# Whew, do I need mixing advice.



## lamboguy (Jul 1, 2010)

Hi Folks,

I'm not going to post my mix yet, it's too much of a mess. 

I ALWAYS get myself in the same bind, and would like some input before my next shot at it.

Most of my pieces seem to be centered around the piano, and this one is no exception. But it has an orchestra this time, so what happens (and for me it always happens) is the piece starts out with piano solo, fairly quiet. So your first reaction is to turn up the CD player because you can't hear it.

Then about 3/4 of the way through, when the orchestra is playing full blast, you've already turned the piece down about 3 times!

Should I just leave it like this? Or should I "cheat" and boost the opening piano and sort of tailor the mix down so that the 3/4-of-the-way-through fff orchestra bit is not quite so loud?

Is this a common problem? (always happens to me!)

Thanks,

Fred


----------



## Narval (Jul 1, 2010)

Two words: com press.


----------



## bryla (Jul 1, 2010)

i've tried pressing the computer - doesn't help!


----------



## Dave Connor (Jul 1, 2010)

Nothing wrong with bringing the piano up for it's solo and then tucking it back into the mix when the orchestra is playing. The alternative is a classical approach where the levels between the piano and orch don't change very much. 

So you could listen to a David Foster track and see how they mix the piano up and down with orchestra in a Pop track or a Beethoven Piano Concerto (like his 4th) to hear how classical gets mixed. Two completely different approaches.


----------



## Guy Bacos (Jul 1, 2010)

There is so much you could boost the vol of a particular instrument without it showing, especially when the orchestra is loud. That's perfectly legitimate. But it's all about dosing everything just right, and that could be a hand full sometimes, and this falls into the art of virtual music.


----------



## Narval (Jul 1, 2010)

bryla @ Thu Jul 01 said:


> i've tried pressing the computer - doesn't help!


When pressing doesn't work try stressing it. It's a new technique, called comstression.


----------



## gsilbers (Jul 1, 2010)

lamboguy @ Thu Jul 01 said:


> Hi Folks,
> 
> I'm not going to post my mix yet, it's too much of a mess.
> 
> ...




Get commercial recording that have the sound u want.
Samples will never sound like the real thing but u get a blueprint of the mix in terms of levels eq comp etc.
Add a son g with the same instruments In a track in your daw amd o back and forth.

Sometimes is not the mix but the source itself.
So the piano instrument , the strings etc 
then the mix of the sections ...


----------



## gsilbers (Jul 1, 2010)

Oh btw, mid in pro tools , seems from the other thread that it sounds better 
(roll eyes)


----------



## lamboguy (Jul 2, 2010)

Thanks everybody -- seems I have a lot to learn 

As far as compression goes, is that the last thing to be done (ie: done to the finished mix) or do you start by compressing each instrument?

Also, what is the "classical mix" mentioned above? Is that where the piano is actually quiet compared to the orchestra? 

>>The alternative is a classical approach where the levels between the piano and orch don't change very much.<<

or is the piano "loud" -- so roughly same level as orchestra?

Thanks,

Fred


----------



## Dave Connor (Jul 2, 2010)

The classical approach is to try and capture the natural balance you would hear between piano and orchestra in a concert hall. As if you were sitting in a seat and there was no microphones or amplification - no mixing. Actually the conductor is basically mixing everything live by bringing the orchestra up and down for both musical and balance issues.

A studio or pop recording is designed to record all the instruments as discreetly as possible. The piano may in fact be overdubbed and not even recorded with the orchestra. Same with vocals or any other featured instrument. All these separate recordings are than mixed later which means you can change the volume up and down on the piano without bringing the orchestra up and down at the same time because they are on completely separate audio tracks.

The above is an oversimplification but the main point is that classical recordings are approached with a basic goal in mind that is based upon the concert experience. The studio/Pop recording is based upon established studio techniques where anything goes as far as the balance or even sound of the instruments.


----------



## Dave Connor (Jul 2, 2010)

lamboguy @ Fri Jul 02 said:


> Thanks everybody -- seems I have a lot to learn >>The alternative is a classical approach where the levels between the piano and orch don't change very much.<<
> or is the piano "loud" -- so roughly same level as orchestra?
> Fred



A piano alone on a stage will in fact compete very well with an orchestra and can be treated as sort of an equal partner. So yes it is "loud" (potentially anyway since it can play very soft.) So listen to Beethoven's 4th piano concerto because the piano plays all by itself a lot. Just keep in mind that this is the piano in front of the orchestra and featured i.e. the parts written for it are designed to command the audience's attention both in volume and content. That's different than a piano at the side just playing parts designed to blend with the orchestra. So it depends on the nature of the piano's roll in the orchestra (no pun intended ; )


----------



## lamboguy (Jul 3, 2010)

Thanks Dave. So I'm seeing that compression is not necessarily needed to pull this off. But, could be useful for the very loud and soft bits. (one problem I'm having is that I can't get my compressor to work so I might just deep-six that idea anyway)

I think I just need to try and mix this thing then post it for comments.

Thanks!

Fred


----------



## germancomponist (Jul 4, 2010)

Fred,

just google for "parallel compression" (there are also many videos on youtube) . 

With this art of compression you can get best results with orchestra recordings.

Best,

Gunther


----------



## Dan Mott (Jul 4, 2010)

This type of situation.......... DO NOT COMPRESS or you will notice your dynamics getting crushed in the louder parts, not to mention that if you want your song to have loud and soft parts, you'll want to hear them properly without the sound of someone pushing your mix to level of their liking. Even if you do decide to compress, it really depends on how loud the loud parts are aswell as how soft the soft parts are. If they a very different between the two then compressing isn't a good idea because it won't make much of a difference anyway, and if you wanted that difference it would as i said above, squash the loud parts.

I would automate, aswell as asjust velocity, and adjust overall volume for the piano if it is a piano that doesn't have dynamic layers.

It's so hard IMO because you've got all these volume controls like velocity, overall volume, expression and modwheels, it makes life a nightmare when mixing. 

So, you don't have to take my advice, but according to levels in this situation, i think adjust your volume levels (automating) and velocity is the key for your natural dynamics.


----------



## germancomponist (Jul 4, 2010)

Dan, have you experimented with parallel compression?

The reason to do parallel compression is not to crush the dynamics in the louder parts, and it works! Just experiment!


----------



## Dan Mott (Jul 4, 2010)

germancomponist @ Mon Jul 05 said:


> Dan, have you experimented with parallel compression?
> 
> The reason to do parallel compression is not to crush the dynamics in the louder parts, and it works! Just experiment!




Arrgh. Hey man. I was talking about normal compression, not PC. My whole comment was refering to that.

PC is great and i've tried it before. Should do more of it.


----------



## synthetic (Jul 4, 2010)

Nooooo, not compression, use volume automation. All DAWs have this.


----------



## EnTaroAdun (Jul 4, 2010)

+1
For pure orchestral music I don't see much use for compression at all (except peak-limiting on the master).
I also never heard about parallel compression used on orchestral music.


----------



## P.T. (Jul 4, 2010)

This isn't a compression issue.
You have full control of the volume of each instrument and section as you mix.
Control them.


----------



## Dan Mott (Jul 4, 2010)

Well, speaking of PC, i've never felt the use for it for orchestral unless you want to fatten up a certain instrument. I don't see also how PC can make this situation better either IMO.

If i'm correct, PC is simply mixing the dry signal with the wet to make certain sounds stand out more in the mix where they are not cutting through very well, or infact fattening up a sound as i said above which can create a nice pumpy effect on drums. As far as dynamics go, i cannot see how this helps the situation?? I mean automating is your best bet here, not to mention velocity too depending on what piano you are using.


----------



## Tanuj Tiku (Jul 4, 2010)

--


----------



## germancomponist (Jul 5, 2010)

EnTaroAdun @ Mon Jul 05 said:


> +1
> For pure orchestral music I don't see much use for compression at all (except peak-limiting on the master).
> I also never heard about parallel compression used on orchestral music.



We are talking about sample based productions and in all trailers and many films you can listen to compressed orchestra music.


----------



## Guy Bacos (Jul 5, 2010)

vibrato @ Sun Jul 04 said:


> You dont need compression for live music because - it has the greatest dynamic range and you can mic and mix as you wish. Its a win win situation if done well.
> 
> 
> However, in samples - its all dead sounding without Eq's and a tad bit of compression really.
> ...



Agree.


----------



## lamboguy (Jul 5, 2010)

Great thread -- great info.

I finished the piece:

http://soundcloud.com/fredparoutaud/con ... ry-cansler

If anybody wants to give it a listen, I'm all ears for improving the mix. 

What I had to do, since it's a Mac Mini, is first turn the wws, stgs, brass and piano into soundwaves and mix that (as 4 separate soundwaves). The computer simply couldn't handle a live performance of the individual parts. (perc etc I left as individual midi parts)

There are still some sections I'm not entirely happy with, but overall it's "ballpark."

What I ended up doing is boosting the piano and woodwinds in the opening so that later on in the piece it's less of a difference in volume. But I did not end up using any compression, tho I did have a compressor on the brass for a few notes... maybe one or two. I could have just dipped the volume a bit instead.

Thanks for the audience -- feedback is very useful!

Fred


----------



## Guy Bacos (Jul 5, 2010)

I like the music, so I won't comment on that, but rather the piano mix. I didn't get to hear the previous version so I can't compare, but I find the piano in this one kind of in between: Do I want to be part of this band or not? When I started listening I had to look if my vol weren't low, I would of want to hear the piano louder, and it also didn't make much sense since you could hear the piano is playing louder than soft, so it almost gives the effect he's in another room. If the piano was playing soft it might of worked. Perhaps you could bring up the piano quite a bit in the intro, and subtly bring it down as the texture becomes thicker with the other instruments. Also I find the piano a bit too rigid in the intro, could be slightly looser. The music is cool, nice job!


----------



## lamboguy (Jul 5, 2010)

Thank you Guy!

So really, it's "mostly" about how the piano is introduced? Is that what sets the "overall volume expectation" for the listener?

I've often wondered about this because so many pieces I have done (on computer) are piano pieces that start with a simple phrase and then maybe 3/4 of the way through end up being considerably louder, and even though I have mixed it myself, when I listen to it in the cd player (like in the car) I have to turn up the beginning, then turn it down during the climactic "3/4" part.

I have a cd of Ravel's Daphnis and Chloe that I can't even listen to because the opening is SO QUIET I can't hear it, then of course the loud bits are SO LOUD I have to run over and turn down the stereo. This has always seemed like a problem to me because obviously EMI or whatever/whoever knows what they are doing. But in my case, I would rather have the opening louder and the climaxes quieter so I don't have to (literally constantly) monitor the volume knob.

Another quick comment is that I've mixed this with headphones -- this week I'll start listening on loudspeakers (when I'm alone at home!) which will most likely change my idea about some of the mix.

Thanks for the comments, it's appreciated.

Fred


----------



## Guy Bacos (Jul 5, 2010)

One thing is for sure, if you have an instrument playing alone and your velocities are in the louder zone, as is the case of you piano intro, you cannot go below a certain volume, won't sound natural. But once it's part of a group, the piano could step back from a bit to a lot in volume depending on the texture.


----------



## Tanuj Tiku (Jul 5, 2010)

Fred,

The soft and Loud contrast in the Daphnis Et Chloe CD is exactly what the dynamic range is all about. 

Orchestral music has a tremendous dynamic range unlike Pop music - which is almost like a brick wall waveform. 

You can also create this by adjusting it inside your DAW with the levels - refer to tacky Ipod and Amp. example in my previous post.

And you need to think about space and instruments - really listen to a lot of recordings.

For example a solo violin cannot sound as loud as a section (I mean, unless its mixed liked that or the music is written for solo and accompaniment).

But for example - all Vienna and other samples are recorded at full volume to give the proper hot levels.

So when you load up a solo violin patch for example - you would keep it way down compared to a full section.

Similarly think of all instruments in a similar fashion and place them properly in the vƒæ   ÷}év   ÛO   ÷~év   ÛÀ   ÷éz   Û1   ÷€éz   Û¢   ÷é{   Û   ÷‚é~   Û„   ÷ƒé‚   Ûõ   ÷„é†   Ûf   ÷…éˆ   Û×   ÷†éŠ   ÛH   ÷‡é‹   Û¹   ÷ˆé   Û*   ÷‰é’   Û›   ÷Šé—   Ûv   ÷‹é›   Û«   ÷Œé   Û   ÷éŸ   Û   ÷Žé¢   Ûþ   ÷é£   Û	o   ÷é¤   Û	à   ÷‘é¥   Û
Q   ÷’é¦   Û
ž   ÷“é§   Û   ÷”éª   Û¤   ÷•é«   Û   ÷–é¬   Û†   ÷—é®   Û÷   ÷˜é¯   Û h   ÷™é°   Û Ù   ÷šé³   ÛJ   ÷›é´   Û»   ÷œé·   Û,   ÷é¸   Û   ÷žé»   Û   ÷Ÿé¿   Û   ÷ éÀ   Ûð   ÷¡éÂ   Ûa   ÷¢éÂ   ÛÒ   ÷£éÅ   ÛC   ÷¤éÇ   Û´   ÷¥éË   Û%   ÷¦éÒ   Û˜   ÷§éÔ   Û	   ÷¨éÖ   Ûz   ÷©éÙ   Ûë   ÷ªéÚ   Û\   ÷«éÚ   ÛÍ   ÷¬éÛ   Ûæ   ÷­éÜ   ÛY   ÷®éÜ   ÛÊ   ÷¯éÝ   ÛY   ÷°éÞ   ÛÌ   ÷±éà   Ûs   ÷²éã   Ûä   ÷³éæ   ÛU   ÷´éé   ÛÆ   ÷µéë   Û7   ÷¶éì   Û¨   ÷·éî   Û   ÷¸éð   Û€   ÷¹éó   Û÷   ÷ºéõ   Ûl   ÷»éø   ÛÓ   ÷¼éù   ÛN   ÷½éû   Û¿   ÷¾éÿ   Û0   ÷¿                          òép   Û ßép   Û àép   Û áép   Û âép   Û ãép   Û äép   Û åéq   Û æéq   Û çéq   Û èéq   Û ééq   Û êéq   Û ëéq   Û ìéq   Û íéq   Û îéq   Û ïéq   Û ðéq   Û ñéq   Û òéq   Û óéq   Û ôéq   Û õér   Û öér   Û ÷ér   Û øér   Û ùér   Û úér   Û ûér   Û üér   Û ýér   Û þér   Û ÿér   Û ér   Ûér   Ûér   Ûér   Ûér   Ûér   Ûér   Ûér   Ûér   Û	ér   Û
ér   Ûés   Ûés   Û és   Ûés   Ûés   Ûés   Ûés   Ûés   Ûés   Ûés   Ûés   Ûés   Ûét   Ûét   Ûét   Ûét   Ûét   Ûét   Ûét   Ûét   Ûét   Û ét   Û!ét   Û"ét   Û#ét   Û$ét   Û%éu   Û&éu   Û'éu   Û(éu   Û)éu   Û*éu   Û+éu   Û,éu   Û-éu   Û.éu   Û/éu   Û0éu   Û1éu   Û2éu   Û3éu   Û4éu   Û5év   Û6év   Û7év   Û8év   Û9év   Û:é


----------



## Dave Connor (Jul 5, 2010)

Actually as far as balance I think you nailed it very well. You did the 'equal partner' approach and it worked. If you get a better sample library it will of course sound better overall. 

You have real talent so best of luck in your artistic pursuits.


----------



## lamboguy (Jul 6, 2010)

Guy Bacos @ Mon Jul 05 said:


> One thing is for sure, if you have an instrument playing alone and your velocities are in the louder zone, as is the case of you piano intro, you cannot go below a certain volume, won't sound natural. But once it's part of a group, the piano could step back from a bit to a lot in volume depending on the texture.



Yes -- I see what you're saying. Also, I agree I need to "loosen up" the intro playing a bit. Don't know how it got so stiff, maybe I accidently quantized it too many times! I wish I could play that precisely, but I'm nowhere close.

Thanks,

Fred


----------



## Ashermusic (Jul 6, 2010)

You have a lot of guys giving you blanket advice here. IMHO some are very knowledgeable, some errr... less so, so take the advice with a grain of salt (including mine.)

When you are working with samples it is simply NOT the same as a real orchestra so whether or not an engineer would compress the real instruments is irrelevant. YOUR job is to make the samples sound good. Some sampled instruments come alive with light compression, others lose their character. My "go to" piano i.e. is Sampletekk's Seven Seas Grand and I almost always lightly compress it because it almost always works for me.

The same is true of balance. Sometimes with samples you have to exaggerate crescendos and diminuendos beyond what you would need with a real orchestra because the samples are not as responsive. Real players are not limited to a MIDI range of 0-127.

You cannot codify this stuff. You have to mix and listen, mix and listen, mix and listen.


----------



## lamboguy (Jul 6, 2010)

Tanuj, thanks! There's a lot of good information in your post, much "food for thought."

Honestly, I felt totally out of control with this mix, but these posts are helping a lot. I now have at least some basis for decisions.

btw, I completely agree about everything you said. Typically, when I listen to a piece (now I am listening to some Shostakovich symphonies) I really don't listen to the mix, and I need to start. I hear it, but don't really listen -- like when I started listening to film or tv music (behind the film or tv show) -- you have to start REALLY listening. I need to do that with symphonic etc recordings. Usually I just listen to what is going on compositionally.

As for this piece, I agree -- the second half is better. This was a piano piece I just started writing a few years ago to learn Digital Composer, and clearly I was also listening to some Prokofiev at the time!  A year ago I finally had the samples and computer together to start messing with the orchestral sound, so basically I just started adding the orchestra to this piano piece. I think compositionally it's a mess -- but then after a certain point I was too far into it to throw it out! lol!

I totally agree re the samples. I'm just using the basic Kontakt orchestral samples, then the MSI (which I can say are worth the price, but not much more than that) and Ivory piano. Trying to sort of "write" for these samples is just so frustrating. You get an idea for a flute passage and the idea has to change completely because the flute samples just don't flow properly, or the clarinet samples, etc. I think they're just awful, considering it's 2010! All of this would be much further ahead if there were more money in it, but I think the world of fine orchestral samples is an expensive world...I can see it taking a while to really have it happening. I'm very impressed with the Vienna instruments, but I'm really not at the point where I want to throw a bunch of money at this, I'm just playing around, so for now the Kontakt and MSI samples are "useable" -- barely! 

What I think has to happen out there is a system that would combine samples with physical modeling to be able to really nail the transitional sections between the notes, and also to vary the notes. Every time I hit a French Horn sample at the same velocity it sounds exactly the same. This is bad, and there is a LONG way to go for all this. Frankly, I don't understand why it's all so far behind the times, but I'm looking forward to it improving greatly in the next decade or so.

Well, that's my soapbox for today :-D

Thanks for the comments!

Fred


----------



## lamboguy (Jul 6, 2010)

Thank you very much Dave, that's nice of you to say.

I'll add, I have a long way to go. 

Cheers,

Fred


----------



## lamboguy (Jul 6, 2010)

Thanks Asher -- I hear you loud and clear!

One thing for sure is that when I stop working on the piece and go out in the car and hear some Wagner (orchestral) or Mozart or whatever ... it's just chilling how much different a real orchestra is. There is simply no comparison with my little group of canned samples.

But at the same time, things have improved so much in the past 20 years that at least now it is possible to approach a good orchestra sound -- for small bucks. Frankly, I think the most amazing thing about this piece is that I spent about $1000 for the Mac Mini and $1000 for the samples, and really that's not bad. I remember the good old days of the Synclavier where a guy would spend $200,000 (in 1985 dollars) and you'd get like a KILLER tymp sound. So it's all good, all going in the right direction.

I need to learn more, but at least the tools are more and more available...for a reasonable cost.

Thanks!

Fred


----------



## JohnG (Jul 6, 2010)

Hi Mr. Lambo,

Apart from Jay Asher's good cautionary advice, in reading your posts I'd be tempted to recommend a quick diagnostic of your monitoring setup. 

If you have a weak link in D/A conversion, amplifier, speakers or cable, you may be frustrated in mixing solely because of that -- your mixes might sound very different every place you go.

Moreover, because composing and mixing to some extent often happen simultaneously when working with electronics only, it's possible that weak monitoring will thwart you from the start -- that you will bake into your sequences out-of-balance bits that could be very hard to sort out in a separate mixing process without drastic EQ or something.

So, if in fact you are suffering from weak monitoring, getting some very good headphones -- Sennheiser or AKGs are my favourites but there are of course many choices -- would help some. Unfortunately, "fixing" this problem can cost $5-10k or more.


----------



## germancomponist (Jul 6, 2010)

Good posts here in this thread! 

Fred,

again, I like your piece a lot. I did a mix experiment with your mp3 file. Normaly I would draw the volume changes in the editor but here I didn`t. I only used some plugs for testing.

The audio quality isn`t the best bacause your original midi is in 128kbts, but this is what I mostly do with classical pieces when I want to listen to in my car. 

Listen: http://www.box.net/shared/k9n76q1puo

Best,

Gunther


----------



## lamboguy (Jul 6, 2010)

Hey, I have one more question...if this thread is maxed out I'll try again with a new thread.

I just listened to the piece on my laptop and there were ZERO lows. Couldn't really hear the timpani, the basses, tuba, etc. 

The piece actually sounded pretty good, all things considered...But -- should I be concerned that the low-end is just "gone" on laptop speakers? Or is that par for the course?

Thanks,

Fred


----------



## germancomponist (Jul 6, 2010)

lamboguy @ Wed Jul 07 said:


> Hey, I have one more question...if this thread is maxed out I'll try again with a new thread.
> 
> I just listened to the piece on my laptop and there were ZERO lows. Couldn't really hear the timpani, the basses, tuba, etc.
> 
> ...



Listen to my mix-experiment! o-[][]-o


----------



## lamboguy (Jul 6, 2010)

oops...just saw these new posts -- thanks guys!

John -- you've hit the nail right on the head. You know, I'm using a Boostaroo and airline headphones (made in China) to monitor. I know you're right, and I need to dig into this. Open to suggestions. I'd like a much better headphone amp, so if you have any suggestions I'm all ears. Same with the headphones (I'll look up what you suggested)

This is one of the problems with working at home...I'm trying to keep quiet, so headphones is the best way to go. And my headphones stink.

Gunther -- I'm going to check out your work later tonight or tomorrow. It's dinner time here  but I'm actually honored that you went that far with it! Thank you.

Fred


----------



## lamboguy (Jul 6, 2010)

Holy Cow, that was great Gunther!

Wow, nice job. I can hear a lot more going on than in my mix, like more highs and reverb...I think?

I'm hearing the same "horn worble" I was hearing in my mp3 file. If I upload a .wav file do you think you could do the same thing to that? The result might be better, as far as the stability of the file format.

I'll work on that tomorrow. I'm starting to hear a few things that I'd like to adjust in my mix so maybe I'll try another one.

Thanks so much! I'll try to work on this tomorrow if you're up to trying your "magic" again 

Fred


----------



## Dave Connor (Jul 7, 2010)

Gunther, how much compression did you use?


----------



## germancomponist (Jul 7, 2010)

lamboguy @ Wed Jul 07 said:


> Holy Cow, that was great Gunther!
> 
> Wow, nice job. I can hear a lot more going on than in my mix, like more highs and reverb...I think?
> 
> ...



Hi Fred,

Thanks!
I did a lot mastering jobs in the past and here I was testing a new way with also using new effects/plugs. Feel free to upload a wav file and I will do another test with your piece.


----------



## germancomponist (Jul 7, 2010)

Dave Connor @ Wed Jul 07 said:


> Gunther, how much compression did you use?



Hi Dave,

Not much compression, but I thought: "Why only parallel compression, why not do it with three or four tracks?"

In this mix I have used a hardware SPL Vitalizer, a hardware Klark Compressor, an eq, a compressor and limiter in all tracks, and a reverb and limiter in the mastertrack.


----------



## Synesthesia (Jul 7, 2010)

Fred,

As mentioned - take all advice with a pinch of salt!

FWIW, I like the approach of many small tweaks adding up to a huge result.

Mixing at the high level is all about tiny tiny changes here and there - a little volume ride, a touch of eq, a quick drop before an impact, a touch of compression, on every track/part, and also mixing 'into' the master buss if that is your choice at the start..

When you spend the time to make these many tweaks, and it takes time, a pro will spend a whole day just mixing a track, then you will hear a huge difference in the end result.

Theres a great book - Mixing with your Mind - by an Australian guy - Stav - www.mixingwithyourmind.com - def worth a read.

Good luck!

Cheers,

Paul


----------



## lamboguy (Jul 7, 2010)

germancomponist @ Wed Jul 07 said:


> Hi Fred,
> 
> Thanks!
> I did a lot mastering jobs in the past and here I was testing a new way with also using new effects/plugs. Feel free to upload a wav file and I will do another test with your piece.



Hi Gunther,

I will take you up on that, if you don't mind. I wanted to do another mix anyway.

Thank you!

Fred


----------



## lamboguy (Jul 7, 2010)

Synesthesia @ Wed Jul 07 said:


> Theres a great book - Mixing with your Mind - by an Australian guy - Stav - www.mixingwithyourmind.com - def worth a read.
> 
> Good luck!
> 
> ...



I will have my wife order that tomorrow, she is in charge of stocking our library 

Thanks!

Fred


----------



## lamboguy (Jul 9, 2010)

germancomponist @ Wed Jul 07 said:


> Hi Fred,
> 
> Thanks!
> I did a lot mastering jobs in the past and here I was testing a new way with also using new effects/plugs. Feel free to upload a wav file and I will do another test with your piece.



Here you go Gunther:

http://www.freds-music.com/misc-pieces/cpfp-orch-2010-mix.wav (http://www.freds-music.com/misc-pieces/ ... 10-mix.wav)

I made a few minor changes. Hopefully this .wav file will result in a cleaner sound than the mp4.

Thanks!

Fred


----------

