Strings Compression for Metal Band + Orchestra

[Pyre]

Hi all,

Just wondering if I can quickly pester the mixing engineers out there with a question - I'm working on a project for Heavy Metal band and orchestra, and some of the string parts are block chords, almost akin to keyboard pads. I currently have them swelling and then dying away on each note, using velocity crossfade, and it sounds great, but I am wondering if it would work better in a mix with some compression on it.

Any advice on how heavily compressed background strings could be without sounding too artificial?

Many thanks.

[Dietz]

Compression will "just" make the louder parts softer (and/or the sofetr parts louder). Dynamics processing will be just one part of the equation - some saturation/distortion will be at least equally important. It will give the ear some "handles" in form of louder harmonics to keep track of what's actually goimg on with your strings.

... the rest is automation (lots of it), like always. :-)

HTH,

[civilization 3]

It depends on a number of factors in your approach to the compression. I have violins competing with a really overdriven heavy lead guitar and 'loudness' was of course achieved with compressing and making up gain, but you don't want to squash the transients too much so attend to the attack, maybe a fast attack isn't the optimal thing, and attend to the release, you don't want 'pumping' probably.

And per Dietz' advice, I use an exciter on strings typically and probably more of it when the ear is experiencing distortion as a norm.
Also you may want to focus it/narrow the field a little more than a 'realistic' type of spaciality in order for the strings to be more apparent.

Maybe a 'concertmaster' with a really focused field leading the section and some bas relief.

[BachRules]

[quote=Pyre]Hi all,

If you want to compress the dynamic range, why make such large swells in the first place? Adding swells and adding compression are kind of opposite processes, so instead of compressing, you might ease off on the swells, if you really want less dynamic range.

[Beat Kaufmann]

[quote=Pyre]...Any advice on how heavily compressed background strings could be without sounding too artificial?

Hi Pyre

An audio example would be great for giving a helpful advice.

Beat

[Plougot]

@BachRules said:

If you want to compress the dynamic range, why make such large swells in the first place? Adding swells and adding compression are kind of opposite processes, so instead of compressing, you might ease off on the swells, if you really want less dynamic range.

I kinda disagree (theorically, at least). Having large swells means triggering all the velocity layers, and the timber will change much more than with a smaller swell, not triggering as many velocity layers at the same dynamic range. 

The real question here, IMHO, is : is it better to use compression, or simply vienna instruments dynamic range parameter ? It really depends on what he is trying to achieve. For a transparent effect, the dynamic range parameter is the way to go, but it does not shape the transient, does not add "bite" or saturation or anything...

But the thing is, it's easy to try and listen to the result. ^^

[BachRules]

@Another User said:

... I am wondering if it would work better in a mix with some compression on it.

Any advice on how heavily compressed background strings could be without sounding too artificial?

It all depends on what "would work better in a mix" and "sounding too artificial" mean to you. No audio-engineering expert can decide how much compression is too much for you; you have to decide that.

[Pyre]

Sorry for the delayed response on this, I am working on getting the track to postable standards for an audio demo, which may take a few days.

Indeed, the swells can still be heard in the timbre even when compressed to the point of the actual volume staying completely flat. I had not thought of using the dynamic range scaler instead, that might be a better option. Likewise, I had not thought of using the exciter. I'll be turning the project over to someone else (with drastically more experience) for the final mixing process, but given that I will be paying them by the day, the more I can get sorted in advance the cheaper it will be. Though not if I do a bad job and it needs fixing.

To me, the strings sound fantastic just as they are when the guitars/bass/synths/drums/vocals are muted, and just the orchestra is playing. With everything else in the mix, I am not sure, I need to work on the volume balancing a bit more first. I will respond when I have an audio sample ready.

Thank you everyone for your help, there's plenty for me to think about here.

[civilization 3]

I think one thing to do is clarify the mix by reducing the width, if not depth, of the other things. Also maybe the drums are kind of dry and the 'band' in general not as wet as the strings. One of your approaches has to be reduction of things, their size and their presence. You may have to keep the presence of leads but watch the cymbals; and PLACE everything. Think of what actual space things would use on stage and consider you don't want an amp killing the strings probably. Also - this may be ambitious and something you'll pay for atm - back to front.

The other point is, while the strings sound fantastic with the other people muted, a lot of things sound fantastic soloed that sound like crap (or just die) in the mix.
So my very excited strings which compete with a supersaturated lead guitar tone suit the mix, soloed it's really not that pretty a thing.

[Beat Kaufmann]

3 other hints

1. Often underestimated: The Automation of a mix.

Rout each section into a summing bus. Now you can "conduct" your orchestra (sections) by shitfing the sliders dynamically. Record these movements and the DAW will do it for you even if there are a lot of sliders. Maybe you don't need any compressor this way. Plus: Crescendos/Diminuendos can be enhanced with this technique as well.

2. A correct EQing (in combination with depth) can save a lot of transparency.

The rule: The farther away the darker the sound. Mix-beginners often have too shiny percussions, brass and other instruments which should play at the back of an orchestra.

I recommend to listen to a lot of mixes with large orchestras. Observe: How do close and far instruments sound in connection with the high frequencies.

Listen here: the closer the more shiny. Observe how dark the choire sounds for example.

I selected this example because a mix can be compared with a foto/video as well: Close is sharp/shiny and large - far is dark and with poor definition.

Try to see your mix as a picture. Which instruments are close which are far placed - overdo the efforts a bit for reaching your aimes.

3. Composers often overarrange their pieces. Try to compose along the slogan: More is less... specially in connection with music which is mainly played as an audiofile over speakers/phones.

So if you have too much instruments which are using the same frequency range you will have no chance to make out any of it.

Which instruments are covering your strings? Lower their volume (see Automation) or delete it.

And a last point: Mixing is an art. Saying this: "art" means "ability" and therefore you need a lot of experiencies to get this ability.

You are on the way: try, observe, try again, compare, change, be patient... and you will be successful.

Beat