timaeus222

Yep. Well... that's partially true, but you're thinking of it in a way that can be described like this: Let's say you do a volume measurement of something and there's a single random spike. Everything is at -10dB except for one spike that's at 0dB. You're saying that that is not loud overall, but it sounds like what you're really saying is that the stuff is not loud on average. While that's true, you'd be putting the 0dB spike to the side. If you zoom into the 0dB spike, select that portion, and loop it, it IS going to be loud; it's just sustained over a very short period of time. Hence, it doesn't sound quiet---it sounds loud relative to the quiet -10dB audio, and if you try to normalize it, nothing happens. If you don't look at your waveform for your audio, you may not notice that, and perhaps get confused on how to get it louder without clipping. Also, what you seem to be talking about with sub bass is "perceived" loudness. That's different for everyone, because if you have a different audio system, you're not going to hear the same loudness... at least, with this definition. Yeah, you can't hear sub bass, but it doesn't mean it's not making a sound and flooding your limiter. This "perceived" loudness is not exactly just the plain amplitude of the final result; it's more like how the amplitude changes relative to the rest of the audio. Jumping from -10dB to -2dB isn't quite as loud a perception as -30dB to -4dB, even though -4dB is quieter than -2dB. Additionally, it's based on how well the frequency spectrum is occupied. You can have flooded mixing and it'll sound loud. You can have pumped, compressed dance music and it'll sound loud. But the "real" way to sound loud (in a controlled way) is to layer carefully, making sure most things are distinguishable, levels are balanced, and the rise and fall of the audio is done tastefully. The frequency spectrum should be quite fully occupied in loud parts, otherwise a few instruments are just boosted too loudly. EX: This is louder than this, despite the fact that they both hit a 0dB limiter in the end. Yes, there is the consideration of "what if there was no limiter", but the point is, the layering in "Darkness" is more detailed and carefully done than in "Fiberoptics", and thus "Darkness" is substantially louder. ---------------- Yes, layering IS supposed to make things sound louder. Constructive interference. It's normal. Semi-basic physics. Add two waves, and crests that line up get taller after they add. Simple as that. Crests that line up with troughs cancel out and the taller of the two dominates the final result---if the crest is taller, then the result is a crest with an amplitude equal to the difference in their original amplitude magnitudes, and vice versa. No one makes DAWs that work towards making it harder for you to accomplish what you want. That's why there are beta testers and bug fixes.

Yeah, I think it does sound better! Or maybe I'm imagining things on the BD cover =P

The "dark metal romp" thing kinda gave it away Anyways, I figure the drums sound pretty metal. =P

I would just keep panning like a normal orchestra, but remember that some instruments should be more upfront than others. Trumpets are way in the back because they're naturally loud, and violins/violas/cellos are in the front because they're leading. You can simulate that with reverb predelay and attack. Moseph would have more insight into this.

Hm... I wonder if you used a microphone that recorded in mono (I know mine does ), because I think I'm hearing a slightly weird phasing, perhaps phase cancellation, when the violin recordings harmonize (this is not a big deal xD). I don't really know much about what microphones are good, but I think phasing happens less when layering similar stereo recordings because you can then literally stand to the left or right of the microphone and the way the sound compresses the air should sound different enough depending on how (bent over a little, leaning a little to the left, etc.) and at what angle from the microphone you stand. When you electronically pan, I think of it as you're panning/moving the whole signal to a side, but when you're in a room, the "panning" is just where you're standing, and however wide the reverberations are is set by the room size. In other words, DAW panning is kinda like... uh... moving your walls. Sidenote: sound travels by compressing the air, and the air next to that is stretched a bit, similar to a compression wave on a slinkie. I think the Japanese pronunciation sounds good. I had a friend who was into singing Japanese music in high school and she pronounced it similarly. The performance itself had some great expression, and I think it sounded good overall! Nice mixing on the piano! It's far enough in the back that the fakeness doesn't come through as much, but not so far back that the harmony it provides can't be heard.

Okay, so it seems like the drums are just four kicks with a snare on the 2 and 4 and some very subtle hi hats. Some more drum fills would lessen the repetition. So something like this is what I mean. You can add in more explicit open hi hats, subdivide the hi hats, put a snare off the beat, etc. The rising stab at 0:56 is pretty upfront, so that's what I keep hearing over everything else. Also, this just keeps plowing through with few transitions; 2:02 and 2:12 felt like they needed cymbals, 2:26 was sudden, etc. You have sections without drums sometimes, but they just pop in and out and I can't tell when I'm supposed to expect them.

I dunno what the vocals are saying at 1:22, and a little much fuzz (read: 3000Hz) on the rhythm guitar, but other than that this is some good horror-like metal.

Yeah, I personally don't have an issue with doing songs note for note, but the OCR submission standards ask that you do more than a 100% note-for-note cover, so that it's both original enough (but not too original or it's just an original song) and personalized enough. By MIDI-rip (well, I said "essentially like", but...), I mean many if not all of the notes match exactly. For example, this was said to be conservative, but it was personalized just enough. This was personalized a lot, but not too much. This I think is right in the middle or so. If you don't want to change the note pitches, that's fine; you could alternatively change the harmonies, note rhythms, neighboring tones (extra notes in between the original notes), the mood (major/minor), or even the tempo (case-by-case).

Ah, but isn't there a button to turn the side chain on and off on the far left?

Bottom left.

The submissions process takes more than a month =P (more like 6 months, actually, but I personally don't mind; I just submit and let the judges do it whenever) The production sounds reserved, to me. By that I mean that things blend together a little too much, and the more important elements of the piece don't come out enough (kick, snare, lead, bass). As a result, the dynamics sound too consistent throughout, and to me the structure isn't quite as clear. By the way, as good as this is, this is too much of a cover without enough personalization IMO. Actually, this sounds essentially like a MIDI rip, and so it's too conservative. But hey, now you know. At least you have some nice live playing skills.

Yep, you're telling the compressor "only affect this frequency range when you modify this sound". So if there's a band pass covering 200-2000Hz, then only that range would be compressed. Just to be clear, if you were to put an EQ plugin doing a high pass at 2000Hz and then a separate compressor next in the chain (no built-in EQ used), and compare the effect of that to a compressor doing a high pass at 2000Hz with its built-in EQ, it's not the same thing.

Glad you're going to keep going. Actually, the sampling doesn't affect enjoyment (or mine); it's just a caveat in the site submission standards, so it's something that is looked into whenever a case like this comes up. Sampling too much may sound like copyright infringement to those "automatic song identifiers" on YouTube perhaps (), but it's more about the personalization you can put into writing something from mostly scratch, from my perspective.

There's a huge amount of remixes in the queue, so the judges kiiiinda need to get through the ones sent in earliest (usually) before getting to the one(s) you sent in.

If you're thinking of chords that are like triads and bigger, Archtop: Hollowbody Guitar can do that (though it's not specifically made for rock, even if you add distortion)

These instruments sound lifeless, basically. There's an overall loudness issue. The bass is rather boomy, some lead instruments are dry, and the whole ReMix sounds the same. I don't know how you first approached EQing this, but if you were like me when I first started, then you might have a whole bunch of EQ overboosts from just trying random things. What I'd recommend is saving a copy of your project file, then resetting the EQ in this new copy on everything, and thinking about what quality of what instrument you want to remain or come through the mix. Cut the EQ of what you don't want to hear as much and of what is clashing with the EQ that represents the quality of what you want to come through. Try boosting temporarily to identify where in the EQ the good qualities are, then decide what you want to do with them. If anything, cut more often than you boost (this is a really nice read). Boosting can introduce too much of a quality you don't want, but cutting can only make things sound hollow or thin, which is not going to give you much ear fatigue usually. Unless you just *know* that you have a reaaaaally good audio system, boosting might make things worse. The key is to find a good balance. EQ in context. Don't just solo each instrument and then EQ them individually all the time; EQ them when everything else is going on too so you can tell what's different in the final result. Eventually you might have to reduce the frequencies on a quality you actually like on an instrument to make things work better, but you may not have the desire to do that unless you EQ in context. This might help some more. Think about what you want to be loudest, next loudest, and so on. If you can't tell whether or not something is too loud, just pick a loudness (try -5dB for the loudest thing) for the loudest instrument, then change volumes in reference to that. Try starting really low in volume, then slowly raising the volume until you think it's just right. In most cases (other than solo pieces or pieces with few types of instruments), something's gotta lead, something's gotta hold the foundation in the bass usually, something's gotta keep the rhythm usually, and something occasionally should give a sense of musical harmony. Try reading this. Things will stack up and get closer to 0dB, but should not go over. That stacking is called constructive interference.

I think I've used that before (badly) for like a week, but I switched to FL Studio and am still sticking with FL. Based on this, Magix CAN use VSTs, so I don't know what's not working (by the way, just for perspective, I wouldn't trust it if someone said "this is high-quality" until you try it yourself and make your own judgment on it, as companies *are* aiming to sell their products ). I like German products, usually, but not always. Besides, Impact Soundworks makes some incredibly inexpensively-priced stuff, for example, but they compare very well with the more expensive libraries out there.

The EQ defines what frequencies are targeted in the compression (Q is the band token filtering width, by the way; high Q = thinner than low Q). I've never used Live's compressor, so I don't know how good it is, but I highly recommend Cytomic's The Glue. Never stopped using it since I got it over a year ago. The Glue Example: Dry Drums Compressed Drums (there's a parallel compression send, and individual tightness compression on the kick and snare) Compressed Drums (High Pass at 2000Hz on the built-in compressor EQ; small difference but it's there. Try focusing on the snare, which seems to have gotten a bit tighter) Basically they should feel stronger overall, but also a little bit more cohesive.

25% off everything at http://adsrsounds.com/ on July 17-23. Everything!

Kontakt and Kontakt Player both work in VST wrappers. Unless I'm mistaken, if you can use VSTs, you can use Kontakt and Kontakt Player. What DAW do you have? You should list it on your profile. By instability in the tone, I mean that the notes "quiver" a bit for whatever reason.

I agree with Will that the production is rather odd, but it's cool hearing something this murky still sounding quite good. It keeps things from sounding too abrasive, but at the same time, there's that single-voiced center-panned bass gluing the piece together. The piano was well-written too. Very deliberate notes.

Good polish, dude! I liked Razzmatazz the most.

Cool, I like the ambience in this. Nice reverb design. Oh, and hi again.

I was actually going to suggest Xenogears until Shariq reminded me of that.