• 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'm interested. Not sure how the scheduling will work out but I'm sure we can figure something out.
  2. 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.
  3. 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.
  4. 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.
  5. 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.
  6. 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.
  7. 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.
  8. 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.
  9. Amiga chiptunes huh? Probably .mod files. You could import them into a more modern tracker (specialty music program for this type of music notation) and swap out the simple samples for more complex ones. That won't necessarily sound good, and it's nothing like making an orchestral track (whether properly arranged for orchestra or not) in modern DAWs (also music programs). Those require arrangement, humanization, sound libraries, mixing. If you have some skill with music and good ears for mixing, you can probably do it yourself (to a passable degree anyway), as those tend to be the more important things to learn when learning how to make music yourself. If not, you'd best make friends with some music people that know the game and its soundtrack. Not to discourage you from trying it yourself, making music is fun and worthwhile, but it does take time.
  10. Nice rock/orchestral combo. It might be worth cleaning up the low end a bit, maybe just in the reverb, for a cleaner and more impactful sound. The timing of some of the brass melodies could be tighter, but working with samples with slow attack is a lot of work. But I like it already.
  11. That bass is humongous. For headroom reasons, you should probably ease up on the lows a little, just don't overdo it. There's a really loud couple of notes around 2:13. Watch out for stuff like that. I like how there's this noisy thing being side-chain-bounced at some parts. And I like that riser at 1:40. And the drum break at 3:35. A lot of little things to like, besides the overall sound.
  12. Good news, bad news. Let's start with the bad. This needs repeating. The piano-strings-woodwind interplay in the beginning could use some work. I think it's the offbeat start of the piano couple with the slow attack of the strings that's throwing me off. Better strings might solve it, though a single low piano note might also do it. Either way, a good downbeat would anchor the rhythm and help orientate the listener. The strings are a bit of a problem here. Not their writing but the sound itself, hence the quote. You should probably redo the mixing entirely. It's salvageable as it is, but starting from scratch (levels, eq, reverb, compression) with what you've learned since you did it last time can help a lot. Any sound-design-related effects can probably stay. I'd mute all the tracks that aren't the most important for the tracks, and make the most important ones sound good on their own, then bring in the secondary tracks one by one and adjust their levels and effects accordingly. Maybe even do two passes of primary tracks, one for the melodic instrumentation and one for the rhythm parts, and then mix them together before bringing in tertiary things. It sounds like you're fading out at the end, which you don't have to. You could end on that 2:28 note (or one earlier) and just let it ring out. I can't tell if that's a fadeout or just low-velocity notes on a piano that doesn't sound right at low velocities. But I don't think you need to soften it that much anyway, just dropping out the other instruments does a lot for the track already. Your piano humanization is successful in that it sounds human, but it's not a great performance. From what I can tell, there's a lot of timing adjustments in here, but they sound more like random timing imperfections than a performance. If you can record midi, I suggest you play the parts yourself, even if you only play on a single note, just to get the timing and velocity right, and then create the melody from that. If you have some soft humanization tools, you can use those too. This is less important for instruments with slow attack. The frequent breaks in the beat are a little strange. You could mitigate that with a more percussion-oriented track that doesn't do the breaks, or that leave cymbals and things ringing out over the breaks. Or maybe a heavily filtered copy of the drums you've got. These might not give you the sound or style you're going for, it's just what I'd do. (Beware the "what I would do"-type suggestions, they might not work for what you want to do.) I don't think humanization (or arrangement) is the main problem here, sound design and mixing is. You could improve the track a lot with just a few changes to the sound design and a mixing overhaul. I like the arrangement. I like the bass glide thing at 0:27, and the glide effect at 1:29. I like the sound of the snare and those highest little string things. I like the muffled drums sound nearing 2:00. And I like how this is from a source from a game I haven't even heard of.
  13. Reverb - Big halls don't work for all tracks, so yeah, you might want to use a smaller size. The parameter might claim it's 40m, but don't believe it. Use your ears, adjust to taste. And you don't have to have a long reverb. Length can be fairly short. The dry/wet ratio lets you adjust how clear a track is, so less wet means more foreground-y. You can filter and eq the reverb too, and the reverb plugin might have some options for that, like low ratio or something. At least filter out the lows. If you can set early reflections separate from reverb, you can give the reflections of your leads a longer pre-delay, so their attacks are clear, while the attacks of background instruments blends into the wet signal. Of course, you can do a single reverb bus for the whole thing, or multiple (e.g. foreground, background, distant), or give each track its own reverb. Or some combination. Different methods give you different options, like full control over a reverb bus with eq and side-chaining, for example. Reverb levels per track matters, more reverb means more background-y sound. But track level is ultimately determines foreground-y-ness, reverb is an addition/enhancement to that. As is panning and eq. Panning - Our ears easily tell where high frequencies come from, not so for low frequencies. Center is usually best. Usually. A stage-like plan can work, depending on the music, but I find the better way of thinking is to spread out frequencies, to spread instruments depending on their roles. Kick, bass and snare middle. The rest of the drumkit mimics what a drummer hears (so stage, but mirrored) with the amount of panning adjusted to taste. With the hihat panned left, other high-frequency percussion can go right, eg shaker. If a guitar goes left, another guitar (or any instrument occupying roughly the same frequency range at the same time) can go right. For this track, I wouldn't hardpan anything, I'd go for a kind of jazz club thing, with some instruments panned a bit, others not at all. There are different schools of thought when it comes to panning. I can think of a few: -No panning (stereo is just for stereo-recorded tracks and for effects) -Listener-like panning, with variations: -Drums from drummer or listener POV -Drumkit and bass centered, or placed according to band -Center and hardpan only -Frequency balancing (works well for my tracks)
  14. I can't not hear Brentalfloss' lyrics to this track anymore. Anyway, this is beautiful, this is fun. Not much else to say. Well done.
  15. First, I like this. Especially that percussion thing. Really good sound. Humanization is tricky. Too stiff and it's mechanical. Too loose and it's just poorly "performed". This sounds human enough to me. Except the stickerbrush ostinato. Its timbre and the mix makes it stand out, and the timbre is difficult to humanize anyway. I tend to cheat by recording (poorly) and then quantizing to 70% or so. But I make more electronic sound stuff anyway. I'd spend some time working out which instruments you want as foreground and which ones you don't, and mix accordingly. The percussion (which sounds pretty nice), sounds very foreground-y, and the guitar which sometimes functions as a lead, doesn't. You adjust foreground-y-ness with track level, eq and reverb. EQ down the tracks that aren't supposed to be foreground, muffle them slightly, make them softer than the foreground tracks. If your foreground tracks come out of their synths/samplers/recordings already muffled, there are tools for adding higher frequencies (energizers/exciters, sure, but you can also make your own with a bus with distortion and a filter). You can also consider adding some higher-range percussion to the earlier parts of the arrangement. I've been using various shakers since GSlicers recommended that. There are many tools for that too. It might smoothen those parts a bit. If you find a nice shaker loop, that's good. If it's for a background part, you can probably record a box of rice on your phone, too, just filter out any room/fan/clock/other noises. Touches like that add a lot of human feel to a track. This is all advice applicable to this, if you change your mind about it being completed, and to future mixes.