# Basic Template Balancing Procedure



## bcarwell (Feb 13, 2016)

As a neophyte I'm at least aware of numerous tutorials/articles on the subject. But I'd like to benefit from the collective wisdom and different approaches/tips from you pros to initial, basic balancing of your new template for volume and pan, preferably in Cubase. Reverb is another subject but I'm assuming it comes after basic volume/pan balancing (for newbs at least).

I'm looking for a basic sequence of steps in a first pass to general balancing of volume and pan. Nothing fancy yet with spatial positioners like VSS or VSL's (makes my head hurt). Its confusing to me for openers because there is a large number of volume and pan sliders everywhere, some duplicates for convenience some not e.g. in the Inspector, the Master header of Kontakt, individual instrument panels in Kontakt, in the Fader, ... And panning affects volume (DOH).

So... when you build a new template what are your steps to achieving basic overall balance ?

I have an orchestral palette of around 50 instruments organized into Group Tracks (STR, WOODS, BRASS, PERC).

Here's an example of a sequence I think of and would like to know yours:

1. Set every single Volume slider you can find (Inspector, Kontakt Main and its individual instruments, Cubase Fader...) initially to the same midrange number (70 ?) to get in the ballpark.

2. Set every Pan you can find for every instrument in the palette to your best guess of conventional placement (e.g. harp hard left, Violins 20-40 to left, Cellos 20-40 to right, Basses hard right, Woods center, etc.). Ditto re Group pan settings. Don't worry about depth yet (that's another Post). Or maybe also adjust volumes a little for far away instruments in the back down to 60 or whatever.

3. Make some individual Group test MIDI file(s): sequential sustain notes midrange from every instrument in the Group followed by some chords of instruments in the Group.

4. Play back a loop of this MIDI test file for the first Group generated in Step 3, and adjust relative volume of all the instruments in the Group to balance.

5. Repeat 4. for the next Group and its instruments. Wash, rinse, repeat for all Groups until clean.

6. Then make a MIDI test file(s) of various chords from various instruments in various Group combinations and different subsets of their instruments in each Group.

7. Play back these multiple Groups test files(s) of instruments playing from different Group combinations, now adjusting relative Group volume and pan faders of each Group for overall balance of each Group relative to the other Group(s). Maybe, for example, a "Groups" file with some instruments in Woods and some in Brass, another "Groups" file with some Strings and Percussion, etc. Maybe diddle relative pan settings also at this time of various Groups combinations playing back with various numbers of their Group's instruments to set the relative pan positions of the Groups.

8. Forget the whole thing and take up Whist or golf.

Sorry for the prolix post, maybe I'm making this too complicated. But I'm floundering and bewildered here. Your specific steps and approaches to basic balancing of a new template would be incredibly helpful to me. I wonder if there'd be a DAW-specific market for these test files covering various genres- light classical, epic, small chamber, stage band, ... Developers ? Anybody ? Anybody ?

Hoping for some real basic help here (and BTW my next mockup assignment is due in a week).

Thanks all,

NewBob


----------



## patrick76 (Feb 13, 2016)

It really depends which sample libraries you are using. Some are already recorded in the correct placement (Spitfire for example) and you won't need to pan at all. For others that are close mic'ed and not recorded in orchestral position, a tool like VSS can make placement very simple if you want something done quickly. Some people don't like the sound, so that will be up to you. I believe they still offer a demo, so check that out. For basic balancing, why not pick a good orchestral piece for which you have a good recording and the score and mock it up?

Also, take up golf anyway, but don't forget the music!


----------



## Mihkel Zilmer (Feb 13, 2016)

You're overthinking this.

There are exceptions to almost everything that I'm about to suggest, but generally speaking:

1) Don't touch the volume sliders or pan knobs in Kontakt at all. Let them load at their default value. Use the faders in Cubase. That's what they are for.

2) Don't pan, unless using dry and / or centered recordings. If you absolutely must pan, consider stereo width too.

3) Don't use midrange sustain notes to balance sections, you're almost guaranteed to make wrong decisions here if you are trying to 'hear' every instrument. The reality is some instruments are much louder than others...

4) If you are writing for media, forget about perfectly balancing your orchestra. For example, HZ string spicatti in combination with blaring brass lines and booming percussion: both the strings and percussion are actually played really softly and would be drowned out by the brass in a real life situation.. This is where music production comes in. If this is your chosen approach then push the faders. Make artistic choices that might not necessarily reflect reality. Be creative.
Remember that your aim here is to help tell a story. Maybe the situation demands for a single flute to be louder than the entire rest of the orchestra...

5) Grab a full score to an orchestral piece, preferably one you know well, and try to mock up a section of 8-16 bars, following a reference recording. Note that you will not be able to hear every single instrument, some are more felt than heard, often only subtly colouring the sound. This method is not perfect, but it's a good start and it'll teach you much more than just template balance...

And above all - remember that orchestral balance is highly material dependent. You WILL need to make further adjustments almost constantly.

Hope this helps and good luck!


----------



## bcarwell (Feb 13, 2016)

Hi Patrick,
The basic problem in my little pea brain with basic balancing using orchestral pieces as the "test" file is the various instruments and groups flash by so it seems it would be hard to compare one to the other for relative initial ballpark balance. You gotta play several pieces and wait for the spot in each piece where, for example, there just happens to be forte brass and forte woods, or two unison clarinets and an east Indian nostril flute.
But I can see how using the orchestral pieces would then be great as a final test for fine tuning.
As for your golf-music combo suggestion, great idea. As an equal opportunity hobbyist, I can be equally pathetic at both.

Bob


----------



## bcarwell (Feb 13, 2016)

Mihkel, thanks for taking the time. I guess the electrical injuneer in me is showing...

And your experienced advice is <exactly> the real-world practical input I was seeking. Otherwise I could spend fruitless, useless hours fumbling with this.

Really, really appreciated.

NewBob


----------



## mc_deli (Feb 13, 2016)

You asked 8 questions but I got to the end without a question about dynamics and expression.

On the point about the Cubase fader (and pan, if required), it makes far more sense to me to do a rough balance with the faders in Kontakt (or VE Pro), so everything is at "unity" in the DAW so you have a clear reference point.

But what about CC1 and CC11?
My guess is it makes sense with a new template to put CC11 to max on everything that has it... but CC1... put everything to mf at CC1=80... or?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Dynamic's_Note_Velocity.svg


----------



## milesito (Feb 14, 2016)

Would not suggest maxing cc11 because you never know when you need a little bit more


----------



## Altine Jackson (Feb 15, 2016)

You could also have the appearance of "unity" in Cubase (by that I assume you mean all the mixer faders initially set to 0 or the default level) by adjusting the gain in the pre section of the mixer. In templates, that tends to be a bit cleaner and easier to adjust if you change your mind a month from now (instead of having to dig through Kontakt and/or VEP).


----------



## forjam (Mar 5, 2017)

Mihkel Zilmer said:


> You're overthinking this.
> 
> There are exceptions to almost everything that I'm about to suggest, but generally speaking:
> 
> ...


Bravo sir! You have obviously done this before! Thank you!


----------



## Ashermusic (Mar 5, 2017)

Ditto to a lot of what has been said here and also I like the old analog unity gain approach. I leave my stereo output set to 0 dB and turn all the instrument faders down to -12 and adjust them from there. Depending on the library, I use the appropriate MIDI cc to vary volume more than cc7, which I use as largely a trim.


----------



## dog1978 (Mar 5, 2017)

I don't know, whether this helps you and whether it's okay to post this in here. I had the problem to find the right volumes, pannings and room sound. So I created orchestra guide.
http://www.sounth.de/orchestra-guide/


----------



## sazema (Mar 5, 2017)

It really depends of library type. For example, I'm using Berlin series as main library and I actually "almost never" touch any fader (channel or section bus), strange but it's true.
For each instrument I'm modulating dynamics/expression and that is all, from _pp_ to _ff_. This library is nicely recorded at instruments positions so I don't need to pan anything. Same thing is with Spitfire libraries.
VSL users dealing with dry library and probably they need to pan and level everything, because that library is dry but you can imitate and oblique almost any sound with that library.


----------



## ZenFaced (Mar 5, 2017)

dog1978 said:


> I don't know, whether this helps you and whether it's okay to post this in here. I had the problem to find the right volumes, pannings and room sound. So I created orchestra guide.
> http://www.sounth.de/orchestra-guide/




That looks great Dog. I just went through the hassle of trying to balance the relative volume levels of all instruments in my template by using various orchestral references but each reference varied and it took a lot of time. I could have used this 3 weeks ago but I think I am going to use it now anyway and compare it to what I already have

I'm surprised no one here is expressing excitement about this

How accurate is this guide?


----------



## dog1978 (Mar 5, 2017)

ZenFaced said:


> That looks great Dog. I just went through the hassle of trying to balance the relative volume levels of all instruments in my template by using various orchestral references but each reference varied and it took a lot of time. I could have used this 3 weeks ago but I think I am going to use it now anyway and compare it to what I already have
> 
> I'm surprised no one here is expressing excitement about this
> 
> How accurate is this guide?




Thank you. The guide is detailed accurate because you got a lot of instruments, all playing pp and ff and different articulations. And you get all mics (decca tree, close mics, surround mics).


----------



## jamieboo (Mar 6, 2017)

I'm very curious about this Orchestra Guide too. Eager to hear some independent reviews/feedback!
Some people seem to find balancing their virtual orchestras fairly easy, for me it's really difficult and I'm not sure why!


----------



## ZenFaced (Mar 14, 2017)

dog1978 said:


> Thank you. The guide is detailed accurate because you got a lot of instruments, all playing pp and ff and different articulations. And you get all mics (decca tree, close mics, surround mics).



Hi Dog

I purchased the complete package and I appreciate you taking the time to put something like this together because balancing sample libraries is not an easy task.

I have a few questions about the relative volumes you gave us if you don't mind me asking.

I started with the piccolo and worked my way down to French horns. My first impression with the woodwinds was that I was shocked to see that the staccatos at ff are -8 to -10db lower than legato at ff for same instruments. Is this realistic? I would have thought maybe -3db at most. And for french horns staccato at ff is @ -4db than legato at ff. I would have thought it would be almost the same.

Second, I was surprised to see 1 piccolo at ff is +2b louder than 2 oboes at ff. Also you have 1 piccolo at ff same volume as 2 clarinets at ff. Wouldn't 2 clarinets be louder? And your audio recording of 1 piccolo staccato at ff is actually +2db louder than 2 clarinets staccato at ff. Again I would think 2 clarinets staccato would be louder than 1 piccolo staccato.

Also would 2 oboes at ff -2db be softer than 2 clarinets at ff? I would have thought they would be the same.

I'm not saying these values are wrong but I need reassurance these are realistic values because my time is valuable and I want to make sure its worth my time.

Thanks!


----------



## ZenFaced (Mar 14, 2017)

Also as follow-up to my last post --- anyone with experience with relative volumes of orchestra instruments feel free to chime in to clarify the results I posted to see if they are pretty accurate or way off - that would be appreciated.

BTW - These values were based on the 48kHz audio files that came with the Orchestral Guide for each instrument. I used Logic Pro for the DAW. All meter faders were checked to make sure they were at same level and no plugins/FX were inserted in the signal chain of the audio files.


----------



## agarner32 (Mar 14, 2017)

ZenFaced, the results make sense to me. Also, dynamics are relative markings. Not all players would play ff at the same volume. I don't have the package, but to me it seems like it could be a useful tool to get a rough idea - the key word is rough. There are a lot of variables.


----------



## ZenFaced (Mar 14, 2017)

agarner32 said:


> ZenFaced, the results make sense to me. Also, dynamics are relative markings. Not all players would play ff at the same volume. I don't have the package, but to me it seems like it could be a useful tool to get a rough idea - the key word is rough. There are a lot of variables.



Yea there are a lot of variables, that's what scares me. I'm just surprised of the difference in volume of staccatos compared to the legato at ff and that 1 piccolo would be louder than 2 clarinets. Again I'm not saying this is not realistic and I don't doubt Dog's attempt is genuine, in fact it is a noble attempt and I'm thankful for it. I just wanted some reassurance that these relative values were in the ballpark before I spend more time on this. 

And yes I think I have some OCD


----------



## agarner32 (Mar 14, 2017)

As far as piccolos are concerned, they can cut through just about anything so that makes sense to me. Piccolo players typically practice with ear plugs - it's a piercing instrument. Are you finding the package useful so far? I may take the plunge. As I said, it seems like a great tool even if it's only a rough guide. Good questions you raised though.


----------



## Maestro1972 (Mar 14, 2017)

ZenFaced said:


> Also would 2 oboes at ff -2db be softer than 2 clarinets at ff? I would have thought they would be the same.



The difference in the frequencies and timbres between the instruments you listed: Pic and oboes (frequency) and Oboes and Clarinets (timbres) will change how they are perceived. I think the hardest part of balancing a template is getting your head out of the way and letting your ears do all the work. I struggle with this all the time. French Horns at FF are suppose to be LOUD so that means the fader should be higher than that of the strings....this is not always the case. I have been balancing for a LONG time and I am still working at it. Good luck!


----------



## agarner32 (Mar 14, 2017)

Thanks for the post Maestro. It's definitely not an easy task. One also really has to study individual instruments too. I once made the mistake of writing an oboe part _p_ in the low register. What the heck, my sample library could play at _p_ in that range with no problems. I found out that it's very difficult to play soft in the low range. For some people this balancing library could at least give some people one part of the puzzle.


----------



## ZenFaced (Mar 14, 2017)

agarner32 said:


> As far as piccolos are concerned, they can cut through just about anything so that makes sense to me. Piccolo players typically practice with ear plugs - it's a piercing instrument. Are you finding the package useful so far? I may take the plunge. As I said, it seems like a great tool even if it's only a rough guide. Good questions you raised though.



Hi agarner

What you said makes sense and is reassuring. 

I can tell you I've searched in vain online for some written documentation about this and surprisingly there is nothing (that I can find anyway). And using audio references from recordings is not easy at all. So when I became aware of Dog's package I was like "Yesssssss!! Finally!!!!". T So this seems to be the first real attempt of someone providing this type of resource. 

I didn't get a chance to work on it today but using the traditional score starting from flutes and working down I made it to the French Horns. If his audio files are in the ballpark, then so far my prior template (relative instrument values at ff) are way off - I can tell you that much. 

I plan on having it all done within a few days and the real test will be when I A/B it using simple 2 bar mockups with my prior balancing act.


----------



## ZenFaced (Mar 14, 2017)

Maestro1972 said:


> The difference in the frequencies and timbres between the instruments you listed: Pic and oboes (frequency) and Oboes and Clarinets (timbres) will change how they are perceived. I think the hardest part of balancing a template is getting your head out of the way and letting your ears do all the work. I struggle with this all the time. French Horns at FF are suppose to be LOUD so that means the fader should be higher than that of the strings....this is not always the case. I have been balancing for a LONG time and I am still working at it. Good luck!



Yes so many variables!!


----------



## ctsai89 (Mar 14, 2017)

patrick76 said:


> It really depends which sample libraries you are using. Some are already recorded in the correct placement (Spitfire for example) and you won't need to pan at all. For others that are close mic'ed and not recorded in orchestral position, a tool like VSS can make placement very simple if you want something done quickly. Some people don't like the sound, so that will be up to you. I believe they still offer a demo, so check that out. For basic balancing, why not pick a good orchestral piece for which you have a good recording and the score and mock it up?
> 
> Also, take up golf anyway, but don't forget the music!



well no spitfire does not have it all already recorded in the correct volume. But placement yes. In SCS for example: someone in the development team must have messed with the volume level between each performance legato patches, they deviate up to 12 dbs from the original "legato performance" patch. Bassoons in Spitfire WW for example: the a2 sounds way softer than the solo patch. Horns a6 sounds softer at fortissimo than a forte solo horn. Trumpet a6 has the same problem as well. 

So I would take a grain of salt.


----------



## dog1978 (Mar 15, 2017)

ZenFaced said:


> Hi Dog
> 
> I purchased the complete package and I appreciate you taking the time to put something like this together because balancing sample libraries is not an easy task.
> 
> ...




@ZenFaced: Thank you for your message and purchase. I guess most things are said. I like that you are shocked because this shows, 
a) that a lot of composers got wrong thoughts about the different instruments, volumes and articulatios
b) a lot of sample libraries have not real volumes
The difference between piccolo and french horn is a good example.

Are are surprised that 1 piccolo at ff is +2db louder than 2 oboes at ff. Right! We recorded every instrument at this comfort zone. So some instruments play in C major, some at F major and different octaves. Yes, the piccolo got a lot of power. So be careful using it.

All the instruments got different timbres, sounds, charakters... So the resulting volume at ff differes much. For example ff at harp, glockenspiel and horn. 

The conclusion is: all this levels are real and a lot of people will be surprised. On the other hand, when you compose with this levels, there will be no surprise when you let your piece of music play by an orchestra instead a mockup. So the piccolo will not blow away the rest of the orchestra, or the clarinet can be heard, because all the other instruments play p.

Best regards, Tim


----------



## ZenFaced (Mar 15, 2017)

Thanks Dog. I hope to have this finished this week and when I get a chance I'll post back with my full results. I'm learning a lot about the instrument ratios.


----------



## MarcusMaximus (Apr 1, 2017)

ZenFaced said:


> Thanks Dog. I hope to have this finished this week and when I get a chance I'll post back with my full results. I'm learning a lot about the instrument ratios.



Would love to hear how you or anyone else is getting on with this, before I go ahead and purchase it. Like you I don't want to put a lot of time into it if it's not as helpful in the 'real world' of using orchestral sample libraries(!) as it seems.


----------



## ZenFaced (Apr 1, 2017)

Hi Marcus

I have to hold off on final review because the brass section was not correctly recorded - The trumpets and trombones were way lower than they should have been at ff. They were 10db lower than french horns at ff and lower than any one string section at ff. That is not realistic at all. 3 trumpets playing unison at ff should be louder than 4 french horns playing at ff and they should easily over power any one string section playing at ff. The problem is early on in this thread I asked Dog how accurate the audio samples were and his exact reply was, "The guide is detailed accurate.." I refer you to page one of this thread.

So my purchase was in reliance on this product being "detailed accurate" but to my frustration it was not and its sad that me, as a consumer, that I had to bring this to his attention. Although he promised he would get back to his producer and redo the brass section with a "free update" in the near future I feel this product is not ready for sale. I feel like a beta tester and should not have been charged for this product. And because of that I am not confident the other instruments were "detailed accurate" either because Dog lost his credibility with me at this point.

I would be more forgiving if this was a more sophisticated product with complex layers but it had a simple goal - to record each section/ensemble/instrument at ff to give us a pretty accurate guide for balancing our template. But the brass was so far off in this regard I can't help but to think it was rushed. And to make it worse his reason was "perhaps the player didn’t know exactly what the recordings are for and wanted to play a nice, smooth melody". So it sounds to me like he was putting blame on the musicians which is not their fault because he was responsible for making sure (1) the players knew what hey were supposed to be doing and (2) making sure the final recordings "detailed accurate" before placing the product for sale.

So I guess that my opinion for now is - don't waste your money or time like I did. Perhaps once the update is out it will be better but like I said, once I realized this glaring mistake with the brass and not making sure the musicians knew what they were doing and being recorded correctly I lost all confidence that the other instruments were even recorded correctly.


----------



## MarcusMaximus (Apr 1, 2017)

Ah ok thanks for that ZenFaced. Very candid. I'm sorry you had to go through all that to come to this conclusion but it certainly sounds from what you say like this product is not quite what it claims to be as yet. Hopefully they will address these issues and improve it so that it is properly ready for sale as I do think it's a great idea. Sometimes product developers need some time to 'iron out the bugs' and I think we should allow them that licence - they are human after all - but I agree with you that this should not have been released on a paid basis if it was as glaringly inaccurate as you describe.


----------



## dog1978 (Apr 2, 2017)

I am very sorry at one point and very thankful for Zenfaced for his detailed feedback at the other point. I don't know what's the real reason. I don't want to blame other people. But that is not the most important thing. The most important thing is to create a god product and optimize it. We record the new session in a few weeks. Every customer will get a free update. I understand disappointed moods and want to retrieve this.


----------



## artinro (Jun 27, 2017)

dog1978 said:


> I am very sorry at one point and very thankful for Zenfaced for his detailed feedback at the other point. I don't know what's the real reason. I don't want to blame other people. But that is not the most important thing. The most important thing is to create a god product and optimize it. We record the new session in a few weeks. Every customer will get a free update. I understand disappointed moods and want to retrieve this.



Hi there, just wondering if the update to this is still in the works? It looked like an interesting project!


----------



## dog1978 (Jun 27, 2017)

Thanks for the question. We have finished the new recordings. Now I edit the new Pro Tools session, create the new decca tree files, cut them... All customers will be informed in a few days and will get the update free.


----------



## Jeremy Spencer (Jun 27, 2017)

mc_deli said:


> On the point about the Cubase fader (and pan, if required), it makes far more sense to me to do a rough balance with the faders in Kontakt (or VE Pro), so everything is at "unity" in the DAW so you have a clear reference point.



Yes, this is exactly how I work. Everything is pre-mixed in VEPro; the only time I touch the Cubase/Logic faders is for a group (or summing stack) track.


----------



## dog1978 (Jun 30, 2017)

Now the update is completed and all the customers got a discount code for the free update:
- new brass recordings
- included MIDI-files
- better and separated download-files


----------



## Puzzlefactory (Jun 30, 2017)

I'm a bit lazy in this respect and just balance the instruments as I go along with writing a track.


----------

