# Is it possible to smooth out the EWQL strings a bit?



## Nostradamus (Jun 12, 2011)

Hi guys, pls. see my question in the subject above. I can't afford HS right now but sometimes I wish the EWQL strings sounds a bit smoother. Is that possible, maybe with an EQ?


----------



## Ashermusic (Jun 12, 2011)

What do you mean by"smooth?" More connected is what comes to mind, which EQ would not help, but I have a feeling you maybe talking about harsh timbre?


----------



## Nostradamus (Jun 12, 2011)

Yes, your feeling is right . What I mean is a hard timbre. The string sounds of EWQL are not harsh per se, but sometimes I like it a bit softer.


----------



## RiffWraith (Jun 12, 2011)

Do you have access to any hw units, like a really good compressor? That will do the trick. Also, a good hw reverb, such as a Bricasti, or a 480L will help alot. Both together would be aces.

If not, what do you have in terms of sw verbs and compressors?

Cheers.


----------



## Nostradamus (Jun 12, 2011)

Oh ... only software here. But to be honestly: I doubt that there is a huge difference in using hard- or software. At least regarding the acoustic output.


----------



## Ashermusic (Jun 12, 2011)

Nostradamus @ Sun Jun 12 said:


> Yes, your feeling is right . What I mean is a hard timbre. The string sounds of EWQL are not harsh per se, but sometimes I like it a bit softer.



Use an analyzing EQ, like Logic's Channel EQ to see which frequencies have the most energy and you will see where you can cut to get that softer sound.


----------



## chimuelo (Jun 12, 2011)

I tend to agree with Riff about hardware compressors and reverbs.
On all of my sampled content I have audio routed out to an overdriven poormans Urie known as the SC-CS2 (slightly overdriven), and then an ancient PCM70 on the AUX adds further glue.
I never hear samples that sound harsh, but I understand how a computer with a soundcard can be more brittle, while showing perfect mathematical attributes.

Just in case you ever want to test it out, ebay is an excellent place to demo hardware effects units and at a cheap price.
You have 21 days to make a decision on certain electronic items, and this gives you time to route a quality Lexicon PCM70 into a DAW for 4-600 USD. Can't afford it, or it doesn't work well with your soundcards converters, send it back.

It's not a 480L or Model 7, but it sounds just as lush with less algorithms.
It's not like you need inverse and ping pong table surfaces.
It's great for just the meat and potatoes.
It also makes the Virtual static verbs on your channels come to life.....

The fact EW sounds harsh is a good thing. Filtering can easily fix that, and thats much better than trying to polish a Turd.

If you're content with the set up you have just try using LP, BP and HPF's.
Harshness usually equates to a wide range of freq's and not a single parametric value. EQ's are Filters, but filters can drop down sections of frequencies and keep you from playing the chase game.

Happy Hunting...


----------



## RiffWraith (Jun 12, 2011)

Nostradamus @ Sun Jun 12 said:


> Oh ... only software here. But to be honestly: I doubt that there is a huge difference in using hard- or software. At least regarding the acoustic output.



The acoustic output is where all of the difference lies. There is a big difference between processing using 0s and 1s, vs. electrical pulses running through a physical circuit. That doesn't mean 0s and 1s are bad; it's just not the same.

Cheers.


----------



## Frederick Russ (Jun 12, 2011)

Nostradamus @ Sun Jun 12 said:


> What I mean is a hard timbre. The string sounds of EWQL are not harsh per se, but sometimes I like it a bit softer.



You can also use EQ to solve this problem. Find one band on a multi-band parametric EQ and add gain to it - then sweep your frequencies up and down until you find out where the harshness resides frequency-wise. Then cut until it improves. At this point, you may also need to adjust the Q width so you're not cutting more than just the problem area. You'll probably discover one or two more frequency problem areas that you can cut using the same method on just the strings until you begin hearing a little more of the silky sound you're after. There is really only so much you can do though. 

Reverb helps mask a lot of problems - I guess the point here either with EQ or reverb is that a little does a lot - don't overdo. Also, in this context, its not always possible to add something that isn't there - the rule of thumb is to cut frequencies to get it sound better, boost frequencies to get it sound different (although if the frequencies boosted don't reside in the sound file, boosting essentially boosts noise not timbre). Have fun


----------



## chimuelo (Jun 12, 2011)

An excellent description of Parametric EQ use Frederic...... 8) 
Especially the boosting/destructive description which sometimes is cool for synths, since a little noise never hurts, but outside of the soundfile is new way to describe the reason why I never liked boosting low end on digitally recorded samples.

Bouncing Ideas today has made my day off very worthwhile....

Cheers.


----------



## re-peat (Jun 12, 2011)

chimuelo @ Sun Jun 12 said:


> I tend to agree with Riff about hardware compressors and reverbs.


I absolutely don't. How on earth is a compressor — be it a hardware unit or a software device — going to smooth out the harsh frequencies in a set of samples? (Unless it's an expertly set up multiband compressor.) If anything, the harshness (which might well be an area of the frequency spectrum with a fairly high amplitude) is likely to to push the other, less penetrating frequencies even further down if the sound is run through a compressor, resulting in a sound that's even less pleasant than before.
Besides, that elusive analog 'warm' quality from hardware gear, that's supposed to creamify audiosignals, is something entirely different than what's needed here: a surgical technique to tame that segment of the frequency spectrum which causes 'harshness'. For that purpose, EQ'ing is the only sensible option, like Jay and Frederick already suggested. Preferably dynamic EQ'ing, I would like to add, in order to avoid damaging signals which needn't be processed to begin with.

And reverb might sound tempting, as it always does, but running a signal you don't like the sound of, through a reverb always increases the problem (by mirroring the sonic flaws into the background as well). Much better, in my opinon, to first make sure that the sound is more or less to your liking before applying reverb.

Nostradamus,

Why not post a little snippet of the sound you find too harsh? And then some of us can maybe try to EQ it, to make it a little bit smoother, and tell you, in useful detail, which EQ-settings we've used, assuming that you like what you hear.

_


----------



## Ashermusic (Jun 12, 2011)

re-peat @ Sun Jun 12 said:


> chimuelo @ Sun Jun 12 said:
> 
> 
> > I tend to agree with Riff about hardware compressors and reverbs.
> ...



Correct.


----------



## Nostradamus (Jun 12, 2011)

Concerning the hardware - software thing: some month ago somebody posted a short piece of music to compare a software reverb (Eos from Audio Damage) and two hardware devices (one of them a Lexicon, I don't know the other one) and asked the people what device they believe to listen to. Most of them where wrong. They weren't be able to distinguish between hard- and software, let alone to recognize the reverb units.

However, thanks for your tips, you're really helpful. I think I'll use Voxengo SPAN and an EQ.


----------



## germancomponist (Jun 12, 2011)

Nostradamus @ Sun Jun 12 said:


> Concerning the hardware - software thing: some month ago somebody posted a short piece of music to compare a software reverb (Eos from Audio Damage) and two hardware devices (one of them a Lexicon, I don't know the other one) and asked the people what device they believe to listen to. Most of them where wrong. They weren't be able to distinguish between hard- and software, let alone to recognize the reverb units.
> 
> However, thanks for your tips, you're really helpful. I think I'll use Voxengo SPAN and an EQ.



2 weeks ago I phoned with a good friend and we talked about hardware. I told him that I have a good Klark hardware compressor and am willing to sell it, because there is no need for me to use it. He said:"Cool, I would like to test it and maybe buy it....".

After our talk I thought, hm, let me connect it to my mixer and listen. (I havn`t used it for years). After my short testing and listening, one thing is for sure: I never will sell it! Why? It sounds better than all my compressor plugs, way better. Can`t believe that I had forgotten...... . o/~


----------



## Hannes_F (Jun 12, 2011)

re-peat @ Sun Jun 12 said:


> Preferably dynamic EQ'ing, I would like to add



+ 1 
I would like to add that an EQing with automated gain has served me a lot in softening strings.


----------



## chimuelo (Jun 12, 2011)

Its just my opinion about the PCM70 and SC-CS2.
But I'll explain why.
After using hardware samplers from 1984 up unto 1998, all I ever needed was a splash of the PCM70.
Hardware sampler outputs were hot, and Eric Pershing and Jerry Coakleys' samples were already mastered and sounded great.
I then went to Gigastudio and noticed it was " harsher " in its sound quality. I figured it was the EgoSys WAMI's converters, no biggie.
Using the hardware reverbs damping percentages I cut down the upper mids.

As far as the compressor warming the sound up from being overdriven........Hell yes, no plug in does this, but I use extremely high ratios as that will also take out any harshness as various frequencies that might be hot at that certain moment have their harmonic content evened out more.
I am a simple man but after seeing several mastering sessions all being finalized with Avalon or Manley SLAMs I started asking questions, and the engineers explained how a poor mans Urei 1776 ( SE-CS2 ) could achieve similar results.

It works too as I perform opposite of more Motiffs and Receptors than any Guitar Center has ever seen.
And I always have guys asking why I lug around the extra hardware.
After the soundcheck that question was answered all by itself.

Sure it's only a 5-10% difference in sound quality, but me and my mates can hear it loud and clear.
The Analog Synths I use are just the icing on the cake.
But we're talking Fusion Tributes, and Classic /Prog Rock. Those synths MUST be used or the guys with SVT's and Marshalls will beat you sensless.

Thought I'd explain my reasons for using the same gear from the last century...

Also I agree with the Dynamic EQ if you prefer ITB only.
I use the one below for sampled Pianos and it works well as I am always happy with the highs and lows on my sampled Pianos, but once again the mids are finnicky..


----------



## re-peat (Jun 12, 2011)

chimuelo @ Sun Jun 12 said:


> (...) as far as the compressor warming the sound up from being overdriven........Hell yes, no plug in does this, (...)


Yes, of course (although the Abbey Road RS124 plugin might sursprise you), but there's a big difference between 'warming up' the sound on the one hand, and getting rid of harsh, piercing frequencies, on the other. I happen to be not entirely unfamiliar with the ThermionicCulture FatBustard valve mixer (and if there's one piece of hardware capable of cooking things up, this is it), but you can send a harsh sounding stringspatch a million times through it and it'll still come out sounding harsh. A slightly different, less thinner kind of harsh perhaps, but harsh nonetheless.

Furthermore, the magic of 'going analog' is, in my experience anyway, much less effective on sample-based audio than on living sounds produced by real instruments. The intrinsic dead-ness of sample-based material makes it much less receptive to whatever non-linear wonders unfold inside an analog audio-chain.

Process a good recording of a real stringsection with sexy analog equipment, and yes, you're in audio heaven. Process a virtual stringsection with the same equipment, and you're still stuck with one-dimensional, poor-sounding illusion.

_


----------



## Ashermusic (Jun 13, 2011)

re-peat @ Sun Jun 12 said:


> chimuelo @ Sun Jun 12 said:
> 
> 
> > (...) as far as the compressor warming the sound up from being overdriven........Hell yes, no plug in does this, (...)
> ...



Once again, correct.


----------



## chimuelo (Jun 13, 2011)

Jeez Jay, save some of that Cock for me......... :mrgreen: 

I agree 100% with your described scenarios, but the reality for me is I have to use these sampled instruments, as I have been an addict since my first Emulator II and Ensoniq Mirage. Even back then I found harshness in their sound, but managed to tame the upper mids through a PCM70 by damping those frequencies.
Since the Lexicon is my main effect where all sampled instruments get an emulation of space to help their sterile one dimensional sound, That's where I treat it.
The fact I can re route my hardware into my DSP mixers and chose what gets Limited or treated, it's as good as it gets, and those methods might be changed, but only after I have proven another method to work better.
My hardware comp will never have the clarity my 8 Band Compressors or their excellent side chaining capabilities, but those feats added to the electrical energy overdriven are a bonus, not better or worse, but an addition.
In other words my ears guide me, and so far they have worked well.
Someday I will not need this hardware as advancements in Native and DSP processing get even more advanced. When that time comes, I will gladly retire the antiques with a proper burial they deserve.
And maybe string performers will be so cheap that they can drive to my house and I can record them. I will most likely be retired by that time...
Until then, I use the tools at hand and make music instead of excuses.

FWIW, I have had to use my horn sections in front of some of the finest horn players around. So I know very well the limitations I face. Especially when a Sax player tells you he loves the sound of your B3 or Rhodes. I actually prefer they don't mention the word HORN...


----------



## Ashermusic (Jun 13, 2011)

chimuelo @ Mon Jun 13 said:


> Jeez Jay, save some of that Cock for me......... :mrgreen:
> 
> I agree 100% with your described scenarios, but the reality for me is I have to use these sampled instruments, as I have been an addict since my first Emulator II and Ensoniq Mirage. Even back then I found harshness in their sound, but managed to tame the upper mids through a PCM70 by damping those frequencies.
> Since the Lexicon is my main effect where all sampled instruments get an emulation of space to help their sterile one dimensional sound, That's where I treat it.
> ...



Jimmy, correct me if I am wrong but you are talking about live performance rather than composing in a DAW. They are very different tasks and what sounds great in one use may not cut it as well in the other. no?


----------



## re-peat (Jun 13, 2011)

Ashermusic @ Mon Jun 13 said:


> They are very different tasks and what sounds great in one use may not cut it as well in the other.


Correct.


----------



## chimuelo (Jun 13, 2011)

Save Me Some Piet..... :mrgreen: 

Brotha Man Jay...

I have an entirely different approach to ITB mixing than most folks do.
I use Cubase and Reaper but they are not where I mix.
I love 24bit audios' sound quality and Cubase is the easiest way to create fast MIDI tracks, but I still route their ASIO paths into the Scope DSP platform where it's merged with digital and Analog hardware via AES/EBU and Analog I/O's.

I've done this since 1999 and back then I had 2 x 4U Scope/GigaDAW's and tons of hardware effects and synths. Every year Native and DSP developers made leaps and strides so I would unload more gear like Rockman, DBX, Lexicon Delays, etc.

I only have the analog synths, SE-SC2 and PCM70 left, so it's not like I dont use DSP or Native.
I just feel these areas have not been faithfully done yet, but trust me as soon as I find suitable replacements they too will recieve a proper burial.

But I can see where guys using Logic or Cubase as a mixing platform might disagree with my conclusions, and prefer 100% ITB.
The differences are not major, 10% maybe, but ask anyone using a Model 7 or 480L to try this new VST reverb plug and give them an NFR. While they might do a little snippet of music, I seriously doubt they send out their demos using it.

I can also say with confidence that when a guy using an ITB rig and NI's Komplete shares a stage with me, they are unmercifully punished.
This is why I lug this 16U around.

I do long for the day when these certain hardware advantages are no longer apparent. I am a strong 55 years of age so I got 10 left in me.
I sure hope the new flock of DSP developers that got the axe and are now going Native hurry up and rescue me.......

Ankyu


----------



## Dietz (Jun 14, 2011)

Is it just me who finds it a bit bewildering to see a PCM-70 referred to as some kind of "analog" hardware ...? 8-/


----------



## chimuelo (Jun 14, 2011)

Back then I was in such a hurry to buy it becasue I saw the word Digital on it. :mrgreen: 
It wasn't even really a very accurate space emulation effects unit, but that sound, and the word digital carried alot of weight back then.
I was so impressed with the quality I went and bought the PCM91 w/o even giving it a listen. Big mistake as the word digital came back to haunt me.

We're way past that these days.
When buying a reverb, it's to the point where it must be an emulation, of an emulation to get the marketing schemes noticed.

Afterall the Lexicon units are an emulation of space. So therefore when we see the presets or IR's in Native or DSP reverb with the name Lexicon, they must be emualtions of an emulation.....??


----------



## Dietz (Jun 14, 2011)

... I understand where you come from. I won't join the discussion, though, as my point-of-view on this matter is too biased.


----------



## chimuelo (Jun 14, 2011)

Totally understand Chief...
Just one more thought though.

The 480LX is a fine sounding VST based on the Lexicon 480L.
But before dklabs it was SonicTimeworkz, and the effect was a DSP model.

Since the Lexicon 480L is an emualtion of space.
This means the DSP version was an emulation of an emulation.

And the 480LX is a VST. 
So it's an emulation, of an emulation, of the emulation......

In my next life I wish to come back as a Large Hall.


----------



## germancomponist (Jun 14, 2011)

chimuelo @ Tue Jun 14 said:


> ... In my next life I wish to come back as a Large Hall.



:mrgreen: o-[][]-o


----------

