# How do you usually layer your libraries?



## tarantulis (Feb 13, 2016)

I'm taking Visual Orchestration 3 and it's opened up a whole new world for me in terms of how I approach spatial placement and reverb. I've been experimenting with some techniques to get 1-2 different libraries in the same room and I'm curious how you guys generally approach the subject.

So far what's worked best for me is putting a fairly dry library (e.g., LASS) at the forefront of the mix while putting a slightly wetter one in the background to add vibrance (e.g., Berlin Strings), while then using the existing RT60s of the latter's room as a reference point for adding early reflections to the former.

I'm sure there are a million ways to do this so I'm interested to hear others' techniques. Do you mix libraries based on existing room attributes or just do what sound good? Do you stop at 2 or add more for a fuller mix? Do you have a separate track for every instrument in the section, and if so how do you divide them? (E.g., in my mix its 16 violins 1 = 10 LASS + 6 BS.)


----------



## JohnG (Feb 13, 2016)

tarantulis said:


> just do what sound good



That ^^. 

I like libraries that offer multiple mic positions so you can dial in what you want. Personally, I think people spend too much time on this issue (and on legato, but that's another topic). One way to tackle the overall sound is to try to emulate 8-16 bars of a real piece you like, whether it's a symphony or film music, and see how close you can get. Real brass and percussion playing ff, for example, are "real loud."


----------



## elpedro (Feb 13, 2016)

I prefer not to mix libraries, difficult to match rooms, i try to pick the right one for the right job, and with strings i might mix some synth strings in (deep in the background), depends on what works.If i do need 2 libraries, then I tend to keep one as main and the other (deep) in the background as "fill"....To my ears, no library sounds anything like the real thing...so get the best package for the emulation that you need..


----------



## germancomponist (Feb 13, 2016)

If you want to sound like a real orchestra, hire one! If you want a big, great, and or cool sound, experiment with layering! Just my 2 cents.


----------



## Maestro1972 (Feb 13, 2016)

JohnG said:


> and on legato


Not trying to hijack a thread but I'm curious as to what you mean?



tarantulis said:


> I'm curious how you guys generally approach the subject.



I am by no means an expert, Short answer:It is all about how it sounds to you. i have done a lot of Mock ups in my endeavor to get the perfect sound with the perfect balance. The one thing I notice is that when I do a mock up, let's say John Williams, I don't need to layer my strings. The writing makes the strings small when they need to be small and FULL when they need to be full. However, I do mix libraries. I like Sample Modeling for a lot of my writing (solo horn or individual parts within a section) but like and use HW Brass for other specific purposes like when the sections are playing unison. 

I have heard of people using different libraries for divisi although I have not tried it yet. All the libraries play in unison and as they divide they do so with different libraries.
Example: 
Viloin 1 divi a... Hollywood Stings
Violin 2 divisi b...Berlin Strings


----------



## Jacob Cadmus (Feb 14, 2016)

I rarely stack things for fuller sound anymore. Instead, I like to stack different articulations into multis and then tweak performance settings so that I get the most melodic expression.


----------



## Jimmy Hellfire (Feb 14, 2016)

tarantulis said:


> Do you mix libraries based on existing room attributes or just do what sound good?



The latter. I like to layer things to make them sound more lively, textured and less predictable. Some string shorts are very sharp and precise and dead-on, others are a little wonky and flubby which has a certain charm of its own. Layering them can get you best of both worlds in a way. Long notes sound livelier because layering introduces more variance in dynamics and tuning. And I also sometimes like to layer a bit of ambient samples underneath of detailed-sounding, drier ones - another "best of both worlds"-approach.

I don't bother with trying to "place everything in the same room" etc. To me, a somewhat odd idea to begin with. What room? This is all samples. The music heard here isn't being played and isn't happening in the real world. There are no players, there is no room. There's just different amounts of edited reverberation around edited samples. Playing two notes in quick succession already isn't "in the same room", but some recorded aural artefact of a natural ambience pushed into the other and stacked up. And algo/convo reverbs are "rooms" that only exist as digital models. There is no real diffusion of sound in an ambience to be heard, but digitally multiplied sound that's modulated according to a bunch of parameters.

I also believe that ambience is being overthought and overemphasized a lot. It's really not that important. We like the ambient sound of our favorite libraries and our favorite reverb plugins because they sound pleasing. But I don't delude myself into believing that I'm really getting "the sound of AIR" or "the sound of Teldex" or whatever for my sampled music productions. I simply focus on trying to make the ambience sound cool. No need to make rocket science out of it either. "All in the same room" isn't that important - I just try to avoid making it sound obviously "in totally different rooms".

Tail lengths and predelays shouldn't be too far off, and the ambient "color" can be matched with the right choice of IR/room model, filters and general EQ. Dry, centered samples that still sound too upfront even after panning and EQ I'll either try to push back wiht Magix Origami, or adjust the amount of dry signal on the reverb. One can even use Gate, transient shapers and M/S processing to deal with some trickier issues. It's mostly not needed though. Sometimes I'll use just one reverb, sometimes it might be three. There are no real rules - it all depends on the choice of libraries, and most of all what the piece needs.


----------



## Rodney Money (Feb 14, 2016)

I am new to the world of DAWS and sampled libraries, it hasn't even been a year, lol, but I just try to make them sound as close to a live performance as "humanly" possible (see what I did there?) One of the most difficult ensembles I've tried to render so far is the sound of a concert band or also called a wind ensemble. For example, wind ensembles have 2 different alto saxophones with a warm, classical sound and euphonium section, and how often do we see that? So often I will layer sounds to give an illusion of what's missing. Also, I will layer the sound of two different libraries to enhance each other and cover up each other's weaknesses. In my example posted, the trombones are a mixture of Cinesamples and Spitfire. During the beginning soft part you have spitfire bones a2 mixed with Cinesamples trombne solo for detail, and then during the loud section you have spitfire bones again for the legato transitions and ambience mixed the bite and power of Cinesamples trombone ensemble. https://app.box.com/s/7puhp9e2qnbzy47vrebfgu0ipr22wfdj


----------



## geoffreyvernon (Feb 15, 2016)

For me, layering isn't about getting a bigger more fuller sound in my cues. For me, layering is about getting as close to possible as a real orchestra as I can when the budget doesn't allow for a live orchestra. Each sample library is recorded differently, and there for acts differently than the others. Some sample libraries are more dry, some more wet, some recorded in place, some not and some have papers falling and chairs creaking. The beauty of a live orchestra is that the musicians use the energy of the other players, and start to "play off each other" creating something unique and powerful. I think that when you start to layer libraries, they will start to "play off each other", and start to give you that human feel. That's why I layer, and I always layer everything I do no matter what it is.

Hope this helps!


----------



## clarkcontrol (Feb 15, 2016)

I find that layering sustains for instance can diffuse details and make things sound synthy. It depends on what sound I'm going for of course.

I find that I will layer articulations from the same library more than the same articulation from different libraries.


----------



## dgburns (Feb 15, 2016)

tarantulis said:


> I'm taking Visual Orchestration 3 and it's opened up a whole new world for me in terms of how I approach spatial placement and reverb. I've been experimenting with some techniques to get 1-2 different libraries in the same room and I'm curious how you guys generally approach the subject.
> 
> So far what's worked best for me is putting a fairly dry library (e.g., LASS) at the forefront of the mix while putting a slightly wetter one in the background to add vibrance (e.g., Berlin Strings), while then using the existing RT60s of the latter's room as a reference point for adding early reflections to the former.
> 
> I'm sure there are a million ways to do this so I'm interested to hear others' techniques. Do you mix libraries based on existing room attributes or just do what sound good? Do you stop at 2 or add more for a fuller mix? Do you have a separate track for every instrument in the section, and if so how do you divide them? (E.g., in my mix its 16 violins 1 = 10 LASS + 6 BS.)



Some thoughts,and by no means the only voice-

I find that I think alot about the first chairs these days.Mostly that the first chair is the leader of the section.Even if the section is highly divisi,I give more thought to the most important voice in that choir section,especially strings.
If you listen to a real orchestra of moderate size,the thing that strikes me is how sparse the sound is compared to samples.Partly due to the organ effect when chording with a massive sound,ie 6 french horns ,so in a triad = 18 voices,not two voices per note in a divisi real life situation.
Mostly these days,I think of layering other sounds underneath a section only to add volume if I need more oomph from where I am.that seems to be working for me better then layering for some idea of a more beleivable midi mock.
The other thing that grabs you is that really good orchestration can take a small sounding ensemble and give the illusion of a much bigger sound if you do it right.Things like opening up the intervals and having more space inside the chord,giving alot of thought to how chord inversions can create the best voice leading and keep the voicing really wide,and using contrast by closing in the chords or intervals as well.When you hit on the right orchestration,you might come to the conclusion that layering is just a broad swipe at the possible underlying dilema which is the hope for a satisfying arrangement.
so,for me,arrangement first,then layering for volume.


----------



## Saxer (Feb 16, 2016)

I layer libraries in the moment I miss something. In dry libraries that's mostly room so I try layering far mics from roomy libraries to the dry ones. Sometimes I layer articulations for accents on long note starts or endings.
Other than that I try to have a reliable sound that would work with a real orchestra without bad surprises.


----------



## Assa (Feb 16, 2016)

Saxer said:


> I layer libraries in the moment I miss something. In dry libraries that's mostly room so I try layering far mics from roomy libraries to the dry ones. Sometimes I layer articulations for accents on long note starts or endings.
> Other than that I try to have a reliable sound that would work with a real orchestra without bad surprises.



+1

One thing I mostly try to avoid if possible in chordal context, is to layer different libraries on the same note. An example:

I want to have the strings play staccatos (cmaj chord), and I use cinematic strings for example. To make it more dry-sounding, I just use la scoring strings violins 2 to play the e and the cinematic strings v1 and violas play the c and g. This already gives the impression of all the high strings sounding closer.

For me this often sounds better and you don't get any problems with instruments ending up too loud in the mix. The template must be balanced pretty well to do this successfully though.


----------



## Rodney Money (Feb 16, 2016)

Assa said:


> +1
> 
> One thing I mostly try to avoid if possible in chordal context, is to layer different libraries on the same note. An example:


Ah, but you might be missing out on some real beauty, my friend.


----------



## Assa (Feb 16, 2016)

Rodney Money said:


> Ah, but you might be missing out on some real beauty, my friend.



I agree that it often does sound good by itself, but for me it screws up the volume levels and often muddies the sound. (of course I also did this sometimes, but I just try to find other solutions if possible.)I know from others who do this and do not have this issue, but for me my approach works pretty well...in the end it's always different tastes, workflows and whatnot


----------



## pkm (Feb 19, 2016)

geoffreyvernon said:


> For me, layering isn't about getting a bigger more fuller sound in my cues. For me, layering is about getting as close to possible as a real orchestra as I can when the budget doesn't allow for a live orchestra. Each sample library is recorded differently, and there for acts differently than the others. Some sample libraries are more dry, some more wet, some recorded in place, some not and some have papers falling and chairs creaking. The beauty of a live orchestra is that the musicians use the energy of the other players, and start to "play off each other" creating something unique and powerful. I think that when you start to layer libraries, they will start to "play off each other", and start to give you that human feel. That's why I layer, and I always layer everything I do no matter what it is.
> 
> Hope this helps!



And at the same time, layering also gets rid of detail, and can cover up what's unique about a library. I don't really buy the "human feel" or "playing off each other" thing. There's nothing inherently more realistic about combining two strong sections recorded in different places by different people. In fact, I'd argue the opposite. You don't find dry recordings in one room and wet recordings from another of the same section in the real world.

For me, I'll layer if I find that something is missing from one library that is present in another. Like a range of frequencies, or an attack or something. Sometimes I layer, but I usually don't. There's no one solution because every composition and mix is different.


----------



## geoffreyvernon (Feb 21, 2016)

pkm said:


> And at the same time, layering also gets rid of detail, and can cover up what's unique about a library. I don't really buy the "human feel" or "playing off each other" thing. There's nothing inherently more realistic about combining two strong sections recorded in different places by different people. In fact, I'd argue the opposite. You don't find dry recordings in one room and wet recordings from another of the same section in the real world.
> 
> For me, I'll layer if I find that something is missing from one library that is present in another. Like a range of frequencies, or an attack or something. Sometimes I layer, but I usually don't. There's no one solution because every composition and mix is different.



Dry and wet doesn't matter when you run them through the same outboard reverb at the end and place them in the same room.


----------



## chimuelo (Feb 22, 2016)

Dynamic Layering is my only way to achieve the performances I like using.
LASS is perfect for Cellos and 1st Violins no legato (yet) more volume means more players, here cometh Hollywood Strings Cello and 1st Violins.
No legato, just 2 to 3 notes in 1st violins 2 Cello.
But upper keyboard on my stand does the same with LASS Polyphonic Legato, highest dynamic is Hollywod String legato layer 1 octave higher.
This gives me 4 variations of dynamics while performing.

Keep in mind I compete with a powerful ensemble of mic'd triggered drums, ampeg svt and marshall vox stacks.

My 3 oscillator snappy analog synth adds a very powerful contra bass that sounds huge live.

The very same goes for pizz and spic too.

I use special Modular envelopes and an SPL Transient Designer to adjust attack and decay via 32bit MIDI.

Only need dry samples, no native ADSR or various mic positions.
I modulate panning and reverb via a pair of TC Fireworx to create my own mic positions in realtime.

Aftertall, samples are static in nature.
Motion is the alluring aspect.


----------



## almound (Feb 22, 2016)

Great course, Visual Orchestration 3. One thing, however, is the long amount of time needed to implement Peter Alexander's methods. 

I take it that you have absorbed the material in both Visual Orchestration 1 and Visual Orchestration 2, and then spent the time necessary to apply it? Once I did so ... once I spent the weeks needed to, for instance, get all my samples calibrated to the same level of piano (*p*) ... I discovered that for my purposes I didn't need to layer additional sample libraries over the top. 

Visual Orchestration 3 was still well worthwhile to purchase, however, if only for the great presets for VerbSession reverb that are included. (I have yet to implement Cholakis' tilt filters, but plan to eventually.) But in addition, Peter Alexander spent much of Visual Orchestration 3 explaining how best to get decent sound out of Vienna Symphonic Library (VSL), a labor of love! 

I prefer the simplicity of the single library solution. I use the old VSL, no Kontakt multiscripts, and so I have to apply all the tweaks to each instrument articulation individually. (Took months.) But then again I'm interested in concert music, which is a completely different sound than Epic music or film music. Most folks here are NOT interested to write in this genre (concert music), and so after all layering of samples may be appropriate for you. 

Of course, I'm just a hack trying to find a way to avoid dealing with musicians' egos. It is not as though I'm an authority on this, nor that I have finished trying to improve my sound. I just wanted to add that I, for one, don't feel the need to layer samples. I don't criticize those that do, but for my needs the exorbitant amount of money charged for VSL has finally paid off now that it is much more correctly deployed.


----------

