APZX

This theme begs for some Supersaws me thinks.

Well my sub is up. Though I'll probably revisit the mix at least once or twice before the actual competition is over. Though in all honesty this is a really pretty theme and when I heard that main lead line I just could not for the life of me resist putting some kind of supersaw to it. In fact you might say I was in love with the notion. 

This theme begs for some Supersaws me thinks.

What gets me is synthesizers themselves. Take your beloved Sytrus for example. Right there you've got an incredibly powerful FM & Subtractive synth. Want bells? No problem. Want strings? No problem. Clean FM Bass? No problem. I mean the amount of sounds that are lurking inside of Sytrus is simply absurd. But contrast that with say the Roland Juno-60. There are tons of emulations of it available, but it is such a simple synth yet capable a very wide range of sounds. Synths like the Roland D-50 with its Linear Arithmetic synthesis engine to Yamaha's DX7 or even Casio's CZ1000 with its Phase Distortion synthesis. How can one not want to explore what they have on offer?Take the Oberheim SEM as an example. An incredibly simple synth, yet when you put 8 of them together you get the Oberheim 8-Voice.
What really got me thinking this way was Gordon Reid's excellent Synth Secrets. I try to let the synth tell me where I should take the sound. Sure, I might start off with the idea of trying to make a brass sound, but it could very quickly turn into some sonic mayhem of awesomeness. 

This is a lovely source because it is so simple structurally that it really leaves a lot open for interpretation. I mean I've got this really low key vibey sort of thing. Hoboka came up with this, dare I say, 70s-esque Sci-Fi take on it (really just missing that HF flutter honestly lol) that suits the material equally as well. Then you've got Starphoenix with something I'd hear in a low budget horror Sci-Fi flick (I mean that in the best way possible btw, I love cheesy Sci-Fi horror movies)! Absolutely, incredible the differences in approaches. 

This is a lovely source because it is so simple structurally that it really leaves a lot open for interpretation. I mean I've got this really low key vibey sort of thing. Hoboka came up with this, dare I say, 70s-esque Sci-Fi take on it (really just missing that HF flutter honestly lol) that suits the material equally as well. Then you've got Starphoenix with something I'd hear in a low budget horror Sci-Fi flick (I mean that in the best way possible btw, I love cheesy Sci-Fi horror movies)! Absolutely, incredible the differences in approaches. 

Yeah HoboKa got me squared away. Never noticed that little "x" there. Same song just trimmed off the excess silence. 

^ Like he said.  Also I replied to your PM APZX, lemme know if you need any help in regards to submitting.  

I haven't posted or been on here in months, so I don't care if I get banned at this point; therefore, I'm just gonna go ahead and be straight up
What you're really asking here is, "If I give up on realism and half-ass it, will people still be willing to pay me money?" The answer, generally, is no. Not unless they really like your music specifically.
For every good indie game with a retro soundtrack, there are a lot more that use the "retro" shtick as an excuse for having shit visual fidelity and dated gameplay and hope that equally dated music will be cost effective and people will give it a pass because "it's retro". Most worthwhile modern chiptunes actually have pretty slick production values with a pseudo lo-fi sound.
What most people don't realize, is that the old soundtracks were as memorable and effective as they were because the composer had to know his/her stuff. Due to a severely limited number of voices on the soundchips of yore, composers relied on (masterfully written) polyphonic scores to create flowing music; they had a solid grasp on melody. It's not like now, where you can buy an M-Audio Keyboard, an expensive sample library and hold down some block chords, pound some drums and string ostinatos like everyone's favourite film composer who dumbed Hollywood Orchestras down to a pop band playing through string and horn ensembles — fuck the woodwinds.
My point is, there is a market for retro scores, but it's more in being able to write in that style with a limited number of voices than in a dated sound. If you're aiming to make money by specializing in retro scores, just be sure you're music is closer to Yoko Shimomura than Hans Zimmer and don't expect lo-fi to give you a pass.
 
 

My space after recently getting around to actually setting it up. Not complete, but it works for the moment. 
Starting off with the DAW itself. A couple of HP ZR22w monitors, Neumann KH120A for monitoring, a Drawmer MC2.1 monitor controller, Focusrite Saffire Pro 24, and a pair of VU Meters from Crookwood. The computer itself is a custom built rig (i7 4770k, 32GB RAM, GTX 780, 256GB SSD, 2TB HDD, 2x 1TB HDD, in a Fractal Design Define R4). You can see the side of it on the bottom left. It is a really plain looking computer. However, when I turn around is when things get fun. 

Two tier keyboard stand with a Roland SH-201 and a Korg DS-8 (this thing actually needs work: new battery, keybed cleaned due to some sticky keys, Sysex dump, etc . . .)

Synth rack! From top to bottom: Korg Radias, Roland D-110, 2x Yamaha TX81z, Korg TR Rack, E-MU Pro/Cussion, and finally an Access Virus Rack at the very bottom.

Other synth rack, well more like a single synth and a patchbay (currently unutilized as I need to think of the best way to use it). The synth for this one is a Vermona DRM1 mkIII.

Synth table!!! So, at the bottom is a 22-space Synthesizers.com Modular. Pretty much the Studio 22 one except with the addition of a Q167 LFO++ Module for a bit more modulation options. The top left is a Ladyada x0xb0x (TB-303 clone). Currently attached to it is a ProCo Rat for some Acid. I also have a Boss MT-2 that isn't pictured, but it is chilling to the right of the Alesis QX25. In the middle is a Dave Smith Instruments Mopho. 

You could see just a little bit of this guy in the last picture, but this is my mixer a 40+4 Channel SoundCraft Series Two (nicknamed Priscilla by the person who helped me to lift it because it weighs about 150lbs or 68kg and is the better part of 5ft wide or 1.5m). To my ears, generally neutral, pretty quiet, and ample headroom (can handle more level than my converters). 

And behind me is basically the DAW. Though I forgot to snag a picture of it, the rack between the mixer and keyboard stand is a processing rack. From top to bottom: Alesis MIDIVerb IV (Multi-effects), Kurzweil Rumour (basically a reverb machine), 2x Symmetrix CL-150 (compressors), Alesis 3630 (compressor), Alesis MicroVerb III (multi-effects), ART Pro VLA II (compressor), and finally a patchbay that is being used . . , yay? Under the mixer are its power supplies. And no you don't want to know the amount of cabling that went into this. All synths are controlled via MIDI and to do that I'm utilizing an Alyseum AL-88c which is behind the modular. And this is also why I haven't been working on my track Odai (sorry ). 

My space after recently getting around to actually setting it up. Not complete, but it works for the moment. 
Starting off with the DAW itself. A couple of HP ZR22w monitors, Neumann KH120A for monitoring, a Drawmer MC2.1 monitor controller, Focusrite Saffire Pro 24, and a pair of VU Meters from Crookwood. The computer itself is a custom built rig (i7 4770k, 32GB RAM, GTX 780, 256GB SSD, 2TB HDD, 2x 1TB HDD, in a Fractal Design Define R4). You can see the side of it on the bottom left. It is a really plain looking computer. However, when I turn around is when things get fun. 

Two tier keyboard stand with a Roland SH-201 and a Korg DS-8 (this thing actually needs work: new battery, keybed cleaned due to some sticky keys, Sysex dump, etc . . .)

Synth rack! From top to bottom: Korg Radias, Roland D-110, 2x Yamaha TX81z, Korg TR Rack, E-MU Pro/Cussion, and finally an Access Virus Rack at the very bottom.

Other synth rack, well more like a single synth and a patchbay (currently unutilized as I need to think of the best way to use it). The synth for this one is a Vermona DRM1 mkIII.

Synth table!!! So, at the bottom is a 22-space Synthesizers.com Modular. Pretty much the Studio 22 one except with the addition of a Q167 LFO++ Module for a bit more modulation options. The top left is a Ladyada x0xb0x (TB-303 clone). Currently attached to it is a ProCo Rat for some Acid. I also have a Boss MT-2 that isn't pictured, but it is chilling to the right of the Alesis QX25. In the middle is a Dave Smith Instruments Mopho. 

You could see just a little bit of this guy in the last picture, but this is my mixer a 40+4 Channel SoundCraft Series Two (nicknamed Priscilla by the person who helped me to lift it because it weighs about 150lbs or 68kg and is the better part of 5ft wide or 1.5m). To my ears, generally neutral, pretty quiet, and ample headroom (can handle more level than my converters). 

And behind me is basically the DAW. Though I forgot to snag a picture of it, the rack between the mixer and keyboard stand is a processing rack. From top to bottom: Alesis MIDIVerb IV (Multi-effects), Kurzweil Rumour (basically a reverb machine), 2x Symmetrix CL-150 (compressors), Alesis 3630 (compressor), Alesis MicroVerb III (multi-effects), ART Pro VLA II (compressor), and finally a patchbay that is being used . . , yay? Under the mixer are its power supplies. And no you don't want to know the amount of cabling that went into this. All synths are controlled via MIDI and to do that I'm utilizing an Alyseum AL-88c which is behind the modular. And this is also why I haven't been working on my track Odai (sorry ). 

My space after recently getting around to actually setting it up. Not complete, but it works for the moment. 
Starting off with the DAW itself. A couple of HP ZR22w monitors, Neumann KH120A for monitoring, a Drawmer MC2.1 monitor controller, Focusrite Saffire Pro 24, and a pair of VU Meters from Crookwood. The computer itself is a custom built rig (i7 4770k, 32GB RAM, GTX 780, 256GB SSD, 2TB HDD, 2x 1TB HDD, in a Fractal Design Define R4). You can see the side of it on the bottom left. It is a really plain looking computer. However, when I turn around is when things get fun. 

Two tier keyboard stand with a Roland SH-201 and a Korg DS-8 (this thing actually needs work: new battery, keybed cleaned due to some sticky keys, Sysex dump, etc . . .)

Synth rack! From top to bottom: Korg Radias, Roland D-110, 2x Yamaha TX81z, Korg TR Rack, E-MU Pro/Cussion, and finally an Access Virus Rack at the very bottom.

Other synth rack, well more like a single synth and a patchbay (currently unutilized as I need to think of the best way to use it). The synth for this one is a Vermona DRM1 mkIII.

Synth table!!! So, at the bottom is a 22-space Synthesizers.com Modular. Pretty much the Studio 22 one except with the addition of a Q167 LFO++ Module for a bit more modulation options. The top left is a Ladyada x0xb0x (TB-303 clone). Currently attached to it is a ProCo Rat for some Acid. I also have a Boss MT-2 that isn't pictured, but it is chilling to the right of the Alesis QX25. In the middle is a Dave Smith Instruments Mopho. 

You could see just a little bit of this guy in the last picture, but this is my mixer a 40+4 Channel SoundCraft Series Two (nicknamed Priscilla by the person who helped me to lift it because it weighs about 150lbs or 68kg and is the better part of 5ft wide or 1.5m). To my ears, generally neutral, pretty quiet, and ample headroom (can handle more level than my converters). 

And behind me is basically the DAW. Though I forgot to snag a picture of it, the rack between the mixer and keyboard stand is a processing rack. From top to bottom: Alesis MIDIVerb IV (Multi-effects), Kurzweil Rumour (basically a reverb machine), 2x Symmetrix CL-150 (compressors), Alesis 3630 (compressor), Alesis MicroVerb III (multi-effects), ART Pro VLA II (compressor), and finally a patchbay that is being used . . , yay? Under the mixer are its power supplies. And no you don't want to know the amount of cabling that went into this. All synths are controlled via MIDI and to do that I'm utilizing an Alyseum AL-88c which is behind the modular. And this is also why I haven't been working on my track Odai (sorry ). 

So I did understand you right, and so my answer to:
" Do I only hear the left or right panning? "
Is the same; you will hear just one of the channels. Suppose you lose the right channel, all you will hear is just a mono signal of what's in the left channel. When the sound from the Canvas is hard panned to the right, there will be no sound at all. When it's panned to the left, it's the loudest. 
You need to wrap your head around the fact that there really isn't such a thing as left or right in signals. Stereo RCA out is two cables carrying separate mono signals. One is the "left", one is the "right". Panning the Canvas sound is just changing the volume balance between the two mono signals. You're shoving 2 mono signals via one connector into 1 mono input on the Behringer, and so one of them gets cut out. Let me say that again.
You're shoving 2 mono signals via one connector (the 1/8" jack) into 1 mono input on the Behringer, and so one of them gets cut out.
TO CONTRAST, the line-in on your computer knows how to process both of those channels. It is different from the Behringer.
I'm not sure how to make this clearer at this point. There's only so much an explanation will do for you, you have to actually play with the technology to see it working. Would you like me to make a diagram for you? Would that help?'

P.S. Don't tell me how to use the forums. I don't post here just for you, I post for everyone.

 
 
Also, WHY are you using an audio interface and then just putting it into your computer's line-in anyway? That doesn't make any sense. That just brings the noise back. There's a USB cable on the back of the Behringer. You hook it up to your computer via USB and have FL Studio read the audio directly from the Behringer box. I think the reason for the confusion is that you're trying to record into this box and then direct monitor the Canvas sound straight towards the Behringer's outputs and then fire that out of the box into another cable into your computer's line in. It's unnecessary.
Eliminate the computer line-in entirely, that's what you need to do.

If he adhered to the EBU R128 loudness standards then his music should sound mostly quiet.  That specification leaves a very wide dynamic range and if it's music, which often has a very consistent level throughout, then the music would be mastered quite low compared to other music you're accustomed to--that specification actually encourages you to turn your volume up so that levels are well represented (quiet sounds quiet, loud sounds loud, etc.)--like the CALM Act, the specification is designed to make audio programming that has very little dynamic range (or highly compressed audio as is the case with commercial breaks) very quiet--this helps it maintain consistency with dynamic programming like a film or TV show.

As I think more about this particular question I feel that some more information should be on offer than there currently is in the thread.
So, as I said I don't really notice much of a difference in the way digital EQs sound. That is pretty much universally true for me. That doesn't mean that there isn't a difference. I personally despise the way linear phase EQs sound and so I don't use them despite having Pro-Q and Equilibrium from DMG Audio. They both are capable of linear phase with the proper PDC reporting to the DAW. However, I don't like how the filter rings equally and what that does to the spectral balance of a signal. But that is just me personally, and that doesn't mean I haven't found a need or use of that in a mix from time to time. That is something that PEQ2 simply cannot do. So, for utility purposes with complex material having an extremely flexible, powerful, and clean sounding EQ is something everyone should have in their toolbox. Otherwise as long as the developer gave enough attention to HF filters in relation to Nyquist then pretty much any Parametric EQ will sound the same with the primary difference being functionality. 
As an example of functionality between PEQ2 & Pro-Q real quick. If I want to change the Left channel of a sound only using PEQ2 then I have to mult out the part into two separate entities and treat just that side with an EQ. This is something that I can do completely internally with Pro-Q. Though the need to do something like this is pretty rare, but what about M/S? Pro-Q can do that without needing additional plugins. That right there is extremely useful functionality. 
Now, you may perhaps being wondering about so called "modeled" EQs as you've probably read about them. Well, supposedly the EQ I use a lot, Nomad Factory's NEQ-1972, is a modeled EQ. In certain situation flipping the "vintage" switch does alter the sound a positive way, but more often then not I don't hear a difference. But I've got more than one modeled EQ. There is Pulse-Tec EQ which is a Pultec with the mid range EQ part as well. This is a digital EQ that just doesn't quite sound like a normal EQ, which it shouldn't given that it has a tube makeup stage in the real unit as the actual EQ section is passive (at least IIRC the basic topology). Most of the time with this just putting it on something makes it sound better. No EQ is even necessary. However, you can perform the classic Pultec trick with it for bass or kicks, and it sounds fantastic doing it. Though the reason for this is that this EQ models saturation.
Yeah there are differences in digital EQs sure. But honestly for the most part if you're just using a parametric EQ you should be able to achieve most anything you want with it short of an EQ that models saturation. Then you're kind of SOL with just a parametric EQ as that isn't something they do. 
A quick tip on EQs to make them sound more natural or more like they're analog counterparts. Most of the time when it comes to boosting try wider bandwidths. For some reason our ears are extremely sensitive to even a minor increase. If you ever look at the transfer curves for passive EQs you'll find that the Q of the filters in them is proportional in that the more gain is applied the narrower the filter gets. Now, if you're cutting start with narrower cuts in the first place. A lot of old EQs actually have asymmetrical boost & cut transfer curves. We're not nearly as sensitive to cuts as boosts and as a result you can get away far more when cutting than boosting.
Do you need a fancy, shiny, super featured Parametric EQ? Not really.  Are they handy to have around? Very much so. Do you need a modeled EQ? Not really. Are they handy to have around? Very much so. I guess that is kind of the point of my post here. You don't really need a fancy EQ, but there can be advantages to working with an EQ that has a fixed set of bands & frequencies as they can be faster to work with (I'm in this camp). Certain kinds of modeled EQs do wonders for certain things. There is a reason the Pultec is famous and Pultec models will show you why. They're super smooth and big sounding. Seriously, give a try to some of the modeled EQs out there. OverTone DSP offers a free demo on their Pultec emulation, the PTC-2A. A very sweet sounding EQ in general to try is TDR VoS SlickEQ. If you want to try a great sounding free program EQ give BaxterEQ from VoS a try. Just start trying and see what you think. 

Eh the differences between most any digital EQ simply comes down to functionality rather than sonic qualities. For the most part you can emulate any digital EQ with a fully parametric EQ. Just how it goes. Though there is something to be said for the speed at which you can use an EQ to do what you need. For the most part I don't use fully Parametric EQs when I mix, I typically use Nomad Factory's NEQ-1972 which is like a Neve 1081 EQ. I just like how fast I can dial in what I need with it rather than to get all fiddly with the various settings of a fully parametric EQ. Though I do use Parametric EQs when I need to get in and do something cleanly or surgically. For those situations I use ReaEQ for more general stuff and Pro-Q for the more advanced stuff. 
Just find something you're comfortable using and go from there. If you like to be speedy with EQ then perhaps looking at an EQ that isn't fully parametric may be beneficial. Something free would be BootEQ from VoS. It isn't a surgical EQ by any means, but it has a good overall sound and surprisingly flexible. If you like the way it flows over using a fully parametric EQ then you should try and explore different EQ plugins. But sonically? I've never noticed a big difference between EQs except in the bands and how they react to the sound. Compressors on the other hand I have a lot more to say, but that isn't the question at hand.
Use the digital EQ that sounds good to you and jive with.

Metroid!
Some of the sound design is rather simple, intro lead, bass, and snare in particular. There's also more complex sounds, creating a disparity between them. Best example of this might be around 5 minutes in, with the bass being simple and the other things more complex.
The arrangement is cool, but feels a little stretched thin. Could be a minute or two shorter (says the guy who made an 8+ minutes track for the DKC3 album). Some really cool original touches in here. 4:36 brings in some really cool original writing. Then there are parts than seem more like filler, like 4:50-5:05. Something about the sound design around there brings to mind the more lush and wet Metroid Prime tracks.
I've got two ideas for you to try, if you're interested in some experiments that might help you improve the track and your remixing in general (make sure to do this on a copy of the remix so you don't lose what you've got so far). 1 - Redo the sound design as chiptune, to make things really simple, and work on the arrangement without being distracted by the sound design. You can also try all piano (except drums, obviously), or something else to help you get at the arrangement without distractions. 2 - Disable all the effects to get at the sounds themselves, and redo the simple/complex category sounds to make things more cohesive. Then redo the mix.
Cool stuff.

All right!
- What if you added a slight filter envelope on the choir-like pad you start using in the beginning?
I hadn't considered that, but at some different points I had considered doing something similar. I'll give it a go, actually what might work in a more interesting fashion is to use a shelving filter and slowly open up through the intro. I have a couple of other thoughts I could do to make it a little more interesting, but this just confirms a suspicion I had. 
- Is there any way you can make the bells near 1:27 more tonal? Or are they just something textural for the background?
They're more textural in nature, but I can make them more melodious with some layering. At least little bits and pieces that way. I have to be careful with what I add or I might find things getting to melodically dense. Most of the things I've added have been more for texture rather than melody. However, there are certain moments that come & go that I feel need something more. Perhaps giving some melody here or there will really help. 
- The repeated bass pattern repeats a lot. That's really what I'm most concerned about. But you do have some variation on the bass in the second half which helped (for instance, near 5:10).
You and me both. As you noticed I did do some switch up towards the end. I'll work on it and try and come up with some more variations. The thing is that I really don't want to overdo it either. In fact I'm finding that to be the really hard part about this. Even a small change typically has a very dramatic effect on something I didn't want it to. Another thing I'm really concerned about that you didn't mention is the perucssion. It is for the most part the exact same thing all through the track. 
- How about a space-like sweep at 3:24 if you have one? One example I can think of is the one used for this track at 0:21. I heard some sort of sweep there, but I think it could be more obvious. The later instances of that sweep you have now, though, I would keep, though maybe you can thicken the tone up a bit with some slight distortion?
I could totally do something like that. In fact I even have an idea for it. Actually this is a legitimately good idea. Though I'm gonna try and make it a bit unsettling or creepy sounding because that is the whole point of that section. But even so you've given me an idea.
- 3:59 can have a transition, so some sort of long reverse can work (like a cymbal, noise sweep, etc), and whatever else you may think fits if you add that reverse.
I did something in another track that would probably work here too. In that it builds up to almost a cacophony of sound and then drops to silence essentially. I was already starting to kind of lean this way because I feel that whole section afterwards needs something to better transition it to the end. 
Pacing is something I'm concerned about. That is part of the reason for the entire build up to the breakdown. I mean honestly I think there is good flow up the breakdown honestly. There are other issues of course with that section, but I don't feel like it has anything to do with pacing. The real problem I'm having is trying to fill out that second half with something that not only separates it from the from the first half, but also stands perfectly fine on its own. And this is where I feel the majority of the pacing issues stem from. The front half of the track flows well, but that second half doesn't flow nearly as well. 
As a quick aside. I know the mix right now has a multitude of issues, but I actually compose & mix at different stages. The overall track will sound different tonally before I'm done. Right now I'm just focused on getting the flow, instrumentation, and voicing where I want it. 
Thank you kindly sir!

I started a few days ago on a remix of
.
 
I decided to go a bit on the more atmospheric side of things. The remix borrows heavily from the source but I found that stretching out the main chords while maintaining the original timing of other instruments makes for an almost totally different feel to the piece. I've still got a lot of work to do and I'm only on my second revision to the track right now.
 
Listen or download rev 2
Listen or download rev 3
Listen or download rev 4
Listen or download rev 7
Listen or download rev 8
Some things I know I need to work on already:
- The percussion is pretty minimal and I need to put some more variation in there; i.e. a few more individual elements and change up the patterns. *Something I noticed about the bass as well is that keeping these fairly minimal and the same adds a certain hypnotic quality I feel* **Some slight changes here mainly for accenting certain points in the first half**
- The bass while I mostly like still needs work. Right now it is Synthmaster Player but I really want to change it to something else, but that is going to necessitate building a new sound from scratch. Just not something I'm in the mood for currently. Additionally, I really need to vary the pattern a bit more. *Changed the sound up, but haven't changed the pattern. It seems kind of hypnotic keeping it the same throughout the track* **Again some slight accenting, but primarily adding some more movement as it were in the second half of the track**
- The main pads while exactly what I want I almost feel there is something else missing. Haven't figured out what yet. Thinking some pumping synth strings at certain times would be a great addition. Possibly a full on arp to add more texture. Have experimented, but nothing I've tried I really like.
- I realize there is distortion at a few points. Haven't figured out what it is and probably has more to do with the individual instruments. 
- Mix has a billion issues, but it will change quite dramatically before I'm fully done with this. Any suggestions on things to try to make it an interesting listen would be appreciated. 
- The breakdown I want to make it more unsettling, but haven't decided on how yet. Really need to ramp up the volume of that section as it goes on though. *Did some changes here and feel pretty good about it now*
 
So, yeah still long ways to go, but definitely turning out to something interesting yet. Let me know what you think.

Timaeus222,
I got that you were simplifying, but when the way you simplified it doesn't make any sense because it doesn't have anything to do with that. In general the knee of compressor can really be thought of like a car accelerating. You start at zero and then reach your desired speed. The ratio starts off at 1:1 and then gradually ramps up whatever you specified for the ratio. 
Also, I wasn't saying you're were calling compression evil. It just seems that a lot of folks view compression as an evil thing, and that makes a lot of people hesitant to use it. I wasn't talking about you and the overcompression issue you pointed out (which I do agree on) or anyone else for that matter. It was merely a comment to try and encourage the use of compression in a responsible manner

I gotta say this is quite a bit of fun. Great mood, energy, feeling, etc . . .. Instruments are well recorded, the spectrum is quite nicely filled out. I mean there really isn't a lot to complain about in those regards. Everything is discernible in the mix. Having said that I feel that mix falls a bit short. There are certain moments that are simply fantastic like 1:16 - 1:36, 1:39 - 2:04, 2:09 - 2:16 as just a few examples. Everything just gels and it just works fantastically. However, there are moments where the track just doesn't live up to those like 2:19 - 2:27 or 3:42 - 4:22. The mix falls in on itself at those moments. The drums lose all their power & impact. It is at those moments you want the track to really come out and be driving. It is clearly evident by how they're played. I'd be more forgiving if there was more going on that required more spectrum & power. But really that isn't the problem. The way this is composed & voiced tells me that this shouldn't be the case. Just my observations.
 
But seriously this is a really fun cover. Lots of great moments and honestly I can mostly overlook the mixing bits (there is quite a bit more than what I commented on, but that is neither here nor there right now) because it is just that much fun. 
 
Edit - Seriously, this track is so good I can almost overlook the mixing issues. That is really saying something for me.

I gotta say this is quite a bit of fun. Great mood, energy, feeling, etc . . .. Instruments are well recorded, the spectrum is quite nicely filled out. I mean there really isn't a lot to complain about in those regards. Everything is discernible in the mix. Having said that I feel that mix falls a bit short. There are certain moments that are simply fantastic like 1:16 - 1:36, 1:39 - 2:04, 2:09 - 2:16 as just a few examples. Everything just gels and it just works fantastically. However, there are moments where the track just doesn't live up to those like 2:19 - 2:27 or 3:42 - 4:22. The mix falls in on itself at those moments. The drums lose all their power & impact. It is at those moments you want the track to really come out and be driving. It is clearly evident by how they're played. I'd be more forgiving if there was more going on that required more spectrum & power. But really that isn't the problem. The way this is composed & voiced tells me that this shouldn't be the case. Just my observations.
 
But seriously this is a really fun cover. Lots of great moments and honestly I can mostly overlook the mixing bits (there is quite a bit more than what I commented on, but that is neither here nor there right now) because it is just that much fun. 
 
Edit - Seriously, this track is so good I can almost overlook the mixing issues. That is really saying something for me.

Sorry, I couldn't submit a bonus track. Work has simply been killing me lately. This is my first bit of time to kind of have to myself. I do find it interesting that Big Blue was chosen over Gloomy personally. I voted and found some really nice gems in here. Overall great stuff and best of luck to all the entrants.
 
Even though I didn't submit a track I do offer this which is a cover I did about 5 months ago with some hardware.

Timaeus,
 
That opening brass sound is drenched in ValhallaVintageVerb already. I mean I can put more on it. The issue I think is that you're not hearing a lot of HF information in the reverb, which is completely intentional because I find too much HF in the reverb can be as bad as excessive HF distortion. 
 
I realize that the arp is clashing with the pad & brass sound harmonically. I'm not sure if I want to keep it the way it is, fix it, or make the clashing lesser but almost more sinister like. 
 
I do like the idea of fading the kick back in during the second half of the track, but I think it might be more interesting to shelf the low end back in with just a tiny bit of volume fading. That could actually be pretty interesting. 
 
You are right that the opening isn't elaborate. Really overall the track isn't elaborate at all, and it really isn't meant to be. The thing I'm having problems with is finding which instruments that I can add that keep it sparse yet full at the same time because I want it to seem that it is sparse & is not elaborate. That is the real tricky thing to do. I mean I could go ahead and throw in another dozen or more layers to the sound no problem, but then it would turn into this dense thing that doesn't do anything interesting. I'm honestly starting to think at this point that I need to start thinking about little background FX details, as I have none right now. And I really need to change up the bass sound the more I listen to it. You say deep analog bass, huh? Hmmm, I might be able to do something with that. More things for me to consider.