# EQ-ing our samples. High passing Cellos?



## jemu999 (Oct 29, 2014)

I have recently completed an extensive studio build with lots of upgrades and acoustical treatment and so forth. And after almost a year of the buildout, Im finally at the point where I'm in the space and working on setting up my full orchestral template.

So I'm trying to get a static mix out of my template by adding any necessary eq processing. I want to basically have the processing built into the template. Yesterday I was working on Cellos, and as I add instruments to my template, Ill compose little quick themes to get a feel for the overall balance and sound.

Which brings me to my point, how many of you are high passing their Cellos and other orchestral sections. I find that they sound amazing in solo with all of their low end, but within the mix, they can become muddy pretty quick. Here are 2 files, one with high pass EQ and a few db high shelf and the other same file with the bare samples (no EQ)

What do guys think??? 

https://soundcloud.com/jeton-murtishi/s ... st/s-saoyt 

[flash width=450 height=110 loop=false]http://player.soundcloud.com/player.swf?url=http%3A%2F%2Fapi.soundclo ud.com%2Ftracks%2F57171996&secret_url=false[/flash] 


Ive seen a few tutorials, where people state they don't do much eq. In my example, I feel that the samples as recorded are much to muddy. Any thoughts?


----------



## chibear (Oct 29, 2014)

> I find that they sound amazing in solo with all of their low end, but within the mix, they can become muddy pretty quick


 +1

Actually I High Pass everything except _maybe_ Bass Drum and some of the other lower percussion sounds. I have yet to find any samples that don't benefit from some roll off at the bottom. There always seems to be some garbage down there that has nothing to do with the instrument sound. As a blatant example, piccolo samples have an amazing amount of sound happening in frequencies way below what the instrument produces. Add reverb and it muddies up really quickly.

I have just finished a new template that does include EQ on every track just to roll off those frequencies (and make any timbre adjustments I may decide to do).


----------



## José Herring (Oct 29, 2014)

Hmmm.....that's a pretty drastic move that will probably lead to trouble. Better to use EQ to notch out certain problematic frequencies, but if the low end is getting boomy my guess would be that you probably have other balance issues that are creating the problem or orchestration issues.

Don't forget the relationships of frequencies to EQ. If you cut in one place it automatically boost the other areas (or makes them more prominent). So things like EQ have to be used sparingly if at all.

Time might be better spent to greater results balancing your template.


----------



## milesito (Oct 30, 2014)

I do high Pass almost everything except for solo instruments...it really depends on the type of music you're composing and the instruments that are in your template. I took some tracks of music I really like and tried to match them as closely as possibly EQ'ing and listening over and over. Eventually after another year, you'll be even closer. I think I went back to the drawing board 3 times, starting from scratch and each time it got better. Even after having a fairly balanced template that commercially seems to be acceptable, I still find myself tweaking small parameters before delivery...but with it, things get much faster. I found the book Mixing Secrets by Mike Senior to be very helpful and I couldn't put the book down.


----------



## Allegro (Oct 30, 2014)

Here are my experiences:
I was into edm so I had a very different mindset about eqing. Eg Surgical changes, cutting everything that I don't miss in the tracks for a clean space for mono bass, sounded simple. So for orchestral tracks, I used to high pass everything other than low instruments and drums. I loved the sound. Clean crisp, bright. But then I compared it to some pro mixes in the same genre. The difference was shocking. My tracks lacked warmth. Everything was mid and above. Now I only CUT the rumble below 25hz and super high end above 19k for clearing up some headroom. But for actually controlling the instruments and everything else, I use a smooth low shelf. Much natural sounding. Eg the warmth of cellos is still there but still have some for the low end. Also, I found out that there is also some room information (reverberations) in the lower frequencies aswell, even if our ears don't perceive it right away. Killing it entirely makes things very sterile sounding. I still haven't achieved THAT golden sound though. But It definitely sounds better.


----------



## rayinstirling (Oct 30, 2014)

Jeton,
Is it your choice to have such a wide stereo image with little going on in the middle?
Woodwinds seem strangely positioned and restrained.


----------



## José Herring (Oct 30, 2014)

jemu999 @ Wed Oct 29 said:


> I have recently completed an extensive studio build with lots of upgrades and acoustical treatment and so forth. And after almost a year of the buildout, Im finally at the point where I'm in the space and working on setting up my full orchestral template.
> 
> So I'm trying to get a static mix out of my template by adding any necessary eq processing. I want to basically have the processing built into the template. Yesterday I was working on Cellos, and as I add instruments to my template, Ill compose little quick themes to get a feel for the overall balance and sound.
> 
> ...



After listening to your example, I feel that there's probably something going on in your room or with your monitoring environment because the unprocessed version sounds better than the processed version, but they both lack bottom end weight and sounds like the frequency spectrum is being limited in some way.


----------



## jemu999 (Oct 30, 2014)

Hey Guys, thanks for the input.



> After listening to your example, I feel that there's probably something going on in your room or with your monitoring environment because the unprocessed version sounds better than the processed version, but they both lack bottom end weight and sounds like the frequency spectrum is being limited in some way.



I can assure you that there nothing going on in the room or monitoring. The unprocessed file doesn't sound bad in my room. As far as lacking bottom end, the discussion was about high passing cellos. In the unprocessed file example, the bottom end is exactly what came with the samples. I haven't added nor deducted anything in the frequency range.

I recently purchased the How To Train Your Dragon 2 Soundtrack, and listening to it, I realized that the soundtrack is very bright. And it seemed as though, just the very low percussion and basses had real bottom end. Everything else sounded high passed compared to the samples I use and own. Here is a link with not the best quality… but you'll get the idea:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uyH9TQ9nPjo



> Jeton,
> Is it your choice to have such a wide stereo image with little going on in the middle?
> Woodwinds seem strangely positioned and restrained.



I totally agree as far as the stereo image. Huge hole in the middle. The excerpt was really about the cellos, but I had a couple of woodwind channels up and decided on a whim to add them in the piece. I haven't even gotten to the woodwind part of my template. These woodwinds are from VSL and they have no ERs on them…and the panning is certainly off! So far, I have only done violins, violas, and now working cellos in my template. So much more to go!

Thanks again guys!


----------



## jemu999 (Oct 30, 2014)

Allegro @ Thu Oct 30 said:


> Now I only CUT the rumble below 25hz and super high end above 19k for clearing up some headroom. But for actually controlling the instruments and everything else, I use a smooth low shelf. Much natural sounding. Eg the warmth of cellos is still there but still have some for the low end.



Hi Allegro, 

What you said makes a lot of sense! High passing does seem to remove the warmth. Im definitely going to experiment with this.

I know that that the low end can quickly eat up valuable headroom… but is there a lot of headroom to be cleared above 19k???

Thanks for your reply!


----------



## José Herring (Oct 30, 2014)

jemu999,

What you're trying to achieve you're going about it the wrong way imo. To each his own really so I'll let you figure it out.

The HTTYD score is actually orchestrated very brightly and rather clearly. But again, there's something wrong with the way you are monitoring if you think that this recording is lacking bass. 

There is actually a video of Alan Myerson talking about EQ in which he states that he pretty much doesn't use it much in mixing. Look for the latest "Pensado's Place" video.

Other than that best of luck. I can tell you think you're on to something. But if you're using John Powell's score as your reference, you are seriously kidding yourself if that sound came from highpassing cellos, and perhaps your perception a bit off if you think it's lacking in bass. Bass is loud and clear, there's just a lot of focus on mid range and high instruments in the score. 

And unless you specifically have a lot of sub information cutting below 25hz isn't going to do anything. There's nothing down there. Even the lowest subwoofer goes down to 20hz. So, what you think you're going to cut at 25hz is beyond me. There's no room tone down there, there's no rumble down there, there's nothing unless you specifically put something there. Room tone rumble is around 60hz. And if there was something at 25hz no speaker in the world will pick it up other than high priced subwoofers in studios and movie theaters.


----------



## José Herring (Oct 30, 2014)

One last thing before I leave the subject. 

The muddiness that you originally complained about comes from the low mids and not the lows. All you're doing by highpassing is gutting the foundation of the orchestra. Not achieving a brighter, more clear sound. If you wanted to getting brighter more clear sound, you'd actually limit the activity of the lower instruments and bring the action up to the middle and higher instruments of the orchestra.


----------



## jemu999 (Oct 30, 2014)

josejherring @ Thu Oct 30 said:


> One last thing before I leave the subject.
> 
> The muddiness that you originally complained about comes from the low mids and not the lows. All you're doing by highpassing is gutting the foundation of the orchestra. Not achieving a brighter, more clear sound. If you wanted to getting brighter more clear sound, you'd actually limit the activity of the lower instruments and bring the action up to the middle and higher instruments of the orchestra.



Hey Jose,

I appreciate what you are saying. In other words, use the orchestration and arrangement to dictate your frequency balance. This certainly makes sense and I agree it should be the primary focus on achieving proper balance.

Personally, if I can avoid it, I would prefer to not to use processing. However, to me at least, my samples may sometimes require it.

As for the HTTYD score, I never stated that the "recording is lacking bass". On the contrary, the super lows seem to be reserved for the super low instruments, which of course makes sense. However, my main point was that, to me, all of the other instruments in the upper range "sound" as if they were high passed when compared to the samples I own.

In fact Im not really convinced that I like the overall "sound" of the recording. I absolutely love the music and orchestration which is why I bought the cd, but I was very surprised to hear how bright and dare I say "processed" it sounded. 

This led me to make this post and get some thoughts. 

Thanks so much for your input Jose, I appreciate it!


----------



## José Herring (Oct 30, 2014)

I don't want to stop your inquiry in any way. I will say that we only learn by making an assumption then by trying it out. I've been down the path of trying to EQ and it has never worked, especially drastic cuts to try and "shape the sound" of the sampled orchestra. In sound design yes but for sampling it only makes things sound more synthetic.

So my only motivation is to spare others the pain that I've been through.

What you hear in the accentuation of mid and high frequencies isn't EQ but saturation. It has the effect of making more pronounced through distortion certain frequencies especially in the brass, giving it more of an edge.

Alan Myerson talks about using the Tape saturation plugin from Nomad factory. I tried it and couldn't get it to make a damn bit of difference, so he's better than me 

The other thing I tried is the saturator from Klang audio. It's kind of cool. Works well enough, but it goes from not noticeable to severe and I've never been able to dial in the right setting. But, I'll keep trying.

Best of luck in your search! My motto is if you're spending too much time mixing then there's probably something else going on that's creating the problem you're trying to solve by mixing. But HZ disagrees. But, as much as I like him, I'll have to stick to my guns on that assessment for sure. At least it's true for me anyway. Every time I've obsessed about mixing it was always the composition or orchestration that was at fault and not anything that EQ or fancy compression could fix.

And, I wouldn't be spending the time to discuss this topic with you if I didn't hear something already in your music that I find appealing. Not that I think I'm the end all to be all, but that I try to help others that I respect but might be having technical issues. I've been there. Solved most of the problems, and I am busy solving many more.

take care.


----------



## José Herring (Oct 30, 2014)

Sorry it's klanghelm and not klang http://klanghelm.com/IVGI.php


----------



## jemu999 (Oct 31, 2014)

Hey Jose,

Thanks again for taking the time to respond and for sharing your experience down the slippery road of EQ-ing or processing our samples.

I know all too well the pitfalls of this and how quickly things can sound bad and unnatural! 

Ive toyed with saturation plugins myself, and it seems the key is to be quite subtle. 

I think you have reframed my thought process about this and experimentation is really the only way to find out what works and what doesn't. Unfortunately, as you know, a whole lot of time can be lost down this path!

Thanks again!


----------



## Consona (Nov 1, 2014)

+1 on what josejherring said. 

In my limited experience, the best way to clear sampled orchestra mix is to get rid of some frequencies from 250-400Hz and when the mix is really busy then some low-cut filtering can help, because there is already a lot of sonic information in that area. Just IMO.


----------



## Lex (Nov 1, 2014)

Here's something closely related to the topic. Hi pass ALL your samples between 0-30hz, at least if you are working on bass heavy mixes. Until recently I didn't bother with checking the subsonic range of samples that don't have much low end (viola, hi reg piano, flutes,etc..). Some sample libraries are very clean down there (!!!) and some are very messy, a lot of junk floating at 5hz,10hz, waving around, not audible, but making a mess out of your low end.

alex


----------



## José Herring (Nov 1, 2014)

I'll check it out Alex, but the way I see it the only way that anything in the 10 to 5 hz range will get on a recording is through faulty unshielded electronics. No mic will pick it up, the human ear can't pick it up and no speaker will reproduce it.

But, since I never checked that low, I will just to make sure.

Btw interesting fact, Earth's magnetic field has a cycle of 7.5hz or so.


----------



## José Herring (Nov 1, 2014)

Here's a decent article I just found, kind of a cross between what I'm saying and what alex is saying. 

We'd have to adjust our thinking a bit to work these ideas with orchestral music. Remember the lowest c on the double bass with extension is around 31hz.

He seems to be saying to tame the lowest frequency possible below 20hz without altering the tone of the instrument.

http://passivepromotion.com/tighten-the ... y-analyzer


----------

