timaeus222

I actually meant to remix one of my sister's band's rap songs with some dubstep, but these guys beat me to the punch! (I'm completely serious) Ironically, that song was called "Break Ya Spine", IIRC (read the lyrics; you'll see why it's kinda ironic). Not sure I'm much of a fan of this though. It's not like I'm against these genres, but the execution felt predictable and a bit underwhelming.

It's alright; the arrangement totally makes up for it and beyond.

Some clipping here and there, though still as great and detailed as I remember.

So then does it have anything to do with variable (unpredictable what they are) speakers used for TVs, or...? I mean, you don't really know what speakers people will use when they use their TV. o.o; At this point, we're just asking you questions about your question.

The rhythm guitar sounds rather narrow. Did you think about recording a second take and double tracking it? Some other instruments in the background sound buried and off-rhythm in a weird way. Also, the lead guitar seems casually played, as if you were just playing around. o.o;

Sounds great! I think you've improved since last I heard your orchestral.

Now try listening to this when you're trippin' on acid.

Like me?

Really cool stereo field, man. Glad to see you're still doing remixes. =D

Great analogy. Yeah, that's what I was suggesting. You could try making it less full than usual, and Nase and you (and ecto, who agreed and made a similar previous topic about something like this) have a correspondingly logical reason of leaving room for sound effects. The challenge could then be to scoop the right frequencies so that the music doesn't sound overly compensated by itself and also sounds complementary with the sound effects. That just takes careful locating of the frequencies that create the particular qualities of each sound you want. So for you, Pete, I think grandeur can still be done, but it would then just be about finding a good balance in the frequency scooping gain, once you find those frequencies. Since you mainly use FL, I believe, it should be easier than in some other DAWs due to the visual EQ you have.

This could just be because of the audio system though. At least for me, my headphones hardly give me any ear fatigue. If your system is supposedly minimizing ear fatigue and it's not doing it, either it actually isn't functioning as intended or yeah, it's whatever you're working on that's causing it. (My guess is that thin resonances that are there but you may or may not hear is a cause. Oftentimes I tame resonances in FM bell sounds, for example, and their waveforms go from looking 'uncompressed' [dynamically all over the place] to 'controlled', yet no actual compressors were used.)

I'm believe zircon did something kinda like this for Fittest after listening closely to the mixing. For example, the strings sound great in Photosynthesis and the bass sounds great in Morsecode, but a little reserved in the loudness, I think. So, maybe whatever reason they have has something to do with not "distracting the listener" from the game, which could mean holding back on the fullness of the mixing?

1 day easter sale on Sunday with 15% discount on everything on ADSR Sounds, including the Zebra soundbank from me way back when.

Textures were a tad grating, and I do agree with the repetition, but overall I did like the energy and the harmonic variations from the arpeggios.

It would be quite RAM-intensive to just have a new instrument instance per note. If you can, sure? It'd be a lot of work. I would actually just rhythmically offset each note in the chord, write corresponding velocities depending on the pitch of the note, and layer on articulations. So, for example, perhaps I'd layer contrabass harmonics with contrabass legato sustains since the harmonics can go as low as 40~60Hz and the sustains can be high passed above that range and still sound strong at around 60~200Hz or so, forming a strong sustaining bass presence (you can route to a single bus and EQ before you get to the bus. Signal chains! ). Sidenote regarding my own laziness: Although I wouldn't always recommend the following, sometimes I link many expression controllers (CC11 in EWQL and many other orchestral libraries) of similar articulations of similar instruments to the same automation clip so they're in sync; that way the swells are quickly editable and not wildly different. The rhythmic offset of the notes would offset the phase of the automation clip usage, but the automation itself would still be consistent. The reason I would recommend otherwise is just a small thing; for more realism, you'd be doing separate automations for separate instrument expression controllers because we're not synchronized robots, but I suppose if the difference in the results seems small to you, either way could be fine, but it's up to you and the context. i.e. if the strings are not exposed, it's less noticeable. It's like manipulating statistical data to make reasonable approximations and simplifying your calculations. As for writing with a MIDI keyboard, it really depends on what one you have and how much memory you have. Its velocity response and your computer's response (i.e. delay between your note and the recording of the note on-screen) get rather interrelated. I usually just sequence strings, but if you have the memory, yeah, a good MIDI keyboard is worth getting to use for this.

I can see what you mean. The full section patches are already set to sound like a limited set of variations in timbre, but combining a bunch of separate related patches could even triple the variations in timbre, making it more realistically emulating the interactions of each instrument's sound waves (similar to sympathetic resonance on vibrating bodies of string instruments).

What filetype is it? If it's AVI... https://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20100402010303AA5eRT0

1. What first encounter with VGM? What kind of effect do you remember it having on you? I had many before I actually really paid attention to it. The first one I paid attention to was MegaMan Battle Network 6. I wasn't a remixer yet, so all it did was inspire me to do game music modding to import external songs into that game (and tweak instruments to compensate for the newly assigned voicegroups). 2. At what point do you remember considering yourself a VGM fan (or OCR fan) in relation to your first VGM experience? I was truly a VGM fan when I heard my first OC ReMix from DarkeSword, called "Beamsabre Beat ZERO v2" in 2007. 3. How did you hear about OCR? In 2009 I went back to OCR after hearing DarkeSword's remix to download two remixes per week (this was back when OCR published remixes often!) to use in a Pokemon Crystal playthrough on youtube until I got through all 39 parts, so I "re-heard" about OCR, but I don't think I really thought much about OCR the first time I was there for like, a minute. 4. What do you feel would be some non-musical examples (fan art, videos, interpretive dance, horse racing, rock-throwing) of the OCR society? There's a lot... TheGuitahHeroe golfs, I do martial arts, graphics design, web design, and video production, and we have plenty of graphic artists. I dunno, there's a bunch. 5. How has VGM and OCR affected your life? Everything. VGM got me much more attuned to any type of music, and OCR helped me and everyone here improve their music production and arrangement skills, oh, let's say, a LOT. I don't think I'd be listening to interesting music without OCR.

That's because your brain melted and your memory went kaput. My brain's only partially melted from the head-melting guitars (past the face-melting) cause I haven't even heard the whole album yet. I'm a bad boi. >.<

You need a mechanical license. Maybe like this. Extra background here. Example case for U.S. here.

Yes, 'cause since the specs are on the site for all to see, I think it's pretty straightforward of a dilemma to resolve. The context I'm considering is if the encoding is the same all across the board. When that's the case (since people *should* be able to follow a quick lil tutorial on encoding, as IMO it's fairly simple. =) ), the MP3 quality itself, unless I'm missing something, would depend on the mixing (or if it's live, the room treatment in conjunction with the mixing). Now if we were looking at youtube compression, sure, that would certainly make a noticeable difference, and it even opens up the possibility of someone normalizing or changing the volume of the music before rendering the video. If you don't upload a video with excessively high encoding (I actually do that these days, because my old videos were shockingly bad audio quality at times ), the audio quality suffers a little, depending on the circumstances. I don't really remember how much treble is cut off in 128kbps, but it's somewhere in the 15000~20000Hz range for sure. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think VBR1 simply is a dynamic bitrate that adjusts to the bare minimum instantaneous bitrate necessary to recreate any particular millisecond in a music file with the maximum quality as designated by the "Quality = 1". If that's the case, I would think that a 320kbps CBR is unnecessarily reproducing a music file at 320kbps the entire time, which is less space-conservative. Sorry about that; I mean the people who don't write music, don't remix, and don't actively listen critically or somewhat/slightly critically to VGM remixes. So some of the youtube viewers who say "OMG DIS SO GOOD" or "I love this! 100000/5", for example. Like I had said earlier, technically I *would* prefer 224, but I think OCR's bandwidth and (after additional thinking) the evaluation of many of the past mixes were factors in the decision for 192. I *think* I heard Larry say that we're moving towards higher encoding eventually, but I'm not going to 100% confirm that. He *is* storing WAVs somewhere though, and you knew that. Yeah, consumers as in anyone who downloads OCR stuff, or just consumers from the economics standpoint.

You Scandinavian you.

Did a quick google search, and it seems like it's probably obsolete by now.

Prosecute people for crimes with no repercussions. (Phoenix Wright)

We already are. Any "artefacts" [sic] that you hear are likely not from bitrate, but from the person's mixing. Every submitter is already required to submit in either 192kbps OR VBR1, and VBR1 covers a wider kbps range anyways, down to 32 and up to 320 if the remix goes that high (which it can in sound design). It depends on the song, but generally VBR1 is a pretty flexible encoding for practically anything, and at least, that's what I always use. It's pretty hard to hear the difference between VBR1 and purely 320kbps if they were both converted from the same source WAV/FLAC, even if you're using the best audio system you have (which may cost several hundred to several thousand dollars) since the difference lies in the 18000~20000Hz range. tl;dr: 192 isn't *that* low; it's the bare minimum where the majority of the remixes on the site can sound good enough to the majority of common listeners (whose headphones aren't *that* hardcore on getting super good treble ) while also playing nice with OCR's bandwidth. Personally, as a sound designer, I'd prefer the minimum to be 224, but I really don't mind since VBR1 covers that anyway, and the difference would be, what, an extra ~1000Hz above ~18000? That aside, Kyle covered it. Anyone who wants to re-encode is free to do so, but it's fair to just leave the consumers with FLAC or WAV files so that they can have the original lossless (or pretty much lossless) files to be flexible with.