Leaderboard

Bonus entry submitted!

Entry has been uploaded. Not very MnP-ey, but I had a lot of fun with it and couldn’t resist where it was going.

Renoise!

Most DAW's have parametric EQ's with visualizers. Patterns are nice but constricting when they're the only option; S1's implementation of patterns are better because they're optional. (the rest of this point is just an opinion, can skip) Patterns only work for all types of music after a few years of learning how to work around them to write what you want (in other words, not outright prohibitive, but an annoying philosophical hindrance). They also leave 0 parity with the arrangement view. In other DAW's, when you create a MIDI clip in the timeline, it exists there in the timeline; when you automate CC in the piano roll, it's the same automation displayed in the timeline. In the piano roll you can just see everything on the track across the timeline, not just the clip you have selected. This allows for a more comprehensive and holistic view of your music instead of thinking of it as a complex combination of independent objects, which rarely works unless you're writing electronic music. When working with patterns, you're constantly doing mental bookkeeping to remember how the pattern object fits into the rest of the music, because the piano roll sure as hell isn't going to tell you. The little mini-preview they added helps, but it's still a flawed design. Every single DAW has a piano roll. Couple other DAWs' ghost note implementations are vastly superior to FL in that they don't require you to funnel all your part-writing into a single pattern object (making it useless for arrangement view, since it's just a single-track jambled mess). Additionally, a DAW like S1 actually lets you edit the multiple midi channels at the same time, instead of only being able to view them. This is pretty crucial when transposing or altering chords across several patches at once. Literally every DAW has a duplicate bar function. In S1 you just highlight notes and hit D. DAW's like Reason also have mini playlist views. FL is like the last DAW to have allowed good time sig changes. Am just responding to "most of which I don't see in other DAW's", it's more like the other way around, most DAW's have most of these things except some key differences like lifetime free updates, and then patterns, which I don't think is really advantageous at all to anyone except people who have it as their first music production experience. And even then, not so much, did it for 8 years and then switched off and never miss it. There's nothing patterns can do that other DAW's can't. There's other stuff I don't miss about FL, like the amount of clicks it takes to do stuff. Setting up multi-midi channel samplers is freaking horrifying. In S1 it takes about 4 or 5 seconds to get 16 Kontakt MIDI channels and 16 corresponding mixer outputs. Also, lack of native MIDI support in that area, having to link your controller's knobs to manually configured CC knobs inside the MIDI out channel just to get stuff like modwheel and sustain pedal? Ridiculous. Also, applying FX to audio clips is something lightyears faster in S1, you can just put FX on the clip itself, and then print in place (good for sound design electro segments). In FL you have to assign the audio clip a mixer channel. There's also that horrid behavior where you can slice stuff but they're still part of that one "clip" object instead of splitting into independent data. Audio editing in general is bad in FL because everything is abstracted into clip containers, and doing simple volume crossfades between two overlapping clips is a whole ordeal instead of hitting something like "X" in other DAW's. Don't even get me started on "automation clips". It just seems like everything I'd want to do in a DAW takes extra effort to pull off in FL Studio. I get that people really like it and are comfortable with it, but you can work with anything to create great music. The usage and the users are not a testament to good design or learning curve. So I'll never recommend FL to anyone, but I'd never be bothered if I had to work with someone who used it, since I'd trust them to know how to coerce the spaghetti to get a good result.

Hi, I see your message and I can help you. First of all, I don't understand why you looking for -23dB LUFS (I suppose it's LUFS you're talking about). For the record, Spotify put everything at -16LUFS, Youtube at -12LUFS. A good method is to use the K-system, meaning the majority of your music must be at -12LUFS (or -14LUFS), which give you a PLR (Peak to Loudness Ratio) of 12dB or less. However, do the mastering track per track, find a setting that sound good to you, and use it track per track. If needed you can change, but the less you change, the better it will, because all your album will be coherent. I can advice you to read this article: https://www.soundonsound.com/techniques/audio-mastering-in-your-computer Don't hesitate if you have other questions.

Image Line finally released FL Studio 20 today after a couple of weeks of kicking around release candidates. As an FL Studio and Mac user, I cannot begin to describe how happy I am for native Mac support!

I just uploaded my entry. I was in the zone yesterday and the day before, and it's going to be a busy next couple of days with Memorial Day just around the corner, so it's done and sent!

Arrangement is pretty much done. Not as MnP-ey as it should be, but I'm still pleased with what has resulted. Working on the mixing right now, so I'll have my entry up by Tuesday.

I was actually surprised to learn that the other judges had a hard time hearing the sources here. The timing is slightly altered and the harmonies changed completely, but the progression of the notes in the melody is basically identical and up-front. I'll echo Deia's criticism of the strings, and I wasn't the biggest fan of the humanization of the brass, either, but they're certainly good enough. If I had one major criticism, it's that the section from 0:58-1:22 is really disparate with the rest of the piece. I get that in this "flight," that's supposed to represent flying through a storm or something, but the transition into that section was a little too abrupt to really sell it. I kind of get the transition out of it, though; I can imagine this peacock getting driven underwater or something, and emerging into the light at 1:34, but again that could have been a little clearer, if that was indeed the intent. Anyway, great stuff, wonderful integration of the two completely disparate themes, and an easy YES

I wanted to quote-vote Gario but Kris beat me to it. Nothing much else to say, I remember this from the competition, and I thought it was pretty good back then. Solid production, but I have to agree with the others on the tenuous relation to the source, I'm familiar with most mmx songs and even I have difficulties making the connection. I'm very sure that this song will have some people scratching their heads in confusion, but we can't argue the source is there however disguised. YES

^Quote Vote^ (tm) Gario nailed it. It's really nice to hear this style from timaeus, the track itself is really nice. I'm not having any issues with humanization, the harp sequencing is a tad stiff but I think it's fine. The production is up to your usual awesome standards and this sounds great. I have to agree with Gario that you're almost too good at disguising the source(s). You're super good at self-policing in terms of source use, and you have the most detailed timestamping of anyone ever, and that is appreciated! I'm not familiar with these sources at all, so checking your source use is particularly difficult for me. I'm listening very carefully to both sources and your mix now, and it seems accurate, it's just a bit of a mind exercise to confirm. Very nice track. YES

Well, that's certainly different. Giving it a careful listen, the source is certainly there - but only just. You hide the melody and themes of the source behind quite a bit of orchestration, and you change up the harmonies completely. The sources are recognizable, though, and just where you timestamp it, too (thanks for that, btw). A suggestion for future arrangements, though, if you go a similar route: don't mix the theme carrying portions into the background too much. It's not only the judges that have to recognize the source, but also whomever is listening to it if/when it gets posted on the site. The production is acceptable, and most of your instruments are humanized well enough. Not too much that I can add to what Deia said on that front. Clever use of the source overall. Nice work on transforming the sources in this manner, it keeps us on our toes, over here. YES

Had to listen to this one a few times to really hear the source connections. I'm a bit on the fence here, because the connections ARE there, but they are not the most recognizable without some careful listening. That being said, I found this to be pretty creative in regards to really changing up the style and soundscape of both the original tracks. Production-wise everything sounded clear, and the soundscape was fun, but I felt some sections seemed a bit mechanical, especially the string stabs. Not a deal-breaker, just a note. YES