Jump to content

Rozovian

Contributors
  • Posts

    5,290
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    14

Everything posted by Rozovian

  1. This seems like a fun idea. I might join. No promises.
  2. Oh look there's a trackball option. Thumbball trackball, 3-finger hold. Had to go and check, on laptop atm.
  3. Grab yourself a well-mixed track in roughly the style you're going for, and aim to mix similarly. Compare. Especially check that your lows aren't too loud, as they'll eat up a lot of headroom, and that your leads are bright enough, ie have enough high frequency content. It's okay that yours isn't as loud, mixing is more important than loudness, and loudness is easier when things are well mixed. Turn down your reference track accordingly. You get used to the sound of your track as you're working on it, so make a habit of using a reference track to reset your ears so you can tell when you have too much reverb, too much compression, too much bass, too much of anything. You can also check your mix by turning down the listening volume and mixing on super-quiet, because then you'll only hear what's most important in the mix. Use this to check that background things stay in the background and the important things are the loudest. Compare with your reference track like this too. Use decent mixing headphones.
  4. How do I put this... I would love to do a Christmas tune for a twelfth year in a row but that seems like an awfully big lift for me. ­čĄ¬ We shall see.
  5. VBR has to do with data compression, not related to volume, so that's not an option. iTunes on desktop has (at least has had; my version is old) a setting where it does some analysis and tries to do exactly what you're asking for, with varied results. Streaming platforms like youtube does this too, at least for uploads deemed too loud by its system. iTunes also let you adjust the volume of tracks and save this in the metadata. Depending on where you're listening to them from, you've got different tools available. It's far from convenient, but you can also process batches of remixes with, uh, some audio tools out there, probably. There should be negligible effect on sound quality with a single conversion, if you convert to a high-quality format rather than convert to a different mp3 encoding (that's a xerox of a xerox). This is fine so long as you don't distribute these copies. If there are no other tools available, you can always put compression (the audio kind) on the output from your device. This might require some special software to hijack and process the output, or a hardware compressor, either of which will likely cost you a little. And figuring out the right settings might take a bit of work, too. It will screw a bit with the dynamics of the track, and might make the start of a soft track extra soft... Not the best solution, obviously, but it's an option. I guess the most convenient solution is to use a music player with this feature built-in.
  6. Yeah, the VSTs themselves aren't all that big, but any sample libraries they use often are. These you might want to have on a separate drive, be this internal or external, USB or something else. Depending on their size and number, you might not need to, especially if you're just starting out. The kind of drive and connector doesn't really matter, so long as it's fast enough, and USB drives are more than enough for most cases. Reinstalling is the safer option compared to just copying things, though I haven't had much trouble (on mac) copying libraries and setting a new library directory. The few VSTs (well, AUs in my case, because mac) that wouldn't let me do that I could just trick with symlinks. Symlinks, or symbolic links, are a special kind of alias on unix systems like mac, not sure if there's an equivalent option on windows. Moving the actual AU components (the VSTs, basically) would probably also work using symlinks, but I don't think it's worth the trouble.
  7. Cmaj7. A C7 is an Edim over that C. Flat 5th. Tritone for the E. And that REALLY really wants to resolve somewhere, probably to an F or C# chord.
  8. I don't think so. It'd have to be on the old laptop, then. If that even starts up anymore. Time to give music making another shot?
  9. I'm no lawyer. This is uneducated opinion. btw remixing the song, without licensing it, might not be covered by fair use, depending on... things. If you want to be safe when it comes to all this, get a license. Game music is usually fine to remix (probably not ok to sell the remix), but commercially released music is different. 1. Purpose and character of the use The first factor is "the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes." To justify the use as fair, one must demonstrate how it either advances knowledge or the progress of the arts through the addition of something new. Quoth Wikipedia. It's transformative, in that it's not the original audio of neither the trailers nor the original song. And your own cut of the video material. Can't say if that's enough, but I would think so. Educational purpose though? Nope. But it might "advance ... the progress of the arts" though. 2. Nature of the copyrighted work Fact vs. fiction, ideas vs. expression. This kind of stuff. You're not copying an idea, you're copying the expression itself, the video material, but re-cut. The material is fiction. The material is published. What else might matter? 3. Amount and substantiality You're presumably using a lot of the material you can find. A trailer itself is not the whole game, but it is a complete video that's been cut, mixed, released. 4. Effect upon work's value The fourth factor measures the effect that the allegedly infringing use has had on the copyright owner's ability to exploit his original work. In this case, a positive effect, if any, on the trailer. Maybe also on the song. So as far as I, non-lawyer, can tell: You're probably OK on the first and fourth factor, maybe not on the middle two. All are supposed to be considered.
  10. Sorry it took so long to give this a listen. Bad year. Listened to the most recent version in the thread, 9a. I'm not familiar with the sources so I'll focus on the sound. Let's talk about the first 5 seconds. The sounds used are all good enough, you shouldn't need to replace any of them. But pick a lead and make that the most prominent instrument. The pad swells into being rather loud. The piano plays the most identifiable melody, but it's rather muffled. The thing in the high range is bright and loud. Which is the lead? From how it's mixed, I'd say it's the high-pitch thing. From how it's written, the piano. The piano sounds like it could use a high pass (low cut) filter to get rid of (or with a low shelf, mitigate) some low frequencies that don't add anything musically. Don't cut too high up, but see if you can reduce that low-frequency part of the sound. That should make the piano compete less with the pad for the low range, gives you a bit of headroom, and takes away some of the proximity effect that doesn't seem to match the distant pads or the hard-panned high-pitch chirps. You might want to do something similar to that chirp thing, too. The next 5 second is in a different key/scale. There's a natural shift within those 5, but moving from the first 5 to the second 5 doesn't sound right. I'd experiment with transposing those 5 first seconds until the transition makes more sense. Your synth pluck lead, despite being doubled at times by some background harpsichord-sounding thing, is weak. Your drum+bass combo is strong and aggressive. That's a difficult combo to work with. The accompanying pads are rather loud. You've put a lot of things into the background here. I'm not sure what to suggest to improve things here, besides softer pads. Lead down an octave? Play octaves? Different backing doubling? Different lead entirely? Make it more about the drum+bass groove than about melody? The lead sound isn't bad, but I don't think it works as a lead here. There are some weird harmonies happening here and there. Some of it sounds intentional and unsettling, some of it more newby. I'm not gonna go over it all. Some of it might come from long releases and echoes on the instruments, some from mashing the sources together. The middle section or whatever, from around 1:40 is a welcome change. It goes back into a rather weak main section after that. Dynamically doesn't make much sense. I'd try either building up the middle section, or kicking off the main section with more energy. The middle section also has the loud pad problem (which btw might be a loudness or just a frequency range problem; many ways to look at it and solve it), and I'm wondering if the accompaniment there should be an octave lower, as there are a lot of instruments competing for the high range. I can hear a lot of high-range shimmer, wondering if that's an fm synth you're using for some of these sounds. In any case, the sounds aren't bad (except maybe the lead), but they end up competing, and there's a bit of a gap in the middle of the frequency range. There's a lot of good stuff in here, but a lot of things to improve too. Those simple, short synth blips here and there, the more rhythmic ones, I like. Very atmospheric. I also really like what's happening at 2:38-2:43. The lead coming in again isn't necessary, and if it just did that first note there, I wouldn't mind. But it's not a sound that works as a standalone. I'd try using the piano for this melody, or leaving it to just one note on the pluck lead. Or having found a different lead, maybe that'd work better. I'd try stuff. TL;DR: Good stuff, bad stuff, nice sounds, lead doesn't work, instruments competing... wait, opera?
  11. https://ocremix.org/album/96/golden-sun-a-world-reignited I should be in there, among arrangers I guess. Just noticed I'm not. Same on vgmdb.
  12. Yeah, it inadvertently turned into a bit of a time capsule. Clem, dude, mad props for your series of album reviews. :D
  13. I wrote a bit on feedback in my remixing guide, back when. It's less about giving good feedback and more about identifying it among the feedback you get, but it might still be useful to you. The checklist mentioned above. I think good feedback comes from good listening. This means understanding what you're listening to, understanding the artist's intention but also a typical listener's reaction and negotiating some kind of useful response out of that. Knowledge, whether music theory, audio engineering, performance, sound design, mixing, music history or anything else is also useful, so learning any of that will help. Be aware of the artist's intention. On this site you might come across releases, works-in-progress, experiments and all kinds of things, and some of it is made with to suit ocr's standards and some of it isn't. And elsewhere on the internet ocr's standards aren't relevant (the vgm interpretation stuff anyway). Then comes the psychology of how to actually deliver the feedback in a way that's constructive. I've screwed up on this a few times (apparently the word mediocre means bad), and you will too, probably. Don't tell the artist what to do. Offer your perspective. Suggestions are fine, but be more descriptive than prescriptive. There's a saying about how usually when people say something's wrong they're right, and when they say what's wrong they're not. I try to offer multiple solutions when I identify a problem, as in "you might be able to solve this by EQ-carving some space in the other instruments, or side-chain compressing them out of the way". That gives the artist options to consider rather than directives to obey. If you make music (I haven't seen you around), think about the feedback you'd want on your mixes, and how you'd want it delivered. And then write it a little softer, a little nicer than that, because tone is difficult to convey in text. I'm not exactly in my best head space right now, so this might not be entirely coherent. I hope it's still useful.
  14. Dude, you have every reason to be proud of this one. It's great. It always puts a smile on my face when I hear it.
  15. Sounds like a blast. One of the ways to tell that you've improved is being able to tell that your old work was worse. There's always more to learn. But it's easy to forget how far you've come already. Enjoy your music making, dude.
  16. Long-time necro post! I have no memory of this thread, but now I want to hear your old song. Do you still have it saved somewhere? It'd be fun to compare.
  17. Same as Jorito on point 1, although I won't just take the lead melody, but other elements in isolation. A cool bassline can be a lead melody. Or vice versa. I'll then iterate on whatever elements I want to use, over original backing, or in isolation. It helps to be able to play an instrument here, even if you're not very good at it, as it's much faster to iterate on the parts you're using that way. Just improvise, jam, mess around, and you'll come up with a lot of cool ideas that you'll want to incorporate into an arrangement. This is why my arrangements end up a bit loooong. Then it's just a matter of tying them together in a way that makes sense. Sometimes I do that well. Sometimes... not. Making "originals with stolen melodies" (great phrase) is a good way to break away from the structure of the sources. You can start from a rhythm not found in the original and add elements from the original to it, and adapt them as needed, or write new material to support them. A new rhythm goes a long way to preventing a remix form being too much like the original, even if chords and melodies are the same.
  18. Frederic's delay trick works great if what you want is a pan effect (the Haas effect), since that's what it'll do in stereo. If summed into mono after that, it might have phase issues, something of a robotic sound. Not always a bad thing, but not how to get a good guitar sound. Playing and recording twice would make sure the waveforms don't line up, and means chorus and delay effects aren't necessary for separation.
  19. This new plugin might have broken the tags on the wip board. At least on firefox, mac. They're gone, save for work-in-progress, which is now only "work-". Tag numbers and colors still show.
  20. I'm noticing a great variety of games being remixed and posted here. This is great. But there aren't that many replies to them. Quick reminder, things you can do to get replies on your mix: Comment on other people's mixes. They might return the favor. Do unto others, lead by example, that stuff. Ask a forum regular or staff member to have a listen. So long as we're not swamped, we can often make the time for a quick listen and catch something you've missed. Title your thread informatively. I like Seth Skoda's inclusion of "SEGA Genesis" in his threads. It immediately tells me something about the sound. Don't clickbait, but sometimes genre or style, specific song, console, or other relevant information gets people interested. If anyone's posts "Octopath Traveler reggae", I'm on it. -- Then some things you can do while waiting: Find a good reference mix. Compare it to your own. Never mind that you might not be good enough to make everything as good, but strive to have the mix, the levels, the frequency balance, the dynamics roughly the same. If that mix has a lot more clarity than yours, see what you can do to create that clarity. Work on another track. Rest your ears. Listen to different music. Then come back to your mix and see what stands out. Review posted mixes, read judges' decisions for them and for rejections. This helps you figure out what ocr considers suitable for the site. Do experiments. Make a track that's only your own synth patches, or only using one instrument (multiple instances is fine). Make your own samples. Write and mix muted, just to see what you can do without your ears. Don't use any plugin effects, only use what's in the instruments themselves. No sequencing, only recording. Never use the same chord twice. Chromatic bassline. Sequence it, then humanize it manually. Use a bass sound for lead and vice versa. Experiment. Sort your presets. Make some new ones. Sort them too. Listen to your older work and realize you've improved. Even if you haven't (which is unlikely), figure out what your next step towards improvement is.
  21. Oh look, the forum notifies you when someone replies to the thread you're replying to. Neat. From what I can tell, everything Julien just said is true. The good and the bad. My quick listen suggests you could work on the mix and its sound a bit. Frequency balance. Levels. Find a good reference track, same style, same sound as what you're going for, and mix accordingly. The crashes sound especially dull, and things are panned so much that there's little energy in the center. I'm not an evaluator anymore, and I'm not sure what's public information and what isn't, but I think I can share that there weren't enough active evaluators for the workload, so there's probably a lot of tracks that have been waiting for an evaluation for months. Nothing's stopping you from asking evaluators or forum regulars directly, submitting directly to the site to get judges' feedback (if it's good enough to make it to the panel, which I think it is, but not yet good enough to get posted, which I also think is the case). Also, commenting on other people's mixes here can make them return the favor.
×
×
  • Create New...