# Any good auto-EQ plug-ins for Orchestral stuff?



## Simon Passmore (Sep 23, 2021)

Just wondering if there's a good automatic EQ that will do a better job than me going through each instrument manually (or at least a faster job....)

Ideally one that works well on full symphony orchestra if it exists.


----------



## Trash Panda (Sep 23, 2021)

Sonible Smart EQ3, Hornet ThirtyOne


----------



## Simon Passmore (Sep 23, 2021)

Thanks


----------



## easyrider (Sep 23, 2021)

There is only one….

Gullfoss


----------



## bill5 (Sep 23, 2021)

Gullfoss was the first thing that came to mind. I have not used, but hear a lot of people rave about it. FWIW


----------



## antret (Sep 23, 2021)

Trash Panda said:


> Sonible Smart EQ3, Hornet ThirtyOne


I’m double checking to see if me and Trash Panda are the same person today. . 

Those two Eq’s are on just about every track. Smart EQ3 doesn’t seem to have the ‘orchestral profiles’ from the earlier versions, but the ‘universal profile’ can get you in a ballpark quickly. After that, the tweaking is easy and effective.


----------



## DJiLAND (Sep 23, 2021)

soothe2 is one of very useful plugin


----------



## doctoremmet (Sep 24, 2021)

Trash Panda said:


> Sonible Smart EQ3, Hornet ThirtyOne


This


----------



## Kalli (Sep 24, 2021)

DJiLAND said:


> soothe2 is one of very useful plugin


Another vote for Soothe 2 here. I like Gullfoss too, but tend to use it more for macro level corrections (tonal balance). I find Soothe much better for dealing with local harshness and resonances.


----------



## MartinH. (Sep 24, 2021)

Simon Passmore said:


> Just wondering if there's a good automatic EQ that will do a better job than me going through each instrument manually (or at least a faster job....)


I vote for keep using your ears and learn to use reference mixes. If you start using on Auto-EQ plugins without having your ears trained first, you'll never know when their results are nonsense. We've had people here share mixes that were messed up by such automagic mixing plugins because they didn't trust their own ears enough, even though they would have done a better job on their own.


----------



## Simon Passmore (Sep 24, 2021)

MartinH. said:


> I vote for keep using your ears and learn to use reference mixes. If you start using on Auto-EQ plugins without having your ears trained first, you'll never know when their results are nonsense. We've had people here share mixes that were messed up by such automagic mixing plugins because they didn't trust their own ears enough, even though they would have done a better job on their own.


Sorry, I wasn't clear - I'd rather do it by ear but had a job at very short notice and wondered if there was a sort of 'one click fix' for an entire orchestra, or at least in sections.

Can't work out how to do it automatically so will just bite the bullet and work through it...


----------



## Bluemount Score (Sep 24, 2021)

Gullfoss. Like it or dislike it, I have the feeling that it helps my mixing a lot and is super intuitive to use. Might add too much highs for traditional orchestral mixing out of the box, but that can easily be controlled. Don't overdo anything, as always..


----------



## Soundbed (Sep 24, 2021)

I use Soothe2.

As potential alternatives to Gullfoss; TEOTE or Neutron Sculptor


----------



## WindcryMusic (Sep 24, 2021)

As a possible alternative to Soothe 2, you might want to look into TBProAudio’s DSEQ 3.5 … I’m very happy with it so far. Fair pricing, fantastic ongoing support, regular feature updates and no iLok.


----------



## Beat Kaufmann (Sep 28, 2021)

Simon Passmore said:


> Just wondering if there's a good automatic EQ that will do a better job than me going through each instrument manually (or at least a faster job....)
> 
> Ideally one that works well on full symphony orchestra if it exists.


What are you doing with your EQs and what do you want an automaton to do for you?

Maybe you think you have to install an EQ for every instrument and adjust something. If you don't know what an EQ should do for a particular instrument, then just leave it out. The library manufacturers try hard to offer good sounds. Often the hobby tuner is looking for "resonances" for example, which are in fact important harmonics. Or the same hobby mixer sets +6, +12, -10dB curves in the EQ without problems. Do you really think that manufacturers deliver their sounds so off? Of course, on the sum (e.g. strings) you can make the overall sound a little brighter or darker. But these are not huge amounts. So one tip is really: less EQ is often better - and not an Auto-EQ instead.
Test: Switch off all EQs at the end of your mix and compare both results with an external reference... (with/without EQs) If you have a good library, you will often be surprised. 
Also: Why should an automat do the job better than "if you compare the result with a real orchestra that comes close to your music". If you can't hear the differences well yourself, a good analyzer might help you.

Beat


----------



## Simon Passmore (Sep 29, 2021)

Beat Kaufmann said:


> What are you doing with your EQs and what do you want an automaton to do for you?
> 
> Maybe you think you have to install an EQ for every instrument and adjust something. If you don't know what an EQ should do for a particular instrument, then just leave it out. The library manufacturers try hard to offer good sounds. Often the hobby tuner is looking for "resonances" for example, which are in fact important harmonics. Or the same hobby mixer sets +6, +12, -10dB curves in the EQ without problems. Do you really think that manufacturers deliver their sounds so off? Of course, on the sum (e.g. strings) you can make the overall sound a little brighter or darker. But these are not huge amounts. So one tip is really: less EQ is often better - and not an Auto-EQ instead.
> Test: Switch off all EQs at the end of your mix and compare both results with an external reference... (with/without EQs) If you have a good library, you will often be surprised.
> ...


That's really helpful thanks - I just wanted to find an EQ that automatically removes all unwanted noise from lower frequencies, if such a thing exists


----------



## Dietz (Sep 29, 2021)

Simon Passmore said:


> I just wanted to find an EQ that automatically removes all unwanted noise from lower frequencies, *if such a thing exists*


Not really, only in promo blurbs. One man's "noise" is the other guy's "natural sound", and vice-versa. 8-)

Your best bet is to learn to "read" good analyzer and cut stuff below the lowest fundamental, much like @Beat Kaufmann pointed out in his message above.


----------



## Simon Passmore (Sep 29, 2021)

Dietz said:


> Not really, only in promo blurbs. One man's "noise" is the other guy's "natural sound", and vice-versa. 8-)
> 
> Your best bet is to learn to "read" good analyzer and cut stuff below the lowest fundamental, much like @Beat Kaufmann pointed out in his message above.


That's what I meant by unwanted noise at lower frequencies, sorry wasn't clear - is there a plug-in that can cut this stuff automatically?


----------



## PeterN (Nov 17, 2021)

@Joël Dollié 

Hi, you have a tutorial on orchestral music and Gullfoss. What do you think of the updated Gullfoss for mastering? Would you use it in orchestral mastering?


----------



## Joël Dollié (Nov 17, 2021)

PeterN said:


> @Joël Dollié
> 
> Hi, you have a tutorial on orchestral music and Gullfoss. What do you think of the updated Gullfoss for mastering? Would you use it in orchestral mastering?


Yeah, It's a bit of a dangerous tool though but very helpful if used correctly. I usually don't include the highs or low bass in order to not ruin the tonal balance or low end dynamics. Updated gullfoss sounds cool, I tried it, hard to tell if there are any sonic differences but it seems good.


----------



## Living Fossil (Nov 17, 2021)

Simon Passmore said:


> Just wondering if there's a good automatic EQ that will do a better job than me going through each instrument manually (or at least a faster job....)


Honestly, i don't know any actual libraries that would require "some EQing" of every instrument.
Most instruments have their resonances and that's something that makes instrumentation such a joy.

It's more likely that you encounter some problems due to the fact that samples usually capture few of many tones instruments are capable of producing, or that you run into frequency buildups (that conscious players would avoid by adjusting their tone).

These two cases typically could be:

- E.g. an oboe that plays notes in a too piercing way because it was sampled with not enough dynamic layers (which makes it impossible to integrate it into a chord).
In such a case, usually a dynamic EQ (maybe just automated for the requested passages) will work, sometimes also a static (automated) EQ.

- the "classic" example are string buildups. Often it's harshness due to non-contextual bow speed or vibrato and often it's due to too many overtones (which may result from the lack of enough dynamic layers) or the wrong tone (strings have a huge expressive range and depending [among others] on the position of the bow and the amount/speed of the vibrato they can achieve lots of different nuances in color in accordance with the music they play
For string buildups, sometimes the mentioned helpers like Smart EQ3, izotope's spectral shaper and some others may help. But in my experience there are no reliable solutions. What may work at one time does not work the other time.

- With regards to Gulfoss: it's the same thing with Gulfoss. Sometimes it works great in small amounts on the orchestral sum, however, in around 75% of the cases i bypass it.

TLDR:
If you have constantly the feel that you should eq your orchestral instruments, chances are high that either the instrumentation isn't ideal or that you use wrong dynamic layers (the louder the harsher).


----------



## Joël Dollié (Nov 17, 2021)

Living Fossil said:


> Honestly, i don't know any actual libraries that would require "some EQing" of every instrument.
> Most instruments have their resonances and that's something that makes instrumentation such a joy.
> 
> It's more likely that you encounter some problems due to the fact that samples usually capture few of many tones instruments are capable of producing, or that you run into frequency buildups (that conscious players would avoid by adjusting their tone).
> ...


I think that is true but sometimes I would say some instruments are just kind of ''ugly'' no matter what at certain frequency ranges. I find that oboes will almost always benefit from cutting 1.5k around 3 to 9db depending on how the library was recorded. Same for bassoons at 500hz. It's just kind of how they are by design but it seems that these frequency ranges always overshadow the other harmonics the instrument is capable of producing.


----------



## Living Fossil (Nov 17, 2021)

Joël Dollié said:


> I think that is true but sometimes I would say some instruments are just kind of ''ugly'' no matter what at certain frequency ranges. I find that oboes will almost always benefit from cutting 1.5k around 3 to 9db depending on how the library was recorded. Same for bassoons at 500hz. It's just kind of how they are by design but it seems that these frequency ranges always overshadow the other harmonics the instrument is capable of producing.


I agree, yet i remember when studying 30years ago, one of the first thing we learnt about the oboe in instrumentation was that this instrument is to be used with discretion (i.e. not too often) because of that piercing formant. (btw. this is much less the case for the Viennese oboe and its historical precursors)
In fast figures (as prominently used by Ravel e.g. in Daphnis et Chloé) it's not an issue, but with held notes it simply cuts through the orchestra by its very nature.

Then again i have to add that for me the oboes in BBCSO were are relief, since they have a very useable tone in general when compared to some other libraries.


----------



## Jimmy Hellfire (Nov 17, 2021)

I think there's tons of good reasons for EQing orchestral instruments - live recordings _or_ samples. Not because something's wrong with the sounds, but because creating a musical track involves making mixing decisions. It's not about fixing something, but handling the sonics of the project.

There's no "automatic" software though that can know what you're thinking.


----------



## PeterN (Nov 18, 2021)

Joël Dollié said:


> Yeah, It's a bit of a dangerous tool though but very helpful if used correctly. I usually don't include the highs or low bass in order to not ruin the tonal balance or low end dynamics. Updated gullfoss sounds cool, I tried it, hard to tell if there are any sonic differences but it seems good.


Thanks....see....you know, I checked your tutorial and noticed you recommended 30-50% minus of brightness. But that was before the Master Gullfoss came. Nobody else did that. I was wondering if the Mastering Gullfoss is similar in your opinion. I think thats a cool advice anyway, most people tend to boost brightness, but Joel comes in and throws minus 50. Thats the real star.


----------



## PeterN (Nov 18, 2021)

Heres Joels tutorial on orchestral EQ and Gullfoss


----------



## Beat Kaufmann (Nov 18, 2021)

PeterN said:


> Thanks....see....you know, I checked your tutorial and noticed you recommended 30-50% minus of brightness. ....


It is a well-known fact that strings in particular are often mixed too brightly by new sample users. If you listen a little more closely to real strings, you soon notice that they often sound very dark indeed. 
Of course, it is nonsense to now install an EQ and set it FIX to -15dB. It is much more advisable to make everything dynamic, as the example below shows ( from : 5:52)
 

This is how strings sound natural and relaxed.

*My opinion on Gulfoss & Co.*
If a library is qualitatively good, it can also be quite counterproductive to always automatically balance everything that still seems a bit alive in the otherwise dead samples. When everything is equalised and totally balanced, we are back to the midi sounds of the past. That's why - in my opinion - you should use all automatic equalisation very sparingly and very selectively. With a multicompressor, it is not always necessary to use all 4 bands, but maybe only one. In any case, a mix will not always be good and lively if a few automats compensate for every irregularity in every channel.

Beat


----------



## accesolar (Nov 20, 2021)

Hornet 31 is the cheap option. 

The DSM V3 prismatic compressor is an interesting way to shape your sounds by using the capture function you can feed it songs or stems that you like the sound of and it will create a custom curve to apply. You can get this for a heavy discount if you wait until plugin alliance has one of their sales.

But Gulfoss is the sauce. I usually am using gulfoss and DSM v3 somewhere in my mixes.

I initially bought these tools to use them as the OP described, to save time and work faster. Now I see them as a great education tool to teach me how to mix better and show me my holes in my mixes. 

For example. Gulfoss almost always puts a high shelf at 6 to 12k. So now I throw it on my master turn it on see how much it is pushing the high shelf, then go back in to my mix and intelligently push up certain instruments in that range to have more control and level up my mixing even more.


----------



## Trash Panda (Nov 20, 2021)

accesolar said:


> For example. Gulfoss almost always puts a high shelf at 6 to 12k. So now I throw it on my master turn it on see how much it is pushing the high shelf, then go back in to my mix and intelligently push up certain instruments in that range to have more control and level up my mixing even more.


I've started coming around to this idea as well. Cranking up the highs on the mix/master bus and then applying a low shelf on any instruments that naturally have a ton of high frequency info to offset the effect while adding more air to the other instruments. I'm sure this makes some professional engineers here groan, but it seems to work well to my ears.


----------



## accesolar (Nov 20, 2021)

Trash Panda said:


> I've started coming around to this idea as well. Cranking up the highs on the mix/master bus and then applying a low shelf on any instruments that naturally have a ton of high frequency info to offset the effect while adding more air to the other instruments. I'm sure this makes some professional engineers here groan, but it seems to work well to my ears.


It might make them groan to hear how it is being done. Sure if I had nice big console and a bunch of outboard gear it might be better to do things all manually. But the end result is all that matters. I am by no means a pro engineer but I feel like I have pretty good ears. When I listen to a mastered song that somebody else made I can only hear how I WOULD have achieved that mix.


----------

