# Plugins for purely orchestral music from the ground up



## Stiltzkin (Mar 23, 2014)

Heya,

So I'm starting to think about getting a lot of plugins to try and improve my VIs/mixes as best as possible.

I have a bit of an understanding of "some" of the plugins, but a lot of it is a bit confusing and I'm still doing my best to learn.

I fully understand the concept of using your ears for mixing, but right now I'm talking about giving things an extra 5%, and I don't currently know how to get it, I know it when I hear it, but don't know the process of going from A to B, if you will.

The basic thing I'm looking for is getting a "fullness" that you hear in professional mixes, even when the orchestra is very small or a small section of the orchestra playing.

For an example, a piece such as this http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AEZQWsKLvLc the overall quality is still much more full than samples as they are recorded are able to grant.

I watched the interview with Alan Meyerson and it was great, gave me a lot of stuff to look for in the future and ideas (I love what he does with compression), but most of the hardware he's talking about is a little out of my league at the moment.

For starters I'm looking to get a lot of good plugins that will each give it just a little push in the right direction, so any examples of some that you find useful would be really appreciated 

Some ones I'm looking at are the oxford sonnox inflator, magnetic II, REDD and a good reverb like the lexicon lxp/pcm bundle.

(I should note that currently I only really use plugins that come with cubase, with the exception of B2 reverb - so everything is an improvement really!)


----------



## Resoded (Mar 23, 2014)

Stiltzkin, I recently underwent a similar phase. Basically wanting to improve my mixes and buy that little extra. What I did was that I bought some slate digital plugins, VCC, VBC and VTM, and these do give that little extra magic. I'm really happy with them and can recommend them. But take my opinion with a handful of salt.

However, what I also learned was that what I really needed was not to buy stuff, but rather to practice using EQs and other common tools better. And most importantly, improve my listening environment.


----------



## Giant_Shadow (Mar 23, 2014)

One the best things you can do for orchestral or any type of music ITB is pay attention to your gain structure/staging. Here is a epic thread at G/S all about. Pay good attention to the first post. http://tinyurl.com/3ly6aol


----------



## KEnK (Mar 23, 2014)

Giant_Shadow @ Sun Mar 23 said:


> One the best things you can do for orchestral or any type of music ITB is pay attention to your gain structure/staging. Here is a epic thread at G/S all about. Pay good attention to the first post. http://tinyurl.com/3ly6aol



Read the first post and it's something I've been trying to come to terms w/ myself lately.
The guy says DAW meters suck.

So what meters are going to show the OVU standard that he's talking about here?
The OP is from 2009- tech has improved.

Is waves Dorrough good for this?
The PSP meters?
opinions?

Don't want to wade through the 100 pages of that thread :wink: 

Thanks


----------



## Vin (Mar 23, 2014)

That 5% you mentioned is coming from "character" plugins/hardware.

Tape emulations, console emulations, harmonic exciters, saturators etc.

Some stuff to check out:

http://varietyofsound.wordpress.com/ (pretty much all of his plugins)

http://www.fabfilter.com/products/satur ... on-plug-in

http://www.pspaudioware.com/plugins/dyn ... gewarmer2/

http://www.sonimus.com/products/britson/

http://www.pspaudioware.com/plugins/equ ... sp_nobleq/

http://www.toneboosters.com/tb-reelbus/

http://www.valhalladsp.com/valhallavintageverb

http://www.cytomic.com/glue

http://plugin-alliance.com/en/plugins/d ... acter.html

http://www.klanghelm.com/SDRR.html

http://www.uaudio.com/store/equalizers/ ... ssive.html

http://www.sonnoxplugins.com/pub/plugins/products/inflator.htm (http://www.sonnoxplugins.com/pub/plugin ... flator.htm)

The other 95% you can achieve with Cubase's stock plugins and a lot of learning about how things work.


----------



## wst3 (Mar 23, 2014)

Giant_Shadow @ Sun Mar 23 said:


> One the best things you can do for orchestral or any type of music ITB is pay attention to your gain structure/staging. Here is a epic thread at G/S all about. Pay good attention to the first post. http://tinyurl.com/3ly6aol



That first post is pretty good, and it you consider that it was written five years ago it probably was spot on... doesn't matter though, because the underlying message is what's really important:
1) understand what different levels - and references - mean
2) understand how your specific gear and software relates to these 'standards'.
3) exercise proper gain staging throughout your system.



KEnK @ Sun Mar 23 said:


> Read the first post and it's something I've been trying to come to terms w/ myself lately.



That's a good thing! Understanding levels, and references, and the differences between all of them will only help you track and mix. There are a handful of really good references - that are a lot less reading, and a lot less confusing than the thread. I will put together a list and post it here as soon as I can.



KEnK said:


> The guy says DAW meters suck.


It is partly that most meters, as implemented in software, do not behave the way old analog meters behaved. That might be a bad thing, then again it might not... a lot depends on how used to watching analog meters you've become<G>!



KEnK said:


> So what meters are going to show the OVU standard that he's talking about here? The OP is from 2009- tech has improved.


Technology has improved, the application of that technology has not improved as quickly, or as much. There are folks writing code for DAW applications and plugins that do not yet understand that dB is a ratio, specifically a power ratio. I don't say that to be mean, but it's a basic foundation for all audio engineering.

And it is not just software engineers! Do a search on "Peak dBu" and see how many folks try to define that term. There is no such thing as "Peak dBu" - dBu is a ratio with a reference of 0.7746Vrms.

The problem is that once you've digitized an audio signal it is just sooooo easy to count the bits and use that as the level - and it is a level, but it is a level in terms of number of bits, and it is instantaneous, and therefore it is a peak level - or it would be in the analog domain.

Your head spinning yet?

Sorry about that!

The point being that far too few people who design the hardware and software that we use understand all of the fundamentals anymore. Not really their fault I suppose, no one bothered to teach them!



KEnK said:


> Is waves Dorrough good for this? The PSP meters? opinions?


The Dorrough meters - the physical ones - are as good as it gets. I would expect that the plug-in version is awfully close. I do not own them, so I can't say for sure, but I do think they are probably a lot better than most built in metering schemes.

I did demo the PSP Meters2 - they worked pretty well, but they had far too many options and adjustments to be what I'd refer to as a reference.

So here's my real opinion (worth exactly what you paid for it)... 

1) accept that the meters in your DAW are probably not the same thing as an analog audio level meter.

2) Get a decent pair of VU meters or LED meters if you prefer - but get hardware. They are not expensive (unless you go bananas), and they are invaluable. Put them across the input to your monitor amplifier.

3) Now spend some time learning what your software meters are telling you. Look at different sine waves as rms, peak, whatever. Look at tracks and mixes too. Compare the results on the hardware meters with results in software.

4) Spend a little bit of time learning how your DAW manages gain and levels

5) Spend a little bit of time learning a little bit more about levels and references and gain-staging. Pay special attention to dynamic range, Signal to Noise ratio, and headroom!

It might sound a like a ton of work but it isn't. 



KEnK said:


> Don't want to wade through the 100 pages of that thread


I would suggest that the 100 page thread can be amusing, but it is also filled with conflicting opinions, and it would take longer to untangle that thread than it will to learn to use the meters that you have.


----------



## ghostnote (Mar 23, 2014)

Resoded @ Sun Mar 23 said:


> [...]what I really needed was not to buy stuff, but rather to practice using EQs and other common tools better. And most importantly, *improve my listening environment*.



This! You can have all plugins on the market but they won't help you find the problems when you actually can't hear them. Right EQing is the most imporant part.


----------



## EastWest Lurker (Mar 23, 2014)

I love my UAD plug-ins, but if one cannot make something sound good with the included plug-ins of virtually every DAW, buying third party ones will not help.


----------



## Stiltzkin (Mar 23, 2014)

EastWest Lurker @ Sun Mar 23 said:


> I love my UAD plug-ins, but if one cannot make something sound good with the included plug-ins of virtually every DAW, buying third party ones will not help.



Thanks for your reply Jay (and everyone else so far!) - UAD is something I'm looking into for certain plugins - but I'm specifically talking about getting an extra 5% - not plugins that will magically fix everything - I fully understand that mixing is all about tiny little improvements and that you can't polish a turd. But I also know that there are some plugins that just give some mixes that little bit extra, you can't place it, but it's there...

It's really those little change I'm looking to make on top of my mixes, rather than earth shattering ones that will do the impossible


----------



## EastWest Lurker (Mar 23, 2014)

Stiltzkin @ Sun Mar 23 said:


> EastWest Lurker @ Sun Mar 23 said:
> 
> 
> > I love my UAD plug-ins, but if one cannot make something sound good with the included plug-ins of virtually every DAW, buying third party ones will not help.
> ...



Then UAD is a good way to go.

For me, runner up is Softube, also quite good.


----------



## Hannes_F (Mar 23, 2014)

As a side note: The whole preamp/console emulation thing started with Nebula / Acusticaudio as far as I know. At least it was there that I learned about it because some folks had sampled the signal path of consoles in parts and applied that to their mixes, and that was already there in 2006. From there it went to correct gain staging and summing.

Others like Slate, Sonimus etc. picked that idea up then and tried to emulate it with algorithms which can be very good and practical. However Nebula - although cumbersome but not as much as in former times - seems to be the next best thing to hardware still if it comes to sound. For slim workflow probably UAD is the ticket.


----------



## Giant_Shadow (Mar 23, 2014)

Here are couple very good VU meter plugins. Both are affordable.
http://www.klanghelm.com/VUMT.html

http://www.hornetplugins.com/plugins/hornet-vu-meter/


----------



## Dan Mott (Mar 23, 2014)

In my opinion, you probably already have all you need to get a great mix.

Instead of buying plugins, I'd put the money towards buying, or recording better sounds. 

If you have great source material, then you won't even need much EQ, aside from doing some creative EQ, which is a whole different story. 

I have looked at a lot of mixes done by pros on YT and read many articles about mixing and it seems that little EQ has been used. If you look at what Dave Pensado does, or listen to what Alan Meyerson has to say (for example), it seems they really do not do that much to the sound, other than make it shine and ready for the cinema or radio. I think this is because their source sounds and the writers arrangements are so good that all they need to do is add their signature icing on the cake and creative EQ if needed...

I doubt these professionals run in to many problems when mixing. Some of the time they may need to replace a sound, but I have seen the arrangements sent to the mixers and the sounds are pretty much 90% there. 

Arrangement and careful sound choice is probably the key to getting your track 90% done and if you are finding that you need lot's of EQ and all these tape plugins, ect then something may not be right in the track it's self. 

Your track should be sounding Fat from your sound choice in the first place. You see what I am saying. I am rambling, but I was puzzled when I looked at some arrangements done by writers and it's pretty amazing because you can tell how careful and patient they were with choosing their sounds to fit the track. So there is no magic plugin, the magic is in the sound and arrangement and if you get these right then your track should sound big and once you have finished writing, you can add that icing with those plugins that will only make it even better. 

A good source sound, loves a plugin. You could buy a great reverb, but that reverb will not make a shit source sound good. Same with any other plugin. You probably already know this, but it just makes so much sense to me now that the sounds and arrangement are crucial to an amazing mix. 


I could be wrong, but it's just what I have observed.


----------



## EastWest Lurker (Mar 23, 2014)

I think there is a lot of wisdom in what you wrote Dan. When I look at a Logic project and I see EQ on virtually every channel strip I generally think to myself, "OK, this is someone who does not really know what he is doing."


----------



## Beat Kaufmann (Mar 23, 2014)

Hi Stiltzkin
Of course, good PlugIns can increase the quality of music with samples and also you need to take the right one with correct adjustments.
But beside of these facts there a lot of other matters which (can) count for a result closer the reality:
Today thousands and thousands of musicians and composers are using samples and all the tools we can buy in addition. So it's clear that thousands are average users with also average results. And all these thousands users say to each other in forums about their music: Brilliant! This sounds great! Nice job and so on... *And then they are astonished that real played music sounds far better than their own music.* 
*Why:* 
*A)* A lot of these composers let their score play the samples.?? But that's not music.
A real musician constantly varies the tempo, the dynamic, the articulation...
The average sample musician uses staccato and sustain (sometimes because he only has got those two).
*B)* the average sample-musician often uses a "mixing help" with presets, a system like MIR or something similar. And even if he choose the preset "solo" it is a preset which was OK in one particular situation.
*C)* After using the mixing system the average musician exports (bounces) an mp3 and "that's it". No mastering for making the best of the result he got nothing.

So this is the average case and most of the results are not brilliant but poor - good.
Putting together:
Not only the plugins are important but also
*A) "making music" with the samples.
B) "mixing the music" without presets
C) "mastering" the final result.*

Of course, the points A) - C) need a lot of experience which thousands of the average sample musicians not (yet) can have - that's clear as well.

*Here are two examples of the same piece of music, played with the same library. *
Of course I overdone it a bit with both of them for getting an even better impression of the difference.
Average musician production >>>>>>///>>> advanced sample user (mixed and mastered)
(MIRx with Solo Violin Center Preset) >/>>> (Algorithmic Reverb, EQs Compressor,...)

BTW: Production time for the 2 excerpts:
"average-user-piece" 10 minutes 
"advanced piece" around 3h for finding tempos, different samples etc.
20 minutes for finding an optimal sound/mastering 

Have fun
Beat


----------



## Hannes_F (Mar 24, 2014)

Brilliant examples, Beat.

To the OP: Many legendary orchestral recordings both for CD and film have been done with nothing else than 
- good mics 
- a console incl. the built-in EQs, 
- a tape machine 
- stereo manipulation
- a good reverb 
- gentle compressor
- a mastering EQ
- limiter.

So I don't think that we necessarily need 'much'. It is more about the quality of each of these seven elements (or their emulation counterparts) and what you then do with it. The recording that you posted in the OP certainly did not need more. The above list is what I concentrate on. I have been on the Slate + Air EQ + Voxengo road for long but now I switch back to Nebula step by step. 

BTW I used to use exciter-type plugins when I started but I found that if the above list is in order I don't need exciters any more. Also I got tired of the fake fuzz that various plugs try to sell as 'warmth' and 'vintage'.

I would highly recommend the addition of SPAT.


----------



## jamwerks (Mar 24, 2014)

Some good info here. I understand where the OP coming from. Imo, wise use of reverb & treating the different libraries/rooms in such a way as to make a coherent "mix" is one of the biggest keys. Mixing SF Mural with HB (for example) is not that easy if you're looking for a really top notch result.

@Resoded: Talk a bit about VTM & VCC on orchestral stuff!


----------



## G.R. Baumann (Mar 24, 2014)

Giant_Shadow @ Sun Mar 23 said:


> One the best things you can do for orchestral or any type of music ITB is pay attention to your gain structure/staging. Here is a epic thread at G/S all about. Pay good attention to the first post. http://tinyurl.com/3ly6aol



Thanks for the link, invaluable insights from Skip, Paul Frindle and others!

Paul:


> In the natural world, stuff that is further away tends to have less HF content because of distance effects.
> 
> So getting depth into a production made from close mic'ed or direct sources does involve judicious EQ in the mixing process - remembering that the term 'equaliser' was actually invented by the early film industry for a device that equalised for distance effects. That was it's very purpose


----------



## Resoded (Mar 24, 2014)

jamwerks @ 24th March 2014 said:


> @Resoded: Talk a bit about VTM & VCC on orchestral stuff!



Well, I'm just a beginner, but for what it worth, I think the slate digital plugins add just a little bit of warmth and magic. I usually add VCC to every channel and the mixbuss, and then VTM during mastering. I've tried removing them just so I don't fool myself, but when I do, the mix just feels a bit less interesting.


----------



## jamwerks (Mar 24, 2014)

Resoded @ Mon Mar 24 said:


> I think the slate digital plugins add just a little bit of warmth and magic. I usually add VCC to every channel and the mixbuss, and then VTM during mastering. I've tried removing them just so I don't fool myself, but when I do, the mix just feels a bit less interesting.


Cool! Just pulled the trigger. Thanks for the info...


----------



## KEnK (Mar 25, 2014)

@ Bill Thompson-

Sorry I didn't thank you sooner- been to busy to check into the forum
Yes it did make my head spin. 
Thanks for taking the time. I've actually just begun trying to figure all this stuff out.

@ Jay- regarding an eq on every channel strip-
That would be me- :oops: 
but I mostly use them for hi pass filtering and a little surgical cutting.
Thought that was what you were supposed to do.

Generally I like how my mixes sound- but I wouldn't call myself a pro engineer.
Of course I've spent a lot of time in real world studios-
but my personal experience at "being the engineer" is strictly ITB.

Very informative thread.
This is why I come here.

k


----------



## EastWest Lurker (Mar 25, 2014)

KEnK @ Tue Mar 25 said:


> @ Jay- regarding an eq on every channel strip-
> That would be me- :oops:
> but I mostly use them for hi pass filtering and a little surgical cutting.
> Thought that was what you were supposed to do.
> ...



Be very leery of "supposed to do." At least half of the people who will tell you that are either talking about what works for them for their personal taste or are following the internet practice of quoting what they read that one"expert guy" who was quoting what another "expert guy" wrote who was quoting what another "expert guy" wrote.

There is one rule and one rule only: "If it sounds good (to your ears) it is good."


----------



## Soundmagic (Mar 25, 2014)

Hi
For your case.
if you are a starter, you may need a easy-to-use EQ, without need golden ears, So the best way is to go to a pitch tracking EQ. No hard technology terms
http://www.supremepiano.com/product/neoeq.html
If you need compression to improve loudness, here is one with all features of a compressor, also can help you increase loudness and fullness of the sound. That is called "Sound Big"
http://www.supremepiano.com/product/neodyna.html
And I saw you want to improve the overall quality of your sound track. Then it may need something close to mastering, here it is
http://www.supremepiano.com/product/mastering.html


----------



## blougui (Mar 26, 2014)

Soundmagic, I think it would quite respectful to explain or add in your signature that you developpe and _sale _the products you seem to kindly advise.
It's a common practice over here, even for no dev members who are fair enough to say that this or that librairy they rave about have been offered to them at one point by the said developper.

And as most of your recent threads and comments are here to promote your products, I do think it would be better and honnest to say :

Soundmagic = supreme pianos.

Best,
- Erik


----------



## Stiltzkin (Mar 26, 2014)

I think in general there has been a bit of a misunderstanding in the request in this thread tbh, reading the replies.

While I do appreciate them, many of them seemed to be aimed towards the compositional aspect (which this was not about - the quality of say... one strings "sound" and "warmth" is not a compositional aspect (unless you consider orchestrations that are not possible with the libraries I have (ie sul g etc), that is a mixing/recording issue) or basic mixing techniques (all of which I can now use well anyway).

The aim was to look at those plugins that do what the default DAW (in cubase at least) cannot provide (such as tape saturation) and hardware plugin emulation such as UAD.

I've looked at quite a lot now (especially most of the stuff mentioned in the Alan Meyerson interview) and think I now have a pretty simple shopping list to help provide some warmth and character that I'm looking for.

Thanks for the replies all


----------



## Will Blackburn (Apr 1, 2014)

Nebula is a cut above the rest in terms of eq/compression/filtering/tape and saturation.


----------



## ThomasL (Apr 1, 2014)

OT, I know, sorry...



Giant_Shadow @ 2014-03-24 said:


> http://www.hornetplugins.com/plugins/hornet-vu-meter/


That HorNet Sybilla de-esser is good!  Never heard of them before, thanks!


----------

