@Dietz said:

More often than not I take out some healthy dBs around 2400 and 4500 Hz in narrow bands. This is true for "real" recordings of string-ensembles, too, BTW, where I don't hesitate to reduce this bands by 6 to 8 dB, in case I have an EQ I can rely on. A more advanced concept is to use a dynamic EQ (IOW: a multiband compressor), to tame the shrillness without killing the bite.

I totally agree on EQ for strings - real or sampled. They often need special care. Thanks Dietz for your expert opinion - very helpful. I give these bands a try (very narrow).

BTW - your mixes are evidence of your knowledge [[;)]] . You get a very 'transparent' mix. I never 'noticed' EQ with your mixes - which I only aspire to reach.

Thanks again for your help. Have a nice weekend and enjoy the half day off on Sunday that Herb ALLOWS you [:(] [:P]


Rob

Dietz -

Very nice - your recommendation (I am using Voxengo's Gliss EQ - do they have a multiband that you know of?) Of course Waves is rock-solid but pricey!

On your recommendation, I found a tad bit of a 'high shelf' gives a little 'air' to the sound (10K and above). I think this would be nice with the right material. Done this at all?


Rob

Hi Rob,

Just a simple suggestion for orchestral applications:
if you want strings to sound a bit farther away, I wouldn't ADD, but actually take away high freqs with a high shelf EQ (above 5 K).

In my current mixer I have narrow "dips" for the V1 and V2 sections around 300, 1350, 2500 and 4000, Q values approx 5 and dB approx 4.

The "air" that you refer to: I add this in the mastering stage, with a far more gentle EQ and/or multiband compression.

Best,

@Peter Roos said:

Hi Rob,

Just a simple suggestion for orchestral applications:
if you want strings to sound a bit farther away, I wouldn't ADD, but actually take away high freqs with a high shelf EQ (above 5 K).

In my current mixer I have narrow "dips" for the V1 and V2 sections around 300, 1350, 2500 and 4000, Q values approx 5 and dB approx 4.

The "air" that you refer to: I add this in the mastering stage, with a far more gentle EQ and/or multiband compression.

Best,

Very cool Peter. I can see 'hear' the mud at 300. Nice idea. I also like the strings tucked back so as well.

Do you dip anything above 4k to tucked them back or just leave them alone?


Rob

I use the Waves Ren6 on my V1 and V2 sections. I reduce the high frequencies with a high shelf from 5 K, -2.5 dB, Q 0.7. So, just a fair reduction of the high frequencies.

BTW, my settings were originally meant for the GOS strings and then "tempered" (is that English?) for VSL. For VSL alone, my setting might be different. For now, I'm happy with my EQ, but remember, this is all personal and I am not a professional [;)]

http://www.samplicity.com/forums/vi/2006_05_peter_roos_strgins_EQ.jpg">

The more 'string mixes' I hear in film productions the more I have noticed this 'tucked' back. For samples it is actually even more important as the 'zipper fx' (starting and stopping of each new sample) is noticable.

The beautiful thing with VI is this is much much less - but they are still samples and every once in a while I can hear it.

I like this 5K shelf idea. Of course if the the mix is real dense the need for this probably becomes less an less.

Thanks again for your replies Peter (and Dietz).


Rob

Thanks Rob,

But please keep in mind that Dietz is an experienced pro and I am just a humble 46 year old "wannabe" trying to get into doing some orchestral Library Music...

[[;)]]

PS: damn, 47 next week [:'(]

Funny you mention the GlissEQ, Rob - I think this is a great piece of software in every regard (concept, sound, price). But the "dynamic" aspects of this EQ (as great as they sound) are not what I meant.

I have to admit that Waves C1, C4 or LinMB are my first tools when I think in terms of dynamic equalization, but there are other options, too.

Another remark: the LinMB is excellent, but cannot be used (MHO) in a live mix because of its latency... I use it when I master my stereo mixes.

Peter - a "pro" is somebody with a sonic vision and a set of good ears to achieve it, so I'd say you qualify as much as I do for being one.

On the top of it are you the older, more experienced guy [+o(]

/Dietz (in his early 40ies)

Wow, what a nice compliment!

[:O]ops:

I have found myself to EQ every single instrument DRAMATICALY.
I mean big Qs, lots of gain reduced. Seems to work.

If it sounds right, it is right! [:)]

.... what we all have to remember from time to time: The basic idea behind the Vienna Symphonic Library years ago was to provide professional music production with recordings from a virtual orchestra, which could be treated like an original multitrack-recording form the single instruments end ensembles. This means: keeping the sources as pure and "raw" (in a good sense - like a rough diamond) as possible. Otherwise we would have urged our customers into a certain style, coming from our aesthetic point of view. Not good.

IOW: It is completely natural that you will need _some_ EQing (like it is done in conventional classical music production, too). And you don't have to feel bad when _your_ style asks for more processing than other people's music. Actually, we can feel lucky that its is possible at all.

What's so amazing about these samples is that there is enough there that CAN be reduced via EQ, unlike some other less considerate collections that are shy on some frequencies which can't easily be fixed by adding EQ gain.