@JimmyHellfire said:

Well, any good analyzer, like the one that's included in the Vienna Suite, will reliably show you a graphical representation of the frequency range. It shows what's happening in the audio. But it obviously won't start flashing and sound an alarm when a piece starts sounding "bad" ... 😊 A plugin can only show you that there's so-and-so much loudness in this-and-that range, that's something that can be visualised of course. But a computer program can't "know" what sounds good or bad. That's something the artist has to judge.

It's not the response you'd want to hear, but what you're asking for is exactly how not to do it. 😃 I mean, consider the humor of the statement: I don't want to rely on my ears. It's like a painter saying: I don't wanna rely on my eyes, or a cook stating that he'd rather not rely on his senses of smell and taste.

It gets better and makes more and more sense the more you read, research and practice. But if you think you can't, or don't want to do that, there really is no other option than to have someone else mix and master your music. A technical shortcut really doesn't exist, it can't.

And IMO, really just try to get better at mixing your own music. EQing stuff, making instruments sound good, setting levels, making instruments sit in the mix, not fighting or masking each other etc. I think you shouldn't really bother about the mastering thing. You can't really do it without a proper space, equipment and professional experience.

I can understand what you mean. Let me explain where I come from. As an artist, I am mostly a visual artist (I am an oil painter). That is why I compose visually -- I work directly on the midi editor, and I can't compose by playing instruments directly. As for mixing, this is why I love MIR PRO because it's a visual/natural way of thinking of my compositions and mixes. Honestly, I can't go back to the old way of mixing now -- it's very difficult. 

On the other hand, one thing I do know accoustically is if something sounds good or bad, too loud or too soft, if there is too much low/high frequencies, etc. *But* my ears cannot pickup subtle things, such as, if there is resonance in this frequency range etc.. All I know is this sounds bad, which includes the piece I posted. So when I know this, I'd love a tool that will give me a visual feedback as to why it sounds bad...

@nektarios said:

On the other hand, one thing I do know accoustically is if something sounds good or bad, too loud or too soft, if there is too much low/high frequencies, etc. *But* my ears cannot pickup subtle things, such as, if there is resonance in this frequency range etc.. All I know is this sounds bad, which includes the piece I posted. So when I know this, I'd love a tool that will give me a visual feedback as to why it sounds bad...

That's impossible - the program can not know what you don't like, and why you don't like it. There are no "bad" frequencies in an objective sense. There is just listening habits and conditioning. A program can show you a graph of the frequency response in a visual way, but how is it supposed to guess what you, or me, or a third person, like or dislike about it? It may be completely different, and frankly, it is, all the time!

For example, I dislike the excessive "oomph" of snare drum sounds that are very popular today. It seems to be very popular to hype the "body" of the drum and not have a lot of the crack of the actual snares. To me, it sounds like a compressed recording of someone beating a shoe box. But a lot of people seem to think it's great, because it's being done a lot on records. Now who's right? Can we ask the plug-in? Is blue a bad color? Or do you just dislike the amount of white I'm mixing it with, or is it just my overuse of blue that makes it so unpleasantly striking?

f you can tell a difference acoustically, between what you like and what you don't like, and can perhaps even pinpoint it to highs or lows, that's a good start. You just need to refine this ability. That comes with practice. In the beginning, all you can say is "somehow it sounds too painful". Later, you're able to say "it's because the high frequencies are too harsh". Yet later on, you are able to pinpoint it to a certain range, because through experience, you learn to associate highs around 6500 Hz with a completely different quality and sonic effect than those around 12k.

It's like muscles. The more regularly you train it, the better it develops. The goal is to be able to attribute effects and sound aesthetics to frequencies. And when we combine that with what we know about the construction and materials of the instruments, and the way they're played, it all makes sense.
To look for resonances that might be problematic, do the sweeping technique. Grab an EQ band, set it to +20 dB, and drag it slowly across the whole spectrum while the track is looping. You'll hear the ugly ones once you've swept over them. Here's a trick: try to sing them! Imitate their sound. Like imitating animals. You might sound silly and hopefully, there's nobody in the room while you do it, but just try it 😃 Concentrate not on the whole sound, or the track, but just on that resonance that you exposed by heavily pushing the band. Internalize the sound by imitating it.

Now reduce the EQ band again, slowly, towards 0. but keep imitating the resonance, or at least remembering its peculiar ring in your head ... notice the difference? Even if your EQ band isn't over-exaggerated to +20 dB any more - you can still hear a trace of the resonance in the sound! It was there all the time. But you never heard it consciously, because you weren't looking for it. It's like those little drawings where it says: what's wrong in this picture? If you didn't knew that you're supposed to look for something, you wouldn't even realize that they hid some stupid shit in there.

And now you can try and reduce the EQ band below zero. And listen closely. The resonance that you focused on so strongly - when does it start to fade, and become more difficult to still hear in the overall sound?

That's how you learn it. The more you do that, the more tracks you mix, the more sensible to these things your hearing becomes. And then of course, graphic analyzers can come in handy. Because you already assume that there must be something in this-and-that range, maybe it's 1400, but could also be 1800, not sure ... and if there's really a lot of something in those ranges, the graph will show. The difference is: you know where to look at.

Woow, very insightful and helpful! Perfectly said! Thank you!!!

Managed to get some dramatic improvements. What I did is add a "Dynamic EQ" on all those resonant selections given by VSL in each instrument. Works wonderfully. I also added a low cut on MIRacle and reduced the exaggerated lows on my matching EQ. Played it on my car, and it's so much better!

With the use of a dynamic eq, reductions happen only when higher velocities play. Love it! Anyway, still improving, and and not there yet.

This is an interesting thread because one gets to hear Dietz's ideas and "soapbox."  His mixes are the best of any sample performances I've ever heard.  So I love it when he reveals some of his brilliant concepts on these forums. 

And mastering is very complex. What I am trying to do is deal with the great advantage that samples give one, compared to live performance, and do things during the actual performance which effect mastering.  For example, reverb levels, individual instrument EQ, and overall hall sound which might be dealt with in mastering  - but not as effectively after the final mix is done.  I think you could even say that orchestration has a huge effect on mastering.  Why?  An example is the sound of a bass drum.  If  you listen to an orchestral bass drum at a concert, you will immediately notice it has an extremely deep, powerful bass that is deeper in fact than any other instrument on the stage.  But if you listen to a sample orchestra, it is just another  bass frequency, along with contra bassoon, cellos, bass clarinet, tuba, etc.  They are all present in their full audio spectrums because that is the goal of audio recording. 

Also, if you listen more at that same live concert, you will notice that the entire woodwind section has almost no bass, because the actual bass instruments present - whether bassoon or contrabassoon - simply do not have as much amplitude in that frequency range especially from a normal listening distance.  Another example is the infamous high frequency sound of sample violins.  If you listen to violins live, you will notice they are far darker than any sample recording.  That is because the higher frequencies simply do not have as much power as the mid range of that instrument.  That mid range is the main area of its audible projection out into an audience.

So my point is that when using samples, many aspects of mastering can actually start with the performance itself.  Which is a good thing because one has so much control over every parameter of sound conceivable.

@William said:

I think you could even say that orchestration has a huge effect on mastering.

@William said:

This is an interesting thread because one gets to hear Dietz's ideas and "soapbox."  His mixes are the best of any sample performances I've ever heard.  So I love it when he reveals some of his brilliant concepts on these forums. 

And mastering is very complex. What I am trying to do is deal with the great advantage that samples give one, compared to live performance, and do things during the actual performance which effect mastering.  For example, reverb levels, individual instrument EQ, and overall hall sound which might be dealt with in mastering  - but not as effectively after the final mix is done.  I think you could even say that orchestration has a huge effect on mastering.  Why?  An example is the sound of a bass drum.  If  you listen to an orchestral bass drum at a concert, you will immediately notice it has an extremely deep, powerful bass that is deeper in fact than any other instrument on the stage.  But if you listen to a sample orchestra, it is just another  bass frequency, along with contra bassoon, cellos, bass clarinet, tuba, etc.  They are all present in their full audio spectrums because that is the goal of audio recording. 

Also, if you listen more at that same live concert, you will notice that the entire woodwind section has almost no bass, because the actual bass instruments present - whether bassoon or contrabassoon - simply do not have as much amplitude in that frequency range especially from a normal listening distance.  Another example is the infamous high frequency sound of sample violins.  If you listen to violins live, you will notice they are far darker than any sample recording.  That is because the higher frequencies simply do not have as much power as the mid range of that instrument.  That mid range is the main area of its audible projection out into an audience.

So my point is that when using samples, many aspects of mastering can actually start with the performance itself.  Which is a good thing because one has so much control over every parameter of sound conceivable.

Thank you William. You are absolutely right. I try to keep the live performance in mind when mixing, which is why I start not to feel comfortable when I begin using plugins like compressors etc..

In general, if I go to a live performance and sit close to the front, it will simply sound great: all frequencies blend in nicely, and in general, it sounds perfect. Now, suppose I take with me a digital recorder, and record the live performance. When I go home, and play it back, it won't sound as good as the live performance obviously. Most likely perceived "loudness" will need to be increased so would generally need some "work" to sound great. So, to me, mastering, gives it this pleasant feel. So I always wondered, how can I increase perceived loudness without killing dynamics. 

@William said:

This is an interesting thread because one gets to hear Dietz's ideas and "soapbox."  His mixes are the best of any sample performances I've ever heard.  So I love it when he reveals some of his brilliant concepts on these forums. 

Dietz, a few weeks ago, I tried private messaging you because I wanted to hire you so you can mix/master my stuff. 😇 Your inbox was full so I couldn't send anything... 

It's interesting, as I am reading some orcherstration books, a lot of the concepts they go over is mixing/mastering concepts. It's like hundreds of years of refinement of how to have different instruments play together nicely.

William is totally correct. When I listen to violins live, I love the "darker" sound they output. So to really imitate this in MIR PRO/VE PRO, I'd have to cut a bit out of the violin's high frequencies.

I wish MIR PRO had an auto EQ concept based on live performances. So if I place my 8 dimension strings violons in a venue, they would be automatically EQed based on how it would sound in a live performance. Now, I just do this adjustment myself.

@Dietz said:

Have you ever tried the individual Character EQs MIR Pro supplies for almost every Vienna Instrument? That's several thousands of tailor-made EQ settings available at the tip of your finger. I think I won't go further than that. 8-)

Kind regards,

Oh yes! That is awesome! But I have no idea what the eq curve looks like for those character presets....  😊 

I even can't access the character eq... Can you please make this available for the users? I know the character EQ is exposed to a few people...

@Dietz said:

Have you ever tried the individual Character EQs MIR Pro supplies for almost every Vienna Instrument? That's several thousands of tailor-made EQ settings available at the tip of your finger. I think I won't go further than that. 8-)

Kind regards,

Oh yes! That is awesome! But I have no idea what the eq curve looks like for those character presets....  😊 

I even can't access the character eq... Can you please make this available for the users? I know the character EQ is exposed to a few people...

I should add that the character presets are a huge resource in MIR, one of the best things about it.  Especially considering how one can use a slightly different color for a 2nd player or group.  An example is setting your second violins to "dark" in order to make the 1st sound out more.  Or many other variations.   Using the "bite" variations in basses helps to make rhythms much clearer.  ALso, I have started to think that it should almost be normal practice to use "clean low ends" or "clean mids" for various instruments such as harp and cello.  Those presets represent an expertly tweaked example of the basic thing I was talking about with deep bass notes that certain instruments produce (such as a cello section) not being present hardly at all in normal orchestral settings, due to many factors but mainly 1) number of players, 2) resonance of the instruments involved 3) characteristics of amplitude in the particular range the instrument plays. 

Also, the contrast of these levels throughout different instrument groups has a huge effect.  If you are recording a chamber group, you will hear a huge amount of bass from low strings.  If you are recording an R. Strauss sized orchestra playing "Also Sprach Zarathustra" you will hear almost NO BASS from those same instruments.  Because the recording is adjusting for the massive brass and percussion that almost obliterates the strings at times.  These factors are crucial to bear in mind during both mixing and mastering with samples, because there is absolutely no adjustment made for these automatically, quite understandably because of the goal of any sample recording  to absolutely suck dry any instrument in front of the microphones and capture every nuance. 

Thank you Dietz and William.

I have learned so much from this thread! Greatly appreciated.

I really like the character presets, but sometimes I have no idea what frequencies it modifies, so I end up using just "Pure", and then EQ myself or use eq presets. Thanks William, I think I will follow your advice on using the "Clean Low Ends/Clean Mids etc. as normal practice.

Dietz, I think exposing the character eq and settings would be a good thing for everyone if it facilitates making better mixes. I don't see where are the trade secrets if you are already showing thousands of other EQ presets in the VSL Equalizer?

Wow, thanks for this, Dietz! This has really opened my eyes on those presets. Finally, I see!

Interesting, if I read correctly, the character preset can use quite a bit of CPU power. So, I guess, it does more than just EQ the instrument?

Don't worry. This text dates back to 2009. Even the most complex Character Presets won't tax a recent machine too much. 

Great, thanks for this.

So the character preset I assume applies some high quality EQ, or it does more than just EQ?

So I managed to mix/master my VSL piece to the point where I am happy with what I can do with my abilities. I feel soo fatigued! I am done... My ears and head are spinning...  😶

Basically, I decided to minimize the master chain, and go with "compress bass and limit highs", I also readjusted the EQ curve and applied Dynamic EQ on resonant frequencies. 

It now sounds better on my car speakers, and the new monitors definitely helped. In any case, I am sure a professional can take it to another level. It still has has way to go to reach the level of being truly satisfying from a mastering/mixing point of view.

Here is the piece -- I used Dimension Strings, Brass A8, Vienna Choir, Solo Voices (Soprano), Percussion, Jazz Drums, VE PRO/MIR PRO using Grosser Saal Venue. I also use a Ukrainian Bandura (non VSL instrument).

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/33556625/Music/Nektarios%20-%20Eastern%20Dream%2050.mp3

If something stands out that isn't quite right, I would appreciate your feedback! This is still work in progress...

Thanks!

Cheers,

-Nektarios

Asking for advice on mastering VSL Music on the VSL Forum is like asking for advice on skinning cats at a cat skinners convention.

Here's my .02 cents which is not quite worth two cents if you consider the current exchange rate but here goes...

Basically, all of the aforementioned advice from all of the aforementioned cat skinners responding to this thread is all good advice.  In fact, it's all great advice👍 In double fact, there were things mentioned here that I found useful myself and I've been skinning cats for about twenty years now.

But here's my little contribution to this enlightening discussion.  Pick one of your especially challenging tracks and master it to what you think it should sound like or at least as close to what you want it to be as possible.  Then send that track to a professional mastering engineer who specializes or has experience mastering Classical music.  When you get the finished product back, compare it to the master you made.  Of course, you do this after you've been mastering some tracks for a while when you have some experience and you think you might be ready to go prime time with your mastering skills. 

I did this about five years ago and I found that my masters were actually pretty darn good😊  However, if you were to keep score line by line the professionally mastered tracks were slightly better than mine.  There were certain nuances that made certain frequencies shine and other subtle aspects that put the professional track above my own but only marginally.

Now in my case, 95% of what I do is library music for licensing and as far as mastering is concerned, "pretty darn good😊" is good enough.  On the other hand, I regret not sending that 5% of scoring I do to a professional mastering engineer and that's what I do now.

Long story short, it depends on what you do with your music.  In a perfect world hiring a mastering engineer to master your tracks is ideal but it may not be practical, nor necessary, in the real world.

Say... what is the current exchange rate on my .02 cents anyway?