• Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


About Rozovian

  • Rank
    Workshop Evaluator, Songs of Light and Darkness Director
  • Birthday 10/25/1985

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
  • AIM


  • Biography
    Dude with beard. Makes music sometimes. Short on pronouns.
  • Real Name
    Ad G

Artist Settings

  • Collaboration Status
    2. Maybe; Depends on Circumstances
  • Software - Digital Audio Workstation (DAW)
  • Software - Preferred Plugins/Libraries
    Pianoteq, Omnisphere, FM8
  • Composition & Production Skills
    Arrangement & Orchestration
    Synthesis & Sound Design
  1. I discovered there's a mix knob on the compressor I use. That made parallel compression a lot easier. So I did subtle parallel compression into moderate multiband compression into more parallel compression, on the output/master channel.
  2. Not sure what I'd do in this situation. Maybe I'd give a single word response: "no". Maybe I'd explain I don't have time to do every request, even if it was of my favorite sources. Maybe I'd direct him to my remixing guide, teach a man to fish, teach a fish to remix and all that. Maybe I'd tell him I'd never remix that game if he bothers me again. Not sure.
  3. Ayup. We still need to make sure the artists are cool with the mastered versions, so we'll get them uploaded somewhere for artists to check. That's, I think, the most time-consuming thing left to do. But that means there's not much left that's delaying this thing. I've been waiting for this for a long time. No more unexpected delays pls.
  4. By "you dont have the version", you mean it's none of these?
  5. eval: Guitar parts are cool. Bass part could stand out more. Drums seem to be the same loop throughout the whole track, not much variation. And seem to be just an open hihat and a snare. There's probably a need to separate kick and bass from each other with EQ. More variation to the drums is needed. The whole thing ends rather abruptly. The pause in the middle is an unusual arrangement decision, but I'm not bothered by it. Aside from the drums in it. But I already covered that. I recall the source being a fairly short loop, so I'm not concerned about the short length. A couple of repetitions of it, with variation, is what the arrangement seems to be. A guess, because a source link was not provided. We provide the ears, you provide the comparison. I'm okay with that style of arrangement if it takes some interesting deviations from the source. Can't say about this one. No source link, no source comment. The performance is nice, the solo is both fitting and cool. Can't comment about source usage, or much about arrangement. I suspect it'd fall into the category of faithful cover (with original solo) rather than an ocr-style arranged remix. Mixing needs work. Drums need writing. Cool stuff. Clearly you have the guitar chops for this stuff. Just gotta get the other things in order.
  6. Dex, you're on the money. Even with this revision, most of your feedback still applies. eval: The ebb and flow dynamics of the intro strings pad seem a bit erratic. You might want to even it out a bit. This issue is still there when the same pad is used with the piano. Fiddling with the envelope and note lengths should help here. Try to avoid whatever happened with the instrument at 1:00. The main piano quite bright, dry, and hard. (It also sounds a bit like an sd3 track.) It doesn't quite feel like it's part of the same world as the other instruments. It's a bit too loud, and could use more reverb or delay to blend in more. It's still quite mechanical. I'm hearing more variation in velocity (eg around 3:15), but the timing still seems quite rigid. Check your mix levels against well-mixed tracks (eg ocremixes by veteran remixers, from the past few years). That way you have an easier time spoting differences in frequency balance and dynamics, in mixing things between the two mixes. The hihats and your synth leads both seem quite loud to me (as did the piano). This is something you start to notice when you listen for it, and train your ears on well-mixed tracks. The panning on the synth lead is annoying. Not something you'd get rejected for, but it bugs me, so I'm letting you know. This is without a doubt a remix of Deus Ex. Both structure and instrumentation are quite close to source. There are some creative differences, like the uses of the secondary sources (well handled, too), but I think it's still too conservative to pass. That's one of the more difficult things to deal with; issues pertaining to sound design and mixing are easier to identify and to alter. Currently, it'd probably be rejected on the basis of being too conservative, unrealistic sequencing (instrument parts aren't smooth enough), sound design (mostly that superbright piano), and mixing issues (track levels, making instruments fit together). My recommendation is to take this as far as you currently can without bothering much with trying to change the arrangement (unless you get a good idea for how to do that), use another eval if you feel you need one later, sub it, and see what happens. It's a good arrangement to practice the technical aspects of remixing on. Pass or no pass, you take what you've learned (including judges' feedback from having subbed it) to your future works. Have fun.
  7. eval: Really nice sound choices throughout. There's something familiar about the intro, I think it's a Mazedude remix that it reminds me of. And no, the transition is fine, not too abrupt. Can't tell if the string pads are supposed to be strings or pads. They behave more like pads. The more acoustic elements of the track suggest they're strings, though. Not sure what to think about them, but in this state they stand out a bit. Smoothing out their writing should help. Not sure what to think of the bass either. It might just be that I prefer the bass lower, or that I think it sounds fake. Possibly both. But something bugs me about it. It gets rather messy around 3 minutes in though, so your instincts are right. For cleanup, think about the hierarchy of the instruments, which ones need to be heard and which ones can be pushed into the background. Mix levels accordingly, do some EQ separation and carve space for the more important instruments in the overall sound. Consider whether you truly need all those instruments, or if there are some that you can remove from this part, or at least strip of some of the thickness (in texture, frequency range, clarity, whatever). The drums in the mess add to it enough to warrant a separate mention. Adjusting the cymbals' EQ might help, as they currently have a rather noisy and trashy sound. The overall sound in the loud section sounds like it's been pushed a bit too hard against a multiband compressor, or had a loud exciter or something on half the frequency range. It's an artificial-sounding loudness. I think it's plenty loud, you can ease up on the squashing a bit. Once you've cleaned up that section, this issue might resolve itself. But in case it doesn't, it's worth listening for. It's not too conservative imo. Sounds like a nice, creative arrangement. I like it, and I don't think I liked the source much. So job well done on that front. I think the only thing keeping it from being posted is the loud and messy section, which needs to be less messy. The other issues are worth looking into, but I don't think they're dealbreakers. Cool stuff.
  8. Dat bass. Found this while going over my ocr library (now fully up to date with albums and everything). That groove, especially at 1:13 and on, just grabbed me. I'll be listening a lot to this in the future, either for trying to distill what makes it so cool, or just to chill to it. Really nice work. I want to hear more from you.
  9. Quick comment. Cool mood. Piano and strings are quite stiff. Humanize. This should probably be dealt with both in sound design (envelopes, velocity sensitivity) and in the actual writing (velocities, timings).
  10. Well, none of that is mastering. Mastering is adjusting an already mixed and otherwise finished track for a particular format, eg mastering for CD, radio; or for fitting into a context or compilation, eg mastering an album. With time, you'll get your terminology straight. I have a remixing guide in my sig that might help some.
  11. Welcome to the remixing subforum. Yeah, this sounds like a "first remix", but that's cool. We all start somewhere. I've certainly heard worse. I've made worse. Some cool sound choices. For a more developed sound, think about which instruments should be in the background and which ones should be in the foreground, and use the track level, EQ, reverb, and instrument filter and envelopes to push the background-intended stuff further back. You usually don't need to work with all of these, but they're almost the entire toolset for this. Use what you need. You have some variations in the drums, which is nice. I don't remember the drums of the original, so I don't know what's yours and what's from source. For good drum writing, consider fills before changes in the track, and consider calming the drums down during some parts and raising their intensity in others. You can do this with a combination of note velocities, and the drum writing itself (adding, moving, or removing notes). A good drum groove is found in both note timing and note velocity, so look into the swing/shuffle feature of your software, and think about which note you want to hit a little harder. As for leads, think of it like creating something that sounds like a performance. Make little changes, emphasize some melody lines more than others. Too much deviation becomes showy, too little becomes boring. Find the sweet spot. Coming up with your own take on the melodies also helps, but it's not necessary. People are listening to hear your take on the source, so having the source lead melody verbatim is fine. It's usually the other stuff you mess around with; the structure, the rhythm, the backing, the mood, the instrumentation. And when those things lead you to change the lead melody, it'll feel more natural. I think that's plenty of pointers for now. It'll be interesting to hear how you develop. Have fun.
  12. 3. completed

    It's triplets in 4/4. I guess you could make a case that it means it's 12/16, but it's pretty straightforward regardless. Cool idea. I like hearing a triplet beat, and you've adapted the source well to it. edit: 12/16, not 12/4. Sorry.
  13. We're finishing up the mastering. There were some unexpected hurdles to overcome, but almost all of the mastering work is done, we're going to set up a control listen so the artists can verify that we haven't destroyed their mixes in the mastering process. We'll try to speed up these last stages of the project, so if you've got a track on the album, stick around, be available for this. I think I'll update the first post with the tracklist and metadata soon, so we can all verify that track and artist names and capitalization and everything is in order. And it's a nice reveal for everyone looking forward to the album too.
  14. Spiccato means bouncing the bow against the string. Staccato means sharply detached from the other notes. Where did you find a spiccato? I've been looking for an affordable spiccato option. In any case, if you like it, then you like it. I'm not remixing this for you; it's all about the decisions you make in making this. (How do I say this without it sounding passive-aggressive?) The person whose opinion on your mix matters the most is you. All I do is point out possible flaws while you can still change stuff. And I can be wrong. There's still a mechanical rolling sound to the steel drums. Less annoying, but still there. I would recommend varying velocities more, or making the synth/sampler respond more to the different velocities. A trick I used with Logic's built-in sampler was to make low-velocity notes start later in the sample, so only the high-velocity notes got the louder start of the sample. This trick, I think, would help with steel drums in particular, because they're used in those rolls. If the synth or sampler you use allows for it, make it respond more to velocity differences. Or make the velocity differences greater. Or both. You might also want to slightly randomize or shuffle/swing the rhythm of the rolls, for a more human sound. I don't know what would work best, but you can try everything and just keep what you like. If you're looking to invest in a really nice steel drum synth, Pianoteq has an add-on for that. It'd set you back a bit, though, 150€ for the basic Pianoteq and the add-on. I like its sound, both the steel drums and the base piano (and I use the Rhodes add-on on almost everything I do nowadays), but it's way too much for a single remix, so if you're not planning on doing a lot more with steel drums, it's not worth it. I think I've heard enough of you to say you've been improving nicely. Keep at it. You're doing great. And take your mixes off eval when you get your eval.
  15. Had my sister come in and give it a listen, since she likes the source. She thought the mixing was weird, the lead being much softer than the arpeggio. She didn't quite like the drums. She felt it (or the drums) was "the same thickness throughout" (translated). She had a reaction to the eclectic sound design, can't say if it was good or bad, but she found it noteworthy. The 2:07 instrument was pretty, but clearly not a real performance (2:17 makes that obvious). But she prefers the original to most remixes of this anyway. Figured you might want that perspective too. eval: Well, the arpeggio is annoying. There's a lot you can do to lessen that. Reduce its levels with automation, push it further into the background. Gradually remove its attack. Have a different pattern, still reminiscent of the source, to use occasionally. Switch octaves. Have a similar, but much less prominent instrument take over. Have a longer loop with a few subtle variations. In addition to that, I find it rather mechanical. When it's exposed, it should sound more human, more performed. Differences in velocity, subtle (BUT DELIBERATE) differences in timing between notes, and perhaps also between loops. It should sound different in the big drum-supported sections compared to the calmer bits. That's how a real performer would do it, even if they'd play these same notes throughout. The lead is buried under the arpeggio, which hurts both parts. Should be solved with some of the tricks suggested for improving the arpeggio. Carving a hole for the lead in the other tracks' frequency range with EQ (a few dB, nothing drastic) should also help. The drums are a little boring. I like their sound, they have a nice groove, but they could be more interesting. And, in some parts, less interesting, when the other instruments provide drive and rhythm. Their brief appearance from 2:45 to 2:10 seems.... brief, and pointless. You're right to think the ending is missing something. Half-tempo drums, a canon arpeggio on a different instrument, some acoustic guitar stuff, something. I don't mind the mellow mood and the absence of a big lead or anything of the sort, but you need _something_ different there. What happened at 1:37, when the piano/guitar thing just disappears for no apparent reason? The arrangement is quite conservative. It's always difficult to say if it's too close to source. In these cases I usually just suggest to sub it regardless and let the Judges figure our if it's too close, but I'd be remiss to not mention it here. There are parts that could use a bit more attention to detail. Your lead instruments, especially in the calmer sections, are quite exposed, which means listeners can hear all the details. For a good performance and a good instrument, that's great. You're lacking in the performance department. 2:27 is a great example of this. It doesn't sound legato. It sounds like a keyboard. Spend some times on details like that, to make them less obvious. Mellow groove, nice sound, chill stuff. Unless it's too conservative, this should pass the panel once the biggest annoyances are dealt with. For clarity, those are in the mixing, the performance (the illusion of human performance), and in the ending.