/musicprod/ - Music Production

Panning and Cutting in EQ are your friends.

>>508

Someone should make a music infographic thread.

I have a problem. When I feel like I have a nice mix, the feedback on the mixing itself is still lukewarm. What do? Pay a professional? I try to improve but I just can't hear anything wrong with my mixes.

>>524

for one thing, stop using terms like "lukewarm" to describe sound. color and "warmness" are abstract ways of describing concrete understood things for mixing, and the meaning of said abstractions will vary depending on the context in which you learned them.

in other words it's a bad habit that makes communication more difficult. it is literally obfusication of music knowledge, I mean, what are we, fucking alchemists trying to hide that we're talking about making a philosopher stone? i mean shit, why would you even make it harder to learn the stuff like that.

[/rant]

By feedback do you mean the output on your mixer/daw and it telling you something? or it sounds wrong post mastering? Do you mean feedback as in what people tell you about it and give you feedback about it?

See, this level of confusion on what's wrong is why you don't use terms like that.

As for pay a professional, no, if you learn how to mix well you eventually *become* said professional. learning to do it yourself will not only improve your composition, but save you a bunch of money on hiring for mixing and mastery.

Sadly I can't tell you what's wrong and how to fix it, if you can't tell me in a way that I'll understand.

I will however recommend as a universal fix, to go on youtube and find the channel of SeamlessR, a dude with long hair and a giant beard that does tutorials in FL Studio, for dubstep, neurofunk, DNB, and currently hardstyle. His tutorials are not exclusive to FL studio and he talks about the technical what is being done, so that the techniques can be used in other DAWs. He has a number of videos on mixing and mastery.

I highly suggest you go through those. He goes the rout of making everything as loud and as full as he can, which if you're trying to make your mix as flat as you can, clearly that's what you're aiming for.

>>503

My normal process is to simply use Pro Q to clean up the muddy region in my master track. I also slightly boost other regions. Then I use a multiband compressor.

OP here again.

so flattening is not a universal ideal huh. I guess i should have figured that out. i did hear that people try to mix and balance using a pink noise track as a reference, where people lower their levels so it's barely above the pink noise. is this legit?

>>536

I didn't use the word to describe sound. I used the word to describe the feedback on the sound. The feedback on arrangement is usually good, but not the mixing. I have literally no idea what you're talking about in your rant. No clue at all. I'm pretty confused. "Lukewarm" means "all right but nok good enough."

I make rock music with acoustic instruments. Electronic mixing tutorials never helped me much. By "feedback" I think it was obvious I meant what people tell me they think about my music. If I was getting feedback loops I'd just ask how to fix that or google it.

>>557

in my post I said

>by feedback do you mean—

and

>stop using terms like "lukewarm" to describe sound. color and "warmness"

Describing a sound as having a "warm tone" or "this sounds cold" or "this sounds bright"

That's what I was ranting about. I just assumed that's what you meant by it being lukewarm.

If you're recording rock with acoustic instruments, and you want your mix to be flat, you're aiming for loudness. which makes some sense.

what you're looking for is a mixing and mastery tutorial. Sadly, that's one of the harder things to do. I suggest you go on youtube and look for mixing and mastering tutorials for music production, maybe specific to your genre.

The most complex I've heard of is the mixing and mastery for some genres of metal, which consists of using EQ's to cut holes in sounds to fit them all together like a jigsaw puzzle, and then cramming it through compressors and just doing that again and again in layers until you're down to a master compressor. but that gets you a very VERY specific sound, and if you're using acoustic instruments, I doubt that's quite what you want.

what I'd suggest is listen to one instrument, and use a band cut filter, or a peak filter with a very low value (reducing that band), and slowly move it around until you find a frequency that allows the sound that's playing to still sound "normal"

you have to do that stuff manually, by ear, for every single thing. different sounds have different ranges you can EQ out and still sound right, and you basically have to fit them together based around that, to figure out what you can turn up and what you can't.

Personally though, I don't go for that, and I go for HDR (High dynamic Range, meaning it's not super-compressed)

>>562

not that guy but i'm trying to learn how to mix/master orchestral compositions. can you point me to a particular direction for tutorials?

>>562

I'm going for HDR as well. Maybe that's the problem. People are used to max loudness and cramming of every sound, and my music is as "pure" as I can make it.

>>568

If you're doing orchestral there's a few ways to go about it, but if you're going for realism, like emulating having an actual orchestra playing, you need to mix/master each instrument to perfection, make sure they've got a small amount of reverb set to the size/shape of the theater (rather than a standard reverb effect, you are emulating a room). and you have to do that to every single instrument, or at least group of instruments, if not both. Then it's just a case of balancing it, and never clipping ANY of them. which means you're balancing for HDR.

Unless you're going for like movie-soundtrack and orchestral + other genre, at which point you don't need to totally worry about realism for room and such, and instead you treat the different instruments like subtractive synthesis, and layer them together and mix together that way and compress the shit out of it (something a true orchestra is incapable of, because this is electronic orchestral rather than a true orchestra).

In both of those cases, you need good instruments more than anything else.

As for

>>570 on HDR, which ALSO pertains to orchestral when not a super-compressed inception-noise BWAMP.

HDR, or High dynamic range, is where your end goal is NOT maximum loudness, but rather maximum quality.

Basically, you know how when you are like "okay, i'm finished making the song, and each thing sounds right, but now I have to mix and master". basically there is no mixing and mastery. it's all about balance, and it really varies from track to track, but typically you don't have MUCH by means of EQ/Mixing and no compression for loudness except where it is required for a specific instrument (Distorted guitar for instance, the distortion can be viewed as compression)

The way that I personally go about doing HDR for mastery, is I turn down every mixer channel to about 10%, and turn my speakers up. I start with the sound that's supposed to be the loudest sound, which is almost ALWAYS the drums, because you have to hear that thumping clearly over every other instrument. from there I add the next instrument and adjust it's volume to sound 'correct' against the drums. then I add an instrument and adjust it's volume until it sounds 'correct' with the other instruments, and I do that again and again untill everything is there. from there some things might sound wrong, so I make adjustments. This is the point when mixing comes in for HDR. some of your sounds will occupy the same range or have an overlap, and they will sound wrong, because they're basically distorting/phase canceling eachother, or otherwise creating dissonance (not note dissonance but random harmonics, but really that's a rare and specific cause, but i digress). so what you do in that situation is EQ both of those sounds. Typically you'd find the frequency range that's causing a problem, and do about -3db maybe -6 if it's extreme, to those specific frequencies, on one of the two instruments. you have to test both though because some sounds loosing some of its range will sound wrong, but others will not. it's tedious but not too difficult. you might have to fine tune it a lot.

(The body was too long)

once you've done that to clean up your mix, which should probably only be a few minor EQings. you then need to re-level everything. don't worry, at this point it's easy. you've leveled everything to eachother independently, so now you just adjust all of their gain on the master. Admittedly I have a VST that lets you do +60db of gain (MDA Loudness, it's freeware, it has 3 knobs, loudness, gain, and something about them being linked. just set +/- 0 loudness, that's an EQ setting, and use it for gain)

If you're mixing in analog you'd have to manually slide each mixer track up in sync with eachother and keep them the right level to eachother, but since we're probably all on computers with 32bit floating point (supports +60db of data, but only +3(?) db of output since everything above -60 is audible, which is weird since +0 is the boarder of green and yellow on the mixers)

Since we're on computers though we can just crank the volume on the master and won't be loosing data/audio quality really, because it's all preserved in most DAWs. if you've got a DAW that doesn't preserve this data (have one effect lower the gain, and another pump it back up, if they're not the same quality you're daw is retarded. just sayin) you'll have to do this the hard way and slide everything up.

I should probably point this out, that I adjust the gain on all my mixer channels with a VST that lowers gain, and lower all channels flatly, adjust the mixer and then take that VST off.

IF taking that off isn't loud enough is when I tweak the master. I just remembered that when typing, which is why it contradicts earlier, i'm just too lazy to scroll up, this is sort of a train of thought.

anyway. i've been rambling

Once you've got everything leveled against eachother by ear for what you think sounds good, you crank the volume up until it starts to clip anything. typically you won't want your drums to clip even. If you're using real drum samples that are recorded for HDR quality, all your instruments will likely only be a small fraction as loud as the peaks on your drums, which means if you're willing to sacrifice true HDR, you could at this point run it through a compressor, but this takes a good amount of punch out of your drums, and from there you're entering the territory of the loudness war again.

Unless you're in the loudness war, everything is largely by ear, with a few minor tweaks to keep it from turning to ass.

Sadly I can't find any tutorials out there for HDR recording, I keep getting HDR Photography because youtube is retarded and I'm not bothering with google.

I hope my tutorial makes sense.

finally to clarify having re-read everything i posted.

>crank the volume up until it starts to clip

this is just to see how loud it gets before it clips, you want it to be just a hair below that point.

if you where in the loudness war proper you would still need to do this, but then all the compressors split-band compression and even more EQing starts at this point. and now thanks to DAWs and modern mixing, you can actually skip everything, which is why it seems noone understands even how to mix for HDR, or what it even means.

I'd also like to point out that other than myself, and a few super rare cases that seem irrelevant at this point (who the fuck listens to moby?) HDR in electronic music is largely non-existent. unless it's a soundtrack, then there's HDR out the ass.

and lastly, the definition of terms for HDR, it's about peak and level, the "distance" in loudness between the quiet and the loud. I perceive the loudness war as a loss of quality because of the compression and clipping, for obvious reasons. if you're already planing on doing HDR, then you already understand this, i'm only saying it here for everyone else.

>>571

well i use a hybrid convolution reverb. one on each track?

>>593

Pretty much, as long as your convolution reverb is actually the right kind. The only thing I've ever used it for is a cheap work-around for cabinet emulation to fake having a guitar amp, and the impulses used are clicks going through an amp. if you've got a good set of impulse files then yes that's probably perfect, it's just a question of setting up your panning properly first.

I was actually thinking about mentioning those.

>>613

I'm not sure how much help this will be, but have you considered using a phaser subtly? it usually helps to give it's own distinct space

>>613

Cutting the piano at its peak may not be the right thing to do. Do a band pass and see where the clarity range of that instrument is. Then cut a bit of that range from another track. Find where the clarity of that track is, cut that from the piano. Reference your mix in mono and never rely on panning to make something fit. If you can hear each individual track in mono, then you can start panning.

Obviously this isn't any definitive thing you should always do (just like anything with audio) but it should help you get your head around subtraction EQ.

https://clyp.it/swlo4nhu

another track i made. i sort of deviated and tried to see what i am doing wrong with making space, but it seems like i just have too much going on with the arpeggiating moog and reverb.

>>760

It is slightly messy, but only because the various melodies sometimes hit notes directly above/below each other. If you make sure each beat's harmony is clean, it's a pretty good and catchy texture.

I'd change the lead to something closer. It can still have a huge reverb, but it needs to be louder and crisper. A moog isn't a good lead instrument in my opinion. I'd try something even more 80s sounding, but not a cheesy film music sounding 80s.

I love the moog arps.

>>761

thanks. yeah i'm a fan of the moog arp, even with the minimoog it has that modular weight to it. i've been jumping back and forth though to instruments to see what i can do to make them sound "legit" but it's still such a struggle, even by themselves. i'll try to upload them in a bit.

it feels like the samples for organic instruments just don't want to sound bright or give space to one another, especially a piano/organ/string variety.

>>679

>Reference your mix in mono

in mono? i'm probably going to get burned alive for this, but how would i set the track itself in mono? i usually only set mono using my EQ or tape emulator because they have a switch for it. is there a proper approach in the track arm somewhere?

>>770

>it feels like the samples for organic instruments just don't want to sound bright or give space to one another, especially a piano/organ/string variety.

Let me tell you, guy

If you're not planning on having a lot of dynamics in your piano patterns, almost all of them sound good. You're just gonna have to pay a little bit of money. I'm sure there's plenty of great and crackable pianos for Kontakt too. Which have you tried?

=I highly recommend you check out the Complete Composer's Collection by EWQL.==

You can find them on http://www.soundsonline.com

These can't be pirated though, because your licenses are stored on a USB dongle that you plug into the computer you'll be using the instruments on.

As for strings, EWQL has them. Some of the best. In fact, they have two high quality orchestral libraries/collections. I have Symphonic Orchestra Gold with the close mic and surround mic extensions (in addition to the standard stage mic), allowing me to play around with realistic room positioning, placing solo instruments in the front and large sections way behind. This library has just about every style of playing (legato, portamento, spic, pizz, stac, sus, exp, harmonics, a ton of effects, trills, run simulators, many more) and you can choose between different numbers of instruments playing (first violins, second, big sections, and solo too). They all sound completely realistic once you get the hang of making your compositions dynamic in velocity and expression. It has all your strings, brass, percussion and woodwinds, plus a few choirs.

That's the first orchestra they released. Then they released Hollywood Strings and eventually Hollywood Brass, Percussion and Woodwinds, and now they sell them as the Hollywood Orchestra bundle. I don't have these, but they sound amazing.

Also, EWQL libraries come with a huge set of convolution reverb presets that sound very realistic and nice.

This is expensive, but super realistic VSTs of this size (I think all my EWQL libraries amount to around 800 GB or more) aren't cheap or easily pirated.

I'm gonna finish this post here, or I'll just end up going on and on about the quality of their many instruments. I mean, they have great sounding libraries containing very rare instruments. Hardanger fiddles, hurdy gurdy, a long list of Chinese/far eastern, American, European and modern instruments that I never even knew existed, and I love them all so much. Best $5K I ever spent. (This number is due to me having bought two of their Complete Composer's Collections, each with a different set of instruments, one 25 year anniversary collection, several individual libraries and several extensions… The prices are reasonable to very cheap when you buy their collections.)

Just don't expect much from their guitars besides Ministry of Rock, and don't expect much from their 25 year anniversary instruments as those are small, cheap and not very realistic for the most part.

>>779

i currently use the white grand

http://www.sampletekk.com/grand-pianos?product_id=163

and for strings i use Spitfire audio's BML mural range.

>>779

basically i want to try and find strings that are studio recorded. something dry that i can put reverb on later, that can be manipulated easily. anything like that?

>anything like that?

Yes. EWQL. Unedited, no frequencies cut, purely recorded in some famous Hollywood studios I can't remember the name of. Check out some demos on youtube.

>>780

Never heard of that string library. Doesn't sound very high end.

>>781

http://www.soundsonline.com/Symphonic-Orchestra

>>784

i've tried the gold edition. is that the same as the play one?

here's my quick attempt at using spitfire's.

https://clyp.it/anmkv2dk

>>785

Play is the engine. The virtual instrument is called Symphonic Orchestra Gold. Note that you'll need to figure out where to narrow the stereo image, add reverb, switch to close mics, pan, etc. to get realistic resuls.

>>787

Yeah, doesn't sound very realistic at all. Absolutely no legato in this library, is there? Well, SO has three artificial articulation modes in addition to actual recordings of various articulations, so you can load a legato articulation for any string instrument and also enable legato mode or portamento mode for some real nice slides. Of course, portamento can and should only be used on one-note melodies.

Let me find an example of EWQL on my soundcloud. They're all just first drafts and can sound much more realistic with some work. I think I posted some in another thread too, not sure.

>>791

Turns out I can't share using the mobile version of SC.

>>791

there's some legato. https://clyp.it/ncvfdcrg

>>791

btw, would EWQL allow me to do sharp and loud staccatos and solo violin legatos like this i hear it's almost impossible to find an authentic violin legato, which wouldn't surprise me. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XNFkGiP0dZw

>>796

Easily. Each instrument has several marcato articulations.

>>794

And that's still not a very realistic legato. And I doubt it can do a realistic portamento.

>>798

alright i'll try out gold again. if memory serves me it's a full ensemble for string, woodwind, and brass correct? i can't recall if it had a piano,harpsichord, and percussion.

>>803

It has a harpsichord and percussion. No piano, though.

By the way, how exactly do you try SO when it requires an iLok to use? I don't think there's a trial version.

>>807

Also, it's a full ensemble for all sections, including numerous "string sections" if you're too lazy to load each instrument (for lazy and/or first draft productions), and all kinds of effects and articulations. There are slurs, trills, tremolo, harmonics, "clusters" (spooky horror effects lacking harmony) and so on. Even a pretty decent run simulator (often used by John Williams, quickly moving string melodies, used for arpreggio and non-repeating melodies, hard to explain but comes in handy).

I highly recommend it, because it sounds like you're an aspiring film music composer, whether you realize it or not, and the moment I first used SO was the moment my creativity grew manyfold because there were so many possibilities, and no longer would cheesy, lifeless parts of a dead note just recorded (or synthesized) and played back as is restrict my ability to realize what I heard in my head.

If you're not poor, and you don't compose orchestral music solely, I also recommend you check out the demos of EWQL's other libraries on youtube. Lots of videos of guys playing around with them.

For electric guitars (except for chords and rhythm, electric or not, where EWQL is vastly superior), I actually recommend Kontakt's factory library. They're much better than EWQL's huge amount of fingered/plucked guitars, which all sound like shit except maybe two or three. EWQL still exceeds in electric solo guitars and punk/rock/metal rhythm and power chords and such, though, and I've never heard better acoustic guitars than those in Goliath and Ra.

I realize I sound like an EWQL shill, but trust me, they're the #1 producers of virtual instruments for Hollywood movies. Basically everyone has heard Symphonic Orchestra and Stormdrum and Symphonic Choirs (you can type in phonetics for the choir to sing) in several movies without realizing it.

>>808

>>807

well i just got myself in a pickle. i am using a 64 bit abelton which doesn't support 32 bit, and so i can't open the vst. i am able to use its standalone fine, and the instruments sound nice. what can i do? jbridge seems to be mac only.

>>807

the one i got a while back didn't need ilok.

>>810

Are you sure that's the problem? 64 bit DAWs usually support 32 bit plugins. I sort of highly doubt Ableton would restrict its 64 bit users to 64 bit plugins. I could be wrong, but… Do you get an error message saying this is the problem?

>>812

All EWQL plugins have always required an iLok. Maybe you're thinking of some other library with a similar name?

>>810

Wait, is this SO you're talking about? How. Maybe there's hope…

>>818

>>818

yeah it's restricted, i needed to use jbridge to use it, but now it's working just fine. here's a sample of the gold edition i used a while back. i think it sounds better than my spitfire. i EQd to boost the highs a bit though. it is a bit to mid biased i think. it's EWQL SO Gold. it's old though so i don't know how the sound compares to the new version, if they did a resampling or anything.

https://clyp.it/2auzkw3u

>>820

Nope, nothing new except the close and surround mic extensions, which were probably recorded and released with the stage mic samples because they're identical, just from a different position.

Nice, by the way. 1:06 gave me chills. But you need to practice realism. This is nowhere near the potential realism. It sort of sounds like you use only sus or sus-leg samples.

Let me make some suggestions.

You need to be easy on the velocity, and make sure there's lots of realism. So much potential emotion is lost due to the lack of dynamics. And you need to use different instruments. Did you use one of the ensemble instruments? Because those are really only for subtle background textures and first drafts. Load first and second violins separately, the same for cello, use violas for subtle harmonies. You should have a maximum of two violin, cello and viola notes playing at any time, each in its respective instrument and mic position if you can find the mic extensions too, and violas don't make nice lead instruments, but should be used for the harmony, playing the third and fifth interval if the lead is playing the first, for example. Load a nice double bass, let a solo violin (a sus-legato articulation with portamento mode enabled) play the lead instead of 18 guys playing it together (this is just a suggestion I think would sound nice). Play with the release and attack times of the instruments you think sound unnatural. Cut the muddy lows, but leave enough for a very subtle rumble that adds to the realism. Be very careful with boosting highs. You can probably get the desired results by loading the close mic samples and lowering the stage mic. Add surround mics to the violas, add close to the solo violin, let the bass be stage, and finally, narrow down the stereo image of each instrument as much as you can without it sounding bad.

The producers made the stereo image too wide and the lows too rumbly, simply because they want to allow the possibility of leaving it if you want to.

Also, maybe add some violin harmonics (very high) and viola harmonics (fairly low) and let their notes stretch for as long as possible until they crash with the harmony. Try the built-in con. reverb, and if you can't find a nice preset, a non-intrusive third-party or native reverb usually works fine. I like to use the built in reverb on lead instruments only, like a solo cello. They're sort of hissy and complex, realistic and nice when used on the right channels, but will ruin everything if you use it excessively on every channel, including background textures like ensembles or violas.

Also, never use the built in reverb on short samples (stac, spic, marc, "short"). I don't know why but it sounds fucking awful. The surround mic position usually kills short samples too. Way too long reverb tails.

Program automation for volume and the mod-wheel if the loaded sample allows it.

Also, read up on and experiment with/get used to the different articulations and effects a symphonic orchestra uses. You need to know what you're loading and why without just trying them out one by one until you find one you like. The different articulations have different purposes. Break the rules when you know exactly what the rules are and why they exist. Know when one articulation is supposed to be used.

Lastly, imagine being the musician playing the instrument you're writing for. You don't have to know how to play it, just know how you might feel emotionally and exaggerate these emotional moments. Crescendos and a lot of contrast will help you.

That's a good start to think about.

>>821

Also

https://8ch.net/musicprod/res/464.html#473

Not a lot of work went into making these sound realistic. It comes automatically if you follow the "rules" (more like suggestions/tips I guess) at first with basically no work at all. Was that thread made by you, by the way?

>>821

> You need to know what you're loading and why without just trying them out one by one until you find one you like.

damn i'm pretty guilty of this. i tend to try and use 1 cello and 1 violin at times, and use chords for both that are panned slightly away from each other.

>>822

and no i didn't make that thread.

honestly i just struggle getting clarity. most of the time it sounds like there's such a massive war in the mid range, and it muddles the whole mix, like i have to choose one or two articulations or it just goes nuts, or i have to lower the volume. my EQ game is pretty weak and i tend to make things sound thin on the lower or higher octaves for an instrument if i cut even slightly with the highs, like 2 or 3 db, it's a pain in the ass. i normally use parametric but i got into the 3 -band knob configuration for practice.

my understanding of articulations is that legato lets me do fast movements into a sustained, then if i want to shorten it, i can staccato. i haven't tried loading 3 of one instrument yet since i can't figure out how to alternate fast enough while recording.

>>821

> It sort of sounds like you use only sus or sus-leg samples.

that's exactly what i did ;-;

>>825

to extend from this, what are some good resources for studying articulations? at the moment ive only ever learned key and time manipulation.

>>826

>>826

Here, check this out.

http://beststudentviolins.com/terms.html

When you get this down, there will be little need for cutting or boosting any audible frequencies.

>>824

More tips: if you want a more aggressive legato than a sus-leg articulation, add a spic or stac articulation on top of it and lower its volume.

>>848

that's genius. thanks!

>>849

Yeah, I do it with EWQL Ra's Hardanger fiddle all the time, sounds 10 times as realistic.

>>851

i'm really enjoying the spicatto/legato combination, im gonna try to put the spic and marcatto together as well and see how it goes. how does the stacatto compare to the spicatto? i haven't been able to find the articulation.

>>852

Which instrument are you using? Usually I find that spiccato is superior sounding, even though staccato is the physically possible combination as the bow does not leave the atring and can in theory continue without stopping. You have to try them out. But when I just want an aggressive solo, I use staccato, because I don't want that high end screech, just a hard, fast start of the note. I don't think you'll find much use in combining a short sample with another short sample, though (marc + stac, marc + spic, spic + stac…)

Also, if you just want a slightly more "eager" sound instead of an aggressive bow stroke, you can try one of the "short" samples on top of legato.

Try removing the stage mic position of your short articulation and replacing it with close, or a combination, while keeping stage on the long one. Close mics on shorts usually sound neater and more "sincere" in a way. Do you have the mic extensions?

>>855

no i don't think so.

>>856

If there are three faders/volume control labelled close, stage and surround, you probably have them. Try clicking the little lamp over (under?) "close" and see if Play starts loading new samples. Close should be panned to the left by default (you're gonna want to center it).

>>862

Oh, well, the engine has a lot to say about the instruments' realism. They were designed for play. And it looks like Kontakt doesn't show the different mic positions. Disregard everything about mic positions then.

>>863

It probably doesn't support the built in reverb either. That's not as big a problem though, I rarely use those.

>>864

yeah i just use >>610 since it lets me not only import IRs but also edit them to a high degree.

this is without EQing

https://clyp.it/j5xa5zhz

>>551

>i did hear that people try to mix and balance using a pink noise track as a reference, where people lower their levels so it's barely above the pink noise. is this legit?

Yeah, it works. I've been doing this on my last productions as I begin to balance the track. It gives you a pretty good start point.

>>896

Should your starting point take less than 30 seconds to find anyway?

>>897

Shouldn't*

so i decided to try EQing although this isn't orchestral…

the EQs are on for both the chorus and drums, then i turn the chorus EQ off, then back on, then turn off the drum EQ and back on to see how it compares. thoughts?

https://clyp.it/d4xo5a02

>>902

You cut too much. It killed a lot of warmth. I recommend you only cut frequencies that you can't really hear unless the instrument is soloed, unless you're sure you're going for a very specific sound that requires additional EQing.

>>905

i see. i've always had a bias for mid cuts because i keep getting that mud impression. i'll try to hold off on that.

>>913

Are you EQing the master or each individual instrument? Also, I think you're suffering from something I once did, sort of like a mid-range bulimia where you imagine utter clarity but can't achieve it, so you try to remove mids to achieve it, or maybe boost highs. It's not the way to go. What you need to do is make as many inserts as possible mono, so they don't bleed into each other as much. You need to cut lows of instruments that should mainly be heard in the higher frequencies, but make sure there's a bass to take their place, centered and mono without reverb in my opinion. In most genres you should limit the fuck out of your bass. A Fruity Limiter (if FL Studio) with a short (but not distortion-inducing) release time and the peaks pretty far above the ceiling. Don't bother with compression, just violent limiting. It will allow your bass to be fat, punchy and present at all times without the levels changing wildly. Cut < 30-40 Hz after limiting, plus as much of the highs as you prefer, because limiting causes low frequency artifacts often, and boosts "semi-cut" lows back up.

You can have loads of mids without making it muddy. Just gently reduce mids of one instrument while compensating by boosting the same frequencies of another instruments. I like my guitars warm and rich in mids. Narrow the stereo image of mid instruments and try to move them far to the side. Lows should be close to the center (and the further away from the centered, the higher lows you cut), mids can be far left or right, and highs are best put slightly off-center to 45 degrees off center, depending on the importance of the instrument.

This is all just my experience, but try it out. Remember that wide and round slopes and hills in the EQ sound more natural than hard and narrow holes. Put your reverb after the EQ as this will preserve the impression that the EQ'd instrument simply sounds equalized and is playing in a real life, natural sounding room. Also put the reverb after any limiting and compression, of course.

I have three inserts per instrument. The first insert receives the pure signal, adds all effects except reverb and routes it to two other inserts (not the master). One of those inserts will have no effects and is only used for volume and panning automation. The other insert has a reverb plugin set to dry = 0%, so the reverb will be equally loud independent of the volume of the dry instrument. I replicate the panning of the dry insert but move it maybe 1/3 to the left when I move the dry insert completely to the left.

>>915

If that made any sense at all…

>>915

>Are you EQing the master or each individual instrument?

each instrument. i usually never touch the master.

>What you need to do is make as many inserts as possible mono, so they don't bleed into each other as much.

how do you set a track to mono? im using Abelton and i've only been able to do it through the EQ which isn't the ideal solution.

i'll try to be more gentle with my band cuts, i usually go for the <6db rule, but in terms of Q factor i tend to be narrow. it's just a pain becasue i want to get clear chimey strings but they always sound thick and conflicting with my percussion or bass, even when i cut the lows from the high violins, or the highs from my cellos, and then it's worse that way when i get to my percussion and additional tracks, because i don't know what to make space for. i'll have 5 EQs on each track if i have 5 tracks just trying to make space, and its a headache.

>>917

Only the close mic position has that high acoustic shimmer, which can only be loaded through Play, which requires a legitimate license on an iLok. Maybe SO isn't for you.

>>919

;-;

well i found some other strings so here goes nothin

https://clyp.it/lvoryysk

>>1063

What library is that?

>>1071

berlin orchestral tools