# Struggling with mixing, tips for dealing with instruments in the same frequency space?



## thevisi0nary (Jul 24, 2020)

I feel content in my creativity but I am really terrible at mixing, even when I spend loads of time practicing it is elusive to me. It is the hurdle that prevents me from releasing material and I want to start reliably getting around it. 

Right now I am trying to finish a song, and there are some parts where there choir and strings sort of get in the way of each other. It is a bit of an aleatoric piece so that makes it more difficult. I like and am satisfied with the arrangement itself, but I cannot balance these parts properly so that there is a more clear definition between the tracks. When I try to carve out a bit of space for the other instrument, it loses some presence and "meat" (it just starts to sound bad).

What are some eq methods I could use to give them a little more space without degrading the instruments individually too much? I am not going for an authentic classic sound, but not something that is super modern sounding either, so I am trying not to over process.

On another note, what kind of processing do you use on choir when it sounds too "washy"?

Thanks for any and all help, I just want to get on with my life and get back to creating.


----------



## RonOrchComp (Jul 24, 2020)

thevisi0nary said:


> there are some parts where there choir and strings sort of get in the way of each other.



Arrangement.



thevisi0nary said:


> I like and am satisfied with the arrangement itself



Yeah, but maybe it's not that good. Seriously. Forgive me if I sound like a jerk - I am not trying to. If you want to improve, the worst thing that can happen is people sugar coating things for you. Facts are facts, and the simple fact is just because it sounds good to your ears, doesn't mean it is good. Have you tried different arrangement options? What about different libs?



thevisi0nary said:


> What are some eq methods I could use to give them a little more space without degrading the instruments individually too much?



Impossible to say without hearing an audio ex. But let me say this (ready, more facts  ) - how an instrument or section sounds in context is more important than how it sounds on its own. You may not like the way the choir is EQ'd when solo'd, but if it serves the mix better EQ'd that way, then you go for it.


----------



## marclawsonmusic (Jul 24, 2020)

Can you post an audio example? It is hard to give mix feedback with no point of reference.


----------



## Dex (Jul 24, 2020)

Even if the arrangement is good, you will still need to do stuff like this. How much you need to do will depend on the arrangement. A good arrangement will need a little. A bad arrangement will need a lot.

Decide which instrument is meant to be in front of the other. Find a part of the EQ spectrum on that instrument that when you boost it, it makes it stand out clearly from the other one in the mix, preferably below 2k. Boost there on that instrument and make an equal cut there on the other. These don't have to be big boosts and cuts, maybe like 3 db or so.

If both instruments are meant to play supporting roles, repeat this process, finding a good place to boost the other and cut the first.

Do this in mono. Things sound pretty different in mono, so prep your ears by listening to your reference tracks for at least 10 minutes in mono before you do this.

Make sure you do an A/B comparison. Listen to the before and after of this whole process and see if it helped.


----------



## classified_the_x (Jul 25, 2020)

Dex said:


> Even if the arrangement is good, you will still need to do stuff like this. How much you need to do will depend on the arrangement. A good arrangement will need a little. A bad arrangement will need a lot.
> 
> Decide which instrument is meant to be in front of the other. Find a part of the EQ spectrum on that instrument that when you boost it, it makes it stand out clearly from the other one in the mix, preferably below 2k. Boost there on that instrument and make an equal cut there on the other. These don't have to be big boosts and cuts, maybe like 3 db or so.
> 
> ...



sounds like a good idea, just dont forget to switch off mono after you're done.

a traditional way of decluttering frequencies like OP wants is to pan tracks and edit stereo width...seems like everyone used to do that, even the Beatles. declutter the middle and you will find space

edit: just some slight panning, to make the tracks off center


----------



## labornvain (Jul 25, 2020)

In every mix you're going to deal with the phenomenon known as masking. This is where two different tracks occupy a similar frequency range and therefore obscure each other in some way. In your cited example you're having trouble with strings and choirs.

Traditionally, this is dealt with by taking one of those tracks and notching out the offending frequencies to make room for the other track.

Now there's a plug-in that can do this for you automatically. It's called Trackspacer by Wavesfactory and I highly recommend trying it.

It's Unique in that it will read the frequency response of one track, identify the peak frequencies, and then subtract those frequencies, and only those frequencies, from the other track.

When I say "subtracts", I mean actually that it compresses those frequencies that are interfering with your other track.



I use this on all kinds of stuff. The most obvious would be kick and bass, but I'll use it to tame a solo instrument that is competing with a vocal, or most recently, a high hat that was altering the sound of the snare drum.



As for your other issue of a wishy-washy choir, that may be a little more difficult to deal with. Without having heard it, I would suspect that the wishy-washy tennis is derived from the room sound or the Reverb. If that Reverb is baked into the sample, you're pretty much stuck with it without doing some seriously destructive processing


----------



## Jack Weaver (Jul 25, 2020)

+1 on TrackSpacer.

.


----------



## vitocorleone123 (Jul 25, 2020)

I prefer smart comp to track spacer by a wide margin for spectral side chain action. izotope can also help identify masking as can Ff proQ3. Gulfoss possibly could help, as well.

but start with volume and panning - including automation (at least of volume)... pick a sound that’s the lead. The focus.

perceptual - if you start a passage with one sound louder than fade it back, it will still be heard more clearly than if it was soft all the way through. Also, if you roll off some highs off one it’ll feel like it’s further back in the mix and the other sound may sound more pronounced.


----------



## JohnG (Jul 25, 2020)

marclawsonmusic said:


> Can you post an audio example? It is hard to give mix feedback with no point of reference.



@marclawsonmusic is right. All the suggestions above might be great -- not contradicting anyone -- but without hearing anything it's impossible to offer accurate advice.


----------



## classified_the_x (Jul 25, 2020)

labornvain said:


> In every mix you're going to deal with the phenomenon known as masking. This is where two different tracks occupy a similar frequency range and therefore obscure each other in some way. In your cited example you're having trouble with strings and choirs.
> 
> Traditionally, this is dealt with by taking one of those tracks and notching out the offending frequencies to make room for the other track.
> 
> ...




Trackspacer seems like a fancy alternative to W.A. Production's Dodge plugin, which costs about $10 when they do promos at Plugin Alliance and such. The truth is "there's no plugin for that" sometimes, and if OP is doing orchestral pieces, using solutions like Dodge or sidechain compression is not so adequate. The "carving" that Trackspacer does probably damages the signal in an unnaceptable way. Plus these solutions are more adequate to electronic compositions, not orchestral.

I think OP must resort to some feedback on his tracks, maybe the frequencies are indeed overpopulated because he's doing something wrong in the arrangement. If he is sure about the arrangement, carefully and gently EQing, sidechaining and panning might be something.


----------



## Dex (Jul 25, 2020)

vitocorleone123 said:


> perceptual - if you start a passage with one sound louder than fade it back, it will still be heard more clearly than if it was soft all the way through.



Excellent advice here. If you’re not already using this technique, you’d be surprised by how much volume automation like this is in professional mixes and how easy it is to trick the brain into hearing something clearly just by giving it to the brain loud for a little while. You might be able to back off on the volume quickly or you might need to back off over a few measures or even the whole section of your piece to make your volume moves non-obvious to the listener, but you can easily get away with 3-4 dB moves. Being able to make the listener hear something 3-4 dB louder than it actually is gives you tons of room to work with.


----------



## labornvain (Jul 25, 2020)

Yeah, no. I have Dodge, it's an awesome plugin. But it's not even remotely the same thing, nor does it try to be.

With all due respect, your post has an unusual amount of assumptions built into it. "Seems like", "is probably", Etc.

Wouldn't it be more useful if you actually confirmed or refuted those assumptions before typing all that stuff up on the internet.

I don't like typing on my phone, so I'm going to ignore most of your comment but to say that almost everything you asserted is incorrect. I will say that if Trackspacer damaged your signal I wouldn't have recommended it. 

Following up someone's recommendation for something with "it probably sucks", is sort of equivalent to saying "you're probably an idiot." Though I trust that was not your intent. LOL.

In fact, it's an incredibly transparent way to achieve the desired results without damaging your signal.

I do, however, I wholeheartedly agree with you that if you have runaway masking in your mix, there might be a problem with your arrangement. So we agree on that. My recommendation though, is to give Trackspacer a try. It has a free demo.

You can also read more about the actual technology involved here:





Trackspacer | Create space in your mix | Audio plugin


A truly unique plugin that creates space in a mix in the most simple and elegant way. Used daily by thousands of products, musicians and mix engineers. Available in VST, VST3, AU and AAX formats.




www.wavesfactory.com





Cheers


----------



## Joël Dollié (Jul 25, 2020)

Don't try to EQ in a complementary way, make each section of the orchestra sound good on its own.

If a choir sounds washy, cut 500 to 1.5k and boost the air 8k+


----------



## classified_the_x (Jul 25, 2020)

labornvain said:


> Yeah, no. I have Dodge, it's an awesome plugin. But it's not even remotely the same thing, nor does it try to be.
> 
> With all due respect, your post has an unusual amount of assumptions built into it. "Seems like", "is probably", Etc.
> 
> ...



well, there is a clear bias on solving problems by buying more stuff, which needs to be learned and paid for. or maybe it's a one knob that promises to solve a specific problem, and then degrades the signal or is pure and simply, snake oil. in the last UAD newsletter they were condemning even excessive use of EQ. 

I just read the description of the plugin you recommended and the manufacturers themselves mention sidechain compression. That is the first thing that WA Production mentions too, but they also have it more geared towards trance gate sounds. 

If there's any assumption is believing on the manufacturer when they say that it is more precise and accurate, which you claim you attested by using it. you don't have to get so defensive, maybe it's because I said it's more geared towards electronic music? sorry, but these type of plugins are... I saw that is does panning too and it indeed might be effective, but I think the OP can solve his problem without resorting to snake oil VSTs.


----------



## thevisi0nary (Jul 25, 2020)

Tons of advice here, thank you very much I really appreciate it. I am going to read through everything after dinner.

This is currently where I am at



This is the type of thing I am going for


----------



## Joël Dollié (Jul 25, 2020)

Cool stuff, I think you need more reverb on the choirs and brass. A bit more transient punch on the hits wouldn't hurt too.

0:09 and 0:18 It sounds a bit thin. Why not fade in a full brass harmony just so there's lower mids and low end to balance out the choir tonally? I feel like the composition is lacking some low tonal bass instruments. But this sounds awesome already. I just feel like as the choir gets louder it dominates the mid range so having other things at the same time intensifying will thicken the track a lot.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Jul 25, 2020)

Without wanting to be gauche and dropping names, a rock star I once interviewed had a great tip that helped me:

Start with the very bottom and very top, and then everything else in the middle tends to fall into place.


----------



## robgb (Jul 25, 2020)

labornvain said:


> It's called Trackspacer by Wavesfactory and I highly recommend trying it.


I second this. I use Trackspacer in two ways. One: to handle the frequencies issue; and Two: added to a reverb and used as a side-chain "ducker" to give an instrument a little more clarity in the verb. Works like a charm.


----------



## Beat Kaufmann (Jul 25, 2020)

thevisi0nary said:


> Thanks for any and all help, I just want to get on with my life and get back to creating...



Hi thevisi0nary
It shows once again: mixing is an art.

*A first possibility* is to have a professional mixer make you a mix, using the same software you mix with. By examining the project yourself (the mixer), you might learn a few things from it, I am sure. 

*A second possibility* is to analyze audio projects that have similar instrument configurations as your own project. Ask yourself questions like: 

How is the high transparency achieved?
How and where are the instruments placed?
How do the individual sections sound?
It is best to analyse projects where a large budget was available. On the subject of choirs, for example, here...
Then you try to achieve the findings yourself.
https://www.beat-kaufmann.com/mixing-an-orchestra/about-the-tutorial/mixing-videos/index.php (Here I have made some videos on how to create transparent mixes).

*A third possibility*: Lessons about Mixing. But there is a problem here, because most recording studios can only teach you how to mix guitars, drums etc. successfully. When it comes to mixing samples, the possibilities of good teaching are even more limited.

----------------------------------------------------------
Basic help for your problem:
1. forget the rules of classic instrument positioning if it helps to get a transparent mix. Why not position a solo flute on the right side instead behind of the 1st violins?

2. Samples are all recorded more or less optimally loud. But if you have ever stood next to a tubular bell when it is struck with a hammer, you know how loud it can sound. Therefore, the instruments that we have to place further away to make it sound natural have to be "brought back into the mix" with quite a lot of "pressure effects". So a sampled choir often has to be treated with a lot of maximizer- and compressor- effects. To make it brighter in sound by EQ to make it more effective in the mix would be wrong! On the contrary, it must sound dark so that it sounds far away as it often is in reality. But to make it sound powerful it needs those "pressure maker effects" as I mentioned above.

3. if one examines professional mixes, then orchestra instruments are often mixed a little "darker" by automation, while the choir sings important parts. With "EQ automation" you can also make instruments play darker if they are just covering another instrument in the mix.

4. double the choir with different sample libraries. Add solo voices and possibly synthetic choir voices to the choir voices, but without really hearing it. Maybe it's not important to place the choir in a defined way - it's everywhere in the mix...

----------------------------------------------- 

All the best
Beat


----------



## vgamer1982 (Jul 25, 2020)

- most great mixes are a lot less "mixed" than most people think

- cut, don't boost.

- compress to get the sound of compression (eg snares in a drum kit, or a bass), not because you think you should slap a compressor on your strings, or your choir. If you can't articulate why the compressor is there, it shouldn't be there. I see people grabbing compressors and want to slap my forehead because I think most people put them on without the first clue of why, and because they usually make things louder they assume they improved something, because louder will always "seem" better.

- The issue almost certainly isn't EQ. Or plugins. Or software.

- most people think way way too orchestrally when mixing. Most good mixers have recorded and mixed across a lot of genres, even if they're known for orchestral recording, and samples mixing and orchestral recording bear not that huge a resemblance to one another.

- reality plays very little part in it, so don't try and make it sound "real" because most great recordings bear very little resemblance to what it sounds like standing at any one point in space, they're super-reality or hyper-reality. (orchestras often sound surprisingly unbalanced in the conductor position).

- EQ and compression and saturation and any of a lot of things mentioned above really are about the last 10% - if even that - they're the polish, pushing it over the edge. *90% of the mix is simply arrangement and then balance*. They used to call them balance engineers, not mixers, for a reason. Many a great mix was made with scarcely any EQ (because the plugins of today didn't exist and you were highly limited to what you could actually EQ). 90% of mix problems are simply balance problems, or masking, which you're always better off fixing in the arrangement first.

- filter your reverb returns.

- velocity scaling is your friend. people are usually way too high on the velocities (or mod wheel) because bright and loud sounds good but there are better things to be found in turning up the volume and turning down the mod or velocity. If you're EQ'ing out harshness or brightening with EQ and haven't tried scaling the velocities or mod up and down you're probably missing a better solution.


----------



## vgamer1982 (Jul 25, 2020)

also, mix by "food group". Get each of your sections (strings, woods, brass, guitars, whatever) sounding how you want them on their own, broadly speaking - ie balanced - and buss them to groups and then automate. Most film score mixers do this (and they're usually then delivering those stems as well, split). You can then go in and tweak anything you want to adjust within them later, but you'll be doing so from a standpoint of general internal balance.


----------



## Bman70 (Jul 25, 2020)

Great thread, reading with interest... I have a piece I stopped working on because I couldn't see a way around the mud . My background is in songwriting, a guitar + vocal is relatively easy to balance. Trying orchestral is wild. All I did was have strings in the upper mid playing a 16th note pattern, a bassy thudding drum, then cellos under that and bass strings below. But the cellos never did rise to being able to be heard Lol. I got frantic and cut almost every frequency out of the violins but still nothing. Admittedly there's a lot of low end. But there SHOULD be a way! Lol


----------



## Piano Pete (Jul 25, 2020)

It's been awhile since I have been active on this site, but I'm going to add my two cents in seeing as I just spent the day mixing and then comparing Soothe2 and DSEQ--adaptive plugins that can address these sorts of things. In your case, before going out and buying a bunch of plugins, I think the advice provided here is a good starting point.

Wall of text incoming.

As @Joël Dollié mentioned, some of your issues can be resolved by giving various elements their own position in depth: reverb. By placing the choir back and providing ambience to your brass, you may find that your string textures stand forward and then you provide scale to your ideas.

From a composition perspective, you may wish to investigate the frequency balance of your composition/mix. Everything is a matter of perspective and comparisons. Things are only loud when paired against something quiet etc. With that in mind, if you have a lot of information that is dry, upfront and in the upper mids/highs, it is going to sound disproportionate and unbalanced. Maybe this is what you want, but you can probably still achieve the weight and impact of your low stabs while taking advantage of other parts of the frequency spectrum. This is an arrangement decision. From a quick listen, you may wish to experiment with the depth and balance of your writing/mix before reaching for wittier--and justified--solutions such as sidechaining/key input.

In general, to achieve a balance that works. This is the macro level procedure I like to follow.

A: Arrangement: If it is a muddy arrangement, it is going to be a muddy mix. The only difference between a master engineer getting their hands on it versus a novice is how transparent those negative aspects are. At that point, you are behind the eight ball.

B: Level: Once you have a composition and arrangement down, you should be able to get 80% of the mix done by purely dealing with faders and gain. If something is too loud and prickly, odds are you should lower it. Yes, there are times when you could reach for an eq to solve that issue--without touching the fader--but it is still better to be thinking level before frequency in most cases. If it sounds loud, turn it down. If it sounds quiet, turn it up.

This is also the time to address setting up the space you are working in. Even in dry, punchy mixes, certain elements are going to be pushed back in the mix via delays or reverbs. Very rarely is everything bone dry. This provides depth to your work and separates various elements. Even if certain elements are within the same frequency range, a proper balance and juxtaposition of ambient elements and drier elements can be distinguished. The human ear is pretty sensitive to these variations.

You can also push things back by making appropriate cuts around the mids/upper mids. We usually call this presence since these frequencies greatly affect how close we perceive something. Some lower, boomer frequencies also cue the brain into thinking something is close via the proximity effect, but again, not something to worry about at this stage.

Make a choice what you want to be closest. What should be further? Not everything can, nor should, be dialed to 11.

B2: Level automation: Once you have determined your "set and forget" levels, there are probably sections that change in a mix where those balances no longer work. I do not know why, but I feel most people forget that they can automate their faders. Do so! Once you have your over all balanced determined, you can then use the faders to accentuate various elements and have fun with the mix. With virtual instruments, much of this volume automation can and should be done via your midi controllers, be it cc1, 7, or 11.

B3: Now you may ask, how do I balance highs, mids, and lows? This is going to depend on your listening environment and the amplitude at which you are listening. While I will not get into that here, these are some quick ways to check balance of different frequency ranges.

Lows - Most speakers do not produce low frequencies at low amplitudes, so if you are listening at a very low level, you probably will not be hearing them. This is why many bedroom producers eventually find that they have way too much bass in a mix once they go to a different environment. Also keep in mind that lower frequencies require more amplitude to sound as loud as higher frequency sounds. This is why loud, low sounds will usually be what triggers a limiter.

Mids - Once you start making way up the frequency range, this is when turning down your listening volume can be beneficial. Especially since we utilize samples--which tend to have build ups around here--and people listen to the majority of music on small speakers/earbuds, there is a lot of information fighting for dominance here. By turning down the monitoring level, you can often get a clearer picture of what is going on in this range. This should always be done with evaluating adjustments at whatever your standard tuned level is. Most tune their speakers to 85db, which is where our ears have the flattest frequency response. Some people like to work a little higher, some work a little lower. The added benefit to doing this is that you ward off ear fatigue. If you ever find yourself progressively cranking up your work after awhile, you should've walked away 20 minutes beforehand. My rule of thumb, you should be able to have a conversation while you are working.

Highs - High frequencies require the least amplitude to be heard in a mix. If you want to quickly evaluate whether your high shakers/noises are too loud or soft. Turn your monitors down lower. When you listen at a higher amplitude, you may not notice how tiring or grating these sounds are. They are exciting for awhile, but they will wear down a listener's ears quicker than lightning. By turning down the amplitude of your monitors, you may be shocked at how disproportionately louder your higher frequency sounds are compared to everything else. Of course, evaluate these changes at your normal listening level and, sometimes, a little higher than normal. (Moral of the story, know your equipment and the room you are in. Know what "loud" sounds like and what "quiet" sounds like. Reference mixes help. Use them.)

C: Eq. Now you can reach for your eq! If you have achieved a good balance purely based on levels, adjustments with your eqs will be even more impactful. As I mentioned earlier, samples have a lot of harsh frequencies in them, and orchestral music in general tends to have a lot of information competing in various frequency ranges--particularly the mids. You can either make global changes to a sound or dynamically process them: ie multiband compression, dynamic eq, or sidechaining/key input. Some people like one method more than another, but these solutions are not as valuable until a good gain-staged balanced is achieved.

Often, problematic or masking frequencies can be found once you have asked yourself the question, "What am I hearing?" Say you hear a crunch or something at a given frequency range. Go through the mix and start muting elements until it vanishes. Usually, I like to go through and mute things that *do not *affect what I am hearing. This is a process of elimination. Usually it is one or two elements that may be the problem children. From here--evaluate what is going on, and if one element must take precedence over the other: determine what should have that headroom at that moment. The brain of the listener will fill in the rest.

D: Compression, saturation, and other various solutions. Again, these should generally be left until after a good balance is achieved. Sometimes, these are required to reach a good balance; however, people often reach for these when they should otherwise just make a fader move. I think it's because a lot of youtube tutorials say they should. Transients help define the clarity of a mix. Mixes that breathe and have life have nice crest factors. Find a mix you like and look at the waveform. They are not all sausages. Of course, after any and all changes, you may need to readjust a fader move. Most compression should be done in reasonable amounts across the entire mix. Im not saying that you always need to be dainty with it, but if you have a compressor on every single element, you may want to reconsider it. As someone mentioned earlier in the thread, you would be shocked at the small number of plugins used in some giant productions. Usually there are a lot, but they are all doing something to the sound--not just eating up dsp. (Not trying to bash the use of compressors).

Do keep in mind, that the process is not generally as rigid as this. Flexibility is possible. Hopefully this helps to some extent. Again, there is a lot of great information in this thread to digest. Usually when I talk to people about engineering, I think the most common issue I see is that people are lost wading through all these different choices. The numerous solutions to solve the same problem doesn't exactly help when someone is getting started. Ultimately, I think you just have to figure out a process to follow when working. Evaluate, compare, contrast, and make a decision. After that, repeat.

--Edit--

Last metaphysical comment on the mixing process.

People will also be quick to degrade their own work when compared against other tracks etc. There is a point in production where a mix will sound professional and industry ready. Anything after that can be chalked up to stylistic choices. You may think that the kick is too heavy, but to someone else, it may be perfect. Whose to say that the choir cannot be more upfront and aggressive or that you want a more ambient mix? I think there is a point of what can be considered a professional, clean mix. After that, those differences and decisions in how your present a given piece is what makes your mix your mix.


----------



## Thundercat (Jul 25, 2020)

Piano Pete said:


> It's been awhile since I have been active on this site, but I'm going to add my two cents in seeing as I just spent the day mixing and then comparing Soothe2 and DSEQ--adaptive plugins that can address these sorts of things. In your case, before going out and buying a bunch of plugins, I think the advice provided here is a good starting point.
> 
> Wall of text incoming.
> 
> ...


Amazing. Thx for sharing!


----------



## classified_the_x (Jul 26, 2020)

thevisi0nary said:


> Tons of advice here, thank you very much I really appreciate it. I am going to read through everything after dinner.
> 
> This is currently where I am at
> 
> ...




there are some artifacts on your render. It might be from the sound of one of the instruments, the samplerate of your interface not handling the composition load, or noise generated by one of the plugins you're using. your concept is really cool and I don't think you should quit.

for the first, check each track, second, raise samplerate or mode, third, deactivate plugins until you find where the artifacts are... better use a headphone too

if you don't agree with the artifacts hypothesis, there's some EQing to do on the hits, under 45hz and there might be more around 120-200

Since you have a reference, Tonal Balance Control from Izotope is really a good alternative. don't rely on it for anything other than graphical comparison, but it might help balancing your tracks.


----------



## MartinH. (Jul 26, 2020)

classified_the_x said:


> there are some artifacts on your render. It might be from the sound of one of the instruments, the samplerate of your interface not handling the composition load, or noise generated by one of the plugins you're using. your concept is really cool and I don't think you should quit.
> 
> for the first, check each track, second, raise samplerate or mode, third, deactivate plugins until you find where the artifacts are... better use a headphone too
> 
> if you don't agree with the artifacts hypothesis, there's some EQing to do on the hits, under 45hz and there might be more around 120-200



Could it be the soundcloud compression?




thevisi0nary said:


> Tons of advice here, thank you very much I really appreciate it. I am going to read through everything after dinner.
> 
> This is currently where I am at
> 
> ...




I just wanted to say this sounds very promising already, please keep working on that track, I love that Bloodborne style!


----------



## Royosho (Jul 26, 2020)

Soloing specific frequency bands helps to discern frequency conflict. Try ISOL8, it's free.









ISOL8


Isol8 is a free and advanced mix monitoring tool. It divides the frequency range into 5 bands. These 5 bands can be soloed or muted individually. This will help you to concentrate on certain frequency ranges during the mixing and mastering process.




www.tb-software.com





Something to think about - not all elements are equal in a mix, choose focal points and background elements and separate them with frequency, volume or stereo location.

I like the track, it has a nice Metroid choir sound.


----------



## classified_the_x (Jul 26, 2020)

MartinH. said:


> Could it be the soundcloud compression?



It sounds more like crackling from interface buffer size, or maybe a plugin is causing that. Buffer size in theory does not affect rendering (export) but if he recorded anything, even vsts, crackling from buffer size might have added the artifacts. Soundcloud is bad but not to the point of adding artifacts to a song.


----------



## SupremeFist (Jul 26, 2020)

classified_the_x said:


> . I saw that is does panning too and it indeed might be effective, but I think the OP can solve his problem without resorting to snake oil VSTs.


You might not personally have any use case for Trackspacer, but it is certainly not a "snake-oil" plugin. There's a reason it won a bunch of awards.


----------



## thevisi0nary (Jul 27, 2020)

RonOrchComp said:


> how an instrument or section sounds in context is more important than how it sounds on its own. You may not like the way the choir is EQ'd when solo'd, but if it serves the mix better EQ'd that way, then you go for it.



Definitely get this, I try to never eq a track unless I notice something during playback (if it conflicts with something else or stands out in a bad way).


----------



## thevisi0nary (Jul 27, 2020)

Dex said:


> Decide which instrument is meant to be in front of the other. Find a part of the EQ spectrum on that instrument that when you boost it, it makes it stand out clearly from the other one in the mix, preferably below 2k. Boost there on that instrument and make an equal cut there on the other. These don't have to be big boosts and cuts, maybe like 3 db or so.
> 
> If both instruments are meant to play supporting roles, repeat this process, finding a good place to boost the other and cut the first.
> 
> Do this in mono. Things sound pretty different in mono, so prep your ears by listening to your reference tracks for at least 10 minutes in mono before you do this.



Great idea, I am going to start doing this thank you.


----------



## thevisi0nary (Jul 27, 2020)

labornvain said:


> In every mix you're going to deal with the phenomenon known as masking. This is where two different tracks occupy a similar frequency range and therefore obscure each other in some way. In your cited example you're having trouble with strings and choirs.
> 
> Traditionally, this is dealt with by taking one of those tracks and notching out the offending frequencies to make room for the other track.
> 
> ...




You know, I looked at Trackspacer awhile ago and for some reason assumed people mainly just used it for side chain ducking, definitely going to look into this again. Thank you.


----------



## thevisi0nary (Jul 27, 2020)

Joël Dollié said:


> Cool stuff, I think you need more reverb on the choirs and brass. A bit more transient punch on the hits wouldn't hurt too.
> 
> 0:09 and 0:18 It sounds a bit thin. Why not fade in a full brass harmony just so there's lower mids and low end to balance out the choir tonally? I feel like the composition is lacking some low tonal bass instruments. But this sounds awesome already. I just feel like as the choir gets louder it dominates the mid range so having other things at the same time intensifying will thicken the track a lot.



This is honestly one of the things I have the most trouble with, I end up making everything closer / dryer because whenever I start trying to introduce reverb it sounds terrible. I see what you are saying about the transients and definitely with the lower registers when the choir starts, it's almost all treble. I'm gonna employ this advice, I really appreciate it thank you.


----------



## thevisi0nary (Jul 27, 2020)

Beat Kaufmann said:


> Hi thevisi0nary
> It shows once again: mixing is an art.
> 
> *A first possibility* is to have a professional mixer make you a mix, using the same software you mix with. By examining the project yourself (the mixer), you might learn a few things from it, I am sure.
> ...



Believe you me, if I could afford to send things to a mix engineer I would lol. I do listen to a lot of soundtracks of similar style of writing, but maybe not enough of that listening is done in a critical way the way you are suggesting. I'm gonna start doing more of that and also in the studio environment.



Beat Kaufmann said:


> https://www.beat-kaufmann.com/mixing-an-orchestra/about-the-tutorial/mixing-videos/index.php (Here I have made some videos on how to create transparent mixes).



Will certainly watch these, thanks very much.



Beat Kaufmann said:


> 1. forget the rules of classic instrument positioning if it helps to get a transparent mix. Why not position a solo flute on the right side instead behind of the 1st violins?
> 
> 2. Samples are all recorded more or less optimally loud. But if you have ever stood next to a tubular bell when it is struck with a hammer, you know how loud it can sound. Therefore, the instruments that we have to place further away to make it sound natural have to be "brought back into the mix" with quite a lot of "pressure effects". So a sampled choir often has to be treated with a lot of maximizer- and compressor- effects. To make it brighter in sound by EQ to make it more effective in the mix would be wrong! On the contrary, it must sound dark so that it sounds far away as it often is in reality. But to make it sound powerful it needs those "pressure maker effects" as I mentioned above.
> 
> ...



This is really good advice and something I have tried to beat into my head, I usually end up resorting to (what I have thought) is the conventional wisdom of doing as little to the samples as possible. For example I really almost never touch the pan knob because I always used to think it would introduce phase issues with the pre arranged samples. Dynamic eq is a great suggestion also and something I rarely ever try. Thank you very much for your tips I appreciate it.


----------



## thevisi0nary (Jul 27, 2020)

vgamer1982 said:


> - most great mixes are a lot less "mixed" than most people think
> 
> - cut, don't boost.
> 
> - compress to get the sound of compression (eg snares in a drum kit, or a bass), not because you think you should slap a compressor on your strings, or your choir. If you can't articulate why the compressor is there, it shouldn't be there. I see people grabbing compressors and want to slap my forehead because I think most people put them on without the first clue of why, and because they usually make things louder they assume they improved something, because louder will always "seem" better.



I am afraid of compressors so there aren't many in my tracks lol. Usually I will try and do a little bit of volume automation to balance things out. I try to stick to mainly subtractive eq, but everything ends up sounding super dark so I will do a bit of boosting in the upper registers (conservative amounts).



vgamer1982 said:


> - most people think way way too orchestrally when mixing. Most good mixers have recorded and mixed across a lot of genres, even if they're known for orchestral recording, and samples mixing and orchestral recording bear not that huge a resemblance to one another.
> 
> - reality plays very little part in it, so don't try and make it sound "real" because most great recordings bear very little resemblance to what it sounds like standing at any one point in space, they're super-reality or hyper-reality. (orchestras often sound surprisingly unbalanced in the conductor position).
> 
> - EQ and compression and saturation and any of a lot of things mentioned above really are about the last 10% - if even that - they're the polish, pushing it over the edge. *90% of the mix is simply arrangement and then balance*. They used to call them balance engineers, not mixers, for a reason. Many a great mix was made with scarcely any EQ (because the plugins of today didn't exist and you were highly limited to what you could actually EQ). 90% of mix problems are simply balance problems, or masking, which you're always better off fixing in the arrangement first.



Yep and yep, echoing what I said above I'm trying to let go of thinking I need to treat samples like a live orchestra. 

I do try to not reach for plugins first when there's some sort of imbalance, but probably still not being holistic enough with things like volume / panning. 



vgamer1982 said:


> - velocity scaling is your friend. people are usually way too high on the velocities (or mod wheel) because bright and loud sounds good but there are better things to be found in turning up the volume and turning down the mod or velocity. If you're EQ'ing out harshness or brightening with EQ and haven't tried scaling the velocities or mod up and down you're probably missing a better solution.



Super guilty of this, I start off with a sketch and boost dynamics instead of properly gain staging. Then when the project is more fleshed out I get afraid to change things because it becomes a game of re balancing everything else, or it I get attached to the sound and it "doesn't sound the same now".


----------



## thevisi0nary (Jul 27, 2020)

Bman70 said:


> Great thread, reading with interest... I have a piece I stopped working on because I couldn't see a way around the mud . My background is in songwriting, a guitar + vocal is relatively easy to balance. Trying orchestral is wild. All I did was have strings in the upper mid playing a 16th note pattern, a bassy thudding drum, then cellos under that and bass strings below. But the cellos never did rise to being able to be heard Lol. I got frantic and cut almost every frequency out of the violins but still nothing. Admittedly there's a lot of low end. But there SHOULD be a way! Lol



Yep this is me also, songs that start with a couple good ideas get abandoned because at the end it is just a big mess, and you get lost trying to deal with it. I also began as a guitar player as a kid and started writing orchestral style music the last couple years. Because of metal music I was always very into complex guitars and felt getting certain parts in order was tough, but going into this style now it is way way more of an ordeal getting like 20 - 30 different instruments balanced and working together than 5 - 7 lol.


----------



## thevisi0nary (Jul 27, 2020)

Piano Pete said:


> As @Joël Dollié mentioned, some of your issues can be resolved by giving various elements their own position in depth: reverb. By placing the choir back and providing ambience to your brass, you may find that your string textures stand forward and then you provide scale to your ideas.
> 
> From a composition perspective, you may wish to investigate the frequency balance of your composition/mix. Everything is a matter of perspective and comparisons. Things are only loud when paired against something quiet etc. With that in mind, if you have a lot of information that is dry, upfront and in the upper mids/highs, it is going to sound disproportionate and unbalanced. Maybe this is what you want, but you can probably still achieve the weight and impact of your low stabs while taking advantage of other parts of the frequency spectrum. This is an arrangement decision. From a quick listen, you may wish to experiment with the depth and balance of your writing/mix before reaching for wittier--and justified--solutions such as sidechaining/key input.



The relationship you mention between dry sounds and upper registers standing out is something that I've never noticed or thought of, great advice. Reverb and space is the area I struggle most with so I end up making everything lean toward the drier / closer side. When I try to add reverb to something, or when I use it to try putting things in the same space, it just sounds like it was recorded in a bathroom even if I dial the mix knob down. I really need to just spend a week practicing with reverb until it makes sense. 



Piano Pete said:


> In general, to achieve a balance that works. This is the macro level procedure I like to follow.
> 
> A: Arrangement: If it is a muddy arrangement, it is going to be a muddy mix. The only difference between a master engineer getting their hands on it versus a novice is how transparent those negative aspects are. At that point, you are behind the eight ball.
> 
> ...



Lots of great advice, thank you. I have to get comfortable with working with spaces instead of just lowering volume or eqing.



Piano Pete said:


> B2: Level automation: Once you have determined your "set and forget" levels, there are probably sections that change in a mix where those balances no longer work. I do not know why, but I feel most people forget that they can automate their faders. Do so! Once you have your over all balanced determined, you can then use the faders to accentuate various elements and have fun with the mix. With virtual instruments, much of this volume automation can and should be done via your midi controllers, be it cc1, 7, or 11.



This is definitely something I don't do enough of, simply ducking volume at small parts to get things out of the way of something else as opposed to longer automation. 



Piano Pete said:


> B3: Now you may ask, how do I balance highs, mids, and lows? This is going to depend on your listening environment and the amplitude at which you are listening. While I will not get into that here, these are some quick ways to check balance of different frequency ranges.
> 
> Lows - Most speakers do not produce low frequencies at low amplitudes, so if you are listening at a very low level, you probably will not be hearing them. This is why many bedroom producers eventually find that they have way too much bass in a mix once they go to a different environment. Also keep in mind that lower frequencies require more amplitude to sound as loud as higher frequency sounds. This is why loud, low sounds will usually be what triggers a limiter.
> 
> ...



Really useful advice. A decent amount of the time I listen at a static 80-90db range, I have a pair of Yamaha hs8's. They extend decently into the lower registers but this week I've started to look into properly measuring and treating my room correctly. About 2 years ago I started trying to not mix at louder volumes, but maybe sticking to that all of the time has not been the best idea. Why would I mix at a moderate volume and expect it to translate when I go and blast it in my car? Makes sense.


----------



## thevisi0nary (Jul 27, 2020)

Piano Pete said:


> C: Eq. Now you can reach for your eq! If you have achieved a good balance purely based on levels, adjustments with your eqs will be even more impactful. As I mentioned earlier, samples have a lot of harsh frequencies in them, and orchestral music in general tends to have a lot of information competing in various frequency ranges--particularly the mids. You can either make global changes to a sound or dynamically process them: ie multiband compression, dynamic eq, or sidechaining/key input. Some people like one method more than another, but these solutions are not as valuable until a good gain-staged balanced is achieved.



I actually feel like I have the opposite problem or at least start out that way. Everything sounds too dark and washed out (analyzer having a downward slope to the right). I end up combating that with making things dryer or brighter. That is when things start to sound harsh. I don't doubt a good part of this issue is arrangement. 



Piano Pete said:


> Often, problematic or masking frequencies can be found once you have asked yourself the question, "What am I hearing?" Say you hear a crunch or something at a given frequency range. Go through the mix and start muting elements until it vanishes. Usually, I like to go through and mute things that *do not *affect what I am hearing. This is a process of elimination. Usually it is one or two elements that may be the problem children. From here--evaluate what is going on, and if one element must take precedence over the other: determine what should have that headroom at that moment. The brain of the listener will fill in the rest.
> 
> D: Compression, saturation, and other various solutions. Again, these should generally be left until after a good balance is achieved. Sometimes, these are required to reach a good balance; however, people often reach for these when they should otherwise just make a fader move. I think it's because a lot of youtube tutorials say they should. Transients help define the clarity of a mix. Mixes that breathe and have life have nice crest factors. Find a mix you like and look at the waveform. They are not all sausages. Of course, after any and all changes, you may need to readjust a fader move. Most compression should be done in reasonable amounts across the entire mix. Im not saying that you always need to be dainty with it, but if you have a compressor on every single element, you may want to reconsider it. As someone mentioned earlier in the thread, you would be shocked at the small number of plugins used in some giant productions. Usually there are a lot, but they are all doing something to the sound--not just eating up dsp. (Not trying to bash the use of compressors).
> 
> Do keep in mind, that the process is not generally as rigid as this. Flexibility is possible. Hopefully this helps to some extent. Again, there is a lot of great information in this thread to digest. Usually when I talk to people about engineering, I think the most common issue I see is that people are lost wading through all these different choices. The numerous solutions to solve the same problem doesn't exactly help when someone is getting started. Ultimately, I think you just have to figure out a process to follow when working. Evaluate, compare, contrast, and make a decision. After that, repeat.



Thank you very much, great advice. 



Piano Pete said:


> People will also be quick to degrade their own work when compared against other tracks etc. There is a point in production where a mix will sound professional and industry ready. Anything after that can be chalked up to stylistic choices. You may think that the kick is too heavy, but to someone else, it may be perfect. Whose to say that the choir cannot be more upfront and aggressive or that you want a more ambient mix? I think there is a point of what can be considered a professional, clean mix. After that, those differences and decisions in how your present a given piece is what makes your mix your mix.



This is really reassuring and thought provoking, and something that can get lost when you listen to your track in a bubble over and over. Will keep this close in mind, thank you kindly.


----------



## thevisi0nary (Jul 27, 2020)

classified_the_x said:


> there are some artifacts on your render. It might be from the sound of one of the instruments, the samplerate of your interface not handling the composition load, or noise generated by one of the plugins you're using. your concept is really cool and I don't think you should quit.
> 
> for the first, check each track, second, raise samplerate or mode, third, deactivate plugins until you find where the artifacts are... better use a headphone too
> 
> ...



Oh wow will definitely look at this. I havent listened in a couple of days, is it only on the hit's with the drums? If you are saying it's in the lower register it might be the low brass hit/burp. If so I agree it's a bit exaggerated.


----------



## thevisi0nary (Jul 27, 2020)

MartinH. said:


> I just wanted to say this sounds very promising already, please keep working on that track, I love that Bloodborne style!



Seriously appreciate it thank you very much. I am obsessed with Fromsoftware games and the soundtracks, I love knowing other people like them too.

Waiting patiently for Eldenring


----------



## classified_the_x (Jul 27, 2020)

thevisi0nary said:


> Oh wow will definitely look at this. I havent listened in a couple of days, is it only on the hit's with the drums? If you are saying it's in the lower register it might be the low brass hit/burp. If so I agree it's a bit exaggerated.



not on the hits or low registers, it's actually in one of the instruments, dont remember if strings or brass, but there is some crackling


----------



## SupremeFist (Jul 28, 2020)

thevisi0nary said:


> This is honestly one of the things I have the most trouble with, I end up making everything closer / dryer because whenever I start trying to introduce reverb it sounds terrible. I see what you are saying about the transients and definitely with the lower registers when the choir starts, it's almost all treble. I'm gonna employ this advice, I really appreciate it thank you.


I used to have similar difficulties and then I discovered the "Abbey Road Reverb Trick". Google it and thank me later.


----------



## Mornats (Jul 29, 2020)

This thread has been a gold mine of advice. I've learnt a fair bit from this.

By the way, Joel has an ebook available about mixing orchestral libraries. I've recently purchased it and it's for some great advice in there. Here's the UK Amazon link but it's available in other countries too.

Edit: I can't get the Amazon link to work but search for Mixing Modern Orchestral Music.


----------

