Rozovian

It's not. Compression has to do with little drops in the volume to cover really loud peaks. Muddy is when the frequencies or tracks in the mix aren't balanced. If you have a bass and a pad that's too loud you can't hear the stuff in the higher frequency ranges. Or, if you had a shrill lead and dropped the high frequencies on the master. Muddy is when there's too much mids/lows and not enough high; it's when the mix isn't clear. In well mixed music you can hear pretty much any element in it even tho there can be a lot going on. This is done by giving every element it's own area in the frequency range. As an example, bass can cover the low range except for where the kick is, pad can cover the low-mid range but have it's low range dropped so it doesn't step on the bass, lead gets the 500-2000Hz range with the lower parts dropped a bit, the background melody gets the 500-1000Hz range, snare is given a narrow space at around 200Hz but is also loud enough to punch through everything, crash gets the 2000Hz+, hihats 4000Hz+... This way, all the elements has their own place in the frequency range. (note: it's an example where I'm just going by memory, the actual numbers might be completely useless in your mix) Then there's also panning, reverb and delay, and of course, the arrangement, which can give you room for more tracks. Guitars, for example, sound pretty good when there's two of them, hardpanned opposite each other. If you're going for a "live" sounding mix, you should pan the instruments as they'd be in a live setting, etc.. The easiest way to deal with mud is still to decide where each track belongs in the frequency range, EQ it accordingly, and then slap a multiband compressor and/or EQ on the master and take care of the frequency balance there.

Here's a suggestion for what you could do about repeated elements - automate their filters. Automate something, so it's not the same thing throughout. The "harps" get especially annoying, so a heavy filter that you use to fade them out with could improve the track overall. You'd be able to bring them in and out smoothly. Since they're samnples, not synths, you can't change waveform (giving them a more varied sound), but filter, drive, and other things could be automated. I don't have a problem with repetition in general, but the harps are just too annoying. They're there for most of the track, which makes it a bit tough to listen to. As for the voice clips, that kind of acting needs the right soundscape to not sound cheesy. Your track is a bit too happy for them to quite fit in. Without the right atmosphere (whether visual or aural) they're... well, cheesy. I bet they work well in the game, with both those things covered, but here... not so good, imo. Your reasons to use them seem good, but they don't work well with the soundscape of the track. You should know, tho, that I'm biased against voice clips.

They might fit somewhat, but I can hear how the notes have been shortened. On long sustained notes it's not as much a problem, but on those fairly short ones, it doesn't sound real enough. I think the Js would have a problem with it. I'm not saying it sounds bad, I'm saying it doesn't seem to sound like it's supposed to.

It's when one or several tracks duck under another. If you listen to how the bass drum interacts with the other instruments 0:32-0:48, that's where it's easiest to hear, but it does go on. Compression is a good thing, but not when you can hear it. The bass drum is too loud, so when it hits, the compressor pulls down the volume of the whole track. It's easily solved by using a multiband compressor. If you don't compress stuff that's too loud, you get clipping, which isn't good either.

Tarnish, you should listen to some random ocremixes, listening to the dynamics of the track, what parts are loud and what parts are soft. I can hear that you're learning, there's a lot of new stuff in the most recent (full) version. I won't get into a critique now, I'll let you work out your breakdown first. I want to point you to this remix. Sure, it's not the same style, but you could learn a lot from the dynamics of it, where it's building up and where it breaks down.

Those harp-ish motions, idunno what else to call hem, are pretty annoying. A minute in, and I'm already considering to stop listening. It might seem easy to write stuff involving repeating elements, but hearing what works and what doesn't after you've spent a little too long working on it can be hard. In other words, that repeated thing is wrecking the remix. I'd say the same about the voice clips, actually. They get a bit cheesy. There's stuff in this that makes me wonder why you think it's release-worthy, mostly mixing-related things, but clashes at 1:35, the annoying harp-ish motion, your choice of voice clips (as contrasted by a sort'a happy sound you've got going), stuff like that. As for the bass, I really do like it. Not bad, but could be better.

Simply converting midi to mp3 is NOT gonna get you a remix good enough to get on OCR. The one exception might be a solo piano piece, but even then, there better be some good default settings on the piano you're using. You need good soundfonts or other software instruments (samples/synths), plus a plethora of well used effects to balance and control the sound. I hope I'm pointing out the obvious here. I suggest you take your remix via a judge or at least a wip regular. Good luck.

I suppose it's the whole "final" thing that's getting to me, as I'm hearing more issues than before (tho fortunately not still the same ones ). Not sure I like some of the tempo snags in the first section. Takes until 0:30 'til they sound deliberate enough, and even then, there's some weird "off" qualities to them. Need to be smoother, imo. Some transitions feel rough. Like, 1:08, a little too much time spent before the chord is struck. Some tempo snag or note miss around 2:22, doesn't quite sound pro enough. Those are the things that bother me. You might want to run this via a judge over irc before submitting, since I really don't know exactly what the standards are for a piano arrangement. It's impressive and enjoyable imo, and that's enough for me.

It's kind'a empty overall, all the elements are so separate. They all need some more width to them, at least as far as their frequency ranges are concerned. Starting off with just drums is stupid unless they're really great sounding, and these ones aren't, sorry. You should be able to fix it tho. Take the hats out of the center, give them some stereo delay (something soft and matching the rhythm, but at the same time separating the left and right channels). Put reverb on the snare (and toms), possibly also the kick. Give the kick a slight boost somewhere in the 80-150Hz range to get it's weight through. Snare and toms might benefit from some punch boosting as well. Add a bass, or drop this one an octave, it just doesn't have the bass the track seems to be missing. Then again, high lead, low bass... You might need to add some good backing in between. Anyway, I think this style is interesting, and you've adapted the Kraid theme quite well to it. Watch out for those region ends like at (1:45). Write a region for just that last note on the next beat so it doesn't end so abruptly. Same thing with the drums. Looping is fine, but you need to know how to end the loops too. Good luck.

You know, that synth has a pretty nice sound, so don't get rid of it completely. Some of the semi-note steps in the end feel a bit clashing. It has a kind'a persistent mood, it's close to the same feel for most of the track. A more varied intensity or style might be a good thing. Not having the synth there might change it, but I think the style could vary a little more within the track. Good stuff, man.

DNM already pointed out that you need percussion for this, like snare, timpani, cymbals... Stuff that'll make the rhythm of the track more clear. Some samples might need replacement, like in the -1:38 section. A sample with a different articulation might work better here. There's a lot of legato in here, so some volume automation on those could make it more interesting. A lot of the time, the mix is very low-mid heavy. EQ the master to give the whole thing a more balanced mix. A lot of the time, the lower range instruments are just too loud, not just the low frequencies. Also, I think there's still too much reverb, but it'd be best to compare it to other recently posted (non-recorded) orchestral remixes. The arrangement does contain stuff I recognize from the Smash Bros Earthbound tracks. Can't say for sure if it's interpreted enough without looking up the source. I do like it.

Dude, read the Ownership, Arrangement and Production sections of this page. You're not at a point where you need to worry about coming up with a name, this stuff is far from the level that OCR accepts. We can help you get there, tho, and here's what you need to do: 1 - Get better samples 2 - Arrange it so it's not a sound upgrade I wish you luck.

From what I've seen, it's a great place to go and engage in all kinds of crap, or to get upset about that stuff. I'm not comfortable there myself, so I can understand if newbs find it an unfriendly place.

No source link, no soruce comment. I do recognize the CT track. I hear compression in the 0:32-0:48 section, other places as well. Not good. Might be clashing too, but the compression is far more annoying to me. You need some serious sound separation. It's done by panning and EQ, tho delay, reverb, and volume play a role here as well. Basically, each important element of the track needs its own space, so when two tracks have occupying the same frequency range, you gotta drop the main frequencies they have in common on one of them to get the mix to sound more clear. Your your low-mids are pretty muddy, so I suggest you start there. Drums are fine... or they will be, once the other tracks have been cleaned up. I think. Too early to say. Guitars could use a bit less distortion to be more clear. They sound mostly like a noise carpet now. Progression isn't as haphazard as it might sound. Cleaning up the mix should help you there too. You know, I could just sum this up as: "you have problems. mix better. they might go away." Good luck with it.

No source link, no source comment. The hihat hurts. It's like it's got some really shrill frequency boosted. See if you can make a really sharp cut around that and give it a more even sound. Kick sounds distorted. Might be a style thing you're going for, but I suggest you lose some of the distortion anyway, as it muddies up the low-mid range a little. The ringing lead was nice, reminds me of tracker music. there's some parts that are quite empty, you might want to give those some additional tracks, even softly, to make sure it doesn't sound too empty. Drum patterns are pretty boring. They've got something of a spotlight role in this mix, so they shouldn't be as plain as they are here. You do need to make some mixing changes to balance things out, which might get the drums a bit less prominent, but even so, some more variation, even small things, would improve it and make the track feel less repetitive. Yeah, the mixing. The drums are the loudest here. Everything else becomes like a carpet somewhere in the background. You need to balance things out more. The kick doesn't need the frequency width it's got atm, and the backing strings could use some more room. You gotta EQ stuff to make sure that everything important gets heard and that they're balance between the parts. I think this could be good, tho. Good luck with it.

What annoys me the most is how your lead has its filtered closed and doesn't cut through like it should. Some of the backing becomes the new lead. Work those things out. Not enough clarity. Not enough highs. Boost the highs on the master. If you've got one, use a multiband compressor on the master to clean up the frequency balance rather than EQ. You might get a better result from using both, depends on what EQ your multiband compressor has built-in. It's better than the versions I remember. Good to see you improving, man.

There's a few different ways of using presets. One is to use them instead of good mixing and good arrangement, make a nice and interesting soundscape and not really write anything interesting. Another is to experiment - write a part and then sift through the presets until you find something that works (or find something that works and then write an interesting part for it, the order doesn't matter). A third is to decide the kind of sound you want, find a preset that's close, and modify it. Only the first one is newby. Once you get better at working with the synth settings, you'll be making your own presets. I've noticed that making music is so much faster when Ive got my own presets that I know and can choose from. When you start working with the actual mixing - stereo placement, loudness, frequency balance (using pan, reverb, overdrive, compression, EQ, and such) - you'll start learning the technical bits. Same goes with the synths. Once you start understanding what the sound really is, you sort'a know how you can change it. Even if you don't, once you've screwed around with the settings long enough, you'll get a feel for what they all do. You'll learn faster by consulting wikipedia and our handy tutorials. -- As for the song, the length/repetition is one of the things that's gonna get it a NO (or keep it from even getting on the panel). You'll find that most ocremixes are in a constant state of change - progression. They're progressing, they're moving towards something, heading somewhere, not circling around. That's one of the more theoretical (or even abstract) things that you need to learn in order to get something on ocr. Even if it repeats, there needs to be something new, something different in it. -- lol I just realized I used the term "pretty annoying" four times in a paragraph, referring to four different things in my previous post.

I've heard similar effects on live electric organ as well. I don't think it's my sound system - I use headphones, and I think they go pretty low. The individual overtones come at different volumes, so it might be that this particular organ sample/synth/thing that you're using accentuates the overtones that create that minor chord sound. There's so many different organ sounds, and they probably have different harmonic balances. Maybe it's the organ sound. It's admittedly your organ writing. And yes, it made sense. I'll have to relisten to re-evaluate, but I'll wait for an update to do that.

...when they do. Or R:TS.

If you don't want to make drastic changes to the arrangement, don't. It's your remix, your call. Once you're done with the arrangement, work on the mixing. They're two very different things, and if you're gonna make music you'll need both. Even if this won't be OCR-level stuff, you can finish it and release it on vgmix or remix: thasauce. Also... Did I ever say I didn't like it?

"A little fat and a little minor." Okay, I can see how that requires some explaining. I was talking about the harmonics. The organ is fat, meaning that it's a rich and full sound, perhaps too much so. Every note has loads of harmonics, and they're pretty loud. That's how an organ differs from a sine wave. The harmonics seem to emphasize minor chords, maybe it's just an effect caused by strong harmonics. Like, if there's an overtone of E that is a B, then an Em chord is gonna contain a Bm chord. I'm not sure that's what it is, but that's what I think. Whatever it is, it's one of the reasons I don't use organs.

lol, no. "Here's an idea that I might have suggested before. New project, write the melody from memory, and play around with what instruments, melodies, chords, and rhythms you can use to back it up." I apparently need to add "...Then take what you've learned and use it in this one." Dude, you need to take bigger steps: make bigger changes, take the source and screw with it until you've got many different versions of the different parts of it... then you use the best ones. You've made some changes in this most recent version, and they're in the right direction. Do more stuff like that, now that you've gotten started. Do it until you start getting the feel for how you can rewrite the source. In other words, you're not done with the arrangement yet, imo.

I recently discovered this, and it's pure gold. It's a great source, and it just gets hilarious. I think I actually loled when I heard it the first time, and it's night impossible to keep a straight face when listening to this track. Simply pwnsome. Definitely one of the coolest tracks on OCR. I'm surprised it's only got two pages of reviews.

Wip run not over yet... I think Revival Day Impoetus and Hot Stuff would be the best tracks to learn from, of the ones you found. Do note that they're old, so the arrangement and mix quality isn't necessarily even close to where the bar is at today. Making a strong drum track comes far more from samples and mixing than the from the writing. Really simple ones can be just as awesome as the really intricate ones. I suggest you make a basic one, get the drum sounds to sound good, and then start working on the actual writing of the drums. The arrangement has improved. It still has a very persistant mood, but it's much better. Those new solos and melodic modifications are a great addition. The sounds have a part in the mood, so by mixing those, replacing some, the mood should get a bit more dynamic. I already caught myself feeling the groove of the drums (in the 0:43+ section), so you've obviously learned something about drum writing. Good luck working on it. btw, there's some weird noises towards the end, around 3:40. Either you've got some noise in the file, or it's the swan song of my headphones.

Loud? I don't mind. You could drop it so the compression isn't so obvious, like it is at 0:35, tho. Why's it so short? I have nothing else to say. This was the perfect end to a long wip run, tho, so thank you.