# Limiting the frequencies of instrument patches



## hbuus (Oct 8, 2009)

Do any of you limit the frequencies of your instrument patches according to a frequency chart, for example this one:
http://www.har-bal.com/index.php?/frequency-chart.php

Let's take the cello for example.
In the above chart you can see that cellos run from 65Hz to 1175Hz.
So you either perform a cut of the frequencies below 65Hz + above 1175Hz, or roll off those frequencies.

I experimented with this a while back but found that the resulting sound somehow became very bass light.
I'm wondering what kind of experiences you other guys have with this.

Best regards,
Henrik


----------



## germancomponist (Oct 8, 2009)

I exactly do this always. 

But, when many instruments are working in the same frequencies range, than you must be tricky. The result is your (own) sound! 

A good thing is to use eq`s and compressors with sidechain input. So you can control all with all... .


----------



## TheoKrueger (Oct 8, 2009)

I am not sure if this is a valid argument, but I think there are subharmonic resonance and sounds in the cello for example which are bellow the lowest note it can play. Also the guitar even though starts at E2 also has body in the plectrum sound which would be eq'd out with har-bal.
Perhaps in a large mix this would greatly benefit the sound, but in a solo cello for example i think that it would be good to leave things above 50. The xylophone even though starting at G4 also has its body sound and eqing under G4 would totally remove the wood and mallet hits. Same with the piano thumps... etc.

Just a thought....


----------



## bryla (Oct 8, 2009)

I would never high cut an instrument if I wanted to maintain it's natural sound. There are millions of overtones in any instrument that would take away the fingerprint of an instrument if cut


----------



## germancomponist (Oct 8, 2009)

TheoKrueger @ Thu Oct 08 said:


> I am not sure if this is a valid argument, but I think there are subharmonic resonance and sounds in the cello for example which are bellow the lowest note it can play. Also the guitar even though starts at E2 also has body in the plectrum sound which would be eq'd out with har-bal.
> Perhaps in a large mix this would greatly benefit the sound, but in a solo cello for example i think that it would be good to leave things above 50. The xylophone even though starting at G4 also has its body sound and eqing under G4 would totally remove the wood and mallet hits. Same with the piano thumps... etc.
> 
> Just a thought....



You are right, Theo.

I was talking about a big mix. 

Bryla, there is a reason that all mixers have eq`s, especially when you mix 120 tracks or more.


----------



## hbuus (Oct 8, 2009)

Ah ok, so I can forget about this for a while, hehe! I did get weird sound of it when I tried with just 3 instruments.

Thanks, guys.


----------



## re-peat (Oct 9, 2009)

Henrik,

You can forget about it if you like, but I wouldn't forget about it for too long if I were you. If you want clarity, air, space and a nice balance in a mix, you *need* to cut frequencies. And sometimes quite drastically so.
Every sample is an isolated, individual and complete audio recording in itself. Now, if you pile hundreds of these 'complete' recordings on top of one another — which is what happens when you assemble an orchestra with samples —, there's an inevitable build-up in certain frequency areas which will certainly ruin your mix if you don't do anything about it. The most common phenomenon is the build-up in the lows and low-mids (resulting in that very characteristic muddy and booming sound that you can hear in many mock-ups)

Samples of, say, violins have low frequency content (sometimes even sub-low) which has no place in a total orchestral mix. And this applies to all the instruments. Celli are notorious too: without eq, the celli's low frequency content gets added (not blended, but simply added - big difference) to that of the basses (if they play in unison, that is) and before you know it, your summed orchestral sound will be booming like hell because there's just way too much bass all over the place.
Pizzicati are another sound that need extra special attention. 9 times out of 10, they contain much too much low frequency content. Same thing with the harp. Things may seem perfectly OK if you listen to these sounds in isolation, but the moment these samples become part of a full orchestral arrangement, they *have* to be corrected.

The important thing — and one that you never should forget — is that you are working with audio recordings of instruments, and not the natural sound of the instruments themselves. Night-and-day difference this. Recorded sound follows a completely different system of sonic logic and laws than organic live sound does. This may seem obvious, but the (audio) quality of many a mock-up tells us that quite a number of people seem to forget (or ignore) it all too often.

And it's not just the lows (although that is where the problems often arise first): too much mids give you that nasal, tiresome and boxy sound (also heard very often). And too much highs will result in shrill and piercing unpleasantness.

I've never used a chart for these eq-corrections though. Charts don't know about the music that you are making and the sounds which you are using, do they? Samples from VSL are entirely different from EastWest samples or Sonivox samples and you won't find anything about these differences in a chart. Most problems can be solved very well by ear, and if you're still unsure about something (say: sub-low rumblings which are present in many samples) you can always call in a spectrum analyzer.

_


----------



## Hannes_F (Oct 9, 2009)

hbuus @ Thu Oct 08 said:


> Do any of you limit the frequencies of your instrument patches according to a frequency chart, for example this one:
> http://www.har-bal.com/index.php?/frequency-chart.php
> 
> Let's take the cello for example.
> ...



I think there is a misunderstanding. This chart means the highest note that a cello can (reasonably) play as a note is around 1175 Hz - but not that there would not come any frequency out of it higher than that.


----------



## bryla (Oct 9, 2009)

germancomponist @ Fri Oct 09 said:


> TheoKrueger @ Thu Oct 08 said:
> 
> 
> > Bryla, there is a reason that all mixers have eq`s, especially when you mix 120 tracks or more.


uhm yeah?! but have they ever high-cut and low cut at fundamental frequencies of the instruments range?


----------



## re-peat (Oct 9, 2009)

bryla @ Fri Oct 09 said:


> (...) but have they ever high-cut and low cut at fundamental frequencies of the instruments range?



I think so. Not sure about anybody else, but I do it all the time. One example maybe: the combination 'horn + flute'. If you combine these two without any eq'ing, chances are you end up with a sound that's got way too much lowish mids. (Again: these two sampled instruments don't blend like they do in a concert hall situation, no, these two recorded sounds merely get added to one another.) So, it makes sense - I think - to decide what it is you want from this particular combination and eq accordingly: have the horn provide the body of the combined sound, and use from the flute only its airy, breathy texture (removing, or at least suppressing, all the rest). So yes, you're effectively destroying both 'instrumental identities' to a certain extent, but the result is a more musical sum total, and one that will behave much better in the mock-orchestral mix (which is always an entirely artificial construction anyway, to begin with).

_


----------



## germancomponist (Oct 9, 2009)

bryla @ Fri Oct 09 said:


> germancomponist @ Fri Oct 09 said:
> 
> 
> > TheoKrueger @ Thu Oct 08 said:
> ...



Fundamental frequencies? All instruments have some frequencies in a big range but, you know the fight of loudness when more instruments are playing in the same frequencies range?

You can only bring them all to you ears if you use an eq and cut here and there or boost something with parametric bands. You can let sound a brass ackord nearly as the same sound as a string ackord, for example. 

When you visit a studio where they are mixing a big session with many track, just use a solo knob from only one instrument and you know what I mean. o/~


----------



## Hannes_F (Oct 9, 2009)

re-peat @ Fri Oct 09 said:


> bryla @ Fri Oct 09 said:
> 
> 
> > (...) but have they ever high-cut and low cut at fundamental frequencies of the instruments range?
> ...



This is because they are usually recorded too close in samples libraries and that gives a proximinity effect. At least that is what I really believe.

I record my own strings relatively dry but distant and never felt the need to roll off any lows. So in a way the highpassing is the correction of a recording error that has happened before imo.


----------



## germancomponist (Oct 9, 2009)

You are right, Hannes.

When, for example, a flute will be recorded very near by the instrument there are some lower frequencies in the recording. But this in a real concert hall no one can hear. 

Repeat, you gave a good example!


----------



## germancomponist (Oct 9, 2009)

Hannes, 

there are some libs on the market where you can built a bass tuba by using truimpet samples. That say it very clear.


----------



## re-peat (Oct 9, 2009)

Hannes_F @ Fri Oct 09 said:


> This is because they are usually recorded too close in samples libraries and that gives a proximinity effect. At least that is what I really believe.
> I record my own strings relatively dry but distant and never felt the need to roll off any lows. So in a way the highpassing is the correction of a recording error that has happened before imo.


Yes, true. Not sure if I would call it a 'recording error' though, because library developers have obviously no way of knowing how their sounds will be used, so, understandably, they settle for the most versatile approach, one which allows their instruments to be used both in solo or isolated situations — where the entire frequency spectrum of the instrument(s) needs to be present — as well as orchestral situations, where the frequency spectrum needs to be modified in order to make room for the other instruments/sounds in the arrangement.
The Vienna solo cello, to give just one example, needs to be able to function as a solo instrument, but it also needs to be able to function as an orchestral instrument. Both situations would, ideally, require a different type of recording (and thus an entirely different sample set) but that is of course an unrealistic idea.

_


----------



## Hannes_F (Oct 9, 2009)

re-peat @ Fri Oct 09 said:


> Hannes_F @ Fri Oct 09 said:
> 
> 
> > This is because they are usually recorded too close in samples libraries and that gives a proximinity effect. At least that is what I really believe.
> ...



re-piet,
you are right, I was going to write about the same.

Henrik, here are two charts for you of *one* cello note. The first is a spectrum with frequency on the x-axis and intensity on the z-axis. The second is the colorcoded spectrum on a timeline, you can see the vibrato nicely.

As you can see the root frequency is around 300 Hz but the tone is incredibly rich in what happens above (and below). You would loose a lot if you would simply cut off at 1200 Hz. Actually you would loose 18 of the 22 overtones that I can count on this chart.

[align=center]









[/align]


----------



## hbuus (Oct 9, 2009)

You guys really know a lot of stuff - thanks for sharing (& posting pics Hannes).
But why can't anything related to orchestral music be easy! 
It's never as simple as "If A, then always do B"!
I think I will continue working on the mock-up (sorry re-peat! ) I'm working on right now, then when I've made a little more progress with that, I will post it here for comments again. Then this stuff about limiting frequencies / getting rid of mud etc. can perhaps come up again.


----------



## Brian (Oct 11, 2009)

Hi All,

Not to hijack this thread, but since the original frequency chart comes from the Har-Bal website (http://www.har-bal.com/), I was wondering if anyone has used it for orchestral mock-ups mastering? Does it work well, or semi-well? It seems that it is mostly geared for pop stuff, but then again most stuff on the internet is, but that doesn't mean it couldn't be useful for orchestral music.

Thanks, Brian


----------



## Hannes_F (Oct 11, 2009)

Brian @ Sun Oct 11 said:


> Hi All,
> 
> Not to hijack this thread, but since the original frequency chart comes from the Har-Bal website (http://www.har-bal.com/), I was wondering if anyone has used it for orchestral mock-ups mastering? Does it work well, or semi-well? It seems that it is mostly geared for pop stuff, but then again most stuff on the internet is, but that doesn't mean it couldn't be useful for orchestral music.
> 
> Thanks, Brian



I played around with it and what I learned by that was worth the price for me personally. But that is valid for me and the state of knowledge that I had then and may be totally different for you.

I don't use it though. That being said I would love to have this equalizer as a VST.


----------



## ozmorphasis (Oct 11, 2009)

re-peat @ Thu Oct 08 said:


> Henrik,
> 
> You can forget about it if you like, but I wouldn't forget about it for too long if I were you. If you want clarity, air, space and a nice balance in a mix, you *need* to cut frequencies. And sometimes quite drastically so.
> Every sample is an isolated, individual and complete audio recording in itself. Now, if you pile hundreds of these 'complete' recordings on top of one another — which is what happens when you assemble an orchestra with samples —, there's an inevitable build-up in certain frequency areas which will certainly ruin your mix if you don't do anything about it. The most common phenomenon is the build-up in the lows and low-mids (resulting in that very characteristic muddy and booming sound that you can hear in many mock-ups)
> ...




Excellent post Re-peat! Especially, the last paragraph. Charts are useful as a jumping off point for those that are still really unfamiliar with the various instruments and how they fit within their respective choirs and the whole orchestra as a whole. In the end, though, the fact that it IS a recording means that the specifics of how-much-to-cut and what-to-cut, is totally dependent on the situation, the library in question, the desired effect, etc.

I don't see this as a problem, just something to be aware of as a step in the production process for mockups.


----------



## MaraschinoMusic (Oct 11, 2009)

EQ is your friend!

Bear in mind that with any sound (except a pure sine wave) harmonics extend far above the natural range of the instrument so you would want to take care when EQing the upper frequencies. On the other hand, sub-harmonics are very rare in most cases, and you can clean up the bottom end of your tracks quite noticeably by rolling off the lower frequencies. If you are not actually using the lowest notes of an instrument, you can roll off at a slightly higher frequency, and gain a little more clarity. Let your ears be the judge though - never do this according to a chart !!!


----------

