Sengin

Gonna have to mention FabFilter for their top notch effects (their UI has basically become the de facto UI for digital effects), but especially Pro-Q, Pro-C, and Saturn. As a bonus, they have many fantastic tutorials on how to use their tools, which are basically tutorials on how to use EQ, how to use compressors, etc in general. Sonible I have less experience with, but their smart:limit is a fantastic limiter.

How so? If most people enjoy bass, and most consumer speakers/headphones have the bass tuned high (e.g. 3+dB over a completely flat spectrum), and you mix on a flat spectrum, your mix may sound muddy when it gets to everyone else's headphones. It's the opposite for mids - if most people's preference is for a slight reduction in mids, then you mixing on a flat spectrum (or as in your example, pronounced mids) means most people will hear it with too little energy. Both cases result in a mix sounding imbalanced to everyone else. You can mix well on a lot of speakers/headphones - the more familiar you are to that specific headphone/speaker the better. But if you are just starting out, why not start with the curve that most people tend to like? What do you have against using EQ to get to your desired profile? Even if you don't want to use the Harman curve, you can use the Harman EQ settings for those specific headphones to get to the Harman curve then apply an inverted Harman curve to get to flat. It's also worth noting that human ears do not have a flat frequency response, and we also perceive loudness differently at different frequencies. The ear becomes 'desensitized' to different frequency ranges regardless of your headphone's curve (especially as you mix and it is by definition not balanced yet). It's important to listen to something else when mixing occasionally to make sure you don't become ear-blind to problems (usually by listening to something you considered well-mixed, but really anything different will do). It usually doesn't take long to 'reset' your ears. There are no headphones that make you immune to ear fatigue, unless you mean something different to what I'm interpreting it as.

If you haven't seen Audio Science Review, give them a look. It is all about objective measurements with some subjective listens at the end to verify: https://www.audiosciencereview.com/forum/index.php?reviews/ The TL;DR is you are looking for adherence to the Harman curve that also has low distortion. What you do is find one without serious flaws (sharp cuts/boosts, fins, or phase problems) and then you put EQ on your desktop (usually via EqualizerAPO with possibly Peace on top as the GUI) to correct those flaws (often requiring preamp gain so you aren't going over 0dBFS). You can get very, very close without spending serious cash. As an example, look at the Hifiman Sundara review. Or if you want in-ear monitors, $50 and even $25 get you amazing value. Once you have a headphone you are interested in (of if browsing isn't your speed but you think you've narrowed it down already), look at oratory1990's measurements for the EQ curve https://www.reddit.com/r/oratory1990/comments/18xkiq3/oratory1990s_list_of_eq_presets_update_312024/. At the bottom of each pdf will be a preference score - anything 90+ is considered the same tier (due to approximations in the measurements) and so you look for things like comfort, company support, warranty, etc if you have multiple in the 90+ range. The DT 880 pros you mention (with fresh earpads, here (https://www.dropbox.com/s/0mxc2c4cy7tkxc0/Beyerdynamic DT880.pdf?dl=0) have a preference score of 88 which is already pretty good, however they can be EQ'd to get closer to the curve (again - don't forget the preamp gain! These would need -5.4dB) so I would definitely try that and see if you like them better. Note: this is all a very TL;DR of a general way to get what you want. This isn't to say that it's guaranteed you will like the Harman curve, but you can tailor the curve to your taste afterwards (e.g. bump the bass a bit). As you should have chosen a headphone with low distortion, tweaking the EQ won't cause any problems. If you are mixing, it can be argued that you want your headphone to be flat so listeners can adjust to their tastes (flat == low difference from the Harman curve).

Welp, I ended up doing it. I honestly don't think I would have had Dean Nkosi not transcribed the lead instrument here: I had to pause the video to transcribe into musescore every 10 seconds, but it made a great starting point. I realized I had some minutes left on lalal.ai, so I used it to separate the 3DS version into as many stems as I could, abuse EQ to remove some noise on the stems and bandpass the general ranges of the fundamentals, use Audacity's spectrum analysis (enhanced auto-correlation seemed to work better), and try out a few things. I know there are some mistakes, but maybe someone else can fix them - mostly in the harmony which I wasn't able to get good separation from. I put the midi file here if anyone's interested in creating their own remix or wants to attempt to fix mine: https://1drv.ms/f/s!AuaJEDSykCcEgeYhRMmnR57doHz-KA?e=HcveMA Unfortunately it looks like vgmusic isn't accepting midi file uploads at this time. @Seth Skoda that approach sounds pretty brutal, but I'll keep that in mind. It may come in handy for short sections in the future.

Because of intermodulation (how the amplitude of a frequency determines how much of an effect is applied, and how that frequency's amplitude affects other frequencies). It is not the same to cut and then reverb as it is to reverb and then cut - that is, reverb is not a linear operation. If you are being wary of a specific frequency region because it can be crowded, if you cut first the reverb may sound more natural than if you cut afterwards (where it may sound like something is missing or "off" because the reverb was applied to a different signal at this point). That said, I'm just giving you options. Doing it one way over another is not always better - it depends on the mix and the sound you are going for. I'm just letting you know there is a difference in cutting before a reverb and cutting after and why it is different. Ah yep, you are right - forgot about that way.

Not quite - there's no "in place of" here. You can do this approach (only reverb a HPF'd signal) and then EQ afterwards too (and you'll probably want to, or at least EQ only the wet signal). The intent of the approach I mention is to reduce the part of the signal that gets reverbed because of how reverb tends to muddy out the lows. Of course, you are free to EQ afterwards instead, or only EQ only the wet signal, or some combination, and the result won't be the same. There's no one-size-fits-all approach - each will sound better in different situations (different genre, different reverb plugins) - it's up to you to try multiple approaches and decide on which is best for the song in that spot. The more approaches you have, the more likely you will find the perfect fit. Another similar approach is to use "de-emphasis EQ" - EQ is (I forget the mathematical term [edit: the term is "linear"]) 'non destructible' and reversible - a 6dB cut at 150Hz then a 6dB boost at 150Hz leaves you exactly where you were. This means you can e.g. cut, reverb, then boost, and "de-emphasize" the lows that get reverbed. Same works for e.g. distortion - you can emphasize fun frequencies by boosting, adding distortion, then cutting. Why restrict yourself? I don't think this is such a black-and-white situation where EQ'ing the input+wet signals identically is always preferred. I perhaps even find it beneficial to usually assume I will need to EQ the wet signal individually - this lets me keep a clean initial hit, but then ducking out the verb can make space for other tracks (especially in the all-important mids, or to reduce hissing/esses). Then of course I am free to EQ the input+wet signal together if needed. Personal preferences and all that, but I find myself usually staying away from aux sends as each track is its own thing and usually needs custom tailoring. With sends, the only thing you can change on a per-track basis is the volume of the send.

I'm talking about inserts. Instead of sending your main signal through the reverb, split the signal (e.g. in Reason you'd use the spider audio merger/splitter, but in every DAW it's different) and send only one through to the reverb. But before it hits the reverb, send it through an EQ to e.g. roll off the lows. Then merge it (the EQ'd + reverb'd signal) with your main signal.

Hah, I wish it were that way for me. I am exceptionally slow at transcription and really bad at pitch detection - it is far more frustrating than rewarding. Mostly I would end up splicing the audio note by note and running each through frequency analysis...

If you haven't watched all of Dan Worrall's stuff, I highly recommend it: https://www.youtube.com/@DanWorrall. He also does tutorials for FabFilter's stuff, but in a general way such that it can apply to everything ("Introduction to..." series). Here's a few tips I've picked up on: -Reduce the stereo width for your kick channel to mono or near-mono, and consider it for the bass (maybe don't go all the way to mono for bass) -As far as I know, it's generally a good strategy to HPF each track up until it starts affecting the sound. The low frequencies stack and build, especially after reverb + effects, after combining multiple tracks, etc. -On the master, cut all the sub-bass with a HPF @ 20 Hz - you won't hear it anyway. Consider setting it a bit higher depending on your mix - for music you don't always want the 'rumble' of low bass frequencies. -Definitely try a HPF @ ~90Hz for just the side channel since our ears generally aren't sensitive to lower frequencies on the sides. Depending on the specific content of your mix, this may change your stereo image for 90Hz and below (due to phase differences in the filter's slopes and target Hz) - if it sounds worse, play with the slopes of the 20Hz HPF and the 90Hz HPF or use a linear phase EQ for this specific HPF. -Try HPF'ing your input to your reverb so that lower frequencies aren't 'verbed (probably want a shallower slope for the filter here). Or at least ducking the wet low frequencies on a new note. Why care about the phase so much - are your filters not clean (e.g. there's a resonant bump at the target frequency)? Your ears only pick up on the relative phase differences e.g. if you have different phases at a frequency on the left channel vs right channel or mid channel vs side channel (you can give some width to a mono track by using e.g. a 12dB/oct HPF on L channel but a 24 db/oct HPF on R channel at the same frequency). But you should be able to use steep filters on individual tracks without issue (as far as phase is concerned). Phase can be a problem if the stars align and a bunch of individual waveform peaks line up, but that would very likely only be an issue for that individual note and not overall.

I recently finished my project of finding the original percussion samples used to derive the cartridge ROM DAC samples for Sonic 3&K / Sonic 3D Blast, pitching them appropriately, and sticking them in a pack (download available in description if you are interested in such a thing ). One of the things I'd like to do with it is to pair the samples with the Genny vst to recreate what the Sonic Generations 3DS' remix of Big Arm ( ) could sound like on the Genesis (because come on, that remix is legendary), using the same instruments originally defined for the original sonic 3&K Big Arm (by importing its vgm file). But I am absolutely godawful with transcription and I'd need a midi file or sheet music to start with. I was going to look around for a service I could pay for to get a transcription, but was hoping some folks here would have some first hand experience and have some recommendations (or perhaps something to avoid). Or do you use the "hope it's on vgmusic.com/google" method?

Oh my, it's actually here! After almost exactly 14 years of listening to the original take, I can finally hear the finished version and have a real name for the song :'). Thanks @prophetik music! This is wonderful.

I created a montage using analoq's Oil Spill from Hedgehog Heaven and I would like to link to it in the youtube description. However, I only found a 404 waiting at the song link, launched to from here: https://sonic2.ocremix.org/?p=tracks It appears that richter's site, Palette Swap (http://www.paletteswap.com/), is no longer operational (and all files in the root are gone except for the default) and with it the only web host for Hedgehog Heaven's tracks . The only contact link for the site refers to the webmaster, richter@paletteswap.com, which I expect to hit a dead end if the rest of the site is unavailable. I only know of here to ask about this, so I'm hoping there's something that can be done. Thanks!

I'm very much enjoying my WASDKeyboard with brown switches. You can even submit a decal to go over your keys so it has a special design, plus choose which keys you want letters on (to improve typing speed, most of my keys are blank, so even if I look it doesn't help). If you can't find a keyboard to physically touch and try out, you can order a sample and choose which you want. E.g. http://www.wasdkeyboards.com/index.php/wasd-6-key-cherry-mx-switch-tester.html

Definitely loved that game... even the instruction manual was dripping with charm and humor! The game was easy to beat, but extremely difficult to 100% (at least back then). That damn black couldron and left/right buttons... The Dungeon of Defright... *shudder*

This doc was the final step to push myself to get back into melee... I went to amazon and bought a gamecube for $20 and now have a small setup at work for when I stay late. Also, just want to say that since this is bringing a lot of people back to melee, you can melee melee online with other people on your PC! You can find the info here: http://smashboards.com/threads/dolphin-online-melee-netplay.335432/ It's pretty crazy that they've been able to do that... I played with someone from a couple hundred miles away almost like they were sitting next to me - it's crazy!