Rozovian

Not that I necessarily disagree with the need for an FL-specific forum (with all the newbs getting it because favorite remixer X uses it), but the phrase "if you build it, they will come" comes to mind. We do have a lot of different DAWs represented in this community, many of them having questions they don't know where to ask - DAW-specific stuff for a DAW other than FL and Reason. If we'd have a subforum for the other DAWs, ppl might not feel as if there's no place for their questions, or fear that they're asking in the wrong subforum (ppl hate being wrong, esp. publically).

I recall there being some talk about merging the DAW-specific subforums into a single DAWs subforum, with thread prefixes like on the wip board. Don't remember if I was doing the talking or if it came from the staff. I thought it was a good idea, tho.

Just like a string, a drum has a pitch at which it resonates. As drums tend to be made out of two differently tuned skins, tuned differently so the sound is kind'a atonal (consider toms in a regular drum kit). When not tuned differently, you'll get a much longer, more tonal drum sound. Sometimes you want that. Sometimes not. There's a gazillion different ways to make synth percussion, whether it's just a volume envelope for a noise channel or multiple-operator fm. They all have varying degrees of tonal-ness. For some sounds, it doesn't matter what key you play since you'll get an atonal percussive noise thing, but it makes a big difference with those that have more tonal qualities. As for EQing stuff, just go through your tracks and carve room for them (in order of importance) in the less important tracks. That way, your lead will stand out more than your pad (unless you mixed track levels wrong). So with just a pad and a lead: Lead: --¨¨- Pad: _-__- Of course, this should be subtle. If you're thinking in excess of 10dB and narrow bands, you're doing it wrong (or you might even be using the wrong tool if you have to do stuff like that... except when it's for effect). Anyway, this can be applied to drums as well. Just check the frequency distribution of each sound instead of trying to raise frequencies that aren't there. Can't listen atm, but there's some thoughts that might be helpful.

*cymbal. If you have a kit put together by someone that knows what they're doing, those samples should sound good together... but they might not work that well as-is once you put them together with all the other instruments. They might be too prominent, or not enough, their dynamics might be different than the other sounds you're using... and as with everything, you'll need to give them their own space in the mix. Technically, you "mix" whenever you put things together, whether you do it thoroughly or haphazardly, but I get what you mean. So yes, you do need to mix them in properly. Depending on their sound, properly can mean a lot of different things, so you gotta use your ears. But you still gotta do it right.

It completely depends on the type of track. If I need a track driven by a bassline or lead, I'll usually just write a basic drum backing and start messing with said bassline or lead. If it's a drum-driven track, I'll write some basic non-drum backing and then get to the kick and snare, followed by other drums and percussion. If it's a track based around just cool chords, I'll start with those chords first. And if I have no idea what I'm gonna make, I just start with whatever I recognize as good when I play. Usually this comes out of experimenting with new sounds. Random preset, see how it sounds.

Why would you expect anything other than a flanger-y and reverb-y sound from doing that? A lot of the drum sound comes out of the samples you use, and how you use them. For a long, deep drum, use a shorter, higher drum and pitch it down. Avoid sequencing them mechanically (ie edit velocity and make sure the instrument you use actually care about velocity). In the MP2 example, you've got a big deep drum, which is either a big deep drum sample or a pitched down sample of a less big, less deep drum. There's a hihat that sounds pretty much like any hihat, it's just got a lot of reverb on it for a dirtier sound that makes it fit in more. There's two tuned synth percussion things in there, which can be almost anything with a short envelope (<300ms). There's a snare in there, usually with some tuned synth perc on it so it's difficult to hear. Sound like a fairly regular snare, possibly pitched down somewhat and again with reverb. That example is _not_ an example of crystally drums. They are, however, given room in the frequency range with EQ. If you don't mix them right, it doesn't matter how great your samples and processing is - they won't cut through. But really, get yourself some drum samples and pitch them down, see if that's closer to the sound you want. Learn to guess the sound you'll get from pitching something down so you can quickly identify the sound you need. Also, learn to use effects right. I can imagine a few times where flanger would be appropriate for drums, but a crystally sound isn't one of them. tl;dr: get more samples, pitch them down, eq everything to give them space.

Study the sound of each instrument and see what frequencies they have and don't have. If they don't have any highs you can boost with EQ, you'll need something else to cover the high range for a more clear sound. Highs cut through better. Same with any frequency range. Study the frequency distribution of well mixed songs with roughly the same instrumentation. Did did they overcome these problems; if so, how? There's some hard, practical things you can do, too. Higher velocities tend to be richer in high frequencies and thus cut through better. adjust the velocity accordingly. You can use multiband compressors to force certain frequency ranges to be louder during dull notes in a way that you can't do with just eq. A multiband compressor can do a lot to even out your frequency balance overall, too. Dynamics first come from the arrangement, not the instruments themselves. Just make your low range instruments ease up and possibly play an octave higher instead during softer parts and you should already have a noticeably more dynamic track. There's some poorly arranged thoughts on what you could do.

Everything fake sounds fake if you know what to listen for. Shreddage doesn't do everything, mostly just rhythm - which is what it's designed for, anyway. A piano vi could be done that automatically swings stuff slightly, automatically humanizes quantized/sequenced left-hand chords, changes velocity and delays notes according to whatever preset rhythm you've set it to, etc... Just add to those things that it responds to the mod wheel by fading to a different preset set of... settings, and you've got yourself the Sixto of piano performance... you just need a good piano sound to make it sound real. And speaking of which... PIanoteq. Look it up.

Nope, there's no rule about how remixes on this forum have to be ocr-postable or anything, as long as they're vgm remixes. And it's not really plagiarism either, Ferret, since credit was given to Jayson both here and on youtube (btw, some weird-ass tags on the vid ). Tho not very creative (at least not musically), the OP does have a point in how it's probably among the better results you could get from the procedure of just doubling and delaying an already posted remix (with all those time sig changes and key changes and modal changes and tempo changes other crap that remixers do all the time just to spite normal ppl). Besides, Iceferno and others have remixed remixes, so that's not an issue either. "It would be cool if it was added to the site" said the OP, so that's what I was responding to. And it's still true, there's no way this becomes a posted ocremix.

Two copies of the original jumbled together. Appropriately posted on April Fools day, there's no way this would get posted. Not only would Jayson's original have trouble getting through the panel today, but this is just his remix played over itself. Just making sure all the newbs are on the same page.

1:12, listen for how they all seem to occupy the same frequency range. Avoid that. Kick bothers me, but not sure why. Could be the lack of a bass instrument to compete with it (the pad just doesn't), or just that I'm expecting a more typical bass+kick combo with the kick more clicky and the bass hogging the lows. idunno. It just bothers me. Can barely hear the Green Brinstar ostinato, bring it out more. Some of the other instruments, the one competing with the lead (whatever the lead at any given time is), could be pushed back a bit tho. Your 1:00 lead at some points is a bit too simple but seems to push the compression or otherwise screw with the overall sound. QT's level meters doesn't suggest you've got a very loud track, so I'm really curious as to what compression settings you're using. If that's it at all. The two sources fit together nicely. This isn't ocr-level, but it's a step on the way.

Listening to your tracks now guys, gonna reply later today. Just wanna say that we've got two weeks until a kind of cutoff date. I wanna get all the old tracks either done or out of the way, so anyone having been sitting on a track for too long will lose the track (tho only until I'm convinced the track will get done ASAP) on April 16th. And I won't make any exceptions for myself.

neblix, can we for once mention FL without you running all over the thread saying basically the same thing AGAIN? Please? As for the topic, I find that ppl who really like music don't care how it's done because they know the skill involved. As said before, it's easy to just throw a arp chord and a drum loop together and loop it for n minutes and call it music. What makes computer stuff so much easier is that you don't even have to record your crappy guitar playing with poor equipment, you can just put it together with some downloaded stuff. So it's easier to make "music" with a DAW than with a physical instrument, but it's still just as hard to make great music. Countless hours, countless attempts, some short-term ragequits, lots of ego damage; it takes a lot of work and a long time to make anything good. The computer is just another tool, and as with every tool, there's a time of adjustment. Until the average parent has used it, it's gonna be a toy for the younger generation - 20 years from now they may teach DAW stuff in elementary school music classes, and parents want their kids to learn this stuff. Thio then the kids are probably more into... algorithmic music, or laser organs, or physical modeling of dinosaur throats. Wasn't there a discussion like this back when recording media was new, and ppl were concerned that nobody would bother to learn to sing or play anymore? Also, instruments come and go. Welcome to the mainstream, digital; welcome to the niches, harpsichord, psaltery, pipe organ...

Best thing to know? That you suck. I mean, if you think you suck, you'll be more receptive towards feedback, whether this is negative, positive, constructive, or whatever. And you're more motivated to learn and less inclined to whine about how you're much better than ppl's comments suggest. Tho if you're pro enough to not need all that, just keep in mind that for ocr, it should be your own take on the source, not a cover and not a solofest.

Well, this site has been around for a while. And like snesmusic.org, Vertigo, do a torrent for it all. Just make sure the metadata is consistent and stuff.

I like the altered rhythm to the backing. The drums themselves seem a bit random some of the time, but there's clearly thought put into their writing. Just edit the velocities to give it more of a deliberate, human touch, much like a real drummer would emphasize some snare hits and ghost others. There's some nice ideas here and a decent general idea of variety in sound. The sounds themselves aren't high-quality, but that's something that practice and comparisons should help you with. Mixed better the current sound design would be tolerable, tho I wouldn't say it's passable for sure. But did you listen to this at all? The compression is making the waay too loud bass push everything else down. Bass, beeps, and stuff in between. The "stuff" needs to be brought out more, or at least not buried like this. Drop the bass' levels and you should have a much better mix already, but do consider the levels and distance placement/prominence of all the other sounds as well. It gets old running the same chords throughout, but I don't think you need to do much more to personalize it. It would certainly help your chances with the judges if there was more dynamics to it, a sense of direction, like the buildup you had in the first minute or so. I'm fairly sure the submissions evaluators would have laughed had you submitted this in its current state. Learn to listen to your own works critically to avoid embarrassing mistakes like the bass compression thing. Once you can hear and avoid stuff like that, you're well on your way towards an ocr-level mix.

You don't want feedback on how to improve it? I don't think I can resist. It's repetitive both in sound and arrangement, has some mixing problems, has some questionable sound choices. The conservative use of the melody is ok for one or two instances of it, but for most part it goes on for too long using just the same thing. Working on the progression to create build-ups towards big parts and breakdowns here and there would also improve the overall repetition thing. Repetition is more tolerable when there's a sense that it's heading somewhere. You know, kind'a like those epic trance things with crazy long buildups of just the same thing with a filter opening. Dynamics. Pacing. Soundwise, it'd be cool if the sounds would change more. It's empty, so a pad or some comping rhythm behind the lead would be cool. It's also a good tool to use to change the chordal landscape and the emotional landscape that stems from it. Having a different lead to bring in would let you vary the sounds too, and there's no harm in adding some arpeggios or gate a pad or something. The bass drum overpowers everything. Yes, the pumping is a staple of the genre, but here it's overdone. Side-chain it and be selective with the tracks you pump. That a pad and the bass are ducked under the bass drum is fine, but the lead melody just doesn't sound good when treated like this. I also get a sense of this track being a big too heavy on the lows compared to mids and highs. Reverb on the bass? Usually not a good idea. The snare/clap thing bothers me, it should be tighter imo. The lead isn't pretty. The bass drum is really hard compared to the other sounds in the mix. All in all, it seems like a single idea or two ideas that don't sound much different stretched to longer than they should, and with a generic dance backing. Get more ideas and do more. If you're not looking to improve this one, consider these crits and learn from them for your future mixing endeavors. At this point, it's not very enjoyable to my ears, for some of the aforementioned reasons (some of them I don't mind as much). Take what you can from the feedback, use it to improve, and make better music. And come show us. Without the attitude.

What is it you wanna do with it? Also, building synths and whatnot is a great place to start learning what it does and how to use it. (note that it doesn't do FFT)

I lost my internet connection for a while, then was busy at a weekend thing... now I'm back. Just got a wip from Luhny, and a completed piece of art from Keiiii. This week: the internal preview, and trying to find ppl's emails. Gonna send out a mail to everyone I've got, just to make sure gmail will let me, and that everyone who knows about it knows if I've got their email or not. Or you could just email me again. (the lazy boss approach)

Dude, a wav? Seriously now.

Time for a new site called OverClocked ReGenerative? ocregen?

No dynamics, too loud (and boring) bass, deviations from the timing of the original (valid artistic choice when intentional... which they don't seem here). Newby stuff. Seems like you're fairly new at this. Study the original and its timing, study other music and how they change between parts. Study their rhythms, the loudness of different instruments at different times, how they're put together. Study and practice.

There's nothing in the content policy that requires you to start from 0:00 when you use a remix, but if you're talking about handing out downloads of a modified mp3, it's a breach of the terms of use. Are you talking about modifying them for personal use, for use on youtube, or spreading modified mp3s or what? edit: just saw "for the video". that makes it ok.

1:30 you say...

Nice sounds. A little more thought into their placement and prominence and you'd have the percussion all right. Which is kind'a all there is here.