APZX

I would have preferred that the piano been a bit more dynamic with the notes. Just the way it is played really does not appeal to me too much. The violin though is really muted sounding. Now, I have mixed a few tracks with electric violins in them and I have always found that the DI version of them is crazy nasally and just plain unpleasant to listen to. So, my question is where did all the high end go? Was it LPFed out or something (kinda sounds like that)? If you were concerned with just how nasally it sounds then this is a place where HF limiters really come in handy (think De-essers). Pair that up with some generous dynamic controls and aggressive EQ and I think you'd be surprised how it might turn out. Anyway, for this it sounds like some HF limiting followed by some HF shelving would be a good direction to go. The other thing you should be mindful of is the different spaces these two instruments are occupying. The reverbs are completely different sounding which kind of threw me for a minute until I realized that is what you had done. Instead of putting the piano in the left channel and the violin in the right channel why not try have a really wide sounding piano (i.e. the low notes are very much cemented in the left and the high notes are very much centered in the right) and then put the violin in the center. Take out some of the bottom end of it and leave more the high end and take out some the high end from the piano. I think it would help with balancing out the track some and make the mix a little bit more interesting. Just my thoughts though. At any rate this is incredibly enjoyable to listen to though regardless. The entire time I've been typing this I've been listening to the track essentially on repeat. So, yeah just a genuinely fun listen.

If you're having issues with the percussion coming in too hot then the solution would be to to put a pad between the mic and the pre. However, since you're using a USB mic I have no idea how you would go about it. Also, if you're having issues with too much "pop" for lack of a better word then a pop filter might be of use. However, those are typically utilized with vocalists to mitigate the issues caused by plosives. Two different takes and hard panning is a classic mixing technique. Go listen to honestly most any rock song and you'll hear it. Even useful in the digital domain with synths. Two similar synth sounds hard panned can create an interesting timbre and widen up the mix a bit. Granted I was more talking about the guitar, but you know how things go. For noise removal I'd suggest you actually leave like 10 - 30 seconds before you actually start playing completely blank or at the end. Then you can use that time to create a noise profile and Audacity has a noise removal tool in it. Just be careful with it as it can cause unwanted side effects. So, just be a bit careful.

Good playing! The biggest thing I noticed is the extraneous noise from the recording. Have you tried noise canceling out some of it? Also, do not be afraid to get a little heavy handed with the EQ to make the instruments more distinct and stronger sounding. Also, rather than utilize delays try recording two separate takes. One which will go into the left channel and another which will go into the right. I personally like the percussion quite a bit. Though the kick and snare could definitely use some help. They are pretty anemic sounding honestly. Also, be more forceful with that flute. If it is too dynamic to control in the mix there are ways to cope with that after the fact which you'd barely even notice.

Interesting bit this is. I do love harpsichords though so you got some love from me. I can hear everything which is a good sign for a mix. However, I feel there is a distinct lack of presence. Everything is just kind of pushed back rather than having a section or two come into the foreground for the movements. Also, I'm not 100% what the instrument is but it sounds a bit like a flute or piccolo that is actually kind of juxtaposed in there which makes for a slightly distracting bit as it just does not mesh well with the established instruments or space you have. Fun listen though.

Long weekends for me typically mean a lot of boredom and sometimes with that boredom I decide to muck around with music. Though long weekends also typically have the side effect of me not feeling all that . . ., awesome. So, I decided to relive my youth a little bit and try to capture some of that . . ., awesome by remixing a track that always made me feel like a total badass. is the original track. Short and full of that . . ., awesome.A Stroll to a Run (WIP) download & listen link. I'm still working out a lot of things and I know the mix is kind of terrible but that is how it goes sometimes. It will most definitely be cleaned up when the composition is finished. The idea is just to get well the ideas down. Edit - All righty then folks got the composition finished. follow the link to listen & download. Edit no. 2 - Well I think this is going to be pretty close to the final version of the mix. However, it has yet to be mastered. Need to get on that I do, but also I need to sit on the mix for a day or two to really get a feel for whether I like it. Follow the link to listen & download. Edit no. 3 - Well okay folks this last link is to the final form of this track. Fully mastered and sounding as tight as it will ever. Link to listen & download.

80s - 90s synths, eh? Well I don't have an exhaustive list, but here are some real hardware synths you could check from that era. Yamaha DX-7/DX-7S/DX-7IID/DX-7IIFD FS1R TX-802 TX-816 TX-81z (I personally have two of them and love them) AN1x Roland: Jupiter 4/6/8 Juno 6/60/106 JP8000/8080 SH-101 TB-303 TR-606/707/808/909 JD-800/990 Alpha Juno I/II D-10/20/50/70 MKS series (there are a lot) JX-3P/8P/10P Korg: MS-10/20/50 Poly 61/61Mc Poly 800 Polysix Mono/Poly M1 Trident DW-6000/8000 DS-8 And there are a ton more. That is more or less what I can recall from memory. But there is also stuff like the E-MU stuff, Sequential Circuits, Oberheim, ARP, Ensoniq, Akai, Fairlight, Jen Electronics, Linn electronics, Moog, Oxford Synthesizer Company, Waldorf, Synton, Siel, and PPG. At least that is what I can remember for companies. There are seriously a ton of synths from around that time frame. You just have to explore the wonderful world of synths.

Wow, this sparked a debate. G-Mixer, Look the only reason you'll ever clip those low frequencies for the sake of turning up volume is if you're hard limiting. Simple as that, a DAW is perfectly fine and capable of producing a 20Hz sine at 0dBFS as it is a 20KHz sine at 0dBFS. It is the quest for loud that causes the clipping and is practically unavoidable due to the limitations imposed by most limiters. I see no reason why not to mix in sub ever. I will grant that HPFing 30Hz, 25Hz, 20Hz, heck even 40Hz occasionally can produce a truly monstrous sound. Increase in overall perceived level, higher overall RMS, etc . . .. But most of the time? Cutting those frequencies unless they're flabby sounding or feeling is basically pointless unless you absolutely need that extra level. Timaeus, 20 - 30Hz is mostly inaudible, yes. But as Neblix pointed out quite finely is that these freqs are not necessarily heard they're felt. In the situation you showed, I'd honestly have to hear it before I would decide to cut it or not. Though I would at the very least throw something at 20Hz because it looks like that is going to DC which can have issues. Now, it seems that I may have given the wrong impression of saying you need to keep those truly subsonic freqs. Never did I say I would keep them. All I said was I'd start there. Does that mean I'll keep them? Not if they sound wrong or are causing more issues than they're worth.

If that is the case then the real problem is in how the mix is approached and nothing to do with extra amount of sub info. Additionally, in the case of this particular track, a shelf at around 40-60Hz would not bring up a dramatic amount of subsonic frequencies anyway, and if it did eat away a significant amount of headroom then a simple 1-2 pole filter is all that is necessary to rectify the issue. The shelf would simply give a nice lift to the amount of sub there. If it were my composition, I'd either resynthesize the bass or add a simple sine wave in the sub freqs. Much like I stated before this is not so much the case. Clipping only happens when you go too far with limiters really. Excessive amounts of sub frequency can eat up a ton of headroom, but in reality there can be more than you might think. A relatively fine line to walk honestly.

Eh, that is only a problem if you lose excessive amounts of headroom. If you really want to have fun you can use bells down there and then shelf below ~30Hz. I also would not use a very steep filter down there either. The reason for that is with steep filters you can run into issues of it resonating or ringing which can end up increasing that bit too. A 1 or 2 pole at the appropriate freq is more than adequate in most situations.

Mostly agree with G-Mixer on the mix side of things, but the lead I don't feel really needs any more EQ. If it needs more just raise it a dB or two. I think you'd be surprised. But I don't think it is ultimately necessary. Okay, so yeah the left channel is definitely poking out more than it really should. EQ can most definitely help in evening it out. However, I would say take it a step further. Instead of EQ because it sounds fine just too loud I would lower the level 2-3dB and then send it to a delay with zero feedback (basically 1 echo), fully wet, with a little bit of HF and LF rolloff, at about a 1/16th or thereabouts. However, just make the level of it lower. This will not only alleviate the issue of it being pokey in the left channel but also give the track more width. If you don't want it quite so wide lower the delay time If you do not want it interfering with the synth rise in the beginning simply automate the send level. Now, for the kick. I would cut out in the 200-300Hz range by just 1-2dB and then give a sizable boost of 3-4dB around 5-7KHz to bring out some more of the click. Try that as a starting point. Adjust the freqs and cuts & boosts by what sounds right to you. For the bass I would actually straight mono it and drop it in the middle. Then I would add a shelf boost of 2-3dB around 40-60Hz to give the sub some more power. Then I would do a 1-2dB boost at about 2KHz and then roll off around 11KHz (LPF). Then I'd probably give it some light compression. Thinking something like a ratio of about 3:1, attack around 75ms and a release about 100ms with a threshold that would achieve about 4dB of GR. Then I'd personally sidechain it to the kick for a bit of a pump. Sounds like it already is sidechained too. But yeah I'd do that as a starting point.

So, I have wanted to do a remix of some of Outrun's music for some time and found some inspiration in Passing Breeze. The mix is still very rough around the edges, but the main composition is there. http://www.mediafire.com/listen/74cu8m8t73r0phj/Oceanic_Breeze_-_APZX_(WIP)_2.mp3 Edit - Bit of an update. Seeing as I was very bored today I did some mixing to the track. Much easier on the ears compared to original. http://www.mediafire.com/listen/kv6s9bn9ww3gmep/Oceanic_Breeze_-_APZX_(WIP)_3.mp3

Getting that bass and that kick to work together? In that track it is most definitely possible. Look into something called sidechaining. Just go to google and type in sidechaining and your DAW and it should be quite easy to find out how to do it. From there it will be tweaking.

Okay, some of my thoughts. Very wide bass such as you have right now can be difficult for sound systems to reproduce. Typically a compromise is struck where the higher frequency content of the bass is given the neato stereo effects while the very low end material is pretty much kept in mono. There is no real cutoff for about where it should happen, but try experimenting around the 100 - 200Hz range for the crossover point. That is only major issue I hear. Something else to be mindful of is the kick and the bass interaction. Right now the kick loses some of its low end punch when it plays against the bass too. This can be dealt with in a variety of ways. Letting the bass win, letting the kick win, playing with sidechaining, or any combination. It really depends on how you want the track to feel. Now, to some of the more subjective things (aka my straight up opinion). I personally like the how the lead sits, but some might think it is too quiet or not aggressive enough. I would personally think some simple EQ to brighten it up would deal with that. Except for the kick I think the drums could do with a bit more power. Everything sounds fine, just so underplayed and understated in the mix. Again EQ and some light compression would help give them more presence in the mix. Except for the bass everything else sounds really confined in the stereo field, which is an odd choice especially since at the beginning the entire track shifts its stereo image. To a degree you've got things happening in different places, but try to rely on just panning instruments and their effects differently rather than on stereo wideners. Also, that resonant synth on the right in the beginning really should be more audible when the rest of the track kicks in. As it is the sound just fades into the background.

The Lawnmower Man game is a strange thing to try and describe. Just better give a rather than to try and describe it honestly. You know, that kick was actually a gamble for me. It has a really powerful, clicky, transient with a short but very controlled sustain. All I did to it was a 40Hz 2dB low shelf lift with a 30Hz HPF. Normally, I'm all about the longer kicks. Funny you mention the fade in. It is an old classic technique, just using volume. I made a lot of Trance, up until about 3 yrs ago and gained some tricks as it were to introduce things. That particular introduction happens to be one of them. Sometimes looking back can inspire. The hat though, I think I may get what you're saying (though it does have reverb on it, in fact all the drums have reverb, yes even the kick). I wonder if it might be because the hat's sustain goes to the right a bit? See, I was actually worried that if I put in my typical sort of hat that I might be pushing the transients too harshly and wanted to contrast it a bit with something slightly softer. That could perhaps be it too. That last transition I actually agree with you, mostly. I wanted it to be slightly jarring because the original track always had this, off-putting quality to it. So, I thought that rather than having say a big push of noise or reverb it would be more fitting to just suddenly have everything going. Not all ideas pan out though But I do agree, mostly. I like the bell sound too Thanks for the listen though, really appreciate it.

This here is a pretty interesting blend of orchestra and electronic. I must admit that I was not quite sure initially about the track in the first 3 min, but then 5 seconds later I am quite surprised with a very enjoyable experience from that point forth. Actually, I have to admit that riser you use at 3:37 is pretty awesome. Additionally that transition leading to 5:52 was probably the best in the entire track. Close contender is the one at 5:05 though. The things that bothered in the grand scheme of the track are pretty small. In the intro, until the brass stab comes in there is no center image, granted the original had this too. Also, where you go on all Trance like, I personally really dislike that snare (I cannot put into words how much I dislike it lol). Also, about the first section at about 1:40 it just feels kind of boring. You go from this really big, atmospheric orchestral bit into a more full on electronic stage, but the only thing of any meaningful value there is a sawtooth melody. You get a much better idea at the end of the track about something you could do to make the section more interesting. The entire intro of the track is building up to that single part and it is just not capitalized on nearly enough. I expected something "huger" (excuse the butchering of English). The rest of this track is so darn epic and massive sounding that I only expected that section to carry on the theme. Though other than that this is a pretty darn awesome piece. Creative, epic, and just beautiful. My two cents on the track at any rate.

So, the game itself is a movie licensed title that is a lot like Contra, at least the SNES version is. Anyway, I always kind of liked the music in the game for some reason and I could never really come up with a way to re-interpret it that I liked. Then in a serious flash of inspiration I came up with the terribly named, Cyber Mower (linky). The track is based on the first few level's music, . Anyway, I personally feel that it might be too interpretive and liberal with the source so to speak. Would love to hear some thoughts on it though.

godsp3d, Hey thanks for the comment. I know it isn't perfect or such, but compared to my other stuff I think it is one of my better works honestly. I suppose the fact that it is the way it is might have something to do with the fact that I like longer tracks. I feel they give the artist more time to actually get the point across. However, I do understand where you're coming from. Oh and "ac nox ad umbras lucem misit." is Latin for "And night threw the light to the shadows." -APZX

All right I'm new here. I've experimented with video game remixes, but I haven't had much luck. But I'm always on the hunt for a possible song to remix. Anyways, when I'm not working or doing any of that other stuff that life encompasses I make Trance. I would appreciate it a lot if you could just tell me what you thought. Here is the link to SoundCloud. You can either listen to it on SoundCloud or download it from there too. Your choice. Thanks, -APZX