• Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won



About Rozovian

  • Rank
    Workshop Evaluator, Songs of Light and Darkness Director

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location

Contact Methods

  • Website URL


  • Biography
    Dude with beard. Makes music sometimes. Short on pronouns.
  • Real Name
    Ad G

Artist Settings

  • Collaboration Status
    2. Maybe; Depends on Circumstances
  • Software - Digital Audio Workstation (DAW)
  • Software - Preferred Plugins/Libraries
    Pianoteq, Omnisphere, FM8
  • Composition & Production Skills
    Arrangement & Orchestration
    Synthesis & Sound Design

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. I skimmed through some of your tracks. I'll second Shariq's criticisms, all of them. Then there's also the matter of price. 10 bucks for this many tracks might seem reasonable from an artist's perspective, but you're competing with a lot of other remixers, with their own albums free and commercial. And it's incomplete, so 30 bucks to get the full experience? If the tracks were really good, and/or different enough from what's been done with these sources already, maybe people would want to pay that much for it. But even then it's a bit steep. Hence why many artists nowadays live on donations/tips/patreon-like things rather than sales, especially in the remixing scene to the extent anyone's making a living remixing vgm. Besides developing as an artist, you might want to build your audience/fanbase/following/whatever (eg on soundcloud or youtube or maybe tiktok or whatever makes sense). This will help you gain both listens and sales on future releases. I commend you for doing the licensing and trying the commercial album thing. Initiative, procedure, legalities. That's a good experience to have, you now know how complicated (or easy) that is.
  2. That post might need an update. I'm still in the "active" part of the list.
  3. Nice art for the vid. Them colors. I like to hear these modern takes on old dos games, since so many of them don't get the attention that their console contemporaries got. Not that I recognize the game or its music, so I can only comment on the overall sound and composition with little regard for in what ways it's an adaptation. But that's cool. This is cool. I like the sound design. It's a little caught between being a mellow synthscape kind of thing and a trance track. I'm not sure this hits the right balance between the two styles, but there's plenty to like.
  4. I like the guitar performance. Lots of stylish, Dave Wise-y bends. The mixing could use some work. It's not good, and the bass suffers the most for it. I think you've tried to solve it by giving the bass too much lows. You should probably carve some space for the bass in the other tracks using eq so it can have some clarity too. Then it doesn't have to be so loud in the lows, making for an overall better mix. Lead guitar levels could be a little lower. Drum writing in the early parts of the track is pretty boring, but gets better as the track goes on. If you like the fade out at the end, no problem, but you could probably write some ending stuff for the other instruments and let the lead guitar end on that long A. Fading out is a useful thing to do when you don't have a clear home chord in your progression or when you just don't want to end it with a fill and/or an increasingly sparse sound. Or when that's what you want to do. But it can also sound a bit cheap. I don't mind it here.
  5. Staff isn't doing much to this board, sadly. But I've got some time. I'm technically not staff anymore, so this isn't technically an ocr evaluation. Around 1:40 you've got an interesting mixing situation. The bass is nice and clean, though it could probably stand to have a little more lows. The mids and highs are a bleeding mess. Use EQ to carve some space in the accompaniment so they don't compete with the leads. It's difficult to say which frequencies are best to carve in, but probably somewhere in thethe 1kHz-4kHz area. That should make the mix overall more clear. I quite like the instrumentation, except the bass. It's a bit dry, a bit raw, it doesn't quite blend in. Maybe eq shaping, tweaking the filter or its envelope, something like that would help. Maybe giving it a touch more lows (carefully) and cutting some low mids Or using a different patch altogether. Maybe something silly like a filtered reverb on it would work, difficult to tell. Or it might sort itself out once the mixing in the mids and highs is done. In any case it's not a big deal, though still worth looking into. The tuning difference isn't a big deal. It's gonna bother some people, be interesting to others, and others still aren't gonna notice it at all. There are always things you can do to improve it, but I don't think it's cost-effective to make a lot of changes at this point. I think it's best to just try to correct the mixing, adjust levels slightly after that in case the leads are needlessly loud, maybe do something about the bass, and then sub it. It's pretty good already. And I don't think it's cost-effective to spend too much time on the same track (I know from experience).
  6. I was gonna write an excellent post on perfectionism but screw it, I don't have time or energy. Perfectionism is okay for learning but terrible for productivity. Do it 90% of the way, rest your ears, and correct the most glaring problems still remaining. And then release it and move on to the next thing. Otherwise it'll never be finished. As for tutorials, the more you know, the more you forget you had to learn. The less advanced stuff is so obvious to you at that point. Drawing the line between broad strokes and hand-holding in feedback is hard. Tutorials, which people don't go back and edit, are kind'a the same thing.
  7. A good way to learn is to pick one thing you're gonna experiment with and have fun with it. I made Beyond Velocity with only synth patches I had made myself. I challenged myself and that was the result. I had to learn a few new tricks for it, like how to make a shaker sound from white noise. That's what you get when focusing on one thing. I should do that more often, actually, I've got some mixing things I need to learn or refresh. Make a new track where you only worry about panning. Boring instruments, vanilla arrangement, but crazy panning fun. Then make a track all about reverb. Super distant stuff, super close stuff, and stuff moving forth and back. Come up with your own ideas for these little tests or challenges. I guarantee you'll learn a lot from them. And not a bunch of fancy audio engineering terms, but practical, useful, applied knowledge. And books are nice. I've picked up a few of those, too. I learned parallel compression from one. It has its uses.
  8. I'm interested. Not sure how the scheduling will work out but I'm sure we can figure something out.
  9. This isn't specific to metal guitars. The basic idea of it is to have different signals panned opposite to get that wide sound. To experiment with the effect, use a synth, duplicate it, hardpan them. Unless there's some randomization in it, it'll sound mono. Then if you even slightly alter one of their pitches, it'll go wide. Changing other settings on the synth (eg waveform or filter) will give you a different frequency distribution left and right. This is probably not what you want for this effect, but it's good to try to hear what it does to the stereo image. Because human hearing is better at picking out direction from higher frequencies than from lower, you can eq out the lows from your hardpanned sounds and have a copy (also similarly altered in pitch) panned mid. The mid synth will provide the low frequencies cut from the others, but they'll still contribute width. You can also experiment with track levels, have the mid synth louder or softer than the side ones. Even if the signal is the same, you can modify it. With two synths sounding exactly the same, hardpanned, you can put a slow chorus on one of them to make it different. Many effects shift the waveform in interesting ways. While this isn't as good as multiple tight guitar performances, or even duplicated synths subtly pitched apart, it's still doing the same outcome: giving you a different signal left and right. Put different amp sims on the left and right signal and you'll have even more of a difference. While working with virtual instruments, you can also subtly randomize note timing. This will (obviously) make the two tracks different. This might give you the Haas effect, where subtle timing differences in otherwise identical signals make you think the sound is coming from a particular direction. Not a bad thing necessarily, but I wouldn't use this trick alone. It's a nice addition to synth/sampler doubling though. An inverted signal is the most different a signal you can get. This sounds like a good idea, but when the channels are summed (as might happen in some mono listening situations), the instrument just disappears. Positive copy completely negates and is negates by the negative copy. It's a good trick to be aware of, because together with the other tricks it might be useful. But it's a dangerous one to use on its own. Even if you distort the two signals differently, you'll likely have the lows and much of the mids completely gone if summed. If the left and right signals are different, you can use the same amp settings and still get a wide sound. But differences in the amp sim make the signals more different, so it's good to use different settings there too. In summary: Different signals. Record multiple, if possible. Make different with plugins otherwise. Use duplicated samplers/synths with slightly different pitch otherwise. Pan opposite. Use other tricks if needed/wanted. Distort. Enjoy width. Summary summarized: Hardpanning broadens differences.
  10. Nice work, dude. I'mma get this at some point. A quick skim through and I know there's some tracks I like, like Cyborg Stardust Journey. Nice chill sound on that one. I also like Hobo Cavemen. So that's at least two, from just some quick skim-listening.
  11. I gotta buy it and give it a proper listen later, but after a quick skim through the tracks I can already say there's some good percussion stuff in some of them. Good choices for loops/writing/whatever. And a cool overall sound. Here's hoping the game itself manifests, and I'll echo the "awesome album to show for" sentiment. Nice work, dude.
  12. The 1:20-1:50 part has some weird rhythm choices, unexpected triplets or some mix of triplets and dotted notes, or something. Pardon my small theory vocabulary. But man this is a fun idea for a remix. Nice work on it, too. 2:50 sounds especially Russian.
  13. Hi! It's still loud. It's still bright (not a big deal anymore, though), and there's still background-sounding things in the foreground. The glissando at 0:07 sounds great. It's appropriately background-y. Compare that to 1:24 when I don't know what's lead and what's background. If you sort that out, it'll sound better overall. Cleaner. It's okay to move instruments from foreground to background and back depending on the role they have, but then it's good to have an eq or reverb mix to automate that you can use to push the instrument in either direction. 1:03 sounds good in this regard, you move the previous lead back to make space for the new lead melody. 1:10 is a mess in that same regard. The foreground-background separation is the main thing I'd complain about for this track. Eq and reverb are important tools for pushing things forward or backi nthe mix, but the most important is the track level. Loud things get attention. And your leads get a lot of attention when less would be enough, 2:18 has a really loud and clear lead. It's clear enough, it doesn't need to be this loud. I know it's tricky to figure this balance out. But here's some things to listen for. It does sound clean, so probably cleaner than before; good job on that. I'd still want the track levels sorted out. Background things softer. Foreground stuff that doesn't need to be _as_ loud also softer. Depending on where in the track it is and what it needs. I'm noticing a lot of things that have become second nature to me are difficult for less experienced mixers to grasp. It's easy for me to say "make the loud things less loud when it's right to do so", but then I'm assuming you can tell. And that takes practice, listening, experience. Refresh your ears and come back to this, see what needs to change, change it, refresh your ears again. I can't offer any better advice than that. You're on the right track, now comes the ear grind.
  14. Hey GSO, I see you've posted a lot of remixes now. I listened to a few of them and noticed a few recurring problems. You might want to pick one of the remixes and do your best to solve the problems in that. Quality over quantity, you know? Anyway, here's what I found: 1. The sound is mechanical. There are a lot of piano mixes on the site (and lots of piano music elsewhere). They tend to sound like pieces of sequenced midi files or separate performances stitched together. While that's a perfectly acceptable form of remixing, it takes some work to make them sound good together. A big part of a human performance is the dynamics, within each phrase, from phrase to phrase, and in the arrangement overall. Another is the subtle use of timing, being slightly in front of or behind the expected timing. I heard a few humanization techniques in some of the other tracks I listened to, but they weren't used well. Humanization is difficult. What I do is to start with a (bad) human performance and correct it, rather than start with sequenced notes and try to humanize. This might help you too. 2. The arrangements lack transitions. The stitched-together criticism applies here too, but on a different scale. 3:03 is a great example of this, then another one shortly thereafter at 4:07. No lead-up to this change, no break, no signalling that the arrangement is going into another part. It's jarringly different. Signalling a change can be done in a lot of ways. And sudden changes aren't always bad. 3. The mixing is loud and harsh. For a few of these remixes, I've noticed a strangely muffled sounds, but this one is loud to the point of clipping, which doesn't sound good. Listen to 4:44-4:47. Can you hear the sound crackling and breaking? Look up some youtube mixing tutorials and guides on audio dynamics and clipping so you can tell when it gets too loud. You've been at this for long enough that you have all the knowledge you need, you just gotta apply it right. A video on what to look out for might help. Mixing with a reference track might help too, something to compare your music to in order to hear if yours is too loud, too muffled, or has any other such problems. I hope this helps.
  15. Never played R&C, I'm getting a bit of a Timesplitters vibe from this and my quick look at the original. This is a really cool soundtrack-y modern take on it. Really nice sound design, well mixed.