@hetoreyn said:

Well, it sounded pretty sweet to me. [:D]

Placement seemed fine, everythings in good stereo. Though to my ear there's always room for more reverb. I always tend to like the sound of scores like Jeery Goldsmiths 'Star Trek: Insurrection', and 'River Wild' because they use a very big room reverb and it gives everything a sense of immensity. Of course it doesn't suit all music, but I find it works for my stuff.

That's the only suggestion I'd make.

Thanks so much - that was the one thing that I was 'looking for' - the level of verb. I usually use more to hide certain 'seams' and what not but wanted to try a little 'closer - drier' perspective (I used a Medium Hall in GP in lieu of the large hall).

Perhaps if the whole cue was slower (without the short stacc vlns - I may just use the large hall, but I didn't want it to get mushy - but still probably worth a try.) Thanks again for your comments.

Rob

@Rob Elliott said:

Hi there,
I have a series of cues (I have put them together here like a closing titles sequence) for this current project. If you have time could you take a listen and make any suggestions on the mix, placement, etc. Always trying to improve this side of my productions.
Looking forward to SC and MIR but until then... [:D]
Thanks for any help you can be.
http://www.robelliottmusic.com/mp3s/Action%20-%20Epic/A%20Foundation.mp3
Rob

Hi my dear friends Rob and Hetoreyn
Great to meet you here together. So first of all: Let me give a great "thank you" for your
compliments on my new tutorial VSL Acoustics to both of you.
Secondly I am a big fan from both of your compositions and music! [:D]

Rob, I love big rooms and halls without a lot of reverb - like you did it (sorry Hetoreyn). Befor I made my Tutorial VSL Acoustics I listened to a lot of recordings and specially about the subject "room/hall/reverb".
I pointed out, that a combination of near and far is very often used with modern mixdowns. The listener at home obviously likes the live-sound but with the clarity and closeness of studio recordings. So why do we not try to combine the two in one?
All of your instruments are placed far away (more or less > live atmosphere). Try to bring some (solo-) instruments closer to the listener. For example the piano added by a small rhythem section (02:32 and later). This would give an addtitonal new touch.
Listen to the very first bars of Adiemus' intro. It explains much more better than me what I mean...
http://www.beat-kaufmann.com/downloads/vslpsaadiemus.mp3
and Bryn Terfel
http://www.beat-kaufmann.com/downloads/vslpsaterfel.mp3

Once more - it is my opinion - nothing more

Beat

Cool Beat - thanks for the idea. I'll give it a shot in a couple weeks on this cue when I do final mixes.

[:D]

Rob

@Another User said:

Rob, I love big rooms and halls without a lot of reverb - like you did it (sorry Hetoreyn)t

Hehe [[[:D]]]

Just one question Beat. Or rather just to re-affirm. As I understand your Accoustics tutorial, the simplest way to bring an instrument forward is to increase the volume slightly, turn up the high end on the EQ slightly, and also if possible to turn down the verb for that instrument.

And likewise the reverse for setting things back. My problem is that I do not have a program to define specific zones for reverb. I tried using 4 different reverbs on 4 extra busses but the reverbs started to feedback on themselves. I hope someone can suggest a good logic program to use for reverbing. Space designer is good, but it doesn't have a depth layering facility.

Anyways, nice work again Beat on the tutorial [[[:D]]]

@hetoreyn said:

Just one question Beat. Or rather just to re-affirm. As I understand your Accoustics tutorial, the simplest way to bring an instrument forward is to increase the volume slightly, turn up the high end on the EQ slightly, and also if possible to turn down the verb for that instrument.
And likewise the reverse for setting things back. My problem is that I do not have a program to define specific zones for reverb. I hope someone can suggest a good logic program to use for reverbing. Space designer is good, but it doesn't have a depth layering facility.
Anyways, nice work again Beat on the tutorial

Hi
You should get different depths by adjusting (fiddle around) with the "Predelay" - parameter.

http://www.beat-kaufmann.com/spacedesigner.gif">

I did it with SIR at
http://www.beat-kaufmann.com/tipspcmusic/howtousevslaudio/index.php#50946996180043631

Beat

Ah of course!

Stupid of me not to realize that! Thanks again Beat [:D]

Beat - it will be interesting to see if MIR will infact be released with the upcoming SC.

[:D]

Rob

@Rob Elliott said:

Beat - it will be interesting to see if MIR will infact be released with the upcoming SC.
[:D]
Rob

Rob
I'm waiting for this reverb too and I hope that MIR's cost will not kill my anticipation.
There is another interesting reverb in the pipeline: Altiverb for Windows. MIR is also Altiverb for Windows?
Still 9 days? Let's go the distance...

Beat

@Beat Kaufmann said:

Rob
I'm waiting for this reverb too and I hope that MIR's cost will not kill my anticipation.
There is another interesting reverb in the pipeline: Altiverb for Windows. MIR is also Altiverb for Windows?
Still 9 days? Let's go the distance...

Beat

Beat, the MIR's convolution backbone was developed by AudioEase especially for our needs. So - of course there's AltiVerb's know-how in the back of our engine, but reverb is only one part of the whole idea. In other words: No, the MIR will not be an AltiVerb for Windows.

HTH,

@Beat Kaufmann said:

Rob
I'm waiting for this reverb too and I hope that MIR's cost will not kill my anticipation.
There is another interesting reverb in the pipeline: Altiverb for Windows. MIR is also Altiverb for Windows?
Still 9 days? Let's go the distance...

Beat

Beat, the MIR's convolution backbone was developed by AudioEase especially for our needs. So - of course there's AltiVerb's know-how in the back of our engine, but reverb is only one part of the whole idea. In other words: No, the MIR will not be an AltiVerb for Windows.

HTH,

Don't stop their Dietz. Continue to give us the gory details [:P]

Provided I won't need to updgrade my slaves to 'supercomputer' status (they are now all 2.8-3.0 ghz, 2 gig ram), I am really looking forward to this product!)

Rob

This is a beautiful production which I really enjoyed. You've gone really far in not sounding like samples in terms of performance which is great. I really love the mixture of instruments.

To agree with hetoreyn, definately would sound better with a larger reverb, more tail not necessarily more reflections.

While this "dryer" mix (even though it's not dry) is very cool to listen to, I think you will find on reflection that the more wet mix will go down better for most audiences, but of course down go to far down that road, I would take it say 1/2 way between what most people consider a wet mix and what you have done and see if you like it. I don't know about the software you're using but with altiverb you can change the volume of the tail independantly, in that case I would load a larger reverb, and reduce the volume on the tail from the original until it was about where you want it.

My 2c. Either way, your mix is good enough to stand out without the extra reverb, which is a good compliment really and I think tha tis why the producers/mixers among us here often prefer a dryer mix because it does show a greater level of proficiency if nothing else. Both ways are valid that's just my preference.

@mpower88 said:

This is a beautiful production which I really enjoyed. You've gone really far in not sounding like samples in terms of performance which is great. I really love the mixture of instruments.

To agree with hetoreyn, definately would sound better with a larger reverb, more tail not necessarily more reflections.

While this "dryer" mix (even though it's not dry) is very cool to listen to, I think you will find on reflection that the more wet mix will go down better for most audiences, but of course down go to far down that road, I would take it say 1/2 way between what most people consider a wet mix and what you have done and see if you like it. I don't know about the software you're using but with altiverb you can change the volume of the tail independantly, in that case I would load a larger reverb, and reduce the volume on the tail from the original until it was about where you want it.

My 2c. Either way, your mix is good enough to stand out without the extra reverb, which is a good compliment really and I think tha tis why the producers/mixers among us here often prefer a dryer mix because it does show a greater level of proficiency if nothing else. Both ways are valid that's just my preference.

Thanks for you kind words. I felt like I was out there on a ledge this dry - wanted to see what reactions I got. When I get the project done and go back to this I will place in a slightly larger hall for sure.

Hey maybe MIR will be out by then [:P]

Rob

I really liked the arrangement of your cuies. Very nice stuff. I am one of the people who like more reverb - it helps things be less harsh and more blended which is nice. Speaking of harsh, in the piano/rythmic section the piano and the violins were both a tad harsh. Careful use of eq might help there. Top notch programing and compositionaly and darn good mix wise.

@magates said:

I really liked the arrangement of your cuies. Very nice stuff. I am one of the people who like more reverb - it helps things be less harsh and more blended which is nice. Speaking of harsh, in the piano/rythmic section the piano and the violins were both a tad harsh. Careful use of eq might help there. Top notch programing and compositionaly and darn good mix wise.

Thanks Matt for your nice words and suggestions. I too like more verb and will add more on final mix. As far as the piano and strgs - I guess my jazz background 'peeks' through every once in a while (sometimes too agressive EQ'ing). I try to tame them a bit and see how they sit in the mix.

Thanks again.

Rob