# Realism in Orchestral Tracks



## AndroSheep (Apr 11, 2018)

This might sound like a very basic question, but I've been yet to find anything on the internet that provides me a decent solution or workaround. Let me inform you of my situation first - I'm 17 and have been dabbling in orchestration since I was 14. At the moment I am using a combination of Musescore and Reaper to create tracks.

My struggle, however, is that they lack realism since I don't know the basics of how to add reverb and EQ and what I should be using to do. I'm also restricted to free (or *very* cheap) instruments. If I was making electronic music this wouldn't be so difficult, but it is very difficult to find free good quality orchestral instruments.

Could someone help me (or point me to somewhere I could get help) with panning/reverb/EQing for an orchestral score, suggest any good free/demo instruments (my mains at the moment are VSCO and Sonatina) and just give me any other tips that would be helpful.

Apologies if I posted this in the wrong place.
Thank you


----------



## d.healey (Apr 11, 2018)

AndroSheep said:


> Musescore and Reaper to create tracks.


Excellent choices!



> I don't know the basics of how to add reverb and EQ and what I should be using to do.


Reverb and EQ won't add realism by themselves. You need some good quality instruments, but they don't have to be super fancy, the standard ones that come with Kontakt are fine and the VSCO aren't bad either. The key to realism is good orchestration and good performances. Are you playing in each part in Reaper or are you taking the MIDI straight from Musescore? 



> it is very difficult to find free good quality orchestral instruments.


That's because they are not cheap to make 

Paul Gilreath's Guide to Midi orchestration is a good book that has tips on creating a more realistic performance. 

Mike Verta's videos are incredibly helpful, this free one should give you some tips/tricks straight away:


----------



## AndroSheep (Apr 11, 2018)

d.healey said:


> Are you playing in each part in Reaper or are you taking the MIDI straight from Musescore?



I write it all first in Musescore then try to play everything I write afterwards. I am hoping to get a microphone to record my own violin playing which I'm hoping will be better than just using a cheap solo instrument. I have a tendency to write things I can't play though (especially for piano) and in that case I use the midi.



d.healey said:


> You need some good quality instruments, but they don't have to be super fancy, the standard ones that come with Kontakt are fine and the VSCO aren't bad either.



Ah, here's the thing, I'm only using Kontakt Player (the free one). I'm guessing for the ones that come with Kontakt you'd need the full version. Other than not timing out what is the difference between the two? I could get it but I didn't think it was worth it if I'm not going to be buying anything fancy.

Thanks very much for the book suggestion and the video, I shall take a look at the video now !


----------



## Jeremy Spencer (Apr 11, 2018)

In addition to David's good points, I highly recommend investing in some high quality sample libraries (or even EastWest Composer Cloud). No amount of eq or reverb is going to make your current samples sound "real".


----------



## aaronventure (Apr 11, 2018)

Hi!

I would suggest starting out small. There's a sticky post in SAMPLE Talk where you'll find tons of free VIs. Some of them only a recent discovery and great.

I see David already linked Mike's video for modwheel control. That's great!

As for mixing, it's like when you're learning an instrument. You don't go and try to play Campanella on your first day of Piano. You learn basics and you try your damnedest to play the best Twinkle Twinkle Little Star ever. And when you get it, you move on. And when learning a piece, you don't reset and start from the beginning every time you make a mistake. You work on *little parts *which then consolidate into the big picture.

Pick one instrument and write a solo piece. Or mock up a solo piece someone else has written, there are thousands available. Focus on making that solo instrument sound great. As good as it can. Not as good as _you _can. As good as the recording. Don't mind the VI's flaws, focus on the sound. Constantly compare to professional recordings of solo instruments. Also pay attention to lead instruments in concertos.

When you're able to pull off a mix where the solo instrument sounds great, move on. Add another. Now mix two of them. Space them, read about microphone techniques and pay attention to how two instrument recordings sound. Now add a third.

When you buy a sample library of a section (like brass, strings and woodwinds) it's usually well balanced out of the box, or at least in the ballpark. If you want to make your strings sound as good as possible, listen to great recordings of primarily string writing. Same for other sections. Once you can say that you can do a killer mix of a string section, or a brass section, or woodwinds or percussion, try mixing them together.

You definitely need equipment. At least a decent pair of headphones. I rarely work on headphones, but I own ATH-M50X. A very popular pair of cans, rather cheap ($150). Using only ATH-M50X I can do about 80% as good as I can on my main monitors.

You can do a lot with free VSTs you find around and with Reaper's internal effects. Once you are able to spend some money, I would suggest iZotope Neutron 2 Advanced as your first buy. They run sales every now and then, recently you could pick it up for something like $200 which is a steal.

Eventually you'll make it, but only if you actively work on improving. The program I suggested - starting with one instrument and slowly making your way to bigger sections and more tracks - is here because it will give you smaller, palpable goals you can reach in a reasonable amount of time and _feel_ progress, which is incredibly important for motivation and morale. But you have to be critical of yourself. I can't stress enough how important this is. Always scrutinize your work and look for areas to improve. Be proud of your achievements, of course, but until you can safely say that you can get a random set of garage recorded stems in the middle of the night and make them sound heavenly by sunrise, you have room to improve.

Constant comparing is your best friend. Luckily, you're working in Reaper and this is very easy to do in Reaper. Just drop your reference recordings into new tracks in Reaper and mute them. Now click on I/O, uncheck "Master Send" and for each one add a Hardware Send to your speaker outputs. These tracks are now sending audio directly to the outputs of your interface, bypassing any processing you might have on your master channel. You play your mix normally, and click on solo on one of the reference tracks when you want to take a listen. Since they're muted, they're not playing normally, but will play when soloed. It's very simply and effective.

As for where to find the recordings, Spotify is an excellent place. They have a ton of albums just a click away, and in a decent quality if you're subscribed. You basically can't go wrong with John Williams' recordings. Alan Silvestri's stuff is also well mixed. Henry Jackman's too.

If you're looking for classical recordings, this album has excerpts from fantastic recordings.

Good luck, and if you have any further questions, I'll do my best to help!


----------



## AndroSheep (Apr 11, 2018)

aaronventure said:


> You definitely need equipment. At least a decent pair of headphones.



The headphones I have sorted, but would you be able to suggest a good microphone for me? I have tried doing some research into it but there seems to be so many options at such a large range of prices it is a bit overwhelming. 



aaronventure said:


> When you buy a sample library of a section (like brass, strings and woodwinds) it's usually well balanced out of the box, or at least in the ballpark.



What would the difference be with live recorded instruments? Obviously room size it was recorded would greatly differ which would affect the sound but would it be possible to 'match' two instruments recorded in different locations.



aaronventure said:


> You work on *little parts *which then consolidate into the big picture.



That was some amazing and really motivating advice! I never thought about it as building each instrument up separately and that has really made me see it in a new light. 

Thank you


----------



## aaronventure (Apr 11, 2018)

AndroSheep said:


> The headphones I have sorted, but would you be able to suggest a good microphone for me? I have tried doing some research into it but there seems to be so many options at such a large range of prices it is a bit overwhelming.



What's your budget? I mean technology's come rather far today. This is a great video demonstration. You'd also be surprised at the sound quality you can get with a $60 Tascam mic.



AndroSheep said:


> What would the difference be with live recorded instruments? Obviously room size it was recorded would greatly differ which would affect the sound but would it be possible to 'match' two instruments recorded in different locations.


Absolutely. I do it all the time. Other pros do it all the time too. You want to match the microphone technique (you can fake additional mics by adding additional no-feedback delayed signals and panning them around, you can look up Haas Panning and then there's a million things you can do with that), and perceived ambiance which also includes low/high roll-off. When you'll be listening to recordings, notice how a flute concerto or a flute solo has the flute mixed at the very front. It's in your face. Then notice when you're listening to other orchestral pieces how the flute is way in the back. Compare the two. Compare the ambiance, compare the frequency response (notice the lack of detail, and lack of low end on instruments that have one). 



AndroSheep said:


> That was some amazing and really motivating advice! I never thought about it as building each instrument up separately and that has really made me see it in a new light.
> 
> Thank you


No problem! I promise you, if you take this approach and actively work on it, be self critical and make notes on what to improve when comparing your mixes to recordings, you'll make great progress very fast. Create a sort of checklist like: How is my frequency balance, do I have enough low end, enough detail, how is that bassoon sitting so nicely and how does it have such a crispy texture (hint: multiband saturation), is my mix too squashed (hint: there's not much compression done in orchestral music - I do _very _little, a tiny fraction of what I do for electronic music; unless you want to go for the more produced "Hans Zimmer" type of sound, which there is nothing wrong with) and then just go experimenting.


----------



## AndroSheep (Apr 11, 2018)

aaronventure said:


> What's your budget? I mean technology's come rather far today. This is a great video demonstration. You'd also be surprised at the sound quality you can get with a $60 Tascam mic.



I'm in England, but I just did a conversion of that and its about £42 so I could go over double that. Id say £100-150 is my upper limit, to which google tells me is $140-210. Are there certain things I should look for or avoid?



aaronventure said:


> is my mix too squashed (hint: there's not much compression done in orchestral music - I do _very _little, a tiny fraction of what I do for electronic music; unless you want to go for the more produced "Hans Zimmer" type of sound, which there is nothing wrong with) and then just go experimenting.



What exactly is compression? I haven't heard it before in this context.


----------



## Henu (Apr 11, 2018)

AndroSheep said:


> What exactly is compression? I haven't heard it before in this context.



Compression is basically a very fast volume automation. And when I say very fast, I mean _millisecond- fas_t automation. 

The purpose of it is either to even out excessive volume jumps in audio or to use it as a sound- shaper for various instruments. Compressors come in all different variations: some are more used for obvious sound- shaping (for "sound") and some are more intended to transparently flat the dynamics (=for controlling the volume) a bit more but the main purpose of those is to _even out the peaks_ in your waveform in different ways.

Check out this video which explains it. There are a TON of videos around, but hey, why not Glenn Fricker?


----------



## KEM (Apr 11, 2018)

I suggest you get a job and buy some good orchestral libraries haha. I’m 20, so I’m not much older than you, which means I know exactly what boat you’re in, so take my advice and buy a good Orchestral library, my first was EWQL Hollywood Orchestra Gold, which I’d recommend, and then buy something like Valhalla Vintage Verb for your reverb. You don’t need much, but don’t bother with ensamble patches, you need to know every section, so save up some money and buy stuff that’ll actually be useful.


----------



## AndroSheep (Apr 12, 2018)

KEM said:


> I suggest you get a job and buy some good orchestral libraries haha.



I wish that was possible! No one around here wants to employ someone who can only work one or two days a week. I think I'm just going to have to be creative and find another way to save up. Will definitely have a look at them libraries you reccomended.


----------



## camerhil (Apr 12, 2018)

Wolfie2112 mentioned EastWest Composer Cloud, which would be a good starting point for your orchestral collection since it's a low monthly payment rather than thousands up-front, and it gives you access to a huge range of instruments, some of which are top-tier. You also don't need the full version of Kontakt since this uses its own player.

http://www.soundsonline.com/composercloud

If you're a student, you can get it for 15 bucks a month, which is fantastic value. Many people on these forums use the EW Symphonic Orchestra and Hollywood Orchestra components in their professional recordings.


----------



## Samulis (Apr 14, 2018)

Some freeware ideas-
- Bigcat Audio (BC always is putting up VST's to use- he now has a second website where he puts most of them)
- Virtual Playing Orchestra (an amalgam of several freeware orchestral projects out there)
- Ivy Audio (some seriously heavy-duty freeware)
- VST4Free (lots of good VST's get mentioned there)
- Bedroom Producer's Blog (great coverage of new VST's, with a particular focus on freeware and budget stuff)
- The Alpine Project (if you ever get the full Kontakt, it's a great starting point)

Almost more important than the samples themselves is using them "idiomatically". Each sample set is performed and recorded a particular way. It is important to try to play to the strengths of the sample set- for example, strings which have a soft attack and no RR sound fantastic in slow, pad-like uses, but will always fall a bit flat in quick passages, no matter how great the players or mics are. Making small compositional compromises in the name of a more realistic performance by the virtual instrument can result in a far better result than not heeding the limits and strengths of both the _real_ AND the _virtual_ instruments.

It is all in learning how to best work with the materials you have. Among buyers of physical instruments, there are some who are constantly shopping for new mouthpieces or bows or instruments, when for the most part, it is themselves that they are unhappy with. I've heard musicians with $200 'junk' trombones play circles (in both tone and faculty) around others with $5,000 custom jobs that check all the 'instrument fanboy' boxes. Most of this really boils down to rehearsing technical skills and phrasing, but also familiarity with the limits and strengths of your instrument(s). The same applies to sample libraries!

At the same time, despite being the creator of VSCO 2 CE, I would certainly be among the first to admit that as freeware, it has a limited shelf-life in the career of the composer, and is only intended to serve until more professional tools may be acquired. While I have heard some very impressive work done with it so far, it cannot compete with the more expansive Pro Edition or offerings from other companies in the $200+ price range.

My recommendation would be to stick with what you have until you have a good sense over how to work with a library like VSCO 2 CE, because in all honesty, it can pretty much only go uphill from there. If you can make a good mix with a limited set of fairly dry samples, then mixing the pre-wet, pre-panned, pre-mixed, multi-mic'd samples of most typical commercial libraries will be a walk in the park. 

Each library favors certain genres and styles. The qualities and specs will make more sense in certain cases than others; this is why many eventually decide to get multiple libraries. There are advantages both to large and small libraries. Your first concern in deciding which path to go down is storage space, then the level of flexibility/control you need. (Un)fortunately there is *no* 'one size fits all' option out there, and you will need to explore the commercial (and non-commercial) options that fit your needs, resources, and budget.

While there are some libraries out there which avoid Kontakt altogether, the unfortunate truth is that a large number of the better products below $300 (i.e. the sorts of libraries that you will want to use as a growing professional) require you to own Kontakt to use. Kontakt is typically on sale at least once a year, and also can be had with a decent discount from owning a 'Powered by Kontakt Player' library (to my knowledge- you may want to check this).

Reverb
Reverb is like glue; it needs to hold together the various sounds so they mesh as if they come from the same stage (or at least, close enough). There is a strong temptation, just like when a toddler first discovers glue, to simply drown the work in the stuff, but that just leads to a messy, unpleasant final result that ultimately fails in its primary purpose to join the work together. Personally, I like convolution reverbs, but there are plenty of fine algorithmic reverbs out there.

Go for a medium length, about 1.5-3.5 seconds. Too short and it'll sound like your closet; too long and it'll muddy up the mix.
Don't be afraid of trying out the various properties!
Less is more- about -20 to -8 dB mix of wet on the dry, or about 10-25% wet is typically plenty, especially the less realistic the reverb. Try starting with zero reverb, then turn it up bit by bit until it just holds everything together.
Shorter (and less) reverb on transient-rich sounds like drums is often a good idea, or else they can get muddy quick. On the other hand, strings can absorb quite a lot of reverb without sounding bad. I blame this on the 1960's.
Sonatina is already pretty wet; go very sparingly on reverb. There are lots of libraries out there which actually don't need any reverb, while others necessitate it to function well- this is where busses/stems can be your friend.
EQ
EQ was, and still is, a first and foremost corrective measure, and may not even be necessary for most cases. Generally speaking, here are a few tips for orchestral EQ-ing-

Again, less is more. In a parametric EQ, typically use lighter slopes and make gradual adjustments. Always compare your changes to make sure what you're doing is improving the sound.
You may find that some samples may sound odd because they were recorded up close or far away (check out the proximity effect, for example).
Before you reach for the EQ, consider the orchestration and instrumentation. Does it sound bad because the recording is not good and require EQ'ing or because the range or writing is not good and requires rethought?
Mix
Comparing your mix to orchestral recordings is a good idea; especially pay attention to the release after a note is played (the room), the 'width' of the stage, and the placement of the instruments in the space. It is better to get CD-quality recordings if you can, as they're lossless, not to mention very cheap in the used market nowadays.

A few general thoughts on mixing and how an orchestra should sound-

It is common for the orchestra to be recorded as a whole with several sets of mics, mixed together to create the final sound. Sometimes you may be mixing recordings done with a wide variety of mics, spaces, and instruments. Ultimately it is an art which relies upon your ability to distinguish between a "good" blend and a "poor" one.
The absolute best place to learn how an orchestra should sound is a live, professional orchestra itself. At the end of the day, being in a real hall with a real orchestra is something else. Taking the time to sit and take in the sound (close your eyes, even, just listen and take mental notes) will give you an idea on where to aim when mixing the instruments, as well as using reverb.
The sound or the orchestra in a film score today is quite modified. If it is recorded in a studio, larger reverb may be added. Mastering compression may also be used, and other effects to enhance and "dazzle" the audience, often layered with samples and synths. A film score album can show you what you can make an orchestra sound like if you want, of course.
Regardless, learn what a 'good' recording sounds like on your equipment. In the grand scheme of things, I mix and monitor on fairly affordable headphones, but I've used them for a decade and I know when something will work and when it won't when using them.
If you are recording anything live, record it at a fairly close position (about .5-2 meters away), preferably in a similar configuration to what recorded the rest of the material (typically some form of stereo pair). The more live/unpleasant/noisy your space, the closer you want to be. Working from a drier original material gives you complete flexibility to work the sound to fit whatever space you need it to fit. Set the live recorded instruments on their own bus(ses) and add effects as needed.

Something https://instaud.io/private/33ccfb6d530809d25193ad7e6577484a8709155e (like this) works well- see, I can put it in a https://instaud.io/private/3b112d7e4e303bd0e494dad99bbbed6195b46c98 (concert hall) or even match it to a https://instaud.io/private/4efa179b34082d4e4d795b4c3cb78d8a98bdcace (different studio) with impulses and a few effects (light EQ and some stereo positioning). If you were to use all dry samples, recorded similarly, then you can do this to all your samples and live recordings. Of course, that is just one technique of many, YMMV.

Some general thoughts on panning/balance-

Avoid hard panning (100%L/100%R) unless as an effect, if the material even needs panning.

Explore stereo panning vs. volume-based (normal) panning.
Before recorded audio, orchestrators used the actual orchestration to achieve balance between the left and right sides of the orchestra. Consider how your orchestration can serve the balance of the ensemble.

Anyway, if you want another opinion, Mattias Westlund (dev of Sonatina) put up some well thought out and detailed articles going over his own thought process for panning, mixing, and general virtual orchestration, which I definitely recommend. At the very least, more food for thought!
http://mattiaswestlund.net/?page_id=29

It should be noted as a final caveat that there is no explicit "right" and "wrong" way of doing this stuff. Yes, there are more effective or more professional methods, but for the most part, it is a matter of using the tools you have, the ears on the sides of your head, and a bit of patient, gradual improvement to find out what you want.


----------



## Erick - BVA (Apr 15, 2018)

I personally have wondered myself, how do you mix an orchestral track for realism?
Because a common "you should always do this" is to have the bass or lower registered instruments in the center of the mix and spread the higher frequencied instruments to the sides.
But a modern orchestra is not usually arranged in this way (usually cellos and basses on the right). If anything the "higher" registered instruments are right down the middle, and it's not like the room renders the sound in such a way to magically put all of the bass frequencies into the center of the mix of what we're hearing.
I think I remember seeing orchestral placements for hollywood filming, and they didn't even have basses or cellos in the middle. So how does this work? Why is such a common mixing technique (one which is quite valid) so different from the live arrangement?

Was interesting going through this article, and seeing that some arrangement types did have the basses and lower registered instruments near or at the center of the stage (Figures 8, 9, and 11)

http://www.jdsmusic.co.uk/Orchestral%20Seating%20-%20JDS%202009.pdf (http://www.jdsmusic.co.uk/Orchestral Seating - JDS 2009.pdf)


----------



## JohnG (Apr 15, 2018)

You're right Erick that most of the time the strings are arranged the way you described, but there are tons of counterexamples from the concert world alone, leaving aside film / media music.

It's wide open. Sometimes I want v1 on the left and v2 on the right, with celli and violas kind of in the middle. Most of the time I just don't worry about it and let the players be where they normally are. 

When recording though, I often put basses toward the back of the room and closer to the middle than they would be in a typical concert setting.


----------



## Divico (Apr 15, 2018)

Pretty much covered here already. If you´re looking for decent free reverbs. 
Reaper has a build in convolution reverb. There are a couple of decent free IRs for example those here
http://www.samplicity.com/bricasti-m7-impulse-responses/
that you can load into ReaVerb


----------



## Erick - BVA (Apr 15, 2018)

Divico said:


> Pretty much covered here already. If you´re looking for decent free reverbs.
> Reaper has a build in convolution reverb. There are a couple of decent free IRs for example those here
> http://www.samplicity.com/bricasti-m7-impulse-responses/
> that you can load into ReaVerb



I really want to learn how to make my own IR's. Would be so cool.


----------



## robgb (Apr 15, 2018)

Sibelius19 said:


> I really want to learn how to make my own IR's. Would be so cool.


----------



## Erick - BVA (Apr 15, 2018)

robgb said:


>



Awesome, so he's using the "transient" method. 
That's awesome. Easier than I thought it would be. Thanks for posting.


----------



## synthetic (Apr 15, 2018)

I recommend MikeVerta.com “template balancing” class. That made a big difference to my mixes. But the biggest thing to do for realism is to master orchestration. Well-orchestrated stuff is much easier to mix and more realistic. So get your nose in some scores that you like and try transcribing stuff and checking it against the real score (another Verta recc that works for me.)


----------



## Replicant (Apr 15, 2018)

It's probably been said, but I'm not reading all the replies. But in my opinion:

Good part writing, dynamics, tempo fluctuation, good reverb to send the tracks into, respecting the limitations of the instruments, and a decent sample library (most of them are) are all that's necessary.

It should not be necessary to mess with EQs, compressors, etc. esp. when it comes to realism.


----------



## Henu (Apr 16, 2018)

Replicant said:


> It should not be necessary to mess with EQs, compressors, etc. esp. when it comes to realism.



As someone just going through his Template Balancing- video, Mike Verta disagrees with _not_ using the EQ when striving for realism. And after been watching half of it now, I wholeheartedly agree with him and feel kind of stupid not realizing it before in the orchestral context. It's really essential for the depth of the sound!


----------



## Replicant (Apr 16, 2018)

Henu said:


> As someone just going through his Template Balancing- video, Mike Verta disagrees with _not_ using the EQ when striving for realism. And after been watching half of it now, I wholeheartedly agree with him and feel kind of stupid not realizing it before in the orchestral context. It's really essential for the depth of the sound!



I'm sure Mike makes a compelling argument.

Regardless, I will stand by mine.

There is no way that EQ makes anywhere near as much of a difference as the things I mentioned in creating a realistic performance as to go as far to say that it is a necessary step.

There is no shortage of product demos using the samples "untreated" that prove this. There are also product demos showing how to treat the samples with EQ (Cinesamples, Alex Wallbank) and honestly, the difference it made in general was subtle (to put it lightly) and there was no discernible difference in realism.


----------



## Henu (Apr 16, 2018)

I think we're talking about different things here. While some nice surgical EQ will indeed get you rid of nasty resonances, buildups etc, it is not 100% necessary every time. And most of the time the samples are so well recorded that unless you need to match different libraries together, it's completely futile to start EQ'ing the living crap out of anything- you'll just end up usually ruining the original sound. Been there, done that. Nowadays when I mix (no matter the source or style) I EQ only when necessary, not for the sake of it, but I wish someone had told me that years ago, haha!

But I'm talking about creating an imaginary distance using audio physics as a guideline. The further back you want your sound source to be in the field, the more it starts to lose low frequencies first and then highs later. Of course you also need early reflections and reverb tails too to make the illusion more realistic too, but carving the lows according to the source's wanted depth is essential in _any sort_ of audio work when creating depth, and the orchestra is no difference on that.


----------



## Replicant (Apr 17, 2018)

Henu said:


> I think we're talking about different things here. While some nice surgical EQ will indeed get you rid of nasty resonances, buildups etc, it is not 100% necessary every time. And most of the time the samples are so well recorded that unless you need to match different libraries together, it's completely futile to start EQ'ing the living crap out of anything- you'll just end up usually ruining the original sound. Been there, done that. Nowadays when I mix (no matter the source or style) I EQ only when necessary, not for the sake of it, but I wish someone had told me that years ago, haha!
> 
> But I'm talking about creating an imaginary distance using audio physics as a guideline. The further back you want your sound source to be in the field, the more it starts to lose low frequencies first and then highs later. Of course you also need early reflections and reverb tails too to make the illusion more realistic too, but carving the lows according to the source's wanted depth is essential in _any sort_ of audio work when creating depth, and the orchestra is no difference on that.



Fair enough. I dunno, I guess with orchestral libraries I've always relied more on the different mics for that sort of thing, but touche.


----------



## bosone (Apr 17, 2018)

regarding realism, as a "serious" hobbyst i can say there's no way to obtain realistic orchestral instruments phrases out of a VST without spending hundreds/thousands of euros in big libraries such as e.g vienna, or other.
no EQ or mix technique could bring "life" to static samples.
realism on VST orchestral instruments is not about "notes", it's about "how notes are connected", so you will be looking for legato, trills, portato, slurs, etc...
i would suggest to not focus on realism at the beginning, but to learn how a DAW and how a sample library is made, and what you can do. there are tons of tricks that can be used to give life to a sampled instruments. you may want to learn how midi works, for example.

a good starting and cheap point for a sample library is garritan personal orchestra. quite old but very effective as a learning platform. https://www.timespace.com/collections/garritan

and, as a DAW, you may want to have a look at cakewalk by bandlab, a FREE high level workstation. https://cakewalk.bandlab.com/


----------



## Jeremy Spencer (Apr 17, 2018)

I agree about investing in a good library(s) to begin with. The bottom line? You can't polish a turd. I invite anyone to post some pieces composed with free VST's that sound like the real deal. Of course learning the "under the hood" aspects are essential, but if you don't have good tools to begin with, it's not going to sound convincing.


----------



## Samulis (Apr 18, 2018)

Wolfie2112 said:


> I agree about investing in a good library(s) to begin with. The bottom line? You can't polish a turd. I invite anyone to post some pieces composed with free VST's that sound like the real deal. Of course learning the "under the hood" aspects are essential, but if you don't have good tools to begin with, it's not going to sound convincing.



The problem with your invitation is that 'the real deal' runs the whole spectrum from sugar-coated film scores and impeccable recording studios stocked with every 'U' on the planet to budget novice recordings done with $20 mics (there are even some genres and some libraries which are intentionally cheap sounding). While for the most part it is true you can't do all that much to improve upon inadequate recordings or poor performances, there always are things you can do to avoid the bad parts of the instrument and bring out the good.

The benefit of sampling is economy of scale- one solo instrument sample library might mean one 1-20+ hour recording which can then be sold or distributed to hundreds or thousands. A $100 piano might represent $10,000 in recording costs. The same benefit falls down to freeware, especially freeware samples extracted from a commercial sample set, where tens of thousands of dollars in gear, performers, and studio time can reduce the only variable to sample detail.

Sample detail in and of itself (i.e. number of pitches, rr's, vl's, articulations, mic positions) is often overrated. You probably use commercial sample libraries recorded in wholetone and minor thirds on a daily basis without knowing it (while there is some freeware even that is recorded chromatically), and there are countless expensive sample libraries with just two or three velocity layers. A sample library with low round robins can be used to great effect by avoiding ostinatos and repetitions in writing, and whether or not we really need articulations like _7 arco sul ponticello violas up-bow at pp with a paperclip 1/3rd the way down the D string_ is up for interpretation.

I won't argue that the better quality recordings and performances you have at your disposal, generally the better quality your end result will be, but I will contest that _all_ freeware is incapable of sounding convincing _just because it's free_. There are some bad freeware libraries, just as there are some bad commercial sample libraries, but there are also some excellent freeware libraries. Again, you can make great sample libraries at any price sound bad by abusing their weaknesses (try super fast legato/trills in a sample library with slow true legato transitions), but you can also make sample libraries sound fantastic which otherwise have zero good reason to do so.


(the rest of the orchestra is real, but the trumpet is a very simple sample set (3vl, 1rr, chrom sustains)- what makes it sound remarkably decent is the phrasing and programming. While it appears fake in a few places to a brass player, I have no doubt this would easily fool a non-musician. This trumpet, however, fails in some other contexts, so again- my point that it is more about how well and in what context you use the tool rather than its quality is backed up)


&
https://vi-control.net/community/th...-with-a-funky-kawai-piano.70049/#post-4212483
(I've heard live recordings that sound more 'fake' than those)


(there's a reason I say most of the reason people buy sample libraries is the reverb on the demos... that's a ~10-sample harmonica patch)

https://instaud.io/PUD
(I had to double-check this one was samples. Just goes to show how important good release samples are; honestly more important than transitions)


----------



## Jeremy Spencer (Apr 18, 2018)

The Haydn piece (I assume you meany Haydn, not Hydan) has a decent sounding trumpet patch, very nice. My point, however, is that free VST's on a whole are....well.....just plain awful for the most part when it comes to realism. If you could provide a sample showing the entire Haydn Trumpet Concerto sequenced using only free VST's (and have it sound remotely real), I would be impressed.


----------



## dcoscina (Apr 19, 2018)

synthetic said:


> I recommend MikeVerta.com “template balancing” class. That made a big difference to my mixes. But the biggest thing to do for realism is to master orchestration. Well-orchestrated stuff is much easier to mix and more realistic. So get your nose in some scores that you like and try transcribing stuff and checking it against the real score (another Verta recc that works for me.)


This is an excellent suggestion. Also if you have the means (being a student should allow you lower admission prices) go see live orchestra performances. You will not only get to hear the realities of how love instruments sound together but also what is realistically attainable and you can even take internal notes about how the orchestra sounds in a live space. 

I’ve read a lot of responses here regarding production but please be attentive to performance applications too. If you play each line in, it will yield a closer sound to a real group since very few instruments are polyphonic. Also, adjust start and end times between instruments since orchestras never play perfectly in rhythmic unison. I always apply this even when vln 1 and 2 are playing a unison line because I’m reality, there would be slight differences in entry on a note.

Working in a notation environment is beneficial since it makes one aware of potential static sections (lots of tied whole notes). Even breaking up a held note with some syncopated rhythms on the weak beats can give a sense of motion. Use of Ornaments are also your friend as trills and fingered trem can fill out your harmonies and yet again provide more activity. The biggest vice with composing using modern technology is that it’s keyboard based which can straightjacket one into a very limited approach and one that doesn’t necessarily translate well towards orchestral writing.

My 2 cents


----------



## robgb (Apr 19, 2018)

Replicant said:


> There is no shortage of product demos using the samples "untreated" that prove this.


I've always found the "untreated" or "naked" tracks to be inferior to the treated tracks. The point of EQ is to make a sound more pleasing to the ear and render a track or instrument more cohesive with the tonal structure of the entire mix. So it only makes sense that proper EQ would lend a hand in making the overall sound more realistic, because by "realistic" we usually mean it sounds like a real RECORDED orchestra, which is what we're most used to hearing.


----------

