Rozovian

This. 10chars

Repetition isn't a bad thing, and your track isn't repetitive, it's just raw. Let's look at the first 35 seconds: 0-11 - The writing here is ok, but the sound only changes in level (volume). You have what sounds like a quarter note lfo controlling a sync synth patch. That's cool. If you can make the lfo depth sensitive to velocity, or make the synth filter the whole sound based on velocity, you could have a growing sound instead of a static one that only changes in level. Obviously, you'd have to edit the velocities for this effect, but it's realy just a slope from low velocity to normal velocity. 11-23 - This part here is repetitive. Some development in automation or velocities would be cool. Perhaps the bass could be filtered and open up so it isn't fully open until somewhere around 30 seconds in? Perhaps you have a different crash you could use for every other hit? 23-35 Hihat comes in, and signals that the track is growing. Then comes the reverse crash, which foreshadows a change in the track. This part works well, structurally. This change could be emphasized further with a different and a little more intense fill towards the end. Now you're just looping the first 6 seconds of this part on drums. A new fill would signal a bigger change, and take you away from that lazy kind of writing I've been hearing. This kind of stuff applies everywhere in the track, you just gotta figure out the specifics of what you can do to improve the stuff. As another example, let's talk about the next part, 0:35-2:05. Throught that part, you have the same loud, piercing lead synth, and from what I can tell, also the same 6-note backing pattern with the same sound through (buried under other sounds). Let's quickly go over that one, iteration by iteration: 0:35 - Works well. Again, there's a level automation rather than something more interesting going on on the 6-note, and the lead is too loud. 1:05 - New rhythm practically replaces the 6-note, so I don't get why I'm still hearing the 6-note underneath. Just lose the old one and run with the new one. lead is the same as before, and because the instrument is loud and piercing, this is especially annoying. First change the sound, then figure out how to change the melodies... if you still need to. Drums coming in here works well. 1:20 - Hihat comes in, but that's the only change. The previous part could have a little less drums, and this part have more, and there are other changes you could make for a little more sense of development, but the core idea here works. 1:32 - You're adding this weird new measure at the end of the melody. In the other parts, it keeps throwing me off, but this particular one works well because it's foreshadowing a significant change in the track. 1:36 - Still the same lead. You dropped out the replacement for the 6-note, which works, but you brought back the same 6-note as before, where you could have done something new with it, either a new instrument or a new take on it. There's a sound in the background, like a high-pitch choir-like synth. That's a good sound, and it adds to the development of the track. Keeping the same drum rhythm here, however, holds the track back. Do something new, something bigger, something more intense in some way. Otherwise it's just repetition towards another breakdown. There's my thoughts on the track, in detail. As you might be able to tell, it's not actually the repetition that's the problem, but the lazy writing it's a result of. When you build up towards something, know what you're building towards, and how long it should take to get there. So basically, always know where each part is heading and build towards that. The structure isn't that repetitive, it's the details that are.

still only nördics here. Low bass seems a bit too strong, the guitars are too loud. I don't mind the panning, but I'm on speakers. The e-piano kicks ass. Cool stuff, as usual.

I could echo my previous post. It still applies. Sound design is a bit tricky, but it's the process of finding and modifying, or making sounds of a particular type, and fitting those together in a way that sounds good. The backbone of the sound design here might work, but there's stuff like the bass drum and some of the more melodic instruments that feel a bit out of place, like a cartoon character in a live action film or vice versa. Various synth modulations (connections within the synth) can give a synth sound a bit more life, and some of the parameters, and some additional effects, can give your synths a lot more complexity and depth. This is the difference between chiptune instruments and modern synths. Depending on the sound you're going for, you have different techniques of getting there. Beyond just designing the sounds, they gotta be mixed well, and you gotta get a sense of performance into them. These are two very different processes, with occasional overlap. Arrangement is okay. There's some nice references to other Zelda melodies, the mix doesn't repeat itself much, and it flows well. Work on your sound.

Writing is raw. Mixing is terrible. Sound design is surprisingly good. I'd say that all the sounds here fit well together, they're all rich and just... a good fit. Nice work on that. Writing is lazy. Maybe the arrangement works, there's clearly some ideas here that would, but the raw writing doesn't flow smooth enough. It's like you had the raw pieces and just slapped them together without taking the overall dynamics into account. I would expected it to kick into something a lot bigger at 1:34, but instead we get a clunky rhythm atop the same writing as before. The source C-part is another drop in dynamics. Drops in dynamics can be cool, whether they're breakdowns (0:36) or just quick drops (2:35 and 2:45), but when it happens with every other new part, the arrangement doesn't work. I've had this problem with a mix I'm working on, and I had to cut a few of my cool breakdowns out of it in order to make the arrangement work. On that note, the arrangement is probably too conservative for ocr. With the right touches, it might be made to fit, but worry more about making a good mix than making it fit ocr. The writing also doesn't quite fit the sounds you've got. You've got something DnB- or dubstep-ish going with the sounds, but the writing suggests something more atmospheric. You've got loud, piercing lead synths on sustain, and I can clearly hear it ducking under the compression whenever the bass drum hits. Overall, the track is too loud, and the instruments don't give enough room for each other. Start with dropping everything 6dB and mix that well with just track levels. Then use reverb and EQ to separate tracks, and then worry about levels using compression (side-chained where necessary). It's definitely a step in the right direction. Nice work.

I started playing this a few months ago with my gaming group. Would be fun to play with some ocr folks too, tho idunno how well it works Europe-America. Europeans still playing this, feel free to add me, I'm adrenalotr (and still learning how to think through the game).

Disgusting, disharmonious, disastrous source. There aren't a lot of sources I hate, but this one is probably one of those. The source is clearly in the remix, and a lot more tolerable there. So nice work with that. The 1:39 melody bothers me. I get that it might be intentional and that the overall sound should be a bit crushed and distorted, but that one stands out. The guitar isn't that great either, but it suits the sound. Lows and low mids seem a bit thick. You could probably separate your bass from the bass drum and give them both a little more power instead. I like the static effects. First one sounded like a happy accident, then the next few reveal it's intentional. Cool groove, cool track. It's always hard to judge tracks that are intentionally distorted and glitchy and otherwise destroyed-y. I'd say this would fit ocr just as well as any of the posted, similarly crushed tracks. Source is there, the track is pretty cool, just some production edits and this should be ready for the judges. nice work. PRODUCTION - Low-quality samples - Drums have no energy - they add some rhythm to the track, which might be enough... depends on what you want them to do - Mixing is muddy (eg. too many sounds in the same range) - lows are a bit cluttered. You can get the track a bit louder if you clean up the lows.

Timing problems in the lead in the slower parts. Interestingly, while those parts are too human, the velocities aren't human enough. World drums could use a shorter envelope or just less lows, especially if (tho I can't hear it over the dubstep) they're in the dubstep parts as well. Shanghai step, huh? The dynamics of the track are pretty spectacular. Source is there. Oh great, a voice clip. PRODUCTION ~ Overcompressed (pumping/no dynamics) - I might be hearing some compression problems i nthe world drums, not sure - Mixing is muddy (eg. too many sounds in the same range) - leads drown during the dubstep parts PERFORMANCE (live recorded audio/MIDI parts) - Timing not tight enough - intro I think it kicks ass, and would get posted. Unless I'm missing something, it's ocr material with or without the suggested edits. Nice work.

Oh great, voice clip intro. I don't feel it contributes anything of value to the track, so the track could just as well just begin at 0:20. That's my personal, subjective take on it, tho. Track has a pretty cool groove. While I know the heavy production style is a staple of the genre, it's not a good-sounding staple. Get your dynamics under control. Yes you should have huge bass... just make sure it doesn't sound like Newby McNewb's discovery of the bass knob. I'm a little concerned it might be too conservative - not the new genre, but the overall progression. Leads could pretty much be ripped from source, both melody and sound design. ARRANGEMENT / INTERPRETATION - Too conservative - sticks too close to the source - imo, anyway PRODUCTION - Too loud - Overcompressed (pumping/no dynamics) ~ Mixing is muddy (eg. too many sounds in the same range) - I can hear stuff fine, but it could be cleaner STRUCTURE ~ Not enough changes in sounds (eg. static texture, not dynamic enough) - instrumentation might get old fast because of the hard and tiring production, but it's used in different riffs and rhythms so it's not that big a deal - Too repetitive Not ready for ocr just yet, but with some fiddling with eq and compressors it should be in a much better place. It's got potential here.

Your lead bell sound is a tad too bright. The whole track could probably use a little less highs. Not much, a dB or two. Beyond that, and a very subjective dislike of your snare (which is probably a little too loud, objectively), I think this is ready for the judges. You can probably scratch the whole Ambient tag. This is so not ambient. PRODUCTION - Too loud - but not by much Great work. It still has the cool retro sound design, but the production is a lot more suited for today. It's about time you get posted, and I think this will get you there. Here's hoping.

I have no idea what you're talking about.

Got consent for another track now, that means it's blue. +1 blue. Looking over the tracks, the following tracks lack a name: Beckett007's 212 Chris | Amaterasu's 119 Reuben Cornell's 310 Rozovian's 218 zyko's 201 Can't be that hard to come up with a name for your track, right? In case I've missed it, just point it out. I'm juggling 60 tracks here, details can go missing. plz help me out here.

The computer you have should run a hobbyist setup just fine. Haven't used Sonar myself so I can't speak for its capabilities and limitations, but afaik it's no better or worse than what I use. Having a microphone (I don't) is only relevant if you actually need to record any audio - in which case you'll need more than just a microphone anyway. A couple of warnings: - Learning to use any tool takes time. You didn't learn to play keyboard in a week, you won't learn to use a sound library in that time either. - Spending money on a big nice tool will get you to a pro place sooner, but starting with a good collection of freebies. There's a fair amount of those for the most common instruments. Maybe you should start with Sonatina and get used to the arrangement stuff first. - Even with a good library and the skills to really work it right, there are things those libraries weren't designed for, techniques and articulations that just weren't included. You don't actually get an orchestra, you just get the sounds the orchestra made during a set of recording sessions. I can't speak for whether it's worth saving up for or not. Some ppl shell out lots of money on new audio toys, other get by with freebies. The net is full of freeware, free soundfonts and virtual instruments of all kinds. With the right skillset, these budget tools can do a lot.

Yeah, saw sync. Can't say what the main oscillator is tuned to, it seems to move around a bit. Probably based around the 5th or the octave when there aren't any bends and things.

Back when i was messing around and learning this stuff, I would add random notes above the melody, just to see how they worked. After a while, I started figuring out where they fit best, and what notes would work, and now kind'a hear it in my head before I write/play it. What I do now is pretty much what Dan said about dividing a melody into pieces and adding a note or two to each, trying to stick to intervals that form or add to chords. As great and fundamental as triads are, I now work more in 7th chords, adding a note to work with and ensuring the intervals don't get too large even when the melody lands on the 5th. Aside from 7th chords, sus chords work too, they're just more filler than closing chords. I don't have to worry about using too small intervals when I can imply that a chord isn't merely a triad or 7th. Still, it's probably best to start with triads and expand experimentally. As for the track, you don't have to change chords all the time, and you don't have to stay in the same key/mode/scale all the time either. Find something that works for a part, something that works with another, and bridge them... somehow. If it sounds stupid, try again.

Pardon my amusement, but your question sounds like "what instrument do I need to play an A minor chord?" to me. The answer is most decent enough instruments. Piano, guitar, accordion; not drums, flute, or singing. So to apply the answer to your actual question: most DAWs (digital audio workstation, or music-making software). FL Studio, Cubase, Ableton Live, Logic, Mixcraft, GarageBand, REAPER... and others. For that specific A minor chord, you need the note A, C, and E... which in your case are old drum machine samples, breakbeat loops and other sounds utilized during the era, or samples, synths, and loops with similar qualities. For some more details, I have a remixing guide in my sig that might help. Not so much in hunting that 90's sound, but the general music-making with a DAW.

...or to ignore the text and just figure out that the second dialogue option makes the civ you're talking to your friend for the rest of the game, as my cousin found out in his preschool years long before learning reading or English. But yeah, I like Darke's point here. Maybe the indie game scene could take this as a challenge?

That was in April. What is wrong with me? Blueing him now. We're pretty blue now.

ilp0 is now blue. Still waiting for a wav of Meridian Child tho. Rich?

Maybe you should ask a fellow Logic user instead? If they don't come as an installer, the installation instructions are usually in a Read Me or something, and generally just entails throwing a .component into Library/Audio/Plugins/Components/ , anything more than that would be installing presets for it (which can be useful too). Logic doesn't read VST, only AU and some internal format (hence why Logic's plugins won't show up in eg REAPER). The two examples I suggested are AU, as are lots of other cool stuff. I have a few instruments and effects linked in my sig, stuff I've used in GarageBand and Logic. Try everything.

The ones I recommend when teaching basic synthesis to ppl are FreeAlpha and TAL-Elek7ro II. Cross-platform, good interface, and quite versatile. Google them. They're plugins, which means they need to be loaded by a DAW (or other host). For that, I'd recommend REAPER because of it's unlimited demo and complete functionality, tho the interface isn't necessarily the most newb-friendly. For that, GarageBand and Mixcraft are probably better options.

I looked you up, Saps, and... No. Half a month ago you were trying to EQ a sine and was perplexed over the mixing of a handful of artists. You are not ready to call what you do mastering. Start posting remixes, they get you more feedback than originals. And you need feedback, and practice. If you can finish your own tracks you have something to show ppl and gain their trust and their tracks... for you to improve your craft on. In other words, make more music, and know that it takes years to develop the ears and acquire the tools and understand the methods of both mixing and mastering. Of the ppl in this thread, I know the stuff Meteo and Snap have made, so I know what to expect if they were to master something. Also, we don't advertise ourselves like this. Not in the R&C. Not here. If you're serious about the mastering, put it in your sig. Closing this.

Yeah, overall things like that can be solved with some multiband compression or just EQ. A limiter is usually good to slap on at the end to avoid clipping - just don't force it too loud, this track wouldn't benefit from being pushed like that.

Sounds thin. More mids. Sounds light. Less highs. Doesn't sound horribly thin or light, so a subtle fix to both of these should put it in a pretty good place. Mixing pretty good otherwise, tho you could afford a little more headroom. From around 2:15 the track starts feeling like it's on repeat, some cutting of length, added effects, or some other changes during the second half of the track would help. Sorry if I skip doing the source analysis beyond a quick listen to source. Another mod can check whether the track is too conservative, but after first listening to the remix, the source sounds familiar enough. Pretty rocking track. Unless it's found to be super-conservative, do sub it once it's done. Nice work. /half a mod review

45 seconds until any solid source? Hm, just when I thought the source parts were getting too conservative there's a really neat, more interpreted part. Repetition might be a problem at times, but then the track goes off into some cool new thing. On a second listen, I can hear what I'll assume to be some liberal references to it in the intro. This looks like it's in the clear as far as source is concerned. Lots of bass, and most source bits seem pushed quite far under the rest of the instrumentation. The rest of the track actually feels pretty weak by comparison. Too much bass. Don't get me wrong, you've got a cool big bass drum sound there, but the rest of the track feels a bit too chill for it. Dunno how much too much, that gets subjective and takes some style consideration, but I do think it's an objective criticism. Overall, it works. It's a bass-y chill track with some groove to it. Some parts feel copy-pasted, some parts feel conservative, some parts too liberal... So the best I can say is sub it, and good luck. /mod rev