analoq

yes, sorry but this remix can be simplified into the following expression: (original + synthPresets) / boomTschh ok, not exactly but you get the idea. the mixing needs work too, like gray was mentioning this mix is lacking clarity in the low end. it's muddy and unpleasant. no

yes on submission email. nice work. but as for the remix it's clearly lacking in a number of areas. the way the melody doesn't cut above the supporting components, the effortless transitions as instruments leave and enter, and the repetitious nature of the piece as a whole. i do like that unrelenting metallic sound, though. no i would not say this is atonal if you're trying to say the melody is flat in the delivery -- as atonal is used to describe melodic components that are devoid of a central key. (see your local jewish expressionist composer for an example!) can't bug prot about proper use of 'notation' on one hand and let you get away with something similar on the other

ugh, fine. just stop editing my damn posts. i've been to several acoustic guitar recitals for world class guitarists. i learned how to record acoustic guitar in my recording classes. i know how this stuff is supposed to sound and it's not news to me that the recording here isn't the greatest and the performance ain't perfect. but for an entirely instrumental piece, i feel it's of passable quality for ocr. as for the arrangement, i realize that the first part is fairly conservative while the improv section borrows few motifs from the original. however, i feel the improv section provides a good contrast to the original material whilst not being awkward -- making it a stronger piece as a whole. this was the same reasoning i used when i passed the Sonic 2 'Hilltop Heaven' remix. i would've liked to see a more liberal rearrangement of the first half but as it stands i feel it works well enough as a whole to be passable. oh and the THUMP at the end was intentional as far as i can tell. at least it didn't seem like a mistake. as always, i respect the votes of my fellow panelists and i'll be fine with whatever the fate of this mix will be. cheers.

drums... ick fake acoustic... yuck bass... ok guitar riffs & leads... would sound good if processed properly nice ideas presented, work on execution. no

a rather expressionless sounding orchestra sound. and a monotonous one at that... why aren't the various sections trading off the theme? instead the strings just play everything with extra stuff around them. this is lacking contrast and tension. no

style is some kind of synth music? maybe you should have some interesting synthetic sounds then. everything here sounds pretty weak and cluttered. no

i agree with darkesword... nothing amazing, but nonetheless it's quite nice and deserves a place on ocr. yes

my listening tests don't go by what sounds good? they go by what sounds more like the original? and that's how you do these things. i didn't entirely dismiss the usefulness of negation tests, these things are useful. and they have their place in the scheme of things, but they don't help much in this scenario. frankly i don't think you have a good grasp of how perceptual encoding works if you think your negation tests are 'very critical' for what you do... cheers.

then, you should be experienced to know your negation tests don't mean a thing, right? these are perceptual codecs we're talking about here, they work because of psychoacoustic processing. the only way to properly compare is with your ears. anything else is only useful for development purposes such as finding bugs in the codec (like that nasty one in Xing-based encoders) i use the latest stable versions. though, i have grabbed and compiled ogg from the cvs tree before, but i tend not to use those much. well you don't know me very well then. if anything, i'm biased in favor of ogg. but i'm far from being a fanboy -- i go by what i observe. and what i have said, is what i have observed. basically this runs down to the accuracy of my ears & referencing equipment vs. the accuracy of your ears & referencing equipment. even though i feel confident in a victory of that debate, i see no value in it. do you? cheers.

binster's description of the original is accurate, which means there's quite a bit of elaboration going on here. enough to overlook some of the strange mixing decisions (too much sizzle on in the high end and not enough oomph in the upper-low end) yes

well i've dealth with ogg for years as well. i used to hang out on the developers mailing list too, and i know the developers tweaked the -q3 setting deliberately to produce 128kbps mp3 quality (typical lame encoder as reference) my own experience with ogg reflects their exact intent. btw, the settings you posted are the ones i used when i originally listened to the KiC oggs. cheers.

while ogg does function efficiently in the 75-80kbps range, it doesn't quite reach 128kbps mp3 quality. encoding at -q3 is supposed to give typical 128kbps mp3 quality, and most of the encodes i do on that setting end up around 90-110kbps. i've heard the oggs and i've heard the wavs and i can back up that the the quality of the oggs aren't too great. i would've preferred a better encoding of them. some tracks sound ok, but others have a noticeably deteriorated sound. cheers.

omg judges hate teh tekno

sparse, monotonous, low quality sounds. no reason to pass this.

some muddy piano voicings awkward attack on the strings. drum sounds aren't very tight. guitar sounds pretty dry. questionable modal choices here and there. nice ritardando at the end. no

maan, i really wanted to pass this after hearing that opening groove. but then that annoying distorted filtenv synth comes in and just makes me irate. that kind of sound does not function well as a melodic component in this context. it doesn't blend in well. also some of the chordal sounds near the end are on the weak side, but that opening is so tasty. resubmit...! no

ick, i can't see a reason to pass this when there are so many mixing issues. its like each part was bandpassed to fit into its own sonic space and panned awkwardly. ending is kinda a letdown. no

haha, this is the kind of stupid crap you'll hear once or twice in a long set. the high NRG club music with obligatory shouts that you'll enjoy for one excellent moment and then forget. a passable guilty pleasure. yes

well not only are the sounds here pretty generic, the balance between them is awkward. the break seems to come at an awkward moment too, the transitions are pretty effortless. not much that stands out here. you could file this under "club music for people who don't go clubbing and thus don't know what good club music should sound like" the piano is a nice addition, though. no

i like the opening distorted synthriff. percussion sequencing and filtering is fun. some of the other synth sounds are cool but others sound lofi (not in the good way). the problem here is the material presented gets monotonous, the forward momentum fades, and there's no real tension. feels pretty dry by the end. no

well, at least he used some acoustic drums in this instead of the often expected 909 kick & snare. hmm, too repetitious. and where the bass?? there's no low end; elderly people wouldn't be able to hear this mix... no

yeah, this is pretty generic noobwerk. some of the sounds are cool though, but they are used rather ineffectively. messy transitions, lots of repetition. there is no more than 3 minutes worth of material here, yet it goes on for 5.5 minutes... no

nice try on the panning, sounds awkward on headphones though. the balance of this mix is awkward as well. sounds like this must have been mixed on $5 computer speakers. really weak, generic sounding instruments and mechanical sequencing. even white folk know this ain't jazz! no

usually when i tell people "don't bother" ... they don't. *shrug* (LT Edit: That's a no if I ever heard one. Don't count me out, either. NO)

no, and i'd have preferred not to hear that. neither tune is great, but... some poppy mess better than pure analoq groove? i think not!