Thank you all for replying,

As most of you have probably read in my previous posts, I have tried many different ways to acheive a close to perfect sound. I gone through equing a little bit, to using convolution reverbs, to mic modeling, etc.

The stage I am now is using dramatic EQ and convolution reverb.

For reverb I use the IR1 with the Todd-AO settings (a little tweaked).
For eqs, violins for example, I take out (in the nuendo EQ) -6db at 1438khz with a Q of 0 (which is the largest bandwidth). It seems to have given me the same results as using mic modeling but it now saves me cpu usage hehe.

Here is the sound I have gotten to...this is a very small composition..and again mixing took the forefront of it lol (eventually killing my creativity):

http://www.savefile.com/files.php?fid=3756129
(sorry it's not a direct link)

I think the mix is clean. In the verb I'd prefer a greater sense of perspective. You know todd-ao is a great stage but it really doessn't have much tail to it. you might need to use a diffrent hall for orchestra unless you are looking for a kind of "live todd-ao stage sound" which isn't exactly cinematic. also from a programing stand point - the string release in the violins is very long taking away from the realism; combine that with stacatos that are a bit too short for how they are being used and you get a kind of non realism that cuases one to start to hear everything as being samples.

Thank you for your comments magates.
I agree, the reverb does not have a great deal of perspective, but I was more focusing on the EQ, which made me forget about dealing with the reverb hehe.
I also agree on how the violins and other instruments sound more like samples than the real stuff.
But like I said, ...i always end up over analyzing my mixes..and forget about the programming or composing lol.

EDIT:
here's the same track with a different reverb, same EQs, tiny changes in panning, no changes musically in the beginning, but a little be of tweaking in the second part dynamics wise.
http://www.savefile.com/files/9706232

Chem,

I also thought the mix was clean. Certainly a touch more reverb as suggested. I thought the music itself was rather good too, despite your modesty. Felt like it was background to a thriller movie. Nice movement in it.

Your point on mixing is well made. I think the best thing to do when mixing is to leave it a while when you are getting close. I've fallen foul of overegging it so it actually starts sounding worse as I do more and more (and I think it's sounding better). To counter this I generally pick recordings I like, then I try to make the mix on my own work get close to that sort of sound.

Thank you Jonathan [:)]

I cannot tell you how many projects were ended because of messing with the mix too much haha.
I try to make my stuff sound as close to a record that I like, just like you do. And it keeps getting better and better, and i usually end up doing less to the mix.
Thank you for your advice on leaving the mix for a while when it's gettin close. I will do that from now on.

I will be extending this composition soon. (currently busy working on two piano recitals...making me go crazy)

I can give you some rough timescale advice on this from my own experience

1. WHEN TO STOP MIXING

When my wife comes by and says 'are you STILL working on that damned piece', I know that it is time to stop mixing.

2. HOW LONG TO LEAVE BEFORE FINAL POLISHING

I've found that if I leave it a week after stopping and then start again, I can usually get away with it without further nagging and grief, so I'd recommend that you start there. 3-4 days seems to count as 'not stopping'. I don't dare risk more than a few hours on the final, final mix.

Interesting question -

Maybe it's because I don't write music for film but I never mess with EQ when composing and orchestrating. In fact, what I consider "composing" has no particular instrumentation associated with it - I usually just have four staves of strings (Vn, Va, Cello, Bass) that I use to define the melodic and harmonic structure of the piece. Once that is done, I decide how I'd like to orchestrate it and go from there, adding perc. along the way. Of course it is not completely clear cut - I do add some melodic and harmonic changes during the orchestration, but not much. I guess if your final product is intended to be performed only by a "virtual" orchestra then it makes sense to consider EQ along the way.

Do most of you who write film music for "virtual" orchestras combine the entire composition/orchestration/performance process into one stage (and therefore consider things like EQ up front)?

rgames

Reference tracks are the best resources I've fouund to keep from losing perspective of balances. The impression of a mix can be changed with EQ, compression, and reverb once volume and expression levels are set.

For orchestral libraries such as VSL, I'll use a reference track similar to the kind of ensemble I'm scoring. Sometimes, I can nail the brass sound without any EQ at all. Sometimes the strings just fall into line right away. Other times the winds. Whatever the case, that particular section becomes my point of reference and I don't EQ it, but will adjust the other sections to match, only if needed. I do this as I go, but I don't spend a lot of time tweaking as I go-- until the entire score is completed. Much will be done in post and mastering. I do agree fully that there are no hard and fast rules and that "too much done too soon" often necessitates going back and undoing and redoing later-- or discarding and starting over. The better the balance right at the start, the better the result in advance of processing.

When using an orchestral library, one should consider how the library was recorded, how it was designed to work sonically, and how it translates to your audio monitors without processing first. If I use VSL as the basic orchestral sound, any other orchestral samples from other collections will get EQ'd (and repanned or set to mono as needs dictate) to match VSL. This helps to keep one "toe at home plate", so to speak, in an effort to not lose one's sonic perspective.

Objectivity can also be an indispensible tool. Get a night's sleep before doing the mix, if possible. Get a second or third set of ears towards the end of the mixing process. Keep listening to your favorite CDs again and again to reinforce your sonic orientation and expectation for your own mixes. Doing so makes it so much easier to know what adjustments to make or, more importantly, what adjustments NOT to make.

The other thing about EQ is that it seems to work better as a subtractive tool rather than an additive tool. Cranking the high end may not work as well as ducking mids and lows. I always duck frequencies first, unless it ruins the sound of the instruments in that range. In that case, I know that there are other problems with the mix which should not be solved by manipulating the EQ.

One classic case is that when adding reverb, one can lose the transients of percussion instruments. Many people reach for a fader or an EQ-- when all that might be needed is to add a slight touch of compression just to the timp to make it more present, for example.

Thanks for good advice, JWL - especially the last two paragraphs:

@JWL said:

[...] The other thing about EQ is that it seems to work better as a subtractive tool rather than an additive tool. Cranking the high end may not work as well as ducking mids and lows. I always duck frequencies first, unless it ruins the sound of the instruments in that range. In that case, I know that there are other problems with the mix which should not be solved by manipulating the EQ.

One classic case is that when adding reverb, one can lose the transients of percussion instruments. Many people reach for a fader or an EQ-- when all that might be needed is to add a slight touch of compression just to the timp to make it more present, for example.

Sure thing, Dietz!

One other thing which might help is some sort of real-time spectral analyzer. I happen to use Inspector XL, but I make no specific recommendations because different people have different tastes. Such a tool helps one "see" what's going on in a mix or on a particular track. It's always helpful to study the frequency behavior of a few reference tracks before starting the mix process, which in turn helps one to keep some sense of sonic orientation on their own projects.

"Span" from Voxengo is a nice FFT-Analyzer form Voxengo, and it's free.

-> http://www.voxengo.com/product/SPAN/

... personally, I find third-band analyzers more meaningiful for mixing, though. If you happen to use RME-hardware on a PC, you get their great Analyzer for free, too (as a part of the DigiCheck-bundle). I use it all the time.

-> http://www.rme-audio.com/english/download/tools.htm