Harmony

Members
  • Content Count

    1,080
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Harmony


  1. It starts off with a great soundscape of the mind with what I'm guessing is a vibraphone patch
    Thanks for the thoughtful review. I've heard a few people make assumptions about what the first sounds on the track are and since no one has guessed correctly, I'll clarify here. Those are acoustic guitar pinch-harmonics. Everything was recorded live, so no patches except for the drums, which were patches that were played live. I think that's an important point because in recording/mixing for this I tried to give the listener a bit of the sense of the actual jam session at Doug's house that eventually spawned this track. Good times, and I'm glad at least parts of it were appreciated.

  2. By that logic, if I took a 10 second backing harmony out of a video game song, and made a completely original song, but pasted those 10 seconds in there on loop during the whole song, my new song would be considered 100% source material. I gotta go with prince of darkness on this one, the arrangement is hardly recognizable, and stays fixated on parts of the song that are not very easily identifiable. Had I not known context of the album, I would likely have had no idea what the song was.
    Yes, clearly if you used a piece of the source for the whole song, you have a song that explicitly references the source throughout. Not sure what you're getting at by stating that.

    There are 2 main synths in the original on melody and he simply separated them instead of playing them simultaneously. I suppose your argument is that the sections I mentioned reference what you'd call a harmony and not a main lead, but I'd disagree that the secondary synth is somehow less important the the main. The usage is blatantly obvious to me and immediately recognizable. Granted I love the source and have remixed it before, but the statements "hardly any source" or that it's "hardly recognizable" are highly overstated and in the case of the former, demonstrably false.


  3. I had no problem easily identifying this as a Sonic the Hedgehog arrangement.

    Let's start a thread on OUR forums complaining about TheShizz complaining about us!

    We've posted far more liberal stuff; questioning how 'Hot Pink' was evaluated is fine, but this isn't a good poster child mix in terms of being more liberal, or too liberal...

    Just saw this reply in my e-mail, read the text and thought "What noob posted this suggestion to start a counter-thread!?". I shoulda known.

  4. Saw this at The Shizz: http://theshizz.org/forum/index.php?/topic/23717-oc-remix-submission-standards-revisions/page__view__findpost__p__1031367

    You don't give this arrangement enough credit:

    The track's 3:42.5 long, so it needs 111.25 seconds of overt source usage to be at 50%.

    1:05-1:28.25, 1:38.75-1:56.5, 2:22-3:42.5 = 111.5 seconds

    I could be missing something else, but halc can speak for himself. This definitely took a while to get to the source. That doesn't mean it wasn't in there. The feel being the same isn't required.

    :rollseyes: @ PoD

    Exactly - and really there's tons of source here. Larry, I think you missed that the synth at 0:44-1:08 is a reference to the legato synth that comes in with the main melody at 0:03 in the source. The reference is even more clear when it's made again with the EP between 2:06-2:23.


  5. Happy birfdayz!

    Curse you Brandon, always older than me. On the music thing, I'll never catch up, but on the age thing one day, by God, I will catch up!

    Larry, you make one more Toyota Disco and I'm musically bested. But by God I'm gonna outlive you if it's the last thing I do!...and it will be :P

    Thanks for the birthday love my OCR peoplez!!! OMG, I'm graduating this year which means I can finally have time to get back to *gasp* music!


  6. Beautiful! This piece is full of an amazing dynamic tension that carries me effortlessly through themes and tempo changes. And the orchestration is incredibly detailed. I'm not an orchestral guy myself so I find it a little difficult to accurately judge how difficult and time consuming something like this is to put together, but bravo bravo bravo on making it sound as though you spent a year working on this :)

    There is a BIG smile on my face right now, and my favorite music is the kind that does that to me on the first listen :D


  7. You didn't mention what bit depth you're currently using. First don't confuse sample rate and bit depth. Sample rate (for example 44,100 Hz) is the number of times per second that your device records a "piece" of audio. Bit rate (for example 24 bits) tells you how accurately your computer or audio device can playback/record each of those thousands of pieces of audio.

    44,100 is a LOT of pieces of audio per second, and without getting into details, that's about the limit of what the human ear can hear. Once you get into higher sample rates (for example 96,000 Hz) it's physically more than your brain can process. So the audio benefits of super high recording rates are questionable. One potential advantage is in downsampling or time stretching audio. If you record at a high sample rate, the programs that downsample (for instance if you want to record to a CD which is at 44,100 Hz) and the programs that timestretch audio will have a lot more info to work with and can produce better results (especially with time stretching).

    Bit depth is a little more subtle in how it affects your audio, but unlike going from 44,100 Hz to 96,000 Hz where it's physically questionable whether humans can hear the difference, there is certainly a difference between 16bit audio and 24bit audio. The most important benefit of 24bit audio imo is the increased recording headroom it gives you. More bits means you can record more subtle changes in the audio, and at 16bits you're gonna miss some stuff. "Missing stuff" here would result in digital clipping and that's bad. Also, the greater ability to record subtle changes in audio means that your device can better tell the difference between actual audio and random noise. Layman's terms: you get a lower noise floor and more headroom with higher bit depths.

    So bottom line, I usually record at 24bit/44,100Hz if it's a general project. If I'm feeling special I record at 24bit/48,000Hz to eek the last little bit of humanly perceptible audio out of my source.


  8. No, in some (certainly not all) cases you won't be able to hear it in the final mix, and yeah you could (and I'd have to) sort of edit it out. But if I paid hundreds of dollars for samples to a huge company that makes samples all day long, I'd expect them to have put in a day of work listening to their samples to make sure that crap doesn't happen. I mean we're all worried about 24 bit 96kHz super-triangular-hyperbolic-dithered perfection and I've got a cough in my recordings!?

    I'm interested to hear if anyone else can reproduce it though.