Sir_NutS

Members
  • Content count

    2,783
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    3

2 Followers

About Sir_NutS

  • Rank
    Judge, Spanish Translator
  • Birthday 10/11/1982

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    A Tropical Island. Really! no Kidding!

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
    https://soundcloud.com/sir_nuts

Converted

  • Biography
    I maek boomtiss
  • Real Name
    Michael Molina
  • Occupation
    Web Developer
  • Facebook ID
    sirnutsmusic
  • Twitter Username
    PMichaelMolina
  • Last.fm Username
    Sir_NutS
  • Steam ID
    Macronaso

Artist Settings

  • Collaboration Status
    2. Maybe; Depends on Circumstances
  • Software - Digital Audio Workstation (DAW)
    Bitwig Studio
    Reaper
    Reason
  • Composition & Production Skills
    Arrangement & Orchestration
    Drum Programming
    Mixing & Mastering
    Recording Facilities
    Synthesis & Sound Design

Recent Profile Visitors

2,722 profile views
  1. Although it's written in the rules that remixes must have normal levels compared to average recordings, we don't have a written rule on how loud or quiet a track needs to be, but there are issues when you go both extremes: if a track is mastered too loudly it will usually get rejected because many times this will cause distortion, lack of dynamics and also obscures details. On tracks mastered too quiet, or with very wide dynamic ranges, this causes some issues with the listener's ability to appreciate the details without cranking up the volume, or in the case of tracks with a very wide dynamic range, it causes the listener to have to change the volume during playback in order to appreciate some sections. As for myself, I can't tell you if I will accept a -16 RMS track because there are other factors at play such as genre, and well, the nature of the arrangement, but unless the dynamics are interfering with the listener's ability to appreciate the track I don't have an issue with it. Personally, I appreciate tracks with wide dynamic range, but it has to make sense why they are that way, it can't sound like an oversight.
  2. wow... are you kidding me? after listening to that source... and then this remix... man, some people get inspiration from the weirdest of places. First thanks Larry for doing the heavy lifting with source checking. That such a short melody line could get expanded like this is commendable to say the least, but it's good to make sure the reference wasn't just fleeting. I think this piece would've been perfect for the Esther's Dreams album we released a while ago. The lullaby theme is executed pretty well, and overall the arrangement is pretty cute. I didn't have any issues with the mix, and the instrumentation fits the bill and is fairly well sequenced. YES
  3. Ah, this one is kind of a bummer. I was enjoying the arrangement and soundscape, which although rather simple it was being executed well. That being said, the artificial extension of the arrangement by looping the first minute and a half is not something we want in an ocremix... and a fadeout outro is something I personally discourage, I think you could do better than that. The arrangement showed promise, but we need a real development past the ideas presented here, add a real second section to this with its own development and ideas so we'll take a second look at it. Aside from that, I think the transition at 1:35 could be smoothed out, as it seemed very abrupt and out of place. This section works in the original, but not in this adaptation, the way it's being presented. The snare rolls felt a bit dry and exposed, and the mix could be adjusted slightly so sections like 1:22 don't feel like you have two melodies fighting for attention (bell arp and bassy synth) NO (resubmit)
  4. Hmm very interesting usage of the time signature changes. I have to disagree with 0:25 sounding wrong, I caught on what you were doing inmediately, and I really liked it. Lead writing was pretty clever as well, I really have no issues with this on the arrangement side, most of the problems here lie in the production. Very vanilla sounding instruments, thin leads, basic drums. The mix balance seems to be off in some sections as well, with the leads being overly exposed over the mix, and the drums going to the background with the bass almost disappearing. I think your arrangement skills are up to par but you need to work on your production to get it over the bar. I must reiterate that I loved what you did with the time signatures and they don't sound wrong at all, it's pretty common in fact to hear things that may be dissorienting in odd time signatures, Dream Theater (which you mentioned as influence), Meshuggah, Gojira and Tool come to mind with that. I encourage you to use the workshop and seek for advice on getting your mix to the next level because the arrangement is already there. NO (Resubmit)
  5. I was really digging this from the intro, but after the track starts evolving I start hearing issues with humanization, they start subtle but by the 2 minute mark it becomes too apparent. Everything sounds so mechanical, and the beat gets on autopilot for far too long. I dig the atmosphere you're building here, and I think the arrangement can work. You have a good sense of pacing, and I specially enjoyed the music box section and its eeriness. But this needs a major pass on humanization before we can send it up. On an extra note, you may want to watch the reverb, as it's creating quite a lot of mud and artifacts, you may want to dial the release or the wet signal down a notch so you get a cleaner mix that mantains the eerie characteristics you're trying to execute. NO (resubmit)
  6. I am really loving this idea here, but the execution falls short. As Gario mentioned, the vocalist's style is really fitting for this style but sadly she does fall flat in several places, most noticeable in the lower registers. I agree that a bit of pitch correction would do wonders. Also I loved the harmonized sections. The instrumentation is also alright, though it does feel mechanical sometimes, it's not the focus of the song. As the vocals draw so much attention you can get away with a bit of stiffness/fakeness in the instruments and their dynamics. Gario is on point on the off-beat nature of the performance around 3:10. An easy fix. I'm also having issues hearing the original source in this, and I know this soundtrack by heart, sf64 being my most played n64 game. I'm not sure if the arrangement can be changed at this point but I would recommend making the source connection more evident. I think that with this kind of track with so much vocal focus, a second pass to make them shine throughout the entirety of the duration of the song would be great. When she hits her stride she gets lovely and epic results out of her voice. I would really love to see this on the frontpage so if possible, think about the suggested corrections and hit us again. NO (resubmit)
  7. I have to agree that the track gets lost in the arrangement after the first minute of source representation. The bass from the source is there most of the time, albeit sometimes slightly transformed. Another big issue is the static nature of the track. I've noticed we get a lot of funk/disco submissions that feel very static in nature, that may be because these genres tend to produce songs like that, but for ocr we need more than just a static drumline with not many structural changes in the composition. It feels more like a jamming session for the guitarrist, which I personally enjoyed, but it's not really what we're looking for. As a final note I noticed the bass had an unnatural clicking sound to it on every note for some reason. NO
  8. Despite the somewhat aggressive nature of the beat and instrumentation, I found this track to be kinda laid back actually. It's not trying to melt my face, rather it seems like it's trying to be mysterious. Anyways, regarding the production, It all sounds pretty solid here, and as I'm a fan of big snares, you've won some extra good boy points there. The lead used to carry the melody is perfect for the mood, and properly performed. Around 3:35 when the track reaches a climax, it gets quite busy but I can still hear the details, which is good. No qualms with the arrangement, which can be heard throughout the song and is transformed and enhanced by this remix. YES
  9. Yikes those high frequencies are in serious need of taming, I had to turn the volume down just to be able to listen to this. The snare splash is noticeably piercing to my ears. The mix seems pretty empty overall, with some instruments feeling very static such as the pad in the breakdown, which also has a pretty jarring envelope with no release but a noticeable attack time that's just... odd. The arrangement feels pretty repetitive as well. even though you introduced some neat tempo effects in some of the parts, they didn't help much to keep things interesting when all the other parts felt very samey. If the frequencies are balanced correctly, and more work is done in the arrangement so it's less copy-paste and more cool/quirky stuff, as well as working on making the more static/boring sounds more interesting, I could see this making it to the front page. But only then. NO (resubmit)
  10. Yikes, this is a tough one. I wasn't as bothered by the transition at 3:12, though it is jarring. What I find odd is the rigidness and quality of the instrument, given that you're using The Grandeur which is a decent enough instrument by itself, but here it didn't seem to have much depth to it, though that may be more due to the performance than the instrument itself as I have heard very good sounding performances done with it. Somehow it also felt very mechanical specially in the higher octaves, which is weird given that this is a recorded performance and not sequenced. I don't think the reverb settings were ideal either, I think going for a warmer tone would've given the instrument a bit more body and subtlety. I thought the arrangement was ok albeit a bit conservative, didn't feel like you took many risks here. I feel like if you had gone the extra mile with the arrangement, and the performance didn't have the timing/ overuse of hesitation issues that have been pointed by my fellow judges (and I that I agree with), I could've let this one through despite the non-ideal production. So sadly, this is a NO
  11. I've been mulling over this track for quite some time now. I've mentioned this before to other judges, but this track seems to straight up lift some elements from Virtual Riot's "Lunar" track. The chord progression is basically identical, and the few growls thrown in here and there seem to be taken from VR's stream of the "making of" of this track. Some arrangement choices, such as the change to the faster double-time after the "Lunar" melody at around 2:46 seem way too similar to be a coincidence, imo, as well as the way the Lunar hook is presented at 0:42, with the kick emphasizing the start of each chord but then changing to the normal half beat the next measure, then the low-passed filter on the beat buildup to the drop is also very similar. The biggest clue to me here is that the "Lunar" hook is nowhere in the original, nor something even similar to that, which leads me to believe even more that the many similarities I hear are not coincidental. Using parts of a non-vgm song is something that's specified in our submission guidelines: So the question here is whether the usage of Lunar here is limited, and in my opinion, it constitutes a big enough part of this track to not be allowed. I only went through the most obvious similarities but there are also other details here and there, however what's shown is proof enough imo. Besides the inclusion of VR's track in this remix, I would have probably sided with a NO anyways. Jivemaster points out the issues I heard very well, while I will also add that I felt the lead pulse instrument felt very static, and due to the nature of being a remix of both Lunar and Pokemon MD, the structure felt blocky and sometimes transitions felt forced. NO
  12. This mix is too compressed, sections that are meant to be calm quickly become incredibly busy. 0:34 is already very busy and muddied up by the compression bringing up so many lows to the front and making reverb/delay effects too prominent. The busiest section around 1:56 is where the mix breaks down, cymbals are crushed and the doubling of the guitars becomes quite messy. Don't get me wrong, this is a lovely arrangement, but this really needs a more relaxed mix. This may be as simple as turning down the input gain on his compressor a couple dbs, or looking into the mix, but I think it's reasonable to ask for a resub because the the mastering is hurting the listening experience enough, imo. Looking into the wave itself, the climax looks like a sausage, as expected. And that's not very good, unless you're doing certain EDM genres. EDIT: New version feels relaxed, no distortion on the second half, waveform doesn't look like a sausage. Up to the frontpage with you! YES
  13. That bass at the start doesn't sound very natural, there isn't a natural flow from one note to the next, instead they cut each other, which sounds jarring. Going into the mix, the balance is off in almost every section. I think Jive does a great job pointing out the issues here and I agree with his observations. There are some piercing frequencies in the highs that are very noticeable, and sometimes the lead guitar goes into the background (1:52) because the drums and bass (and I'm guessing, a pad) are overpowering them. I did like the drum work you did here, it certainly keeps the arrangement interesting. On the arrangement front I didn't have many issues, I can hear the source enough to believe that this doesn't need to be source-checked, but the production needs to be addressed first because it's a very big issue. NO
  14. Pretty cool!. On a note, it's not the original audio at all, as Larry pointed out. Anyways, solid production overall, I was worried the reverb would muddy things up too much, but it's actually handled well enough that the mix doesn't drown in it. Using the syncopated rhythm from the original around 1:03 in the context of a dubstep remix was spot-on, as this is sort of a staple you hear in many dubstep songs. This particular groove had me djp'ing my way through the mix. I didn't care much about the piano breakdown in the middle, arrangement-wise was fine, taking a stab at changing things up a bit by playing a modified version of the melody while giving us some rest from the previous busy sections, but it just wasn't too interesting to me. Not a dealbreaker though. Overall this is a solid remix with just a few issues but definitely over the bar. Plenty of transformation of the source is done here, all the while beefing it up with layers of harmonies and all those now familiar wubs that some people love to hate. YES
  15. I really liked this idea, very minimalistic, but with a wide selection of sounds to keep things interesting. The rigidity of the performances is an issue though, and something I think we cannot overlook. Other than that, I'm with MW here in that I'm more on the fence about this one since I don't hear many issues and this is a very unique remix, the types we don't get too often, which focuses on a very distinct approach and executes it very well. Overall I would really like a resub with more work put into the performances and maybe some extra spicing up of the ambience. I think you have something with potential going on here, very unique. For now though, NO (resubmit)