff - those mixes are incredible, the production is just out of this world. Would love to know the compressors and eqs he's using. Also wonder if he masters the TSFH stuff and again would love to know the chain. The guy writes amazing music and brings it together with incredible production values - smashed it.


----------



## Patrick_Gill

It's all down to writing, a good balance of instruments with the orchestra, placement, EQ, gain structure and compression. Becoming one with these.


----------



## pixel

This kind of topic exist in every music genre. Everytime people think that top artist (which eveybody want to sound like) is using tons of eq/comp/other effects racks with famous expensive consoles and that every single track is complicated like quantum mechanics. 

In most of cases those top artists use simple techniques just in different manner than others and when they show these techniques to public then everyone is shocked


----------



## EastWest Lurker

In most cases, those artists are simply more talented and/or work harder.


----------



## Rv5

pixel @ Tue Mar 17 said:


> This kind of topic exist in every music genre. Everytime people think that top artist (which eveybody want to sound like) is using tons of eq/comp/other effects racks with famous expensive consoles and that every single track is complicated like quantum mechanics.
> 
> In most of cases those top artists use simple techniques just in different manner than others and when they show these techniques to public then everyone is shocked



Yeah I've experienced that loads - some surprising basic plug-in or sample achieving a sound I was curious about! Doesn't stop me being curious


----------



## pixel

One more though: Thomas backgroud is EDM-alike. I found some of his music made on pro-tracker and his Trance co-op tune. So it is possible that he use some techniques of mixing electronic music into his work. EDm kind of mixing is totally opposite to traditional mixing way "keep source untouched as much as possible".

Now i'm listen "Cassandra" (my no.1 of TB) and my conclusion is there is much cut of low-mid in hi violins and it is compensated with other instruments in this range. 
I know only a few sample libraries so I can't tell that he cut so much or it was already recorded like that. I know only that to imitate it with LASS without tweaking is almost impossible :wink: 

Also hi strings are so smooth. i'm looking for libraries with similar sound. Any suggestions?


----------



## epmalm

pixel @ Wed Mar 18 said:


> One more though: Thomas backgroud is EDM-alike. I found some of his music made on pro-tracker and his Trance co-op tune. So it is possible that he use some techniques of mixing electronic music into his work. EDm kind of mixing is totally opposite to traditional mixing way "keep source untouched as much as possible".
> 
> Now i'm listen "Cassandra" (my no.1 of TB) and my conclusion is there is much cut of low-mid in hi violins and it is compensated with other instruments in this range.
> I know only a few sample libraries so I can't tell that he cut so much or it was already recorded like that. I know only that to imitate it with LASS without tweaking is almost impossible :wink:
> 
> Also hi strings are so smooth. i'm looking for libraries with similar sound. Any suggestions?



I noticed that too, everything is silky smooth especially in his newest album. His horns are some of the smoothest sounding "epic" horns I've heard. But like others have mentioned, he's just a damn good composer and producer. He has decades of learning and improving his trade under his belt and it really shows.


----------



## zacnelson

There are such different approaches that you can hear in film scores; I agree that TB goes for a very `smooth' sound on his violins and brass, as do some Hollywood scores. BUT there are also film and pop scores that deliver a very mid-rangy sound for those instruments, and they can also sound great. Particularly on modern recordings that aim to capture a vintage sound; and of course on classic film scores you hear a very different EQ curve. The same goes for a rock music mixing; if you compare British bands like Oasis, The Verve and Coldplay to an American band, the British rock style of mixing has a LOT more mids. You can tell a Smashing Pumpkins song immediately just from the EQ approach - long before the vocals begin they have a signature EQ taste. In my experience you can always tell when something has been mixed professionally, even if different professional mixes have radically contrasting EQ curves


----------



## g.c.

If you're working with orchestral vi's, my 2 cents worth:
Find the most important instruments-section etc and mix to them as your mix focus
find the loudest point in the piece and start leveling those from there, then work front to end.
Some mixologists write thet 90% or more of the mix is in the beginning with the faders, hi pass filtering, and panning, (not to wide,(panning extreme right or left lowers those instruments level by appro. 3 db) And don't get to married to 20th century orchestral seatings to pan to but rather center all bass instruments (the low end response from speakers will suffer without a centered bass. Old school transfers to vinyl didn't work well with an off centered bass energy. 
Mostly, mostly,treat your approach orchestrationally as your main mix.
There's other stuff but I've got to go now. Good luck, and don't be afraid of it.
By the way, if you're using vi's, they already have been eq'd, compressed et al.
Bergersons partner at 2 steps,Nick Phoenix, was quoted a few years ago as saying he got the levels right and through his limiter on it and was done.So listen to some of the earlier East West library demos to hear that simple an approach works with mp3's.
And, finally, again, orchestration is your 1st mix.
The best,
g.c.


----------



## gurucomposer

Mike Marino said:


> Hey Black Light: Just a thought. Maybe to also learn more, search Thomas' screenname, go to his profile, view his history of posts, and start reading through everything (in the threads) from Page 1 (which is about 10 years ago). I'm almost positive that you'll find lots of useful information and conversation there.


Hi, what is TB screen name? I would love to read his posts. Thank you!


----------



## Mike Marino

gurucomposer said:


> Hi, what is TB screen name? I would love to read his posts. Thank you!


To my knowledge he left the forum and his previous posts no longer exist. Same with others who left.


----------



## gurucomposer

Mike Marino said:


> To my knowledge he left the forum and his previous posts no longer exist. Same with others who left.


Oh I see, thanks for the response. That's what I suspected. Why would he leave if you don't mind me asking?


----------



## Mike Marino

gurucomposer said:


> Oh I see, thanks for the response. That's what I suspected. Why would he leave if you don't mind me asking?


Not really sure why or when he left. I just remember not being able to find any of his older posts once we arrived at the new forum. Same with many others who've left.


----------

