Leaderboard

Here's my metal rendition of Fire Field from F-Zero. Hope you'll like it =)

I totally will! There'll also be two other project deadlines along the way, but they should be nothing much to worry about x)

He accidentally pasted the link to the Soma round on this post. It'll more than likely be edited once he realizes this. Till then, here's the Simon round: http://mindwanderer.net/OCR/CCoI%20-%20Simon%20Round%201.zip

I'm back from my TDY and the project is still going strong! The next batch of first WIPs from those who signed on later in the process is due at the end of Feb. So I'm expecting a lot more cool content to be flowing in! Now to mention I've been contacted by both Mazedude and Brandon Strader about the project! Nothing firm yet with either remixer but the mere fact we're talking about potential tracks gets me excited! That and we got Sam Dillard on the Great Silver Temple? I'm excited as hell! For the remixers onboard, expect another 'state of the album' update on the Facebook page soon and a PM reminding you about it. Still looking for more remixers (or current) to pick up the remaining tracks. I got ahold of Jason Covenant (FINALLY!) but he preferred to come in late in the project when its a struggle to get the last few tracks claimed...works better under pressure I guess? Oh well, I'm back and I'm ready to rock this album forward going into spring!

As I think more about this particular question I feel that some more information should be on offer than there currently is in the thread. So, as I said I don't really notice much of a difference in the way digital EQs sound. That is pretty much universally true for me. That doesn't mean that there isn't a difference. I personally despise the way linear phase EQs sound and so I don't use them despite having Pro-Q and Equilibrium from DMG Audio. They both are capable of linear phase with the proper PDC reporting to the DAW. However, I don't like how the filter rings equally and what that does to the spectral balance of a signal. But that is just me personally, and that doesn't mean I haven't found a need or use of that in a mix from time to time. That is something that PEQ2 simply cannot do. So, for utility purposes with complex material having an extremely flexible, powerful, and clean sounding EQ is something everyone should have in their toolbox. Otherwise as long as the developer gave enough attention to HF filters in relation to Nyquist then pretty much any Parametric EQ will sound the same with the primary difference being functionality. As an example of functionality between PEQ2 & Pro-Q real quick. If I want to change the Left channel of a sound only using PEQ2 then I have to mult out the part into two separate entities and treat just that side with an EQ. This is something that I can do completely internally with Pro-Q. Though the need to do something like this is pretty rare, but what about M/S? Pro-Q can do that without needing additional plugins. That right there is extremely useful functionality. Now, you may perhaps being wondering about so called "modeled" EQs as you've probably read about them. Well, supposedly the EQ I use a lot, Nomad Factory's NEQ-1972, is a modeled EQ. In certain situation flipping the "vintage" switch does alter the sound a positive way, but more often then not I don't hear a difference. But I've got more than one modeled EQ. There is Pulse-Tec EQ which is a Pultec with the mid range EQ part as well. This is a digital EQ that just doesn't quite sound like a normal EQ, which it shouldn't given that it has a tube makeup stage in the real unit as the actual EQ section is passive (at least IIRC the basic topology). Most of the time with this just putting it on something makes it sound better. No EQ is even necessary. However, you can perform the classic Pultec trick with it for bass or kicks, and it sounds fantastic doing it. Though the reason for this is that this EQ models saturation. Yeah there are differences in digital EQs sure. But honestly for the most part if you're just using a parametric EQ you should be able to achieve most anything you want with it short of an EQ that models saturation. Then you're kind of SOL with just a parametric EQ as that isn't something they do. A quick tip on EQs to make them sound more natural or more like they're analog counterparts. Most of the time when it comes to boosting try wider bandwidths. For some reason our ears are extremely sensitive to even a minor increase. If you ever look at the transfer curves for passive EQs you'll find that the Q of the filters in them is proportional in that the more gain is applied the narrower the filter gets. Now, if you're cutting start with narrower cuts in the first place. A lot of old EQs actually have asymmetrical boost & cut transfer curves. We're not nearly as sensitive to cuts as boosts and as a result you can get away far more when cutting than boosting. Do you need a fancy, shiny, super featured Parametric EQ? Not really. Are they handy to have around? Very much so. Do you need a modeled EQ? Not really. Are they handy to have around? Very much so. I guess that is kind of the point of my post here. You don't really need a fancy EQ, but there can be advantages to working with an EQ that has a fixed set of bands & frequencies as they can be faster to work with (I'm in this camp). Certain kinds of modeled EQs do wonders for certain things. There is a reason the Pultec is famous and Pultec models will show you why. They're super smooth and big sounding. Seriously, give a try to some of the modeled EQs out there. OverTone DSP offers a free demo on their Pultec emulation, the PTC-2A. A very sweet sounding EQ in general to try is TDR VoS SlickEQ. If you want to try a great sounding free program EQ give BaxterEQ from VoS a try. Just start trying and see what you think.

Looking forward to this beast as well. The BadAss series is one of the coolest projects ever in OCR's great history in my opinion.

This awesome OST.

Groovy as hell. Really like the basslines on funky mixes, this is no exception. On a side note. I was directed here from Totalbiscuit's Content Patch on youtube. One name jumped out as he read the track credits: Shane Gaalaas. I thought, is that the same guy who played with the Japanese group B'z? Sure enough, the link on the track page goes to his site, and it's unmistakably the same Shane Gaalaas I saw killing it on drums in the 2003 concert DVD "Typhoon No 15" over a decade ago. I just thought that was an awesome coincidence that this guy is part of 2 things I really like. Ok, I'm done nerding out.

The thing about albums is that if you really like a game and its soundtrack, you should commit to doing the album for that game.. not asking if people are interested and posting a few different album ideas, etc etc... because people will start to see a pattern of stuff not happening and they'll question the validity of the project you eventually decide on.. what's to stop you from being like "Undertale is old hat now.. hey this new game just dropped, wow this song is cool! hey you guys wanna do an album for this!?" I also disagree on choosing something popular to do 'just because'. Even if you choose something that isn't really popular, you can still find people who care about that music as much as you should (if you're doing an album for it).. pick something that really appeals to you on a personal level, and follow it through. That's more important than gauging interest in a bunch of things and deciding to do what other people like the most. but what do I know, I'm crazy!

Brilliant source