# Do i even need to "mix" an orchestration?



## ein fisch (Jul 28, 2016)

Hi all..

Kinda simple question actually, but didnt found any answers to it on google..
Is it a "must" in midi orchestration/filmscoring to use equalizers, compressors, reverb etc.?

The question maybe sounds a bit silly.. like im to lazy to use those effects.. the thing is, im using fl studio, and thought about switching to another daw (because of the limited number of mixer tracks in FL.. so yeah, the thing is, i cant really eq, compress all my stuff, and its frustrating me a little bit.. but now i thought about, are those effects even needed? If i use the mic positions properly etc from professional sample libraries like spitfire, cinesamples, 8dio, soundiron etc? The only problem with the mic positions is, that u actually have to use sample libraries just from one developer, because of the different rooms the library were recorded.. or doesnt that matter?
Ok i dont know if you guys get what i mean^^ i wouldnt think about switching to cubase if effects arent even a MUST have, for beeing a pro-filmcomposer.. because i felt in love with fl... and isnt it more important to use good instrument combinings, and place them right with the mic positions and fill all the frequencys?

I just want to know what the expert-filmscorers do.. thx and cheeersss


----------



## Chandler (Jul 28, 2016)

Although I won't say it's impossible, but I haven't heard of someone not using them. Depending on the samples/style you might use less or more, but AFAIK almost everyone uses at least a little. 

A little reverb will help glue things together and eq can help get rid of low rumble which can eat into your headroom or cause mud. I would be surprised if there were someone who didn't use those tools.


----------



## Daryl (Jul 28, 2016)

Well, considering that an live orchestra all recorded at the same time, in the same room gets mixed for a film score, I think you're being hopeful about not having to do anything. Certainly it can be possible to get away with it, if you are using certain products from certain developers (not all), but do you really want to just "get away" with it?


----------



## Prockamanisc (Jul 28, 2016)

John Williams mixes in the room, meaning he balances the players themselves, then records it as it is. Any good orchestration will allow for the final mix to be the one that goes directly into the overhead mics. But if you're working in the box, yeah, you'll need to use plugins, and lots of them.


----------



## JohnG (Jul 28, 2016)

Not absolutely required, I guess. But the way game and film music in general sounds today, if you want the sound people are delivering, FX and all that is unavoidable.


----------



## Jdiggity1 (Jul 28, 2016)

"Mixing" is not something you do simply because it is part of the process, it is a *reaction* to the sonic feedback of your project.
You mix when something needs mixing.
Alas, in almost all instances, yes: sample libraries will benefit from a good mixing.


Spoiler


----------



## Dietz (Jul 28, 2016)

As long as it's "just" about the music (i.e. "the proper note at the right time") - you don't have to mix your pieces. As soon as you expect something to sound like a performance - a _recorded_ performance, that is - you will enter the area of audio engineering, and consequently at least _some_ kind of technical interaction will be mandatory.

Like composing, audio engineering is an art that needs skills and routine to be good in it. Ready-mades have their place in all domains of our lives where we need quick and cheap solutions. Of course you won't expect artistically satisfying results from combining pre-recorded loops - so don't expect them from pre-set sounds either.


----------



## Daryl (Jul 28, 2016)

Prockamanisc said:


> John Williams mixes in the room, meaning he balances the players themselves, then records it as it is.


Shawn Murphy seems to have rather a lot of score mixer credits on John Williams' scores. Is he being economical with the truth then?


----------



## AlexanderSchiborr (Jul 28, 2016)

When you have balanced out your template very well and your orchestration is well thought, you have rather to mix / eq very very less at least from my experiences writing orchestral music with samples.


----------



## mverta (Jul 28, 2016)

Shawn goes over the score with you and discusses the general approach based on the material. For example, for action stuff, the plan is generally to lean on more direct mics for greater separation and detail, though he'll still have the others set-up and recording. During the initial run-throughs, final balances are set, and for the most part, no faders are touched during the recording. 

During the mix, sometimes I'll ask him for just a touch more or less of something, but they're very fine adjustments. Good orchestration IS balanced, and works live in the room. All you have to do is point mics at it. With virtual stuff, I have found that a properly balanced template works very much the same way. I rarely have to "mix" after the fact. 

The exception to these practices is when sections are "striped," i.e. recorded one section at a time. Players hate this with the fire of 1000 suns, and more often than not, it's done either because there's a shit ton of percussion which would bleed all over everything, or because the composer/orchestrators don't know what they're doing, and/or are trying to get the live balance to match a mock-up which doesn't actually "work," live.


----------



## ein fisch (Jul 28, 2016)

Chandler said:


> Although I won't say it's impossible, but I haven't heard of someone not using them. Depending on the samples/style you might use less or more, but AFAIK almost everyone uses at least a little.
> 
> A little reverb will help glue things together and eq can help get rid of low rumble which can eat into your headroom or cause mud. I would be surprised if there were someone who didn't use those tools.



Hmm well.. i just want to make my compositions "sound" like they were recorded by me, and i want it to sound as real as possible.. i have to say, i also use fx, like filters etc sometimes, but i keep that on a minimum.. if i use any fx it has to sound more realistic than without fx.. not just "cooler".. i dont wanna go for that high-tech cinematic style of music.. doesnt eq destroy's the sound of the hall it was recorded in? And if i add reverb, shouldnt i always just use the close-mics of all libraries, so that it sounds like it was recorded in ONE hall?
Explanation please :D



Daryl said:


> Well, considering that an live orchestra all recorded at the same time, in the same room gets mixed for a film score, I think you're being hopeful about not having to do anything. Certainly it can be possible to get away with it, if you are using certain products from certain developers (not all), but do you really want to just "get away" with it?


As stupid as it sounds daryl, YES, i dont wanna do ANY of the mixing.. its just not my thing i guess.. in my introduction i said i was doing electro house / proggy house in the age from 13-16, and kinda got into mixing and mastering.. but i HATE it.. and i want to enjoy my hobby.. so you could just say, do it the way you like, but if i want to become a good filmcomposer i would need those skills i think..

The best thing would be to play around with a real orchestra, and learn how to record real orchestras etc so i dont have to do alot of mixing.. just cant afford that.. im even low on budget because of the sample libraries i buy.. and because i really love composing, i wouldnt say no, to score for a film (when im experienced enough).. but it frustrates me that i need to do mixing shit xD


----------



## ein fisch (Jul 28, 2016)

Prockamanisc said:


> John Williams mixes in the room, meaning he balances the players themselves, then records it as it is. Any good orchestration will allow for the final mix to be the one that goes directly into the overhead mics. But if you're working in the box, yeah, you'll need to use plugins, and lots of them.


Why is that? I mean, lets say i buy libraries with lots of mic positions.. whats the difference then between virtual orchestra and a real orchestra, when i can place the mic, i think it sounds good for my taste? Shouldnt be a big difference, except the rooms sound different of those libraries.. but adding reverb doesnt really makes that better in my experience, just makes it even more unrealistic.. the most realistic sound i achieved when only using close mics and add the same reverb everywhere and maybe use some panning sometimes.. but sometimes those close mics sound abit cheap, so i want to quit using that method..


----------



## Andy B (Jul 28, 2016)

Hi Dennis,

I've written a number of demos for Spitfire and never use any reverb, compression or limiting. I will EQ individual instruments/patches (normally a bit of high and low cut) but that's about it. The rest is just orchestration and mic blending for me.

Thanks,

Andy.


----------



## Jimmy Hellfire (Jul 28, 2016)

DennisL said:


> doesnt eq destroy's the sound of the hall it was recorded in? And if i add reverb, shouldnt i always just use the close-mics of all libraries, so that it sounds like it was recorded in ONE hall?



The rule here: there are no rules. There's no definite answer to that question. EQs can destroy pretty much any sound. If you use them wrong. They can also improve almost any sound.

Sometimes an EQ can help, other times you don't need them at all ... same with reverbs. Don't forget that what we're working with are just samples. We live in these great times where these things happen to sound remarkably well - considering the fact that they're _still just samples_. It's a bunch of chopped-up little recordings being repetitively played back by a software sampler. No need to treat them with "too much respect". Not everything about them is just great and fantastic, let alone perfect.

And the great thing with working in the box: you can slap all kinds of stuff on as many tracks as possible and totally screw everything up ... and then just undo everything.



> As stupid as it sounds daryl, YES, i dont wanna do ANY of the mixing.. its just not my thing i guess.. in my introduction i said i was doing electro house / proggy house in the age from 13-16, and kinda got into mixing and mastering.. but i HATE it.. and i want to enjoy my hobby.. so you could just say, do it the way you like, but if i want to become a good filmcomposer i would need those skills i think..



It's OK to not enjoy that part of the process - but you'll have to live with the fact that there are always going to be some limits regarding the best possible outcome. If you're striving for a professional career, you definitely should be somewhat competent in mixing music. You're producing music on a computer. It's just part of the process. There always might be a situation where you'd be expected to do something different, achieve a certain result, or possibly fix something that isn't right, but you possibly didn't even have a bearing on.

It doesn't mean going over the top with effects on any piece you make. IMO most of the time, mixing is about subtleties, and doing _just the right amount_ of _exactly the right thing_. It doesn't have to be this crazy rocket science. Think cooking. Just the right amount of salt will make your soup taste better, but overdo it just a little bit, or put a wrong spice in there, and you ruined it.

Compare it with being an athlete - like a martial arts competitor or something. You might enjoy the technique, the sparring, the competition, perhaps the fitness, but possibly LOATHE the weight cutting part. Which is OK if you're doing it as a hobby - forget about the weight cutting and just focus on the cool stuff. But if you're trying to do it professionally, weight cutting is just part of the package.

Mixing isn't terrible! It's fun, because it's the act of making your music sound even cooler. You don't have to obsess over it. But do yourself a favor and try to see the beauty in it instead of viewing it as this terrible thing you're not good at but somehow are supposed to be able to do.


----------



## pixel (Jul 28, 2016)

The thing is, when you work with real orchestra, sound engineer preparing setup not only to record but also with mixing in mind. So mic placement and whole recording process (if sound engineer is good) is done the way to minimize mixing process to minimum.
With sample libraries you don't have this comfort so you depend on already recorded soloists/sections. That's why mixing process is hard to avoid. Especially when you have your own idea about the sound you want to achieve.
When working with single library mixing is quite easy (mostly narrowing stereo field as sample developers love to put every single instrument really wide). Mixing libraries recorded in different rooms without mixing is rather crazy idea if you want to achieve realistic sound. Like Jdiggity1 said mixing should be done when there is need for it. Some people put EQ and compressor on every single channel and they tweak just because they think they should because, for example, they have seen random tutorial video with info that particular instrument 'must be processed by compressor to sound good' which is a lie. Such videos are cancer of internet to be honest 
Saying that eq can destroy sound of the hall is a good example: sometimes eq can and sometimes don't. there's no right answer because there is too many variables and it always depends on particular situation.
In closed mics there's room sound backed too (more or less). Some libraries are very dry but most of the time you can hear room reverb in close mics.

Maybe you're not into mixing at all. There's no need to be 'all in one' even if it's cheaper solution than paying other people to do everything else than just, let's say orchestration  Like I'm sound 'engineer guy' and terrible composer 
One interesting thing about mixing is that the more experienced you are, the less tools and tweaking is needed to do a mix.

You mentioned that you would play around a real orchestra and learn how to record... well the problem is that recording and mixing is going hand in hand. You need to learn acoustics and understand mixing techniques to do proper recording. IMO recording is much more demanding process than mixing especially these days. Every sound engineer (like me  ) will tell you that the most important part of creating a record is first step: recording

Ps. I like idea that I read somewhere, that music done with VI's can be considered as a specific genre. It's important to remember that we're trying to make music that imitate orchestra as much as possible but we're not trying to replace real orchestra. Good to remember that to not go crazy tweaking compressor attack on Triangle the second night 


EDIT: Jimmy Hellfire - you wrote something similar to my thoughts during my slow writing process :D


----------



## ein fisch (Jul 28, 2016)

Jimmy Hellfire said:


> The rule here: there are no rules. There's no definite answer to that question. EQs can destroy pretty much any sound. If you use them wrong. They can also improve almost any sound.
> 
> Sometimes an EQ can help, other times you don't need them at all ... same with reverbs. Don't forget that what we're working with are just samples. We live in these great times where these things happen to sound remarkably well - considering the fact that they're _still just samples_. It's a bunch of chopped-up little recordings being repetitively played back by a software sampler. No need to treat them with "too much respect". Not everything about them is just great and fantastic, let alone perfect.
> 
> ...



Thanks for those examples.. yeah, im actually able (i would say so) to mix pretty well, i just always start to "rush" this part, forget about some instruments etc, cause i just want to be done with it as fast as possible.. and continue with the fun thing → composing, experimenting whatever (without FX).. 

Do you have an answer for the second thing with the mic positions? what do good composers use? (Those who dont have a real orchestra of course).. do they play around with mic mixing (even if it could sound a bit weird cause of the different hall sounds) or do they do everything with close mics and altiverb or something? Just want to know the way the good ones do it, to get abit more into orchestral mixing.. my experience with using close mics is just.. frustrating^^ never get to the sound i want with close mics, not even with the best reverb settings..


----------



## Jimmy Hellfire (Jul 28, 2016)

DennisL said:


> Do you have an answer for the second thing with the mic positions? what do good composers use? (Those who dont have a real orchestra of course).. do they play around with mic mixing (even if it could sound a bit weird cause of the different hall sounds) or do they do everything with close mics and altiverb or something? Just want to know the way the good ones do it, to get abit more into orchestral mixing.. my experience with using close mics is just.. frustrating^^ never get to the sound i want with close mics, not even with the best reverb settings..



Not everyone does the exact same thing. It largely depends on what libraries they use, if they're using everything from one developer or mix and match, and of course what the particular piece of music demands.

When it comes to mic positions, I think that most people use a blend. Using the close mics alone is rare, I would say. Most of the time, you'd want to achieve a good balance between the different positions. 

They provide different aspects of the overall sound, and for some pieces, you might use a lot of close, but only a little of ambient, or vice versa, or perhaps turn off a certain position completely. But most of the time, it's a blend of microphone positions and rarely just one of them.

Even if you're using them together with dry libraries. It would make more sense to use reverb and try to match the "natural" hall sound of the ambient library, then attempting to "dry up" the ambient library by using only close mics, and then sending those through a reverb along with the other stuff.

Using different libraries that weren't recorded in the same space together doesn't have to sound weird at all. There's no space or room there anyway. These are just chopped up samples. The "room" you're hearing is just an edited snippet with a starting and and ending point. It's just a matter of making everything fit together. Which sometimes ends up being a matter of mixing as well, so that's where that comes into play again


----------



## Greg (Jul 28, 2016)

Depends entirely on the samples. With Spitfire stuff, my favorite mic positions are Close 75% Tree 0% Ambient 90% Outrigger 90%. I always add a touch more reverb though like an AMS Room or Valhalla hall. Just to squeeze out a little more depth.


----------



## karelpsota (Jul 28, 2016)

*I asked Shawn Murphy this question* (a year ago):

How different are your mixes compared to the actual orchestra performance when you work with John Williams? Do you simply balance what’s already there? Or do you find yourself automating sections, layering multiple takes over each other to beef up the cue (a la John Powell)?

*He replied*:

Well, with John Williams we don't layer. Everybody records at one time, and John's orchestrations are such that our best shot is to get a live representation of what he's written. Because of that, we're typically doing live mixes or close to live mixes and we're not adorning them with anything other than a little bit of reverb.

His compensation, his writing is complete. He doesn't use orchestrators generally. He balances it on stage the way he wants it to sound, and he will check with me in terms of playback. If it's what he wants, then it's what he wants and that's what we stick with.

We do not use samples, we do not use multiple takes other than for editorial purposes and performance, but we don't layer, and we rarely overdub. The only time I can tell you that we did much in the way of overdubbing was a heavily percussive section in _A Lost World_ or _Star Wars Episodes 1 or 2_ where we had a lot of percussion and we did that separately.

*Source*: https://www.reddit.com/r/StarWars/comments/3w97d3/were_pat_sullivan_dann_michael_thompson_and_shawn/


----------



## Jimmy Hellfire (Jul 28, 2016)

Greg said:


> Depends entirely on the samples. With Spitfire stuff, my favorite mic positions are Close 75% Tree 0% Ambient 90% Outrigger 90%. I always add a touch more reverb though like an AMS Room or Valhalla hall. Just to squeeze out a little more depth.



See that's a perfect example of how individual this is. Greg likes to turn off the trees, while I blend around them as the starting point 90% of the time. Whatever I do, the tree mics are always there. I back off on the ambients, or turn them off completely, but I love the outriggers. With Spitfire, I never use additional reverb - it's just what it is. It's either the sound I have in mind, or I'll reach for something elese.

The new Cinematic Studio Strings are different, they're just way drier period (even the ambient mics), and in their case, I might, or might not, add a bit of EW Spaces on top, depending on the sound I'm after. VSL stuff, once again, is an entirely different story - in that case, I'll mostly pick a venue from their own MIRx mixing extension and adjust the wet/dry ratio to taste.


----------



## tack (Jul 28, 2016)

Jimmy Hellfire said:


> With Spitfire, I never use additional reverb - it's just what it is.


I do, with automation, because sometimes fp hall trigger either doesn't work well or isn't available, or isn't meant to solve the issue (e.g. tenuto or marcato short with timed release samples).


----------



## jamwerks (Jul 30, 2016)

Interesting thread! My opinion is that there is always more that can be done by a mixer who really knows what he's doing. When composing with lots of samples, and "mixing" as we go, it can sound really good, but several times lately I've seen and heard what can happen when that is then given to a "real" mixer".

Not touching of course the relations between the instruments, as we've worried so much about those fine adjustments while composing, just eq and reverb really. And the reverb is really important, using many different verbs with different predelays on the different sections and different libraries...

Also Jake Jackson, involved in the Spirfire project and A-list mixer, has talked here about cutting a bit at 2.5k for sampled strings.


----------



## ein fisch (Jul 30, 2016)

Replicant said:


> While it's true that a great arrangement and composition will cover most of the bases, it gets you about 90% of the way there.
> 
> The remaining is subtle amounts of EQ and sometimes compression. If some sound has a nasty resonance or harmonic somewhere, and many sounds do, I quiet it down a few db with a narrow Q. I've definitely developed an ear for this now - it was something that never used to bother me. Now, I find it difficult to listen to music where the engineer didn't accommodate for this.
> 
> There are some songs on the radio right now where certain frequencies are just murder on the ears and I can't stand it.



i get what u mean.. but lets take spitfire for example.. if you compose a track only using spitfires libraries, those are sample libraries developed, recorded and mixed by experts.. why would you have to eq that? that would
actually mean the developers didnt do their job right.. (same thing for other libraries, cinesamples, 8dio, soundiron etc of course)..please correct me if im
wrong..


----------



## Jimmy Hellfire (Jul 30, 2016)

DennisL said:


> i get what u mean.. but lets take the spitfire for example.. if you compose a track only using spitfires libraries, those are sample library developed, recorded and mixed by experts.. why would you have to eq that? that would
> actually mean the developers didnt do their job right.. (same thing for other libraries, cinesamples, 8dio, soundiron etc of course)..please correct me if im
> wrong..



Mixing isn't supposed to be "fixing bad recordings". That's a whole different matter. Mixing means making your music work, and making it sound attractive. Sure, modern libraries tend to sound good on their own, and if your writing and arranging is good, chances are, the outcome will already sound pretty good on its own. But does that mean that it can't be done any better?

Libraries and samplers - no matter how good the quality of the recording and the software is - can't "know" what you're trying to do musically. Mixing is simply reacting to what is happening in a particular track sonically. I know how my piece is supposed to sound, I have to take care that it comes out that way. If something just simply needs to be louder, or more pronounced, or cut through, I'm gonna make it louder, or I'm gonna give it more edge or air with an EQ, or I'll make something else quieter, whatever. Or I might just be in some particular key where certain samples, played together, build up a bit of unwanted resonance, that happens all the time, no library or sampler can "predict" that. None of that has anything to do with the library being bad, it's just senseful creative decisions in the context of the piece.


----------



## prodigalson (Jul 30, 2016)

I think you're looking at it kinda backwards. Try not to look at it like whether or not you NEED to mix, but more like whether you want the ability to enhance your music beyond what's already there. If you're using all spitfire samples you may not NEED to mix but in many situations additional reverb and creative EQing can help something sound even better.


----------



## pkm (Jul 30, 2016)

DennisL said:


> i get what u mean.. but lets take spitfire for example.. if you compose a track only using spitfires libraries, those are sample libraries developed, recorded and mixed by experts.. why would you have to eq that? that would
> actually mean the developers didnt do their job right.. (same thing for other libraries, cinesamples, 8dio, soundiron etc of course)..please correct me if im
> wrong..



Mixing is all about context. Sure, the samples sound good on their own, but they're not on their own in your mix.


----------



## AlexanderSchiborr (Jul 30, 2016)

DennisL said:


> i get what u mean.. but lets take spitfire for example.. if you compose a track only using spitfires libraries, those are sample libraries developed, recorded and mixed by experts.. why would you have to eq that? that would
> actually mean the developers didnt do their job right.. (same thing for other libraries, cinesamples, 8dio, soundiron etc of course)..please correct me if im
> wrong..


Dude... _quality Strawberries don´t make an excellent Strawberry cake_. It is _the cooke behind it_. Having said that. Even the best libraries on the market have to be treated carefully in midi orchestration. In my opinion your focus is set on the wrong things when it comes to sound. First of all you should spent a quite amount of time in learning how good *orchestration* and *composition* (which is inherently connected) works and why the "*extensive midi programming*" attitudes from a few people support those 2 things mentioned before.
Ever thought why good orchestrated pieces (e.g. both classical composers and classic film composers)often sound even with midi orchestration great? _It is not the eq and compressor what makes in such case the nice sound!_ Those things are more of a technical nature (still hopefully cosmetically & musically treated in the right hands) and in my opinion you should _first focus on getting a good grip on composition and orchestration_ and why those 2 elements contribute to good sounding mockups before breaking your own head too much over technical details like eq, compressor, limiter etc. Or what do you think? 

Just a side note: When I go and create orchestral mockups I sparingly use eq and comp..

And before I forget: You don´t need to be an expert filmscorer to comment on such a topic.


----------



## pixel (Jul 30, 2016)

DennisL said:


> i get what u mean.. but lets take spitfire for example.. if you compose a track only using spitfires libraries, those are sample libraries developed, recorded and mixed by experts.. why would you have to eq that? that would
> actually mean the developers didnt do their job right.. (same thing for other libraries, cinesamples, 8dio, soundiron etc of course)..please correct me if im
> wrong..


Absolutely not  They did great job in polishing their samples and to make every instrument sound great: they gave great product. But it's impossible to make instruments to be pre-mixed to sound perfect in arrangement. Because nobody can predict the arrangement and every single one is totally different. Mix of whole composition is totally different process than creation of instruments and their timbre. 
Similar example: you can have amazing microphone worth $10k and after recording you still have to mix it together with other instruments in the song.


----------



## scoringdreams (Jul 31, 2016)

So I guess the most correct response to the OP here will be that we mix the piece to get a sound signature which matches the context we are working in, and as for the process before that, you need to have good composition and orchestration skills too.

I personally agree with the need for good composition and orchestration skills too. It's important to achieve a good balance with ones's instruments and composition before moving on to more editing and mixing.


----------



## Daryl (Jul 31, 2016)

DennisL said:


> i get what u mean.. but lets take spitfire for example.. if you compose a track only using spitfires libraries, those are sample libraries developed, recorded and mixed by experts.. why would you have to eq that? that would
> actually mean the developers didnt do their job right.. (same thing for other libraries, cinesamples, 8dio, soundiron etc of course)..please correct me if im
> wrong..


When you record a peice of music, you not only have sound of all the instruments, but you have the sound of those instruments reacting with the room and the room reacting with those instruments. When you record individual samples, not only do you not have the accumulated sound reacting with the room, but you also have the recording of the room multiple times. This is bound to cause issues, so even if you choose to add no reverb or compression, a little judicious EQ is necessary, usually to avoid muddiness.


----------



## re-peat (Jul 31, 2016)

Daryl said:


> a little judicious EQ is necessary


A LOT of judicious EQ is necessary, I would say.

Record a five-section pizzicato part with _any_ of the string libraries that are out there — even the best ones —, and if you don’t EQ the result, your mix is in serious trouble already. And that’s just pizzicati.

Record a harp gliss that goes from way down to way up (not a sampled one, but a played one) — again with any of the virtual harps currently available — and you simply _have_ to EQ (or dynamically EQ) the result otherwise you’re left with a disastrous build-up of mids and low-mids.

VI woodwinds all can do with some EQ as well in the low-ish mids because being recorded from quite up close, they all have a slightly (and in some samples not so slightly) skewed frequency spectrum. Here, for example, is http://users.telenet.be/deridderpiet.be/VIClarinet_NoEQ.mp3 (the Vienna clarinet without EQ’ing). Notice the dangerously booming mids, and how, if you add reverb to that, the problem becomes much worse.
(Don't listen to this on tiny speakers or on some iDevice or other, otherwise you won't be able to hear the serious trouble in and around the 200Hz area.)

There’s thousands of things like these, depending on the library (all libraries have their own specific problems, though they often share similar issues in the lows and highs), the dynamics, the combination of samples, … and these are all problems (little or big) that *need* addressing.

(And yes, some developers don’t do their job right. Quite a few do their job pretty badly, I'd say.)

Not forgetting the inevitable build-ups of frequencies that need to be looked at whenever you stack layers and layers of samples on top of one another. No matter what libraries you use, no matter how expertly you use them or how well you can orchestrate or whatever: stacking samples invariably causes problems. Always. Fact of death.

Samples don’t play nice with one another. Unlike living sounds that take to the air in a cordial and embracing spirit, samples don’t fuse organically, they simply get added to what’s already there, often in a clashing, brusque and conflicting manner, inevitably resulting in several sonic problems that you simply can’t afford to ignore.

And these problems aren’t limited to just EQ-related issues, often there are stereo-imaging issues too (for which you need other tools).

I can imagine doing a mock-up without compression or limiting, sure, I can even imagine doing one without any additional reverb (if you happen to work with suitable libraries, that is), but I cannot imagine ever doing a mock-up — orchestral or other, and assuming that the goal is something that is not too offensive to listen to — without EQ and an assortment of corrective tools. Impossible.

_


----------



## Danial (Jul 31, 2016)

I hope I can help......Keep the volume comfortable at all times while mixing. Be gentle with EQ and Reverb. A touch of compression on the mixbus to glue it together goes a long way. I find around -3dB of gain reduction can be very productive. Add your favourite comparable tracks to the mixer to compare. Listen to the sonic placement of individual instruments panning and frequency placement in the mix. What does it sound like in the car?


----------

