# Besides the rolling of low frequencies, how many of you don't touch EQ in your orchestrations?



## Jeffrey Peterson (Sep 20, 2011)

I'm scared to touch EQ(besides low freq roll off) because I might make the mix worse. The best thing I think to do is leave it alone. I know Gearslutz would eat me alive on this, but how many real world composers just basically leave EQ out of it?


----------



## Hal (Sep 20, 2011)

But how are you gonan match all your librarys together you shoudnt just put Lass beside HS or smaplemodeling beside Sam and expect them to sit there right in the template ofcourse ur gonna mess with EQ,reverb and panning dont be scared :D


----------



## Dan Mott (Sep 20, 2011)

I'll just tell what has helped me in this situation. If you are not liking your mix, or are simply too scared that you'll make it worse.. Try saving your session you have now, then save it as a new session and call it mix2 or something. Now go nuts with experimentation and if all goes wrong, you still have what you originally had and you can start over if you want and call it mix 3. Try it, it takes away being to scared to ruin everything.


----------



## Jeffrey Peterson (Sep 20, 2011)

Reverb and Panning I understand. You must apply reverb where needed to make different libraries play nice with each other, as well as panning. 

But this is more of the EQing. For instance Hal you mentioned different string libraries. How in the heck would you EQ one of them to fit with the other better? Boost/cut 2000k 4000k area? 500k? I know different frequencies produce different results, but honestly messing with real instruments seems like making them worse. 
Weren't they recorded to sound exactly like the instrument should sound? You have top engineers making the perfect sample...shouldn't we leave it be?

On a separate issue, in regards to panning do you pan your Contrabasses(double basses/bass strings) all the way to the right? This would be appropriate in an orchestral panning replication. But should bass sounds be center? What do you do?

Thanks guys.


----------



## RiffWraith (Sep 20, 2011)

Jeffrey Peterson @ Wed Sep 21 said:


> Besides the rolling of low frequencies, how many of you don't touch EQ in your orchestrations?



That almost makes it sound like rolling off the lows is standard fare. Well, it shouldn't be; do you automatically roll off the lows in your compositions?

I think eq work is essential, especially when you have a cue with multiple libs, and you need to get one lib's part(s) to sit right with another's, and vice-versa.

Yoav Goren from Immediate Music made a point in a vid I saw on yt a while back, about how he uses eq to bring out certain instruments, to get them to "just sit right" in the mix. Anyone who knows what they are doing will use this practice regularly. 

EQ is your friend! 

Cheers.


----------



## RiffWraith (Sep 20, 2011)

Jeffrey Peterson @ Wed Sep 21 said:


> How in the heck would you EQ one of them to fit with the other better? Boost/cut 2000k 4000k area? 500k?



You have to use your ears. If your ears are not yet fully developed (are anyone's ears ever _fully developed_???), you need to practice learning how to mix. Learning how to perform all of the nuances that make mixes great takes alot of time and prcatice. Also, if you are not in a properly treated room with good, flat monitors, you are probably not hearing things as you should.

As for the boosting/cutting, as a general rule, you should look to cut before boosting. And as for which freqs - that depends. Again, you have to use your ears; nobody can tell you boost this, cut that. Especially on an internet forum without audio examples.



Jeffrey Peterson @ Wed Sep 21 said:


> Weren't they recorded to sound exactly like the instrument should sound?



Sure, but different mics, mic positioning, different rooms/spaces, different players on different instruments, different mic pres, etc., will give each recording a unique sound - this is why EWQLSO violins (for ex) don't sound like LASS, which doesn't sound like HS, which doesn't sound like CS, which doesn't sound like Symphobia, which doesn't sound like Albion.... Which is right? They all are. There is no such thing as "there is only one right way to record, and if multiple engineers use this method, then all recordings will sound the same." It doesn't work that way. Just because libs were recorded by pros who know what they were doing, using great equipment and and emplying great players, does not mean that you shouldn't touch the sound of the lib.

Cheers.


----------



## Dan Mott (Sep 20, 2011)

I'm not perfect at mixing. I don't think I ever will be, but it should be straight forward, atleast that's what I tell my self. I mean, it's all about knowing what you want the mix to sound like and knowing if there are any problems that occur while doing that. If you just export your track to mp3 and listen to it for a while.. Just have a listen and see how you could make it better. Is there anything wrong with it? ect ect. Have you acheived what you wanted? If so, then go get a reference to make sure.

You should post something you are struggling with so we can hear. I'd love to hear what you are doing and see the process. These are some of my favourite threads as I'm passionate about developing the best ear I can. I struggle with mixing too, yet I know the foundations to what goes into getting a good mix, but it all comes down to the person mixing it, rather than knowing how. I'm confident that I know what a good mix sounds like and what a bad one sounds like, but when doing it your self, it's quite stressing at times. My biggest problem with mixing would be what you are describing. I sometimes think a mix I did sounds good, but then after a while I realize it isn't and alot isn't cutting through, but noticing this is the hardest part, but I think this is also the part where you learn most where you are noticing your "misses".

Knowing what to cut, or if you even need to EQ is my biggest issue. I haven't developed a good ear for that side of things yet, but volume balance/panning/space is pretty straight forward. You should be adjusting your volumes and panning before appying EQ anyway as you may not even need it. Alot of times a simple volume tweak or pan tweak could be all you need in some situations. That's why experimenting is important. You can only learn if you experiment and being scared won't let you move foward. This is where creating different sessions is important because then you can have three different mixes and compare them which makes it easier to hear what you are doing, aswell as not worrying about ruinign your mix session.


----------



## Jeffrey Peterson (Sep 21, 2011)

Yes Dan, that is good advice I will create multiple mix sessions and compare.


Here is a mix I am struggling with. It was in the music cafe last week. The reveb is altiverb and it only has Todd AO as an aux send. I will most likely get QL Spaces but as far as EQ is concerned I have no idea. I do like how you said, volumes first and then EQ last.

http://soundcloud.com/j-t-peterson/the-chateau

Riff that is also good advice, thank you.


----------



## EastWest Lurker (Sep 21, 2011)

Jeffrey, you are fairly new here so I am going to give you a word of advice, which you are free to accept or ignore.

When you ask these kind of questions a lot of people will chime in with opinions. You would be wise to listen to music they have posted here, or go to their website/my space page and listen there before you decide how much or little weight to give their opinion. Not all opinions are equal and if someone who gives an opinion has no record of achievement and/or no posted music that demonstrates mastery of the skills they are discussing, then they are not worth vey much.

Just my opinion, of course


----------



## Jeffrey Peterson (Sep 21, 2011)

Take it with a grain of salt. I understand EWL, but each reply seemed legitimate. Is there a specific example of bad advice. I've been composing for about 12 years, but yes to VI control I'm fairly new. I'm not new to mixing either, I actually know quite a lot... yet that doesn't mean I'm good mixer. In fact its my weakest link, and "your only as strong as your weakest link".

Thanks for the advice though EWL. Do you have any for the topic at hand? I see you around a lot. If your from EW you should be happy to know QL Spaces is on the grocery list. As soon as I figure out the exact settings to use...I have no confidence in my "guessing" how much reverb to use, I did that enough with altiverb to no avail.


----------



## EastWest Lurker (Sep 21, 2011)

Jeffrey Peterson @ Wed Sep 21 said:


> Take it with a grain of salt. I understand EWL, but each reply seemed legitimate. Is there a specific example of bad advice. I've been composing for about 12 years, but yes to VI control I'm fairly new. I'm not new to mixing either, I actually know quite a lot... yet that doesn't mean I'm good mixer. In fact its my weakest link, and "your only as strong as your weakest link".
> 
> Thanks for the advice though EWL. Do you have any for the topic at hand? I see you around a lot. If your from EW you should be happy to know QL Spaces is on the grocery list. As soon as I figure out the exact settings to use...I have no confidence in my "guessing" how much reverb to use, I did that enough with altiverb to no avail.



You may or may not know that I do a monthly column for Film Music Magazine. I have interviewed a number of engineers and I attend a breakfast with a lot of them every few months and I am always pumping them for guidelines, etc and their response is almost always the same and corroborates my own experience. 

It goes something like this:

"Every mix is different. You must use your ears, your experience, and trust your taste."


----------



## David Story (Sep 21, 2011)

+1
Live experience counts the most even with samples.

And I agree that eqing samples can ruin a mix fast. It's got to be the right sample, or a great engineer, or you get lucky, imo.


----------



## Dan Mott (Sep 21, 2011)

EastWest Lurker @ Thu Sep 22 said:


> Jeffrey, you are fairly new here so I am going to give you a word of advice, which you are free to accept or ignore.
> 
> When you ask these kind of questions a lot of people will chime in with opinions. You would be wise to listen to music they have posted here, or go to their website/my space page and listen there before you decide how much or little weight to give their opinion. Not all opinions are equal and if someone who gives an opinion has no record of achievement and/or no posted music that demonstrates mastery of the skills they are discussing, then they are not worth vey much.
> 
> Just my opinion, of course



Funny how passionate you are about this. Get over it, honestly.


----------



## Dan Mott (Sep 21, 2011)

Jeffrey Peterson @ Wed Sep 21 said:


> Yes Dan, that is good advice I will create multiple mix sessions and compare.
> 
> 
> Here is a mix I am struggling with. It was in the music cafe last week. The reveb is altiverb and it only has Todd AO as an aux send. I will most likely get QL Spaces but as far as EQ is concerned I have no idea. I do like how you said, volumes first and then EQ last.
> ...



I'll listen tomorrow and give my opinion on the track, though "I should really post a piece of music first before my opinion is worth anything", but within my self I feel I have the right to help you.


----------



## tripit (Sep 21, 2011)

Don't be scared, back up the session and have it. But with that said, you won't get very far if your listening environment is seriously flawed. You can find a ton of help in this department in here and on Gearslutz. You have to know what you are actually hearing before you can start change it in any meaningful way. That means decent speakers in a room that isn't creating big problems. Otherwise, you may be hearing a lot of bass where there really isn't any. 

After that, you can learn a lot by listening to other mixes you like and trying to emulate what you hear. A/B them, working on one section at a time. Do a lot of critical listening. Find parts in scores that feature a section etc.


----------



## Jeffrey Peterson (Sep 21, 2011)

EWL, thats awesome that you interview them all and write for Film Music Magazine. You must know something more than the clique and trite advice you gave. I mean no offense but I feel that is well known, and experience is key is an obvious answer for any industry.

For instance if you are Stock Trader, every trade is different but these guys have guide lines that they follow every trade they make.

These engineers that you are acquaintances with have guidelines that they follow. With every mix they do. Guidelines is the key word here because "every mix is different".

Rolling off the bass of a Viola for instance in a heavy Contrabass/Doublebass piece is one of them. 
I'm not demanding a useful answer from anyone, but if someone has some guidelines they would like to share about EQ, I would appreciate it. 

Does everyone mix the volumes first and 'then' apply EQ, that makes perfect sense but I never saw that as a guideline.

Do experience cinematic/tv/film score mixers find the sweet spot on more of the instruments and boost 3-6db? Again I realize that every mix is different but some guidelines if you have them would be appreciated.

Lets say I have a quartet. Cello, Viola, and 2 Violins how would you EQ this to sound better? Not unique, or personal...but just "better"?

Thank you.

Excited to hear your mix Dan.

Oh and EWL I don't know why you made the comment that I am new, you have a earlier join date than I have. I've been composing for 12 years but you might have me beat  I wish I had 50 year experience...then maybe I could mix a proper cue.


----------



## David Story (Sep 21, 2011)

Dan-Jay @ Wed Sep 21 said:


> 21, 2011 6:04 pm"]but within my self I feel I have the right to help you.



Let me help is a great philosophy. Are you able to help is also relevant. Sometimes people post solutions that are right on the money, sometimes opinions that aren't helpful.

There are a few people here who can give stellar mix advice, if you get their attention in a good way. 

EDIT: Jeffrey, Better sound can mean a lot of things, what do you want to sound like?


----------



## Jeffrey Peterson (Sep 21, 2011)

Well I hope I can get their attention then 

Your looking to much in to the word "better".

Better = Less amateurish, more broadcast ready. I'm not looking for a particular sound, I'm just looking for some guidelines to make a mix sound more professional, in any way with regards to EQ.

Here is the link again.

http://soundcloud.com/j-t-peterson/the-chateau

Please don't focus on the reverb as I'm getting QL Spaces. I request you focus on the EQ.
As the OP this thread isn't about just the mix above, but the mix above is to give a reference.

I thought a lot of people on here would admit that they don't mess with the EQ in their orchestrations. 

Thank you.


----------



## mikebarry (Sep 21, 2011)

You might wish to check the higher end EQ's.


----------



## EastWest Lurker (Sep 21, 2011)

Jeffrey Peterson @ Wed Sep 21 said:


> EWL, thats awesome that you interview them all and write for Film Music Magazine. You must know something more than the clique and trite advice you gave. I mean no offense but I feel that is well known, and experience is key is an obvious answer for any industry.
> 
> Does everyone mix the volumes first and 'then' apply EQ, that makes perfect sense but I never saw that as a guideline.
> 
> ...



First of all, I am sorry but that is the response every single engineer gave me. They simply would not codify what gets Eq'd, how, or when no matter how often I pressed them for guidelines.

With EQ, there is NO SUCH THING as generically or empirically "better" for a quartet. None. Nada. Better is only what you think sounds better.


----------



## Jeffrey Peterson (Sep 21, 2011)

I'm sorry you feel that way EWL.

Thank you mike.


----------



## mikebarry (Sep 21, 2011)

Some other things to think in:

Most samples are recorded "Full Spectrum" - no subtractive EQ to remedy overloads caused by other instruments.

The snare drum vs the bass formula still applies to orchestral music, yet to a lesser degree. 250-400 overloads first usually especially when using tree mics. 

Therefore, it is often quite wise to EQ subtractively.

I find the EQ's with notched/fixed positions to be a good starting spot. Mainly the Pultec, Manley style UADs.


----------



## madbulk (Sep 21, 2011)

Sorry EWL feels what way?! Here, read... 
http://www.filmmusicmag.com/?p=6429

The philosophical thing here matters. We have eq presets and mastering presets galore and it's just odd most of the time. So you can put the bar where you want. But don't deny the bar. 
According to my bar, there are no answers to your question that don't kinda suck. You wanna find kinda suck guidelines, they are plentiful. 

Here... I highpass everything at 60 and to clear away some of the gunk I dip 475 out of every damn mix I do. 
It's not useless advice, but I kinda suck at this. 

If you raise the bar above kinda suck, you just have to get better ears and better eq's and know what you're trying to achieve.


----------



## EastWest Lurker (Sep 21, 2011)

Jeffrey Peterson @ Wed Sep 21 said:


> I'm sorry you feel that way EWL.
> 
> Thank you mike.



Jeff, it is simply a fact that if you gave those files to Al Schmitt, Tim Boyle, and Shawn Murphy they would not consistently apply the same EQ and the mixes would sound different.

Is Al's mix "better" than Tim's or Shawn's? Is Shawn's "better" than Al or Tim's? Is Tim's better than Al or Shawn?

No, they just have different ears, different taste, different experience and you and I might prefer different ones. And this does not even begin to factor in things like the player, the room, the instrument or in the case of sample libraries how wildly different they sound.

You are looking for simple answers to a question there is no simple answer for.


----------



## Pochflyboy (Sep 21, 2011)

this is my first level of EQ on LASS in Cubase. I use a second plug in to get to the sound I like and use. In VI's you should ALWAYS subtract before any addition...

Here is my process... 
1) create a curve with high gain and small "Q" and sweep through to discover what freqs you don't want and cut them out.

2) Play something and decide if you want it brighter, or thiner, or more airy. 

3) Think and experiment to find the freq changes that do this.

4) Save presets and mess with it until you are 100% happy.

5) Play the eq'ed instrument with other libraries to check how they balance and then go back and repeat all of the steps.

With good monitors and lots of dedication to getting it right your ears will not fail you. You probably know the sound you really want just play withit until you find it... and stop using presets for your strings.... its unlikely to work! hahaha


----------



## David Story (Sep 21, 2011)

madbulk @ Wed Sep 21 said:


> Sorry EWL feels what way?! Here, read...
> http://www.filmmusicmag.com/?p=6429
> 
> If you raise the bar above kinda suck, you just have to get better ears and better eq's and know what you're trying to achieve.



+1 Here's where who's talking matters. If you want it to sound better, you need a process.
Pochflyboy gave a good overview of his process. But the details of what decisions you make are key. If you use general rules, you won't get to professional mix quality. Though it will sound better. If you use inexpensive plugins, you probably won't sound pro either.

It would be great if top engineers gave breakdowns of great mixes. And they do in the Secrets of the Mix Engineers series in SOS. But that's pop music, and has limited use in instrumental music. One thing they have in common is expensive hardware.

Can you mix well without it? Sometimes, but you need advice from someone who has learned how to use the gear you are using. And even then, you might not get the same result.

Top mixers can be protective about the tricks of their craft. The people offering advice here may have good intent. But is it the sound you want? Listen to their work. There are some great mixes here, and many that aren't.

I'd like a text showing the gear and settings used on a dry signal, and the result. By a mixer I respect. Sometimes gearslutz has shootouts, and even that can speak volumes about how to get a sound.


----------



## José Herring (Sep 21, 2011)

Jeffrey Peterson @ Tue Sep 20 said:


> I'm scared to touch EQ(besides low freq roll off) because I might make the mix worse. The best thing I think to do is leave it alone. I know Gearslutz would eat me alive on this, but how many real world composers just basically leave EQ out of it?



I downloaded this free game. It plays you this audio example and you have to guess what frequency is boosted. I played it a few times. Didn't really score any higher than the first time I tried it, but what happened was that I can now tell what frequencies are messing up a patch or a mix. It's remarkable how much my mixing has gotten better. And, for the first time I can actually EQ a VSL patch and make it palatable.

If you're interested I can send you to the program site. Of course its just a little freebee that then they want you to buy the real thing. But the real thing is only like $20 and the little freebee will improve your EQ skills after just a few tries.

best,

José


----------



## nickhmusic (Sep 21, 2011)

Dan-Jay @ Wed Sep 21 said:


> I'll just tell what has helped me in this situation. If you are not liking your mix, or are simply too scared that you'll make it worse.. Try saving your session you have now, then save it as a new session and call it mix2 or something. Now go nuts with experimentation and if all goes wrong, you still have what you originally had and you can start over if you want and call it mix 3. Try it, it takes away being to scared to ruin everything.



This is great advice, and something I often do when the mix isn't working. Knowing you have absolute control is the key to success in mixing. You can always return to a different version.

I roll off quite a bit depending on how busy the arrangement is. If I find that the pads/effects/sound design under the orchestra is muddying things up - I can be quite brutal with EQ - but yes, usually by rolling off the low end.

With LASS I prefer to EQ the violins slightly differently to Andrew's default settings (which are of themselves a great start btw!) and I will use a different EQ than the built-in Kontakt eq.

I find that a lot of the libraries sound fantastic on their own - but do need some finessing. The Emo piano is an amazing library for example - but I often do quite a lot of EQ to it to let it sit in a mix without dominating too much.

Experiment as much as you can, it always brings about new thoughts and improvements.


----------



## Pochflyboy (Sep 21, 2011)

I think the biggest thing to note is that mixing begins at orchestration. It been said a million times but it cant be said enough. If you put a note on an instrument that really shouldn't be there then you will spend a long time trying to EQ that sound out. Understanding which freqs are overwhelmed already in an orchestration and what is empty is key to making the orchestration work. EQ should only ever be used to create a "sound" WITHIN an arrangement. You will NEVER be able to effectively create an arrangement by EQing it to death.


----------



## Jeffrey Peterson (Sep 21, 2011)

Mike that is some good thoughts thank you. Its true layer instruments creates a huge supply of some frequencies, and we should cut the ones that interfere with the sweet spot of others. Why must we be composer, orchestrator, programers, editors, networkers, computer/studio trouble shooters + mixers. I wish mixing could just be done by mixers. If I had the funds to blow $1000 per track on a mixer I would. 

Madbulk that is a good tip thank you, I'll read your link later tonight. But it seems you and EWL are missing the point of what I mean when I say "better". I don't know why this is so hard to understand. "Better" is a mix done by eddie kramer. Not "better" is a mix done by a garagebands first attempt at mixing. Do you understand? In this case it is not subjective. It is not philosophical and it does not vary. It is exactly what you think it means...."better"..."improved"..."preferable".."superior". Please do not confuse the issue here.

Its not about tastes, its about quality. A "better" mix is say anything on the 2 steps from hell archangel CD. A not so better mix, is my mix posted above. Understand? Its not more complicated than that(at least in this thread). I appreciate your efforts though, just a little confusion.

Poachfly, I will try that  and its true David they are very protective of there craft.

Jose, yes can you please send that link to me, that would be great. I never wanted to be a mixer, I wanted to be a composer but things are how they are. Its just a completely different art and mind set. As if enough brain power isn't already invested into an orchestration after we feel 100% done we still have another 50% to go!

Nick I guess everyone mixes, you heavily apparently. I'll start and safe sessions in case I ruin it.

Poachfly if you notice any orchestration errors in this...let me know. But I think the problem I have is in the mix, not the notes. But you can correct me if you feel the need to.

Thank guys.


----------



## zacnelson (Sep 21, 2011)

Hi Jeffrey, you should check out this thread on the `members compositions' sub-forum, where the issue of eq-ing LASS strings is discussed. Very similar theme to your thread.

http://www.vi-control.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=22987


----------



## Jeffrey Peterson (Sep 21, 2011)

Hey thanks Zac, ya I did comment on that one. What about HS? Do they not need to be EQ'ed as much? LASS seems to have trouble sitting in the mix from what I've read. What about HS?


----------



## Dan Mott (Sep 21, 2011)

I don't EQ HS, but then again it depends what kind of material you are mixing, such as if I had a really dense mix and the strings weren't the main part, I probably would end up EQing them to make room for other instruments that cover the same area and how much I EQ depends on how big my ensemble is because if it was just a violin and a viola, then I don't think there would be too many problems if you know what I mean.

The whole idea of boosting a bell curve, then setting a narrow Q and finding what you don't like doesn't make any sense to me. How do you know what you don't like when an instrument is isolated? Unless something went wrong with the recording, I wouldn't touch it until it's in context with the mix. I generally just listen for what I don't like in context, then I will cut. The only time where I'd boost a bell curve is to isolate that bad frequency I heard 'in the first place' to get it right on, then I'll cut.

When composing, I generally treat the composition stage as my 'tracking stage'. I won't EQ, I'll just get my volumes and panning right. I also won't use verb. I find lately that if you can get a mix sounding good a well balance without verb, then you will end up using less of it, aswell as less EQ which will emphasise the whole "less is more" thing. It wil end up being more effective. It makes no sense to adjust your volume levels and such with EQ and verb on your instruments at such an early stage. I think you'd end up playing with your volume faders for hours without getting the results you want, hence making your mix worse and worse.

balancing your volumes and panning first isn't a guideline, but it just makes more sense to me. It's like you've recorded all these instruments your self, and you are making an arrangment and as you go, you are just adjusting levels and panning at that early stage (tracking). Sometimes I'll highpass at an early stage to get rid of any low end that doesn't really need to be there at all which just clears things up a bit. Once you have a nice arrangment, save the session as a new one and start getting creative. Go nuts! and prehaps add mroe instruments in if needed, or take some out, then save that session and so forth.

Just saying what has helped me, and I know this isn't correct to let everyone know, but I'd like to share it.


----------



## Pochflyboy (Sep 21, 2011)

Dan-Jay @ Wed Sep 21 said:


> The whole idea of boosting a bell curve, then setting a narrow Q and finding what you don't like doesn't make any sense to me. How do you know what you don't like when an instrument is isolated? Unless something went wrong with the recording,



Yeah exactly I only do this to take out noise that was recorded in the sample or something I don't like in the beginning and then I move forward. Lots of EQing doesn't come together until it all sits in a mix together.


** Jeff your piece does sound quite nice. My note was to other readers certainly not to your composition. EQing the individual instruments and some light compression here and there would prolly do it for this track and make it really light up. Nice programming!


----------



## zacnelson (Sep 22, 2011)

Hey Joseph, I just want to thank you for your great post and advice, and for the screenshot of the eq curve. Really helpful and practical.

Also, I think that the sweeping narrow Q eq system CAN be effective even on an isolated instrument, because sometimes it is a surgical approach to removing something ugly that you don't want there in any circumstances regardless of the overall blend. Also, there is nothing stopping someone from doing this whilst the other tracks are playing to identify what is fighting in the mix.

Also, Jeffrey, your track (as you know from my comments on your other thread) is a marvellous competition and now that you've fixed some early problems it's sounding great. 

I also agree with the people commenting that sometimes advice needs to be taken in the context of listening to the tracks that have been made by the person commenting. In that light, I would like to point out that the track I have linked in my signature was not mixed in any way, I used Albion for almost every instrument on it and I didn't touch a single part with eq at all. I know this is not the right approach, but I never had the opportunity to finish it and of course one day I will get the time. I was constrained by having to work exclusively with headphones so there was no point trying to mix it when I have monitor speakers that I will use when I do mix it eventually. I guess I feel the need to qualify my comments by stating that I am capable of better mixing than what is demonstrated here. It's also a good case study for anybody interesting in listening to a track that has completely raw samples with out even a low frequency roll off. You can certainly hear how the low end builds up, but at the same time you can hear that the Albion orchestra has some genuinely beautiful sounds that may not need as much eq as a library like LASS.


----------



## Daryl (Sep 22, 2011)

My advice on this matter would be:

Hire an experienced mix engineer for a few of your problem tracks. Watch him/her work. Ask them questions, and when they have finished (assuming that you like the results) reverse engineer their mix from the mix session. That way you will get some very good pointers on how to deal with your template.

As Jay says, every mix is different, but when working on a project with multiple tracks (assuming that they are in a similar style) all mix engineers that I know will set up a template that will be the start of the mix for each track. This template may evolve as the project evolves, and there will certainly be tweaks, but experienced engineers will know just by listening to individual instruments where problem areas are likely to be, and then often use this in the template.

D


----------

