Rozovian

Hm, I just want to clear this up. I believe when you increase the volume of a stereo system, it only multiplies the volume, and doesn't add to the dB. e.g. -0.2dB peaks will always be -0.2dB peaks, but you'll hear it at a louder volume. Or were you saying something different? Tho Kristina's point was to say that raising the listening level of your speaker setup is better than trying to squash your audio into something excessively loud, I'll clarify this for you all. Digital audio uses dBFS - dB Full Scale, with 0dB being the max level of the stored file. -6dB is half the max amplitude. Real world audio is measured in dBSPL - Sound Pressure Level. It's defined with the audio threshold at 1kHz being 0dB. As an example, wikipedia lists conversation-level voices at 40-60dB. So no, a file peaking at 0dBFS will not be played out of your speakers at 0dB, it'd probably be played at around 40-60dB, depending on your listening level. When that level (the amplitude of the sound waves) is doubled, we're dealing with 46-66dB audio. 6dB is double the amplitude. I've added a section on decibel to my guide. It's in the next update, whenever I get around to uploading that.

Not to say you can't recruit for someone to give you a hand with the mix / hand over the mix to, a quick look at the the votes on this makes me think you're giving up. Really, you had half the judges being ok, or at least borderline with it. What you need is time away from it to refresh your ears, then a fresh attempt at fixing stuff. Not having bothered to read too much of the votes, my ears say you should lower the bass level and stop trying to make this stupid loud, also soften the flute performance and sort out the instrument placement. ACO, I think you could do this yourself, at least up to ocr's level, but if you'd rather have someone else take a stab at it, go ahead. Good luck either way.

Some really cool ideas in here, and you've obviously got the ears to find flaws in your own work. That's great. The original touches you've got, like the 0:30 guitar, complement the source well. If I were you, 'd see how I could break from the source more - screw with the melody and rhythm of the source to create new things akin to what your original bits are. I'd also try to break from the structure of the source, and it'd probably end up a meandering mess as most of my tracks. If you're concerned about frequency balance, import some well-mixed tracks into FL and compare their frequency balance to your with the same analyzers. If you've got too much bass when played at the same level, mix it down. Learn how well-mixed stuff sounds like and copy it. The drums are so minimal here that they don't need much variation. For more drum-intensive tracks, just pretend to be a drummer and have fun with rhythms and stuff. Automation of filters and other effects are a nice way to inject some motion into build-ups and other repetitive parts, but you can also just copy the writing you have there and make small edits to the melodies. While you should definitely focus on the notes in the underlying chords, just sticking to the same scale should keep the melodies from sounding bad. This source actually contains several examples of this repetition with variation. Study the source. You've got a lot of dynamics in this track. Just figure out where you want to change the dynamics and put more thought into the structure and arrangement of your tracks and you should do just fine. About time you started posting. Welcome to the feedback board.

Pretty cool track. Feels a bit rushed and rush-y at times, but flows quite well. Not sure about the source, but the rest seems to be on a level that could get on ocr, given some fixes here and there.

The best way to create space is really a combination of a lot of techniques, each applied subtly. Track level, timing, reverb, and eq all work together to create the idea of space. We expect instruments closer to us to be louder, have more lows and more distinct highs, hit our ears before instruments further away, and to have a greater separation between their reverb than instruments further away. iirc, you've mostly only got their level separating them. A touch of eq and reverb can, do a lot for the track.

Seems like the challenge paid off, this is a pretty cool sounding mix. Biggest problem I hear in the mix is that the re's too great a difference between loud and soft instruments. Needs more levels mixing. Sound design is fine. Bass and snare are pretty loud, as are some of the lead plucks and things, while crashes and some backing things are too soft by comparison. There might be a need to do some eq work to soften or separate some instruments, I'm not sure it's actually necessary (tho it might help). Best to do the levels first and then see if you need to separate or muffle anything. I think I hear source stuff throughout, tho it's heavily modified at times. I like it. Flows ok, nice adaptation, good stuff. So yeah, levels mixing is the main concern I have for this, still needs some work on that. I would expect to see this thing posted tho, once fixed up. Nice work, dude.

Where's this at, still want a mod review?

Bass is a bit too loud in the intro. The acoustic guitar is still pretty loud, and really clean and upfront compared to the instrumentation of the unts part. You might wanna automate a push further back or something. It doesn't have to be that loud if it's just an intro thing anyway. How about some delay on it? Leads are pretty loud compared to drums, you might wanna adjust that. Ending is a bit too abrupt and the track feels like it ends too soon. perhaps a different take on the source could be worked in as a kind of verse, or a breakdown-buildup thing based on the unts version? Just suggesting, not sure it'd work as it's a pretty short source and a pretty repetitive mix as-is, tho not horribly so, imo. if you can come up with a different take on the source - new chords, new feel, new mode, something - you'll have a much easier time working with it. PRODUCTION ~ Drums have no energy - not bad, but they need more compared to the leads ~ Mixing is muddy (eg. too many sounds in the same range) - you could clean it up a bit STRUCTURE - Too repetitive - Too short - the unts part could be longer and end feeling more complete - Abrupt ending - more like ends too soon Getting there...

Glad you're taking on ODST as well, one of my fav soundtracks. The beginning and end takes on the first part of Never Forget are pretty cool, the last bit has a bit of a The Wingless vibe to it, but the rest of the track is just a rehash of the sources, especially the ODST source. Transitions, even within the same source, are pretty abrupt, and while that might work int he OST, it doesn't work in your mix. The sources are also separate from each other, which can also be a problem. The mix sounds a bit overcooked, and that's not what the oc in ocremix stands for. It's like you've put all kinds of loudnening on the tracks, which only really wrecks the sound quality. The sounds themselves are pretty good, but the processing is a bit too much. If you have to trade in a few dB for a cleaner mix, do it. Fix the mixing and save the best parts of the arrangement, and you'll have a great foundation for a new remix of Never Forget. If Another Rain can be worked into it more organically, that's great, but don't force it. There are other sources that might work better, if you need any. ARRANGEMENT / INTERPRETATION - Too conservative - sticks too close to the source PRODUCTION ~ Too loud - individual track processing, I think ~ Mixing is muddy (eg. too many sounds in the same range) - occasionally STRUCTURE - Lacks coherence overall (no "flow")

I don't know about sports metaphors, but there's still time to swing some hoops with the pigskin. There's still tracks left to do and wips to finish. Come on ppl, don't let the other Mana projects finish before we do! Stuff due October 25th. Old wips better be pretty much complete by then, and new one quite far along plz.

You're not getting past your current skill level any time soon if you don't challenge yourself. 1. If you have a chord progression you wanna use, take the source melody and adapt it to the new chords. If you have an idea for a new take on the melody, write than and then find chords that fit. Doesn't matter which, it's the result that counts. 2. When it comes to fairly conservative mixes, using different chords results in a different mood without necessarily altering much else. Ekaj's take on Red Brinstar is one of my favorite mixes in this regard because of how the chords are altered, resulting in a very different mood. Likewise, Tyler Heath's take on Dragon Roost Island screws with both melody and chord progression, and the result has a very different feel than the original. Or, to toot my own horn, there's this. While making it, it's a guideline for melodies. Whether or not you have the chords blocked out, the chords you choose will lead to a different harmony and thus a different mood. 3. Pick four chords. Use those. If you wanna get a little more complicated, you can look at the notes used in the melody and pick chords that use those. You can write a bassline and figure out how you wanna modulate (change the chords of) that, as I did in my track linked above. Music history has some typical progression to draw on for different genres and styles, you can look up chord progressions on wikipedia or google it for examples. Music theory can exmapl why some chord progressions work better than others and why they have different moods. Just read stuff, listen to stuff, and experiment and you'll get it.

Wouldn't using CDBaby or Bandcamp or something make it a lot easier to release the album? On a serious note: I'll echo ACO, just find the right audience for it. I'm guessing real drummers would be bothered by the fakeness of it, with the possible exception of those that can appreciate the writing behind the sound (if it's good writing). If it's done right, most ppl wouldn't be able to tell the difference.

Hi and welcome to ocr. You misunderstand the site and what kind of remixing we do here. We take _any_ video game music, write our own arrangement of it, produce it, and submit it by email for evaluation. if accepted, it gets posted by site staff. What you're suggesting seems more like a mixtape - which is not an arrangement. Details here.

Hi and welcome to ocr, HW. If you can boost your tracks after limiting them to 0dB and not have clipping, then you've probably got some other effect pulling down the level afterwards, or just forgotten to turn the output of the effect/channel to 0dB. The loudest parts of a mix are the transient attacks of drums and other percussive instruments, so they're the ones first to get clipped. Few ppl will notice those being hard clipped, altho there are other tricks to reducing transient levels. After that, your loudest instruments, probably bass, kick, snare, and lead are likely to clip when their peaks coincide (interference). This is noticeable, and should be avoided. You can side-chain a compressor on the bass to duck under the kick (kick hits, bass ducks), which should yield a little more room and won't be noticed if the compressor is quick enough. The remaining peaks, whether transients or interference, can be done away with using a limiter, just make sure it only cuts peaks, not half the waveform or something. The rest of it is just regular mixing. Get rid of frequencies the instruments don't need, as Graves and Kristina already said. Use compressors to get things louder between loud peaks. Learn the toolbox. The professional mixers do. They have good tools, but they also know how to use them, and could probably do something close to the same level with the tools you have. And yeah, you can't make it go over 0dB, that's the digital maximum. Dunno if you know computer graphics, but it's like computer colors that go from 0 to 255. You can't making it brighter than 100% white. That's how digital audio works. TL;DR: To answer your question: no.

Mac user, so no Chipamp for me. I use an older thing, Game Music Box, which is nice and simple and doesn't try too hard to have everything. I haven't collected that many chiptunes, I've only really got a nes and a snes collection, but that's where most of my sources are from. I have some arcade emulator on one of my machines, but don't remember which. GMB doesn't seem to work in Lion, so I use Audio Overload there. I found it really interesting to see the composers of individual tracks and the track names in GMB and AO. Dunno if the nes collection had any metadata, but the snes one did. I could see your database being used for tracks without that kind of metadata, or just for finding all tracks by specific composers (a composer-based ocr album, anyone?).

Lyrics are done (left the old post in the first post for reference). PM me your contact info, be it email, skype, aim, whatever, and we'll talk. Mark came up with some cool melodies for it, I'll send you what we've got once I know where to.

Already started a potential aocc mix.

Hi and welcome to ocr. The feedback board is for one track only (albums are exceptions), so pick one track you want feedback on and we'll focus on that. That way you won't have to deal with ppl listening to different tracks and contradicting each other eg "the drums are too loud" "no they're too soft". (and don't clog up the board with a dozen threads for individual tracks, either. it's happened.) If you're just starting out, we've got some reading material for you. zircon's remixing compendium is a good read, and I have my (albeit in-progress) remixing guide linked in my sig. Using midis is a great place to start familiarizing yourself with making music, especially the mixing/production side of it, but it can be limiting to have so many complete tracks. At some point in your learning process, try taking only the important melodies from a midi and write the rest of it yourself. That way you'll learn to write your own rhythms and chords and stuff. When it comes to production, the main two tools are level (aka volume) and frequencies (adjusted with equalizer, aka EQ). Figure out which tracks should be loud and which ones can be soft. Use EQ to separate tracks with eq and to cut out frequencies they don't need (eg low frequencies from mid/high-range instruments). Details in your assigned reading material. From a quick listen, albeit on laptop speakers; it seems you need to get your ears in gear. Listen critically to your tracks to figure out what's wrong with them, and start changing that. For example, your SkyDeck track has really loud crashes and a really high and soft bass. Start finding specific flaws and learn to fix and avoid them. This stuff isn't easy, but it's really rewarding when you notice you've improved and your music starts to sound good. Again, welcome to ocr. Good luck and have fun.

Yup, impulse responses are for convolution reverbs (or any convolution effect). You send a supershort burst, an impulse, through a room or equipment and record the resulting sound (eg a reverb). You then play that response for every sample in your audio (sample as in sample rate, not sample as in sampler instrument), and the result is as if your instruments were played exactly where the impulse came from. Because the loudest part of the IR is the impulse, you get the direct, dry sound from that, and the rest is reverb. The benefit of this is that is typically ends up being more realistic than algorithmic reverbs. The downside is that it takes a bit of computing power to play that sample (even if only the amplitude varies), and you only have as many positions/variations of a room as you have impulse responses from it unless you start mixing in additional IRs, which might screw with the realism. Still, it's a step up from the algorithmic technology, you just need good IRs for it to be worth using.

Drums are soft compared to the rest of the instrumentation. They sound strong enough on my louder listening volume (I have two that I use and know how stuff sounds on), but the rest of the sound get too loud then. I'd lower the rest rather than screw with the drums, tho soft layering and subtle sidechaining and other tricks can also be used. Just find the right balance between drums and the rest and it should be fine. To my ears, at least.

I officially have no idea what you're talking about.

Finally a review! Mixing seems a little overdone, it feels a bit forced. Easing up on compression might help, tho I'd start with softening lead levels a little. Bass might be a touch too loud as well. Clap and reverse crashes are quite loud as well. Once those are all a notch softer, the compression wouldn't be as hard anymore anyway, so you might not need to adjust that if you just drop levels slightly. It still hinges on the panel's view of the source usage. I hear the source as pointed out in the first post, most of it at least. To me it feels fine, but I've had similar stuff rejected. My guess is a yes, with some discussion as to whether or not the original/inspired writing on top of the source backing is kosher. Hard to say. Groovy stuff, regardless.

PRODUCTION - Drums have no energy - possibly - Mixing is muddy (eg. too many sounds in the same range) - feels like the low end could be a tad cleaner, and some foreground-background separation wouldn't hurt. Just don't overdo it. STRUCTURE - Too repetitive - parts feel like they repeat in the arrangement - Abrupt ending - It's not cut off, but it feels like there's a piece missing in between the ending three notes and the preceding bit First minute feels a bit aimless, but not terribly so. Drums feel really weak on my softer listening volume. It's not like the style calls for booming big drums, but they could be a little stronger, kick and snare at least. Actually, the whole track feels a little soft. On my higher listening volume, I find the drums to sound fine, but the rest of the instrumentation is a bit too loud by comparison. If you up the drums slightly, you should be all right. Might be worth looking through the instrumentation for ways to let the drums through a bit more, eq or sidechaining or something, just don't overdo it. There's some mid/high resonances that bother me in much of the track, dunno where exactly it is, but it's like it's an excessive eq boost somewhere in the mids/highs. Could be my ears, but you should know your eq well enough to find this yourself if it's not just in my head. Not sure how the simple sound design will fly on the panel, but it's a cohesive enough and clearly deliberate sound design for my liking. Could be a little more dynamic, softer parts be overall softer rather than just dropping out the occasional instrument, but I don't think it's a dealbreaker. I dunno Castlevania sources well enough to know which is which without looking them up, and I can't tell where one begins and where another ends but can clearly identify them being there. Cool. Might be a bit conservative in that a lot seems drawn straight from source, might be seen as a medley of source parts if it's to jarring to ppl that know the sources better, but I think it's in the clear. As for the arrangement, it works ok, but it feels a bit repetitive. The recurring parts aren't that different from each other, making this just repetition with variation rather than a distinct new appearance of a previously used part. I'd fix it by screwing with the dynamics of the preceding parts, and maybe the underlying chords, but how you solve it is up to you. At this point, I think I'd give it a resub. Lots of small issues, but no big red warning flags.