Welcome Guest! To enable all features please Login or Register.

Notification

Icon
Error

Forum Jump  
To be looking for help...
Last post Mon, Jun 18 2012 by Beat Kaufmann, 10 replies.
Options
Go to last post
Posted on Thu, Jun 14 2012 15:27
by pkaufmann
Joined on Wed, Sep 02 2009, Posts 28
Hello!

After weeks of trial and error with Cubase and VE i dare to publish a little Etude for Solo Vln, Solo VC and ChamberStrings in this forum. The litte track is a Etude/excercise for me handling with the StringSection of the complete Special-Edition Strings, Cubase + VE Pro 5. I would be grateful if you could make some advices concerning mixing, programming or whatever you've to criticize or remark.

Thanks in advance!

Paul.


http://soundcloud.com/dpdot/stringsetude-2
Posted on Thu, Jun 14 2012 19:14
by Chuck Green
Joined on Thu, Dec 21 2006, Ann Arbor, MI (USA), Posts 518

Hi Paul,

I liked the arrangement and mix very well.  Two spots caught me a little funny, almost sounded unnatural.  At point 0.11 and 0.17, I believe the solo viola seems to cut out unnaturally.  Maybe adding just a small amount of reverb to let the release sound natural.  Not sure if that's it or if your dropping the volume or expression to zero.  Other than that, I really like it.

Posted on Thu, Jun 14 2012 20:58
by pkaufmann
Joined on Wed, Sep 02 2009, Posts 28
Hi Chuck.

Thank you for the reply! I hate this two spots also... I helped myself with a little bit more legato at this spots now. It's uploaded... Volume or expression were not drop to 0... Reverb was added, i wonder, why the sound cuts so suddenly.


EDIT: Well, i found the Slider RELEASE in the PERFORM Menu in VE... I've adjust this slider a little bit more up and the phrase is much more smoother than before. Wah! Its so easy, if you know it ;)

EDIT2: Loaded up a new version of the mix. I hope, it's a little more transparent... and, well, smoother.

http://soundcloud.com/dpdot/stringetude-3
Posted on Fri, Jun 15 2012 10:38
by Chuck Green
Joined on Thu, Dec 21 2006, Ann Arbor, MI (USA), Posts 518

Much better Paul.  I didn't think about slightly adjust the release.  It works ! ! ! Great Job.

Posted on Sat, Jun 16 2012 15:54
by mcelvogue
Joined on Mon, Mar 14 2011, Posts 155

Hi Paul,

     I listened earlier in the week to the first posting and I thik this is now much smoother and more convincing. I'm not sure if it is just my hearing but it sounds as though there is some kind of double trigger in terms of a patch playing twice or an overlap of some sort within the early part of the piece. I'll take a listen again and see if I can note down the timing. It may well be intentional and if it is, I apologise for pointing it out. (EDIT: 15 seconds and 23 seconds - after listening again it sounds like the second note starts before the first note has finished if that makes sense, and I don't know whether or not there is meant to be two instruments at this section or not so it may be something that you wanted. Anyhow, just an observation.

When I first listened this week, my initial reaction was, wow that's ambitious for a first piece as I can imagine some of the articulation changes would have taken a while to get right, now that I have listened again after a few days it sounds much better with the changes you've already made. Congratulations and look forward to hearing more.

Tom

Posted on Sat, Jun 16 2012 21:10
by Beat Kaufmann
Joined on Fri, Jan 03 2003, Switzerland/Brugg, Posts 1781
pkaufmann wrote:
EDIT2: Loaded up a new version of the mix. I hope, it's a little more transparent... and, well, smoother.

Hi Paul

Congratulation for your first steps. I just listened to EDIT2 (I don't know how the first one sounded). I also don't know what kind of Reverb you are using.

Anyway. While listening to your piece I had the impression, that the solo instruments where extremly narrowed in their stereo field. Further they seem to "come" from the same point between the speakres - mono - mono so to say.

What about panning the one a bit to the right side and the other a bit to the left?

About narrowing instruments in its stereofield:

The farther away instruments are the "mono" they seem to be (not their reverb but their direct sound).

Inverse: The closer instruments are the "stereo" they sound  (ensembles and so on).

So what I try to say: I would like to have a bit more "three-dimensionality", a bit more spatially. What do you think?

All the best

Beat (Kaufmann as well Yes)

www.musik-produktion-createc.ch (Konzertaufnahmen, Musik mit Samples)
at www.beat-kaufmann.com : MIXING an ORCHESTRA - TUTORIAL
Posted on Sun, Jun 17 2012 01:49
by pkaufmann
Joined on Wed, Sep 02 2009, Posts 28
Thankyou so much for helpful comments!


First, i loaded up a new version Clickme
It's a longer version that gives me little bit more room for learning and experimenting...


@Tom - The Solo Cello at the begin sounds always a little bit strange to me, too. It was not the problem of having a patch playing twice, it was the overlapping of two tones to achieve more legato. But that was nonsens... I adjust the passages. It's "legato" enough, i think. And yes, it's a little bit ambitious to make a stringpiece as first "serious" mix but i think if i learn to handle reasonably with the most difficult section of the "electronic-orchestra" (in my eyes), the next steps will be easier.

@Beat - I use Convolution Reverb / with the preset 04Synphonic Hall_G3
The thing with the panning... It's true, i missed to put the solo-cello and the solo-violin in the room. I hope, it's better now. But what i don't understand: everytime when i put a effect in the mixer of VEPro, i've the choice between Mono-Mono, Mono-Stero, Stereo-Stereo... Does your explanation "Mono-Far Away" mean that ive to choose mono-mono for instruments like trumpets or timpanis? And stereo-stereo for a piano, if i would mix a pianoconcert, f.i.

Further i fiddle about the dry and wet signal in the reverb. I give the orchestra less dry signals than the solo-instruments but i've still the feeling that the solos sitting in and not in front of the orchestra. What could i make better?

Thanks a lot,
Paul (Kaufmann ;) )

Posted on Sun, Jun 17 2012 11:09
by Beat Kaufmann
Joined on Fri, Jan 03 2003, Switzerland/Brugg, Posts 1781
pkaufmann wrote:
@Beat - I use Convolution Reverb / with the preset 04Synphonic Hall_G3

Hello Paul

Use always stereo - stereo in connection with Samples of VSL and the VI.

The other options are for possible cases together with players and plugins of other manufacturers.

For panning signals from left to the right and for narrowing the stereo width I recommend to use the powerpan effect. It has really all parameters to pan your instruments easy and nicely (More than VE-Pro)

I've just seen, you have purchased a "tutorial" which can help you a lot in this case on your way... you know what I mean ;-).

Checkout Chapter "9" for a first overview what you need to do for getting a three-dimension orchestra.

About "Soloists just in the front"

For loosing any depth you need to have a reverb with the possibility to swich off  any ER because those ERs mainly "make" the room and the distance.

The Convolution Reverb can't do this because it uses Impulse Responses (IRs) which have included ERs.

So if you are using the Hybridreverb you can switch off the ERs for the soloinstrument and most times they will appear just in front of you.

Listen to this Example

00:55 - 1:05 Orchestra Strings

1:06 - 1:18 String-Quartet (in front of the orchestra)

1:19 - 1:33 solo Violin (even closer - Reverb without ERs)

1:34 ... Checkout the different depths and pans of all the other instruments. That's mixing and three-dimensionality. You always get a transparent sound even if there are lots of different instruments and you have the "first-row-feeling"

Embarrassed I admit that such results need a lot of experiance and with it a lot of time to reach this level.

But you have already started and you are on a good way ;-)

Beat

www.musik-produktion-createc.ch (Konzertaufnahmen, Musik mit Samples)
at www.beat-kaufmann.com : MIXING an ORCHESTRA - TUTORIAL
Posted on Mon, Jun 18 2012 10:13
by pkaufmann
Joined on Wed, Sep 02 2009, Posts 28
Hello Beat,

according to your advices and tutorials i tried a new mix of the piece.
http://soundcloud.com/dpdot/stringetude-5
I use HybridReverb instead of Convul.Rev. now.
Just two questions: What is the difference between a send to bus and the prefade to a bus? Don't know, if i express myself correctly...
Further, can you advise literature about mixing? The basics: Explanations about Equalizers, Compressors and so on in order that i understand, what i do, when i use a slider... If this book would be in german, it would be perfect ;)

Thankyou again,

Paul
Posted on Mon, Jun 18 2012 22:37
by Beat Kaufmann
Joined on Fri, Jan 03 2003, Switzerland/Brugg, Posts 1781

Hi Paul

Sounds much more spatially - at least the orchsetra.

About reverb concepts. Have a look in the "Tutorial VSL" at "Additions" - "Zwei Hallkonzepte"

The reverb concept with "SEND"

You install a BUS-channel (Logic) GROUP-channel (Cubase) and install within it a reverb instance with a 100%wet ratio.

Now you are able to send from each audio or intrument channel a part of the signal - adjusted by the send parameter - to this reverb BUS. The more signal you send the more reverb you get from the reverb BUS.

Advantage: One Reverb for all channels - nevertheless not each channel must get the same amount of reverb.

Disadvantage: This system can't produce really several depths because depth is (not only) a question of more or less reverb

The reverb concept "One BUS per depth with a reverb each "

As the title tells us you open a bus per depth you want to have. For a large orchestra it makes sense to create 3, 4 or 5 different depths which means 5 instances of a hybridreverb for example. These need some CPU-Power that's clear.

You can perfectly prepaire those "Depth-BUSSES" with other effects (EQ, Compressors etc) so that you get the image of really perfect and different depths. After that you route all the corresonding signals through the depths they need. All the strings through dpeth 1 all the woodwinds through depth 2 and so on.

Advantage: If the depths are well done you get a perfect balance in the depth dimension which can perfectly enhance the transparency of the mix

Disadvantage: You need (a lot of) CPU-power for this concept.

Reverb concept with MIR

It's an easy way to mix a project grafically on a stage of your choice.

Advantage: Not bad results with a low effort of time. Better to very good results but you need (much) more time for optimizing the settings, dry/wet adjustments, microphones etc.

Disadvantage: Costs even more money, you need an even better computer... and finally: MIR tends to a "balcony sound" (my opiinion) and not to "the first-row-sound" which

I personally like much more.

Books/Explanations

There is the PPV-Medien-Verlag with lots of books (in Deutsch)

All these books do have disadavantage: They all treat often the mixing of a band, of drums and so on.

The only book  I know which isn't bad - also for those who want to mix samples etc. is: "Internal Mixing, Friedmann Tischmeyer

http://www.tischmeyer-mastering.de/pwde/

BTW it's available in Deutsch and in English btw.

Nevertheless, I dont know a book which mixes a complete sampled project  and which leads the studend close along the appearing problems.

Maybe I should write such a tutorial myself Cool

All the best Beat

www.musik-produktion-createc.ch (Konzertaufnahmen, Musik mit Samples)
at www.beat-kaufmann.com : MIXING an ORCHESTRA - TUTORIAL
You cannot post new threads in this forum.
You cannot reply to threads in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.