# EQing Samples and Low End Issues



## ryanstrong (Apr 6, 2016)

To take an example, I wrote an entire track with Spitfire libraries, from strings and brass to woodwinds and percussion and there always seems to be congestion in the low end for me. Not in the subby low end but just above that in the EQ spectrum.

Is this pretty common? Should it be default that most sectional articulations are going to require some EQing the low end?


----------



## Emmanuel Rousseau (Apr 7, 2016)

Hi Ryan,
That could depend on a lot of things, but first of all, did you already apply some EQ to the tracks or do you find the track boomy/muddy without any treatment ?

If you did not do anything, chances are this is just typical frequency build-up in these areas of the spectrum. Lows and low-mids are very subject to that, as there is less "space" for each track to melt with the others. This doesn't mean there is anything wrong in the tracks, but this is just one of the most common issues in mixing, in all genres of music. 

Before anything I would recommend using high-pass filters on each track. Ask yourself how much low end content each instrument needs, and cut. Leave space for the low instruments only. You should try to avoid using always the same frequencies for your cuts, or the EQs themselves could create other frequency build-ups. If possible, try also not using always the same EQ plugins.

If you do that, your low end should already become much clearer. After that, if you hear any problems in the low-mids area, find the track that causes troubles and cut some low-mids with a bell-EQ. That should be a good starting point.

Hope this helps !


----------



## AVaudio (Apr 7, 2016)

The truth is that if a timpani plays solo, it should have more room in terms of frequency, but if it plays with double bass, bass clarinet, cellos, bassons, contrabassoon and tuba, well, in the realm of samples, as they were all (normally) recorded independently and solo during the production of the library, you will have to simulate what the room does in real life to make them sound balanced. 

In other words, depending on the musical context, you should leave instruments untouched, of equalise them if they compete for the same space. Another related thing could be using orchestration as eq: if something sounds "muddy", raise it one octave. Too high? Transport it to a higher range instrument. And so on.


----------



## KEnK (Apr 7, 2016)

whitewasteland said:


> I would recommend using high-pass filters on each track. Ask yourself how much low end content each instrument needs, and cut. Leave space for the low instruments only.


Always- and I always cut the lows of any reverb as well


----------



## chimuelo (Apr 7, 2016)

Not sure if Native has such a Mastering Plug but I use an 8 Bus MultiBand Comp/Limiter.
Each stereo Bus Compressor has 3 Bands, HP BP & LP Filters, slow and fast slope limiting.
Stereo outs typically has Bass Percussion and full range instruments like Piano.
Then the 8 Bus (16 channels) of Sidechaining can be used with liitle or no destructive editing.
Most edits require threshold adjustments and sometimes HPF, but very little as the Sidechaining works beautifully and basically makes a great mix using Parallel Limiting.


----------



## Ashermusic (Apr 7, 2016)

KEnK said:


> Always- and I always cut the lows of any reverb as well




Hmmm, not a big fan of "always" personally and I have done very little EQ on the Hollywood Orchestra (although I do use the buit in EQ in Spaces) but maybe I will experiment with it.


----------



## Ashermusic (Apr 7, 2016)

BTW, a few years ago I interviewed two excellent engineers who work with composers doing sample based composition. You may find interesting.

http://www.filmmusicmag.com/?p=7133


----------



## prodigalson (Apr 7, 2016)

interesting article, Jay. Thanks

I GENERALLY high pass a good amount of the Spitfire Orchestra, that room is just so wet the room buildup can be pretty dramatic.

That being said, lately I've been more judicious about which sections I apply it to to ensure SOME sections have that information. For example, I usually high-pass Hi Strings, Woodwinds, Brass and pitched percussion and leave low percussion and low strings alone (or a very conservative cut). The ambient mics on the Spitfire Harp are reeeaally wet and boomy so I usually low cut them and sometimes get into the low-mids with a surgical EQ.

That's also something to consider about Spitfire's Orchestra, the mics do sound quite different and you can get a good room sound without too much buildup with some careful consideration of mic choices. I like to augment the Tree mics on almost everything with the Outriggers as I love a wide sound but then I'll only use close mics on Violins, Cellos, Woodwinds and anything else that might need more definition and then only use ambient mics on brass and percussion. The ambient mics in general are super roomy (naturally )

Lately, I've been applying UAD's Massive Passive to just Strings with a high end boost for air and grit and generally leave the rest of the orchestra alone. Usually low cut my reverbs as well, ESPECIALLY if using a convo like Altiverb. 

The thing is, when I was doing all this AND low cutting every section of the orchestra, I felt my mixes were starting to feel a little thin and boxy.

So much of this is just personal taste and using my ears to determine what things need. Still a work in progress.


----------



## Ashermusic (Apr 7, 2016)

Hysterical, so I just ran the idea of using HP on most sampled instruments by an engineer friend of mine who works with composers who do sample based compositions a lot:

"I don't agree, but I don't disagree
Meaning I adjust anything as it needs. 

Sorry for the non answer. "


----------



## Rodney Money (Apr 7, 2016)

Ashermusic said:


> Hmmm, not a big fan of "always" personally and I have done very little EQ on the Hollywood Orchestra (although I do use the buit in EQ in Spaces) but maybe I will experiment with it.


Using the EQ in Spaces has been my biggest experiment and biggest debate (cut it or leave it?) in my head here lately ever since I heard of the "Abby Road's Reverb Trick" where they cut around 600 DB in the bass reverb? My latest experiment was working on fast multiple tongue passages but still wanted a large church sound. The cut definitely made it clearer, but sometimes I miss the surrounded "wash" that brass players tend to fall in love with. Here was the result, but I do apologize for the 12 tone, lol. http://vi-control.net/community/thr...-to-open-trumpet-concerto.52711/#post-3949010


----------



## prodigalson (Apr 7, 2016)

Ashermusic said:


> Hysterical, so I just ran the idea of using HP on most sampled instruments by an engineer friend of mine who works with composers who do sample based compositions a lot:
> 
> "I don't agree, but I don't disagree
> Meaning I adjust anything as it needs.
> ...



There are also several engineers and composers who DO suggest it. Depends on the samples, depends on the context, depends on the ears. Depends, depends, depends.


----------



## Ashermusic (Apr 7, 2016)

prodigalson said:


> There are also several engineers and composers who DO suggest it. Depends on the samples, depends on the context, depends on the ears. Depends, depends, depends.



That is his point. There is no "aways" and there is no "never." Depends, depends, depends.


----------



## Emmanuel Rousseau (Apr 7, 2016)

The advice I gave to HP tracks was just a starting point, as it is usually something that could help. As I said at the beginning of my post "that could depend on a lot of things" indeed : the sound of the samples, the arrangement itself... Even the mixing metholody (am I mixing each instrument as a separate track, or am I emulating a "real" recording and just work with the different groups of microphones, for exemple).


----------



## benatural (Apr 7, 2016)

Some random thoughts...

I use Fabfilter Pro Q and Pro MB regularly to control frequncies. Pro Q is nice because you can solo a band and sweep it around to find troublesome frequencies. I usually put a HP on, solo it, and sweep up until I start to hear stuff I DON'T want to cut and then I back it off until it sounds good, but more importantly, retains it's natural qualities. I use Pro MB as a dynamic EQ since it sometimes doesn't makes sense to simply eliminate an entire band for the entire mix.

The thing to remember about sub bass frequencies is that they might contain a ton of harmonics. If you have a lot of sounds with lots of sub bass it'll suck the life right out of your mix. But if you cut too much bass, your mix can sound boxy and thin. Around 80-250 Hz can be a critical range to the body of a sound. Cut too much and you'll end up with a thin sound. Shelves can sometimes be preferable to a cut, I often use the two together to get rid of non essential sub bass and also attenuate/boost the bass range to my liking.


----------



## RiffWraith (Apr 7, 2016)

whitewasteland said:


> Before anything I would recommend using high-pass filters on each track.



Sorry, disagree. When it comes to EQ, filters should be used as a last resort. Not to say they can never work, b/c sometimes they do. But they should never be the first thing you reach for - unless, based on experience with a specific sample lib and arrangement, you know that will work. Otherwise, when it comes to EQ, you reach for _an EQ_.

If there is, for ex., congestion in the low end, or low end build-up, what you want to do is reduce those freqs - not all of the low end freqs... which is what a filter will do. Most of the time, you want to leave at least some (usually much) of the low end there; cutting specific freqs that have built up with a narrow Q will generally be better than cutting the entire low end.

Here's a quick ex:

http://www.jeffreyhayat.com/norm.mp3

Way too much build up in the low end. Here it is with a filter:

http://www.jeffreyhayat.com/filt.mp3

Got rid of the low end build up, sure, but now there is something missing.... there is a certain _hollowness_ to the low end. Here it is with an EQ:

http://www.jeffreyhayat.com/eq.mp3

What's better?

The other thing to bear in mind, is that if possible (and it isn't always), you want to attack specific instruments that are causing the buildup. This isn't always better than EQing the entire mix, but it is usually.

Cheers.


----------



## prodigalson (Apr 7, 2016)

A question, jeffrey: In this example, are you simply using the filter and EQ on the mix buss to demonstrate this point? Or are there specific sections or stems you're affecting? 

Because surely, while it would certainly be odd to completely cut the low frequencies on an entire mix, using a filter to cut below 150Hz on a soaring violin line or a sampled percussion track with room buildup would hardly be a "last resort".


----------



## RiffWraith (Apr 7, 2016)

prodigalson said:


> A question, jeffrey: In this example, are you simply using the filter and EQ on the mix buss to demonstrate this point?



Yes. Remember - this is just for illustration purposes.



prodigalson said:


> Because surely, while it would certainly be odd to completely cut the low frequencies on an entire mix,



Not at all odd. Engineers slap an EQ on the MF all the time. Tho I did say earlier that it is usually better to attack specific instruments that are causing the buildup.



prodigalson said:


> using a filter to cut below 150Hz on a soaring violin line would hardly be a "last resort".



That's one of the situations where a filter can work well. But only if there is excessive noise below 150. You wouldn't add a filter and cut _just b/c you can_.



prodigalson said:


> using a filter to cut below 150Hz on a sampled percussion track with room buildup would hardly be a "last resort".



I think it should be. Of course, it depends on what the percussion is, what range the instruments sit in, etc. Depends on a lot, actually... but if you are trying to cut low freq build up from instruments that already sit in the low range naturally, an EQ will almost always work better.

Cheers.


----------



## KEnK (Apr 7, 2016)

Ashermusic said:


> Hmmm, not a big fan of "always" personally


Ok...
How about "almost always". 
Besides working with v.i.s, I also record various real instruments.
I prefer to close mic things for detail, so there's "almost always" something below 100Hz
be it a guitar, zither, shaker, or even a close mic'd triangle-
As you know, in a multi-tracking recording environment this "stuff" below the fundamental builds up
in a way that it wouldn't if I recorded all these instruments at once in a room-
So I "cut the crap"- 
I've done enough experimenting to know that properly done low cutting makes for a cleaner mix-
Then I may choose to muck certain aspects up w/ some kind of saturation
for that analog flav that old dogs like me prefer.
Fat and juicy is good
Fat and muddy- not so much

I'm not doing dance hall stuff, so I just don't want to much below 40Hz in my mixes
(especially on the triangle)

Read the article you linked to-
interesting but a little ot wouldn't you say?
Or is that more about the endless reverb discussions in general?
Too bad they weren't a little more specific
Interesting though that neither of them seem to bother w/ the ER/Tail dogma.

k

p.s.
Just wanna add that I'll sometimes use a low shelf when I want to "cut".
btw- Equilibrium is my go-to surgical eq- love that butterworth curve
What about the slopes though?
That's something I've been wondering about.
Anybody find that to steep a slope causes phase probs?


----------



## JohnG (Apr 7, 2016)

I am possibly an outlier here, but I rarely roll off eq on samples. 

On the general subject, it is possible that the muddiness you're fighting owes to "room buildup" from a lot of samples. That can happen. And of course I don't know you or your music, so apologies in advance, but it is also possible that muddiness can be generated by too many instruments playing in the low end, or voicing them too close together or other stuff like that. 

Sometimes, it's orchestration even if you are more in the pop / contemporary vein. If you look at the voicing Tchaikovsky uses to support harmonies, it often is the case that the low instruments are spread a lot further apart than the ones in the high / upper end.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Apr 7, 2016)

I'm with KEnK. Rolling off lows in the reverb sends is almost always a good idea. You can fool around endlessly trying to make a mix sound clear if you don't.

And, to argue to authority, neither he nor I invented this. I saw Al Schmitt use his best outboard EQ (or the best one at Mad Hatter) for that at a session.

But of course John is right too: wider spacing down low (at least when it's not quiet). At Berklee there was even a "rule" about that in the basic arranging classes, called lower interval limits. You could get downgraded for violating it.


----------



## KEnK (Apr 7, 2016)

Nick Batzdorf said:


> But of course John is right too: wider spacing down low (at least when it's not quiet). At Berklee there was even a "rule" about that in the basic arranging classes, called lower interval limits. You could get downgraded for violating it.


I read in a couple of places about using the overtone series as a basic model for orchestrating in the lower regions.
Seems like a reasonable idea.
BUT...
One of my favorite sounds to make in an improv band I used to play w/ was to play an Ab and an A
on the electric bass- and let it sustain forever.
What a beautiful sound- Like a Balinesian gong or something.
Of course, we weren't exactly trying to win friends or influence people either.
What if I wrote something like that for double basses and/or tuba?
Would that get me banned at v.i. control? 

k


----------



## Ashermusic (Apr 7, 2016)

KEnK said:


> I read in a couple of places about using the overtone series as a basic model for orchestrating in the lower regions.
> Seems like a reasonable idea.
> BUT...
> One of my favorite sounds to make in an improv band I used to play w/ was to play an Ab and an A
> ...




Probably not, but it should


----------



## Rodney Money (Apr 7, 2016)

KEnK said:


> I read in a couple of places about using the overtone series as a basic model for orchestrating in the lower regions.
> Seems like a reasonable idea.


Especially for brass and winds, if you want a full, balanced, rich sound, I take that as truth. My old college professor and former Dean of Music, Dr. William Harbinson, and I where literally just talking about that a couple of weeks ago while I was having questions about blending saxophones with brass and division in trombones.


----------



## prodigalson (Apr 7, 2016)

Nick Batzdorf said:


> I'm with KEnK. Rolling off lows in the reverb sends is almost always a good idea. You can fool around endlessly trying to make a mix sound clear if you don't.
> 
> And, to argue to authority, neither he nor I invented this. I saw Al Schmitt use his best outboard EQ (or the best one at Mad Hatter) for that at a session.
> 
> But of course John is right too: wider spacing down low (at least when it's not quiet). At Berklee there was even a "rule" about that in the basic arranging classes, called lower interval limits. You could get downgraded for violating it.



They still do it!


----------



## afterlight82 (Apr 7, 2016)

I can eq the sound of my head banging against the wall...

a) there are no eq rules
b) there are NO eq "rules"
c) not once, not ever, not ever in the history of the world has there ever been, nor will there ever be, an EQ "rule".

It's like eq presets...forehead-smackingly perverse.

Any mixer who does _anything_ by default instead of listening and reason - is crazy. Partly because throwing a filter over everything, especially drums, is just asking to have your transients smeared. Why would you do that without needing to?

As to the orchestration idea in the low ends...the distributions you would find in Piston/RK/Blatter in particular are very much "this sounded good for this particular line of this particular piece, so take note". It is in no way a "rule"...it is "this convention has come about because it balances and you get a good result by doing it". You can _absolutely_ do differently - but you have to be doing so by_ listening_ - it is exactly the same. If you don't get the result you want it is unsuccessful, if you do, then it is successful. There's places where certain orchestration "conventions" don't really work properly - just because something appears in a book does not make it _right_.

Unless it's taught in a certain amount of context - which it usually isn't - I really want to smack frying pans over the heads of orchestration "teachers" who would "downgrade" someone because something doesn't conform to a "rule" and not because it doesn't sound good. Which you do by finding out _whether it does or not_. Because that's how all of these "conventions" came about - people tried them, they worked, they sounded good, and they stuck. Not because they were rules. Same with harmony. Same with voice leading. 

I'm happy I suppose that they probably make students initially write stuff that works "because that's how XYZ did it" but that's not actually learning orchestration - that's learning the history of orchestration. Orchestration was largely listening and developed largely practically - and you can only truly learn it practically, because that's when you venture beyond and start mixing your own colors. Otherwise you're just learning formulae, and _anybody_ can do that parrot fashion, and the formulae, like EQ presets, rarely are the very best you can do. Great orchestration goes so far beyond that into understanding the raw components and the possibilities of each instrument and even each individual player - such that you can come up with your own fantastic colors.


----------



## ryanstrong (Apr 7, 2016)

I would say the majority of us would all agree there are no hard 'rules', BUT it's simply good to know some standards/defaults/start-here points to get the conversation to a productive state.

Which is why I used words like "is it common" or "default" in my original question.

Enjoying the conversation though, thanks all contributing.


----------



## Ashermusic (Apr 7, 2016)

Well IMHO the default should be no EQ unless you find something problematic. But I am open to rethinking it.


----------



## JohnG (Apr 7, 2016)

There's another issue worth touching on -- live vs. samples. In general, I find that samples don't "double" nearly as well as real players. For example, unison doubling a cello with bass clarinet is a lovely sound, played live. In samples, not too much. Even some octave doublings don't seem to sound quite right.

Part of it's tuning, but it almost seems like more than that -- there is no doubt that players, once aware of a double, accommodate each other in a way that a sample clearly can't.

So what?

Well, apropos the mud-in-the-low-end, you might be writing something that, played live, would sound awesome, but that somehow flounders in samples. One of the hazards of virtual-ness.


----------



## dgburns (Apr 7, 2016)

JohnG said:


> There's another issue worth touching on -- live vs. samples. In general, I find that samples don't "double" nearly as well as real players. For example, unison doubling a cello with bass clarinet is a lovely sound, played live. In samples, not too much. Even some octave doublings don't seem to sound quite right.
> 
> Part of it's tuning, but it almost seems like more than that -- there is no doubt that players, once aware of a double, accommodate each other in a way that a sample clearly can't.
> 
> ...


basically agree with what John is saying in both posts.Btw,having good success blending lass clo with ew hw bass clarinet these days ,but maybe both libs are bass lite to start with.


----------



## higgs (Apr 7, 2016)

I find that the ambient mics and outriggers can quickly add up to be pretty boomy on material in the 250Hz and below range. The wood winds are my repeat offenders when blending three or more mic positions of a patch - instead of EQ, maybe knock the A and O mics down on brass/winds by a dB or three, or some ambiguous value on a nondescript vertical fader? Done cumulatively it can be the best course correction.


----------



## ryanstrong (Apr 7, 2016)

higgs said:


> I find that the ambient mics and outriggers can quickly add up to be pretty boomy on material in the 250Hz and below range. The wood winds are my repeat offenders when blending three or more mic positions of a patch - instead of EQ, maybe knock the A and O mics down on brass/winds by a dB or three, or some ambiguous value on a nondescript vertical fader? Done cumulatively it can be the best course correction.


Yeah and see I use a LOT of the A and O mics as I like things to sit back and wide versus the C and T mics. SO using a lot of the A and O on winds, brass and strings it sounds like I'm having build up.


----------



## higgs (Apr 7, 2016)

I feel ya on the A's and O's - sometimes I like a mix that approximates my seat in the hall, so to speak. But little adjustments across the board might not sacrifice much if any of that width and depth you're after. If you find the sacrifices are too great then you could try using a lightweight 1-2 band parametric EQ -I'm a fan of the Waves Rennasaince EQs- and try a modest 2 or 3 dB reduction with medium Q in the fatty areas, sub 250Hz. 

Fingers crossed for ya.


----------



## benatural (Apr 7, 2016)

prodigalson said:


> They still do it!


I learned the same thing in orchestration class, and of course it's the tried and true way to reinforce root movement. That said, I do love the sound of low brass triads doubled with divisi cello and a2 bassons. You know the old saying, learn the rules so you can break them etc etc.


----------



## prodigalson (Apr 7, 2016)

afterlight82 said:


> You can _absolutely_ do differently - but you have to be doing so by_ listening_ - it is exactly the same. If you don't get the result you want it is unsuccessful, if you do, then it is successful. There's places where certain orchestration "conventions" don't really work properly



Yes you can always do differently but if you don't get the result you want it's not just because that attempt was unsuccessful, its because you didn't know what to do to achieve it. That's where learning to walk before you can run comes in. It's nice to not always be grasping in dark and working by just _listening _and being able to write knowing what might or might not work based on a knowledge of the "rules" our forefathers learned too. 



> Unless it's taught in a certain amount of context - which it usually isn't - I really want to smack frying pans over the heads of orchestration "teachers" who would "downgrade" someone because something doesn't conform to a "rule" and not because it doesn't sound good.



With respect, I think you're overreacting just a tad. Nick was referring to a BASIC arranging *class*, not Advanced Techniques in 20th Century Composition. And this is at a music school after all where it's kinda their job to teach conventions. In jazz arranging, did Quincy Jones, Bob Brookmeyer or Sammy Nestico break the "rules" of Lower Interval Limits and many others all the time? Of course, but you can be damn sure they knew what they were and the principles behind them. and know if they wanted a particular sound whether to avoid them or not. 

Do you think Bach learned to write counterpoint without a rigorous understanding of the strict counterpoint of Palestrina? Is it just coincidence that Mozart read Fux's strict _Gradus Ad Parnassum_ like a bible?


----------



## RiffWraith (Apr 7, 2016)

Also agree that EQing the verb is many times a good way to go.

Have a look here:


----------



## KEnK (Apr 7, 2016)

RiffWraith said:


> Also agree that EQing the verb is many times a good way to go.


And it's interesting that you get a different result if you eq what you send to the reverb.


----------



## afterlight82 (Apr 7, 2016)

prodigalson said:


> With respect, I think you're overreacting just a tad. Nick was referring to a BASIC arranging *class*, not Advanced Techniques in 20th Century Composition.



Ah, this was unclear. Then absolutely. 
I thought this was what they were going for in their main orchestration classes. It was largely the way it was said they "downgraded" someone if they didn't do what was in the book...I just can't stand that, when it is implied that it is downgraded not because of actual results (however good they may be or not), just because of what it is "in the book".


----------



## owenave (Apr 7, 2016)

Ashermusic said:


> Depends, depends, depends.


I am trying really hard not to crack jokes about the Depends..... I am trying...
Maybe it was from too much low end.... needed some Depends.


----------



## owenave (Apr 7, 2016)

Rodney Money said:


> Especially for brass and winds, if you want a full, balanced, rich sound, I take that as truth. My old college professor and former Dean of Music, Dr. William Harbinson, and I where literally just talking about that a couple of weeks ago while I was having questions about blending saxophones with brass and division in trombones.


Well it is just like when I do a Rock or Pop mix... I tend to either use the low end on the Bass Guitar or the Kick Drum but not both. Same thing I am sure applies to the strings ... low brass... tympani's etc... pretty soon too much gets muddy.


----------



## owenave (Apr 7, 2016)

RiffWraith said:


> Also agree that EQing the verb is many times a good way to go.
> 
> Have a look here:



Back in the 70's they used to use Aphex Aural Exciter, the original ones you could only rent, and eq'd the reverb of vocal for Fleetwood Mac's albums. So the idea to eq the input of the reverb might help a lot. And even trying some high end tricks of adding along with dropping the lows. Who knows till you try.


----------



## Ashermusic (Apr 8, 2016)

The former head of AES back in the day told me that the Aphex Aural Exciter was a giant joke on the industry that people bought in to out of trendiness and that all it did was add high frequency distortion, but he was a bit of a purist.


----------



## Jimmy Hellfire (Apr 8, 2016)

Ashermusic said:


> The former head of AES back in the day told me that the Aphex Aural Exciter was a giant joke on the industry that people bought in to out of trendiness and that all it did was add high frequency distortion, but he was a bit of a purist.



Turns out it wasn't fairy dust it was adding.  Was that such a mystery back then, what the thing was doing? I mean today I guess everyone's aware of the basic principle: distort a certain portion of the original signal to create harmonic artefacts, and blend it back in. But isn't it irrelevant what it's actually doing as long as people like the results? I'd add kitten poop and basilisk eyeballs to my mixes if it made them sound better.

Come to think of it ... I might try that once.


----------



## Ashermusic (Apr 8, 2016)

Jimmy Hellfire said:


> Turns out it wasn't fairy dust it was adding.  Was that such a mystery back then, what the thing was doing? I mean today I guess everyone's aware of the basic principle: distort a certain portion of the original signal to create harmonic artefacts, and blend it back in. But isn't it irrelevant what it's actually doing as long as people like the results? I'd add kitten poop and basilisk eyeballs to my mixes if it made them sound better.
> 
> Come to think of it ... I might try that once.



Sure, and maybe that was part of its success. Like I say, my friend was a purist.


----------



## Ashermusic (Apr 8, 2016)

BTW, alternatively to EQ'ing samples, you may find, as I do, that a good multiband compressor helps with the low end build up less invasively to the sound of the samples. I use the UAD Precision Multiband. It has a preset called "Punch and Clarity" and with that as my jumping off point I find that the low end rumble build up is not troubling for me. YMMV of course.


----------



## prodigalson (Apr 8, 2016)

afterlight82 said:


> Ah, this was unclear. Then absolutely.
> I thought this was what they were going for in their main orchestration classes. It was largely the way it was said they "downgraded" someone if they didn't do what was in the book...I just can't stand that, when it is implied that it is downgraded not because of actual results (however good they may be or not), just because of what it is "in the book".



"downgraded" in the sense that they got a lower grade if they violated the rules of a particular assignment in a particular subject where they are trying to teach specific concept. You know, the same way everything else in the world is taught.


----------



## Baron Greuner (Apr 8, 2016)

Ashermusic said:


> The former head of AES back in the day told me that the Aphex Aural Exciter was a giant joke



I told my girlfriend I had one just to impress her.

Didn't work though. She thought I was just trying to be disgusting.


----------



## JohnG (Apr 8, 2016)

Funny how these kinds of topics bring out the instinct to insist on one's own way or philosophy.

Anyway, my experience orchestrating and arranging other people's work, or just looking at it now and then, suggests that some of the people who are new to working with real players never had a chance to learn _any_ rules, so that they end up floundering when trying to achieve basic effects. These include two main categories: 

1. the "impossible to play" mistakes -- no time to breathe or way too high for too long or a very low note held for too long; and 

2. the "just disappointing" mistakes -- when it's clear what the composer wanted but didn't know how to do it. 

Interestingly, to me at least, the first really good sample library I had, EWQLSO (and which still sounds very good), rarely led me astray. If it sounded pretty good on that it worked well with live players. That may owe to limitations of that library that somehow led me away from chord voicings that weren't going to work live or maybe some other happy accident.

Part of the problem new composers face now is that many libraries sound so good that they are led to believe passages will sound good live that really _only_ will sound good on samples. Conversely, of course, they reject things that would sound awesome live but that samples make seem too tubby / muddy / wooly. 

It's amazing how agile live players are and, often, samples -- are not.

[note: I have received free products from East West]


----------



## Daryl (Apr 8, 2016)

JohnG said:


> It's amazing how agile live players are and, often, samples -- are not.


True, and things that sound clean and clinical with samples can sound glistening and awe inspiring with real players, even when they are nowhere near to 100% accurate with the notes.


----------



## JohnG (Apr 8, 2016)

yes indeed, Daryl. "nowhere near to 100% accurate," but only up to a point! 

I think that one of the biggest differences between the very best session players I've worked with and the almost-great is tuning. With the best there is this perfection that is jaw-dropping.

On the other hand, as perhaps you're implying, for battle / chase / other similar nonsense, enthusiasm can more than make up for a little inaccuracy on intonation.

Don't mean to put words in your mouth -- I'm not even sure if you write media music or concert.


----------



## KEnK (Apr 8, 2016)

JohnG said:


> Part of the problem new composers face now is that many libraries sound so good that they are led to believe...


which reminds us that pencil and paper is still the superior composition tool.


----------



## Gabriel Oliveira (Apr 8, 2016)

KEnK said:


> which reminds us that pencil and paper is still the superior composition tool.



Indeed! And morse code is superior to the internet, horses are superior to cars and candles are superior to led lamps


----------



## KEnK (Apr 8, 2016)

Gabriel Oliveira said:


> Indeed! And morse code is superior to the internet, horses are superior to cars and candles are superior to led lamps


Spoken like a man who has no clue.
Good to see that Ignorance is alive and well


----------



## RiffWraith (Apr 8, 2016)

KEnK said:


> which reminds us that pencil and paper is still the superior composition tool.



Yes and no. Depends on the person's level of skill. When it comes to orchestration.... for someone of JW's ilk, pencil and paper is absolutely the superior composition tool. For others not at that level, it isn't.

Cheers.


----------



## Jimmy Hellfire (Apr 8, 2016)

KEnK said:


> which reminds us that pencil and paper is still the superior composition tool.



Yeah, because it apparently lets you make all the right judgements while avoiding all the wrong ones. It's magic!


----------



## Gabriel Oliveira (Apr 8, 2016)

KEnK said:


> Good to see that Ignorance is alive and well



Said the man who limits human creativity to his tools


----------



## Rodney Money (Apr 8, 2016)

Use whatever tool(s) you need to get the work done.


----------



## KEnK (Apr 8, 2016)

Hah-

The primary tool is the Mind- where creativity resides.
Second to that is one's understanding of the language of one's craft-
3rd to that is the choice of medium used to express or communicate the idea.

The only people offended by my saying the pencil is a superior tool-
are those who don't know how to use it- and are bound to the computer.

Do you think that a paint brush or a chisel is also obsolete?
Do you think a sample library of a piano is a piano?
or that drum loops have anything to do w/ drummers?

Pencils are actually incredible tools-
That's all I'm saying


----------



## Ashermusic (Apr 8, 2016)

Oh, please this is silly. Great composition, great orchestration and great sample manipulation are specific skills and people can be great at one or the other, or all of them. Or lousy at one or the other, or all of them.


----------



## Jimmy Hellfire (Apr 8, 2016)

KEnK said:


> Hah-
> 
> The primary tool is the Mind- where creativity resides.
> Second to that is one's understanding of the language of one's craft-
> ...



That's all great. The point is: JohnG made the truthful assessment that sample libraries can lead the inexperienced composer into writing parts that don't necessarily sound good in the "real" world. Your own conclusion - that pencil and paper are _superior_ tools - was just a plain old logical fallacy. You're implying that the same composers who write bad parts with sample libraries all of a sudden wouldn't make those mistakes if they wrote their music on paper instead. Why would that be? Someone who's not yet knowledgeable will make mistakes because of their lacking knowledge and experience, not because they use one tool instead of the other. If I don't know what works and what doesn't, writing it on paper won't suddenly make me know it.

And then it's all this - is the paint brush obsolete, the loop/drummer thing etc. ... a bunch of stuff no one in the thread implied or claimed at any moment. So, you're kind of all over the place and arguing a point that no one really brought up in the first place.


----------



## KEnK (Apr 8, 2016)

Ashermusic said:


> Oh, please this is silly.


Yes you're right-
Just didn't like 3 or 4 people "chiding" me for mentioning
a tried and true practice.


----------



## JohnG (Apr 8, 2016)

Well, KEnK, having grown up with pencils etc. I don't really agree that there is any superiority to them as such. Think of all the really terrible music that has been written with a pencil.

That said, when I just want a flipping crescendo, even on a project where the ENTIRE MIDI ORCHESTRA will be replaced with live players, it can still take an hour --sometimes longer -- to execute a convincing crescendo or forte-piano-crescendo in midi. On a score you just do this: <

And of course a lot of really terrible music is written on computers too...


[edited for clarity]


----------



## KEnK (Apr 8, 2016)

JohnG said:


> when I just want a flipping crescendo, even on a project where the ENTIRE MIDI ORCHESTRA will be replaced with live players, it can still take an hour --sometimes longer -- to execute a convincing crescendo or forte-piano-crescendo in midi. On a score you just do this: <


And that is my point John-
Thanks


----------



## JohnG (Apr 8, 2016)

Well if that's your point -- you're right!!


----------



## KEnK (Apr 8, 2016)

Guess I look at "composition" in it's abstract sense-
meaning the creation (and communication) of an idea
The "realization" of this idea, (be it w/ real musicians, multi-tracking everything myself, or using midi)
is to me a separate part of the process.

In which case- most people agree the pencil is much faster
(if you've read the manual) 

k


----------



## JohnG (Apr 8, 2016)

The pencil is a lot faster, but I do like the chance to try things out. It was instructive for me to learn how extensively (sometimes) even the maestro, John Williams, changes his music after the orchestra runs through it.

Without midi, many of us would be forced into a drastically risk-averse posture when recording, since there is rarely enough of a budget to experiment -- hear it played live and then take the time to go away and revise. Consequently, having all these tools available allows us to try wacky stuff out. Not everything of course, but a fair amount.

So, if you take the time element out of it, I would say the electronic tools oftentimes allow _greater_ freedom than economics might otherwise dictate.

One of my friends who's an academic composer -- writes very cool concert music, in other words, but not media music -- says he rarely gets more than a handful of performances. Sometimes one. So it's everywhere, not just in media.


----------



## KEnK (Apr 8, 2016)

JohnG said:


> The pencil is a lot faster, but I do like the chance to try things out...





JohnG said:


> So, if you take the time element out of it, I would say the electronic tools oftentimes allow _greater_ freedom than economics might otherwise dictate.


Of course I agree w/ the entirety of your post-
but there is more to it than just "faster".
As you know, w/ a pencil you can sketch the whole creative arc of a section or entire piece-
much more quickly- but besides just being faster, you can also visualize w/ the whole w/ greater clarity,
individual sections, harmonies- what have you-
This you cannot do w/ a computer w/o having first done the midi input.
So speed -yes, but a wider vision is more apparent as well.

Gotta go for the day-

nice talking to ya

k


----------



## JohnG (Apr 8, 2016)

KEnK said:


> you can also visualize w/ the whole w/ greater clarity,
> individual sections, harmonies- what have you-
> This you cannot do w/ a computer w/o having first done the midi input.
> So speed -yes, but a wider vision is more apparent as well.



So true. I still use Judy Green P-538 paper for sketching -- 16 unmarked staves. If you cram and don't fill absolutely everything in, you can draft most of a piece's outline on it if it's not too long.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Apr 8, 2016)

afterlight82 said:


> Ah, this was unclear. Then absolutely.
> I thought this was what they were going for in their main orchestration classes. It was largely the way it was said they "downgraded" someone if they didn't do what was in the book...I just can't stand that, when it is implied that it is downgraded not because of actual results (however good they may be or not), just because of what it is "in the book".



I even put a  there.

And one of the things just about every teacher I had at Berklee emphasized is that the rules aren't really rules.

Unfortunately, not learning them in the first place isn't a shortcut to learning them and then forgetting them! The fact is, your arrangement is going to sound like ass most of the time if you write FFF minor thirds at the bottom of the bass clef. And if you don't understand why - (as I think kENk wrote?) because of the overtone series - you're missing out on something very basic.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Apr 8, 2016)

> Like I say, my friend was a purist.



Or he'd never heard an Aural Exciter. If your quote is accurate, it's not one of the most astute things I've heard. 

Baron Greuner, you're decades out of date. Did you know that Aphex also had the Aural Exciter with Big Bottom, the Dominator, the Compellor...


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Apr 8, 2016)

<- Paper and pencil for scribbling to work things out or remember them, playing in for things I *can* play in or that my fingers find, sequencer's notation for instant transcription.

Paper here: http://classic.musictheory.net/96


----------



## germancomponist (Apr 8, 2016)

What a thread!  I have learned: The more you cut, the better it is in the end result of a mix!


----------



## Baron Greuner (Apr 8, 2016)

Nick Batzdorf said:


> Or he'd never heard an Aural Exciter. If your quote is accurate, it's not one of the most astute things I've heard.
> 
> Baron Greuner, you're decades out of date. Did you know that Aphex also had the Aural Exciter with Big Bottom, the Dominator, the Compellor...



I wasn't going to mention the Big Bottom because when I also brought that up, she thought I meant her!


----------



## benatural (Apr 8, 2016)

Weren't we talking about managing low frequencies?


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Apr 10, 2016)

In case what KEnK, I, and other people are saying here isn't totally clear: if you clear up the reverb send by removing low end, a lot of time you don't have to cut those freqs out of the instruments themselves.

Obviously that doesn't supersede the other arranging considerations in this thread. But one thing I learned the hard way is that you can get very frustrated trying to EQ the instruments/samples for clarity, when that's not where the problem is.


----------



## Ashermusic (Apr 11, 2016)

Exactly my view, Nick.


----------



## afterlight82 (Apr 11, 2016)

I've not experimented, but eq on the reverb buss...especially before the reverb but even after...a place where the time smearing of linear phase EQ might actually do nice things!


----------



## chimuelo (Apr 12, 2016)

Well the good news is if you have UAD Brainrox BX Digital 3.0 will be available.
I have the ancient DSP version.
But what a great plug in for UAD guys.
200k Broadcast Consoles like the Fairlight Constellation have this gem.


----------



## Blakus (Apr 12, 2016)

I always cut. Something funky happens with low mids when you bring samples together. It's always been something that has intrigued me. I feel that combined section samples tend to build these frequencies more, than a full cohesive live recording would.

In a lot of cases, I don't think that removing it from just the reverb is enough. At least in my experience.


----------



## nas (Apr 13, 2016)

There was a period where I went through a bit of a phobia with the low mids and started to cut almost without thought... then I would wonder why my mixes lacked body and sounded thin or more specifically too much like a smile curve eq. I also went through this with LPF as well.

One needs to really listen first and see what is required.. is it an orchestration arrangement issue? Is it something within the samples themselves? can cutting the low mids on just a few instruments do the trick without sacrificing the body and fullness of a mix? 

Yes we want to avoid the typical muddiness and bass buildup but it should really be done only when needed and not be an autopilot - muscle reflex action without any critical listening and sound judgment ... and I guess that is the kind of thing that develops over time with lost's of listening, cultivation of taste, and trial and error.


----------



## Ashermusic (Apr 13, 2016)

nas said:


> There was a period where I went through a bit of a phobia with the low mids and started to cut almost without thought... then I would wonder why my mixes lacked body and sounded thin or more specifically too much like a smile curve eq. I also went through this with LPF as well.
> 
> One needs to really listen first and see what is required.. is it an orchestration arrangement issue? Is it something within the samples themselves? can cutting the low mids on just a few instruments do the trick without sacrificing the body and fullness of a mix?
> 
> Yes we want to avoid the typical muddiness and bass buildup but it should really be done only when needed and not be an autopilot - muscle reflex action without any critical listening and sound judgment ... and I guess that is the kind of thing that develops over time with lost's of listening, cultivation of taste, and trial and error.



Bingo. "Always" should never be part of your process IMHO.


----------



## RiffWraith (Apr 13, 2016)

nas said:


> One needs to really listen first and see what is required.. is it an orchestration arrangement issue? Is it something within the samples themselves? can cutting the low mids on just a few instruments do the trick without sacrificing the body and fullness of a mix?



+1 to all three.



nas said:


> and I guess that is the kind of thing that develops over time with lost's of listening, cultivation of taste, and trial and error.



Yep!


----------



## ghostnote (Apr 13, 2016)

Just hi passing reverb or instruments is just half of the deal. A piano without EQ can sound fine on it's own, but it can also bring muddiness to a busy mix. In the end it's a long journey, trying to spot the mudd, making comparisons and adjustments on monitors and headphones. Gareth Cokers tutorials are a great start to understand how to mix samples.


----------

