timaeus222

http://goldbaby.co.nz/ is a very good place to look. Of course, drum programming and processing will help a lot to get these samples to really sound how you want. FPC isn't actually all that good, and it's more for songs that you don't have to have good production on for its intended purpose. i.e. 16-bit GBA video games.

For some parts, different articulations would work more cleanly. EX: 0:21 could use tighter notes, so staccato or spiccato should work better to convey what you meant. Right now it just sounds like short sustains. I'm also questioning the use of a contrabass as a drone. You're using sustains, so it's more drone-like and lackluster. Doing something with tremolo may be more interesting but more repetitive. Automation to add swells to the volume and expressiveness would really help make this more interesting. You're also using the drone throughout, and it gets pretty grating to constantly have bass in the background.

Feliz cumpleanos, seniores! [sic]

Yes, that's certainly possible, though I find that a rare occasion, or an obscure topic, at times. I think I first was introduced to something of that nature .

I guess there's the possibility of those being remixes of other people's original non-VGM tracks. Then contacting them is at least easier.

Nice cheerful atmosphere. Reminds me of Chiwalker's take on a Donkey Kong Land track.

Right; I just meant as a side-by-side situation. You can't have a composition already finished in a studio without the production to go alongside it, but I can see how you mean that the production quality, if not taught, will be up to the reader, but the decisions may or may not be similar. i.e. If you write in the same genre/style as the author, production decisions may naturally adhere to those that are common to the genre/style. I did, actually, and I saw how you said that. What I said was emphasizing how music theory is essentially the "method to the madness" (derived from Hamlet, by the way) and explains why something makes sense. If you learn music theory to analyze music though, no matter what level of theory, it would at least help you learn how not to write theoretically incorrect music. For example, and you would already know this, if you understand the resultant logic on how some sort of melodic line works, or something like that, you can construct a line of similar effectiveness, but doesn't necessarily have to be similar in structure. Of course, there are exceptions, like atonal music from people like Edgar Varese or Arnold Schönberg, that don't seem to follow theory, but that's not exactly common. I actually don't know as much music theory as I need to in order to explain why I do things a certain way, so that's why I said I would rather explain them in a simplified manner.

Ironically, I'm working on exactly that right now. I'm not actually going to cover advanced theory, but instead, I'll simplify the theory into the resultant concept plus some very basic theory, broken down into subjects such as flow (natural/awkward feel), realism (accuracy to how a real instrument can capably play, nothing to do with articulations, keyswitches, etc.), sensibility (harmonic sense/awkwardness? logical sequence of intervals?), etc. Obviously I wouldn't then explain why it works by way of rigid music theory, but I'd generalize it and only use the most accessible concepts of music theory so that even those who don't know music theory at all can "catch up" and eventually get the hang of it based on example, practice, and muscle memory. Since I won't be explicitly using advanced music theory to explain logical arrangements, I think it'll leave more room for flexibility than if I did, and it won't encourage a "restricted" way of composing. Speaking of examples, come to think of it, having actual chapter problems in the book wouldn't be a bad idea. I'm assuming you mean in production quality and arrangement tendencies. If it were production quality and arrangement style, then you're not really differentiating yourself from that person. (Tendency is like sensibility, flow, etc. in your notes, while style is like genre [which restricts the arrangement tendencies even more], in this context.)Thankfully, I'll stick to writing with humble wording for the book, so that the reader will only take in that which they agree with, and whatever they agree with will usually be a concept, not a specific example. I'm sure you agree that understanding the underlying concept of something gives more flexibility and less rigidity than understanding how to carry out that specific case, because then that concept can be reapplied in other contexts.

I'd be up for that.

Nice birthday!

I think at one point I wanted to fix that, and, going back to it, I figured out how. At first I was confused as to why regular text acted like the link to the first page in the dropdown, but once I re-iterated the transformation of the text to a link, I could force it to go to URL#, so... problem solved! Also, the footer links are identically ordered compared to the dropdown menu content in the case of that happening.

Hm. Well, what it sounds like right now is that you have a concept going, and a skeleton written, but I would prefer more variation in the wobble timbres to polish the concept. Right now lots of them are being reused in the same section repeatedly. The electro house section sounds like it wants to be big, but the repetition of the same wobble sound and pattern causes that section to not convey that. The dubstep breakdown wants to be big, but its repetition and simplicity downplay the intensity. This sounds like what you were going for, basically.

Oh, that's just me adding bass fills. I think it's gonna be fine.

There's a nice little feature in CSS2 or 3 or so that lets you make your browser detect the window width, which I believe you've heard of. The cool aspect about this is that you can integrate this with the ability to control what displays and what is invisible. With this, it's possible to detect the window width (targeting mobile devices, for example), display certain content, and make other content invisible. That way, you can simply design the site how you want it for a certain window width, classify each set of elements (maybe a div container for efficiency?), and have designs that perfectly fit each window width and work with many mobile devices as a result. Example: http://tproductions.comeze.com/ --- my website reformats when you reach a max window width of 480px. You can look at the coding if it helps, or gives you any ideas. Just a little trick I picked up from http://css-tricks.com/.

Happy Theoretical Birthday! Wait a minute.

It's both.

Awesome, thanks!

That's a sign of smoothness of playback. It just means that the playback is less laggy when using ASIO4All, but it does require that you have lots of RAM or else you'll get constant, annoying hiccups in the playback. In contrast, the Primary Sound Driver plays the sound back at a less smooth playback, but instead does NOT hiccup at all, and actually just adds some distortion to the sound as evidence of lagging. Neither situation actually impacts the rendered audio file.

Sorry for being persistent like this, but I think you accidentally missed my post too. I suppose I could have emailed you, but then we wouldn't all get the answer at the same time!

The most efficient way is to buy, literally, the "best bang for your buck". Best audio quality out of the box for the lowest price. I wouldn't say I know which microphones are best nor do I have the "best" microphone, but I can say that I have a solid idea of how it should sound based on analyzing music that I strongly believe is well-made. I think you just want a microphone for gaming LPs and such, but that's open for interpretation, and I'll assume that you're a music producer so this post helps more than just you. A good microphone setup is one that minimizes background noise through the installment of acoustic diffusers, absorber panels, and bass traps around your room. Acoustic diffusers, the way I interpret them, reduce messy room ambience, but doesn't eliminate them completely, and can make a small room sound bigger by, well, diffusing the sound. Absorber panels reduce the early reflections in the natural room reverb so that the sound is as dry as possible---as reverb-free as possible. Bass traps basically make the bass response of the room more accurate than without them, although I believe these are more often used when you actually have sub woofers and speakers with nice bass. A common type of microphone uses USB to connect to your computer, and as a result, you can use recording software compatible with your DAW, FL Studio, to record what the microphone picks up. Oftentimes, the microphone will preferably be set up to pick up sounds in your room, but not what's playing internally in your computer. What that means is, in a signal chain that goes input->microphone->computer, oftentimes you don't want the input to be from your software, such as VSTi's and sample libraries, as it wasn't your initial intention. Personally, I've somehow set it up to pick up both and it was what I wanted so I kept it, but that's just me so far. With the hardware you're using now, there isn't something "wrong" that you know of because you haven't encountered this before. Anything that can be "wrong" in your case merely pertains to whether or not you've taken the preferable precautions to fine-tune your room ambience and reduce overall background noise. It doesn't really count if you haven't even figured out how to set up the microphone or your room yet to say, "you're using your microphone incorrectly!" since you wouldn't be aware of the "mistakes" you can make. So then, the best sound possible would be just your voice, dry, without background noise, covering as full a frequency spectrum as possible, with as flat a curve as possible on the frequency response, and a wide but not too wide stereo image. Stereo image comes with what type of microphone you use and its pickup wideness or narrowness. You'll have a general idea if you read its manual, and then you may be able to return it if you think it's not right for you. Well, not necessarily. There is music from people in this community that I believe, without any reservations, is better-produced than in mainstream music in both its vocals and its instrumentation/instrumental area. A good example is zircon's Identity Sequence album being better-produced than most other mainstream artists (arguably, Pentatonix has a fantastic producer). When you listen to a woman sing, and you hear the intimacy/closeness of her voice (lots of treble), then it's reasonable to say that both the microphone was good "enough" in quality and the production was good "enough" in quality. If the microphone quality was bad, then the production would have to be exceptional to account for that and match decent production with good microphone quality. In the case of the "average" person, they may have to rely on great equipment rather than their production abilities, as the scenario is the average person. It's somewhat uncommon to find a person with good production abilities at that particular moment, which is why mixing and mastering jobs exist---to capitalize on that circumstance.In other words, it's a combination of either bad equipment and exceptional production quality, decent equipment and great production quality, or great equipment and good/great production quality. No one starts perfect, so you could either wait a long time before you get a microphone, or get a really good one from a smart recommendation that you trust. Absolutely. The microphone itself determines what frequency response you'll get (the accuracy of the sound to what you think you should be hearing). Like mentioned above, the production quality will have to make up for any flaws in your microphone, so if you're confident in your production abilities, feel free to get a microphone of okay quality if you don't have the money (or save up). If you're not confident in your production quality, try to save up money for the best recommended microphone at the best price. The better microphone is NOT always the more expensive one. I can analogize to headphones and how my $350 headphones have a flatter and more accurate frequency response than most $1500 headphones. Analogizing to restaurants, it seems like lots of stuff is priced based on how much it cost to make them, so even the most expensive headphones can be worse than a pair of headphones costing half as much, and the same can probably be said for microphones. I'd imagine the Sound Recorder functions in exactly the same way as the recording software I mentioned earlier, except it doesn't require a DAW and you'd, like you guessed, import the resultant audio file into FL Studio. Another example is Silver Spike's TapeIt, which is something you can load into FL Studio and then use to ONLY record what's in FL or any other DAW (but somehow I've made it so it records both what's in the DAW and what I say into the microphone, which is great for tutorials). TapeIt does NOT pick up music you play in a media player such as WinAmp (this needs to not be discontinued!). FL Studio does NOT improve the sound quality that comes into it by itself with any "special sound enhancements", nor would I personally recommend leaving the Windows default "sound enhancements" turned on in the Sound panel. It disrupts and alters the sound that comes into your ears. FL only hosts a sound recording software that requires a DAW in the first place. It's all about how good or bad the sound quality is coming into the host, and you can just EQ the result later. Some of those are good, some are not. It's hard to tell without having gotten better at it, so it takes a little direction to point people towards the more accurate and consistent tutorials. The people that say their tutorials are "sure-fire" are not considering that they are teaching an arbitrary art, or they're making a joke video with a satirical/sardonic purpose. Everyone perceives the results of production qualities differently simply because not everyone has the same audio equipment on hand as the person who made the video in the first place. A better way to really present those tutorials is in a humble way, and those are the best, in my opinion, because they are showing a person who isn't banking on himself/herself being right all the time.Personally, I'd recommend Sound On Sound magazine (which can be read online, of course), as I've actually found it, although very technical, very useful and correct at the same time. There's articles on many (but not all) topics. Off the top of my head, there's reverb, delay, EQ, FM synthesis, headphones vs. speakers, synthesizers, and so on. Specifically, what that means is to watch your signal chain---the setup of how your sound is processed and in what order. For example, if it's the case that the input goes into the microphone and the input is your software while the output is your speakers, your speakers will play sound that will layer onto the sound that your computer already made once, some milliseconds after the initial moment the sound is made by the computer software, which means the sound that you gave with your mouth is good to go, but you hear a doubled signal on audio that originated from your computer software (VSTi's, sample libraries, etc.) and it sounds like it's echoing. Hence, Acoustic Echo Cancellation must be a precautionary measure that is supposed to eliminate the possibility of your speakers or any audible output to go back into the microphone and be re-inputted. How this could happen is that you start the voice recording and you say something while you twiddle around on a VST and make sounds, and your voice is recorded once, while what you hear in your computer plays as normal on your speakers, and whatever sound from your speakers reaching your microphone is taken in and recorded on top of what you hear yourself playing on your VST. Your final recorded result would be you talking while quiet, slightly distant sounds from your computer are also playing, but some milliseconds late.Personally, I turn off all Windows "sound enhancements" to ensure that every "wrong" thing that occurs is all my fault, and that makes it much easier to figure out what went wrong. Otherwise it's just covering up your mistakes, rather than facing them head-on. It's like solving a math problem in the wrong way and getting the right answer by accident. Just like how you get credit for the right answer but not the wrong work, you would get a good audio result but not learn the behind-the-scenes of what actually went wrong.

This is a good start. The first thing that sticks out to me is the fake guitar. FL Slayer? Also, the arrangement is quite close to the original. Even the bass part is very similar.

Random signatures: Super old drawings:

Man, you should extend this. This sounds awesome!

You can use a program like TapeIt to record what's playing in FL. There really shouldn't be a difference in sound, and I've never heard even the slightest bit of difference at all, so something else is up. Maybe your sound output is using a driver that has certain aspects of the Windows built-in sound "enhancement" enabled. Make sure all of those are off on all drivers, not just the one you're using. Scroll down, too. There are more than 4.

Oh yeah, this source tune. The biggest issue with production that I'm noticing here is in the drums. The guitars, bass, and other non-percussive elements are mixed well. The drums are buried, though. If you listen closely, the snare and kick are barely audible. The toms are better, but can be even better. Maybe this could help you. Although the production with the non-drums is good and the arrangement doesn't feel repetitive, it could use some sort of breakdown section to bring down the energy as a change of pace. Right now it's just high energy, and that's it. The dynamic curve is pretty flat, and that gets tiring to the ears.