timaeus222

Control Change. http://nickfever.com/402/production-tips-and-resources/midi-cc-list/

I'm the same way; I stray away from using MIDIs and just write by ear. MIDIs are more suited for the instruments they were originally written for, and so I write what I think best fits the instruments I choose.

In a way, this is a pretty comical/funny ReMix.

Are you asking about creating a wall of sound, because that's what it sounds like. I personally use the section patches, mainly (i.e. patches with recordings of multiple exact-same instruments together). I panned them and put reverb on them, made a short test piece, and saved it as a template. I wouldn't recommend trying to layer individual instruments (aka solo patches) because they're recorded and mixed way differently than section (or ensemble, alternatively) patches are. The solo patches are generally more exposed and more upfront (more close-miced, but not necessarily drier in terms of reverb, afaik), with a more revealing, occasionally more intimate tonal character than are entire section recordings. They're made to play some sort of leading role by default, so they take more effort to make sit in the mix well than section patches. Reverb is definitely important; it helps to make use of Decay Time, Predelay, Attack, Spread, Room Size & Width, Diffusion, Density, etc. to place specific orchestral sections in certain spots, depth-wise. Picture As for making them sound more full, yeah, I do some particular EQ and a little careful compression, but it helps more to layer various articulations to simulate the variety of timbre variations that go on at once in a real orchestra---even if some of the instrumentalists play the same articulation. But to really get an orchestra to sound realistic, you need rational automation of expression CC (tends to be CC11) to create volume "swells" and simulate the semi-randomness of human breath (or bowing) intensities. So overall, what makes an orchestral piece sound full... at least, in a quick, general, gist-of-it way: Section patches for harmonies, layering, and getting dat wall of sound Solo patches for occasional highlights and actual solo melodies Proper reverb and panning to emulate actual instrument positions and distances away from your location Automation or Modwheel event edits of expression CC (CC11) to create volume swells, simulating human breath (or bowing) intensities Some people might suggest multi-band compression on the Master channel; might be hard to do IMO depending on how much experience you have with them but it can work Maybe my decent example here can help for reference with the CC11.

This was way too enjoyable all the way through. Loved the stutters and vocoding (?).

Yeah, all the strings sound unrealistic; not just the contrabass. You have sustains playing short notes (and pretty much the rest of the notes). Conceptually it's nice, but the harmonies are strange and the tempo feels pretty rubato to me. Not bad, but the strings realism is unfortunate.

It's a pretty audible note; I just meant that it kind of stuck out in a place where I personally didn't feel like it fit in terms of where the melody ended up a few seconds earlier. Yeah, there we go; the volume is pretty good where it's at right now. The clap actually came up a bit (unless you actually raised its volume?), which is good. The kick feels good too, for most of it. The more dubsteppish part has a kick sample that's a touch too clicky (in a sense, it kinda sounds like someone pulled back on their finger and let it spring back onto a desk, or something similar) in my opinion, but it's not a big deal. If you felt like you wanted to address it, I think the stray frequency is probably within the 3600~6000Hz range. Overall, it might be perceived as a pretty straightforward interpretation in terms of the arrangement, and maybe a little repetitive, but I would think it's basically ready to be Mod Reviewed.

Yep, gotta take out the coin FX. Also, this doesn't sound too dubsteppish to me until quite a while in, where the genre was pretty minimalistically approached, IMO (seemingly undistorted wobbles, strapped to the main groove's rhythm, with a could-have-been-abrasive lead---which it wasn't, yay ). There's a weird note at 0:45, btw. That aside, the production feels dated. The dance clap feels flimsy, while the kick, though nice, can be punchier. Strangely enough, at 1:14 the kick is somehow too loud, or whatever it is that's playing there, so you should check the velocities there. The rimshot that comes in here and there is hard to notice, and could be increased in volume since it does introduce some variation in the drum rhythms. The whole ReMix overall sounds overcompressed and is definitely too loud. If you listen more closely at 3:08, it should be most clear right there that it's being pushed down pretty heavily by your limiter. Try lowering the overall volume on the individual instruments (not the master fader) until the peaking volume drops by about 2~3dB.

Sounds too texturally simple IMO until the wobble basses come in. Might be because the odd-harmonic lead is too loud. When the dubstep basses do come in, they kind of bury the lead sometimes (could do midrange scooping in the EQ), and the resonant quarter notes can get repetitive for some people (such as me). Also, the mix sounds pretty pushed in terms of loudness. It's about 50% louder than I would suggest it to be, and the kick drum isn't really punching through. The mixing is a bit abrasive overall. I also agree with Garrett that the buildups, or at least the first one, needed more. The first one just made me say, "when is this buildup going to be over? Hurry up, get to the next section." If you want a buildup that long, yeah, it's going to need more textural development throughout those 30 seconds. Maybe add some background risers, add some half note triplet snares, and just fill it out in general. By the time it gets to the main electro house sections, the buildups lose their momentum. --- The breakdown section was nice to have, but it almost feels neglected to me because the textures didn't really change; you just high passed some things and left out the heavy artillery. 3:27 almost sounds like a dubstep section, but then it switches back to electro house that quickly? Dunno why, because it actually helped break up the dynamics and lessen the repetition. Also, it's a small thing, but I think the drum rhythm in that part was somehow a little too swung, and it kind of sounds more sloppy than intentional, IMO. Overall, this can be in a good place if you fill in the spots where it's texturally sparse (including the buildups), vary the bass writing, tone down the uppermost treble a bit, and really embrace that breakdown section and do more with it. It's a pretty heavy genre, so it would help to add a lighter contrasting section than the one you have now to go easier on the ears, instead of being aggressive almost the whole time.

The EQ feels good to me, and I don't think the bitcrushing feels like clipping. I think the extra length on the dropoff in the middle helps the dynamic range. Basically, we needed a break from the main groove by the time we made it halfway through (which feels more progressive, I think). Also, at 1:59 - 2:08, I'm thinking the harmonies are a little strange. Don't be afraid to change a few notes to match moods, as long as the general melodic contour stays about the same. For example, in my entry, I used from Penelo and changed it to what it was at 1:11 in the ReMix.

Alright, let's see what's up. APZX seems like a pretty technical guy based on what he said here, so don't worry if it feels that way. Okay, so based on what you said here, I'm hearing the main issue. You said that you pan your low end (sub bass, bass, low-mids) to the right and high end (upper mids, presence, treble) to the left. That is, put euphemistically, unorthodox. Some instruments make sense to be narrow, some wide, some left, and some right. Just panning instruments of certain frequency ranges to the left or right is going to make things sound odd sometimes. One can argue that it could work for a live performance emulation, but this doesn't involve organic instruments (guitar, piano, etc.), so let's put that off to the side. Let's break down what instruments you have in here: 0:01 - 0:03: Left-panned, gated, sorta digital (or high-passed synth guitar-esque?) synth Right-panned phasered FM sweep Left-panned quiet kick drum (?) Left-panned hi hats 0:03 - 0:14: Center-panned dance-y kick drum Left-panned, gated, sorta digital synth (quieter) Right-panned phasered FM sweep (quieter) Slightly left-panned distant lead synth Wide bass (which is somehow more trebly on the right) 0:14 - End: Slightly left-panned (?) soft 80's arp (cool sound, by the way) With the mixing, I wouldn't personally feel the need to suggest really particular edits, since you might have somewhere near or over a year of experience based on how long it's been since you joined OCR, and doing a bunch of specific things can feel like adhering to someone else's personal preference, or maybe "so why am I doing this?". I would pan the bass back to the center. If it's too mono, then there's a chance for a gap in the piece's stereo space when you scan from left to right, so I would leave it simply centered, and just narrow it a little; just enough, so you can tell it's not wide, but not completely, so that it's not too narrow. The reason why is so that there's more horizontal room for sounds that are more suited for wider panning (there are some exceptions to keeping bass centered, one of them being dubstep bass occasionally being wide, but that's beside the point). The kick drum feels centered the whole time, which would be fine, though I'm not sure if there's another kick. The first 3 seconds seems to have a left-panned kick---unless it's the same one somehow and the treble frequencies weren't audible yet during the fade. It might be something else. Centering it helps to make it heard most often, considering this is a dance-like piece. I'd also pan the lead back to the center; it feels near 10~30% left at the moment, and as it is, it contributes to making the piece as a whole feel lopsided. I would additionally raise its volume, and leave it at that for now. We'll see how it sounds then. Putting it center garners more attention than if it was towards the left, similar to the reasoning for the kick drum. The FM sweep is barely audible (the gated synth is louder), so I would suggest either raising the volume on the FM sweep so that you can hear it alongside everything else, or just take it out if you want to make the gated synth on the left side louder and use that by itself instead. Personally, I would choose the gated synth, but whichever one you choose, try making a copy of its instantiation (cloning it), tweaking a few parameters to make it sound a bit different, then panning one instance left and one instance right (that way, there's less phase cancellation than if you panned the same exact sound left and right, and the sound remains intact). Alternatively, if your synth for the gated or FM synth has a Width knob, I would suggest raising it to 80~100%. It would do sort of the same thing, but with only one sound instance necessary. This widening makes use of the left and right, but not so awkwardly.

Heavy-hitting, slam-worthy, and pretty spot-on.

Yup, it's a lil electro-house-like too. But yeah, overall, I did like it.

Hehe, I think picking partners would make this too easy. I mean, I could just pick Nabeel, or Mr. Molina over thar who wants to fight for his Spectre Knight. I'd be all for a random match-em-up for people who happen to pick the same corresponding firsts/seconds/etc., or what you said, Shariq, about revising our picks if we want.

Sounds great! The only thing I'd say is that the bass feels a little unrealistic. Some of the moments with multiple repeated notes sounded mechanical, such as at 1:34 and 1:42, since those repeated notes sounded like the same round robin iteration. The mixing makes it blend into the soundscape enough IMO, so it's not that big a problem, but you may want to try out some more bass samples before sticking with one for this track. Maybe if you want, you could send me the BPM, and the MIDI for the bass, and I can send you a few sample-replacement WAVs?

so random Good laugh.

Neither did I (dude, you and I think alike, Garrett). That's just what I'm accustomed to doing because I've never badly needed those frequencies. Now, if I'm using sounds that contain those frequencies, then yeah, I'll keep in what I'm comfortable keeping in. Otherwise, it's a no for my purposes. Either way, going on about this would really be picking nits anyways. As for the remark about headphones not going down that far, I mentioned that because it's so common to see people listening to music on headphones or earbuds these days. At least where I live, soooo many people use Skullcandy and Beats headphones that I probably do internal facepalms every time. Oh, and APZX: Since I never really gave you the audio context, here it is: http://oi57.tinypic.com/33275e1.jpg corresponds with https://app.box.com/s/pqp2xdtfu6aj3o7mrqe6

Ideally, yes, unless you're in a situation like this, which as mentioned before, was possible in synthesized sounds. Even if it's a minimal shelf, it's really not necessary to have 20~30Hz left in a composition, because it's so inaudible, and additionally hard to mix properly without synthesized sounds since it would be optimal with a well-treated room, bass traps and all, and more-or-less flat-response subwoofers. Not to mention no headphones even produce frequencies that low accurately enough anyways. It's easier to leave it out (aside from synthesized sounds you trust, or samples from people like Spectrasonics, Impact Soundworks, etc., who know what they're doing with regards to providing sounds with polished low end) so you can mix as loudly as this.

Duuuuuuuuuuuuuude. I would say hell yes to that. =D

Shelving IS a problem when the song is turned up in volume, especially if you're boosting bass, so I still maintain exactly this---I would never recommend doing upwards shelving EQ in the bass. I just synthesize a bass with balanced low harmonics and use that because I can know exactly what I introduced into the sound. Steep filters have never created any issues for me, nor have they introduced any strange resonances. I never do upward shelving below even the midrange. In fact, I barely ever do substantial shelving EQ these days. However, if I were to do an upwards shelving in the bass AND additionally do a steep high pass near 30Hz, I would also increase the bandwidth of the HP so that it cancels out more of the low shelf than it would by default.

virt is on the move! 1. Spectre Knight 2. Propeller Knight 3. Polar Knight 4. Shield Knight Oh, and about what time span (length and dates) could this last? EDIT: Doubles, please. (Currently no teammate) Silently wanting to work with Will. *nudge* Maybe I could work with Nabeel? idk

That's going to boost frequencies below 20Hz. Even though you can't hear them, they might be there depending on the synthesis method (Comb filters often bring sub-20Hz frequencies, for example), and if there's too much, a sound can feel more compressed than usual. So, if you're going to do a shelving boost to raise the subs, I would highly recommend doing a steep high pass near 30Hz to shave off the really low subs and get some headroom.

This is some great progress! I think 0:43 works better now as a section without a super noticeable lead. I really liked the section at 1:08. It was a good dropoff from the high energy. Could use transitions here and there, but your dynamics are certainly improving. Looking at the stereo field in the older games (like for the SNES, GB, etc.), there wasn't much someone could do to make a soundscape with depth AND width because they stuck to simple synth tones, likely without a built-in width adjustment knob, so what they did was add panning for certain notes in arpeggios to make them feel more alive, and even occasionally sequenced in manual delays with repeated notes of decreasing velocities (to create a customized delay that might otherwise be much harder to do with a real plugin). I think that can help here, since a lot of the sounds you have feel vintage. Making more use of expression tricks such as portamento/glide, pitch bend, and vibrato can really add character and make up for the simplicity of these timbres. Looks like you're using FL Studio, so you can do the portamento and pitch bend (try double clicking an already-sequenced note) using any of the native FL VSTi's such as 3xOsc, Harmless, Sytrus, etc. If you're using mostly outside plugins, then hopefully those settings are available in those synths. If you listen closely to this (at 0:30), for example, the panning can make you feel like you're in the middle of an expansive soundscape. Or, if you listen to this, the vibrato and portamento on the lead sound can make it feel scarier than without it. And probably what still needs attention are the drum patterns. A lot of the Drum & Bass patterns here feel repetitive, and adding fills (snare rolls, open hi hats, tom rolls, etc.) and variations helps to get out of the conveyed ever-constant feel. Some might call it "plodding". Basically it sounds like drum patterns that are either very similar or exactly the same are being copied and pasted many times. Some examples of varied drums: http://ocremix.org/forums/showpost.php?p=970928&postcount=2

Nice production here. The resonant noise sweep that you used a few times suffered a little from YouTube's compression, but it's all good in the MP3 (maybe a little too bright/resonant compared to all the other sounds). Sorta straightforward of an interpretation, but good use of the stereo field to maximize the immersion during the less four-on-the-floor portions of the arrangement. I especially liked the ring-mod frequency automation at 3:04. Also, just a little note, but the kick sample you used seems like it can also work in dubstep.