timaeus222   Members

I may do a "10 tricks you may find useful in FL Studio 11 and above" video if I have the time. And I mean truly useful, so it's not like "oh, you can do Make Unique to clone this pattern quickly" or "Press F4 to make a new pattern on the fly", because those get to be second nature at some point anyways. It would go into detail with tricks that ultimately improve workflow and production intuition in the end---methods that I don't think most people would think of trying (because it's obscure, not because they don't practice enough). The only drawback is that it's only FL, but eh, at least 50% of the people here use FL anyways (HoboKa, Esperado, Chernabogue... and I didn't even go deeper into the compo thread yet), so it'll at least hit a large target audience.

Oh, I figured out how to fix the brush tool, btw. Hold Shift to use the old functionality (it works when you see red notes).

Hm? Why don't you just write them out partially on project files and archive those, rather than trying to remember them? Or is that what you meant?

It could be, but I think it was just quickly sampled and compiled into a simple soundfont (one sample for every C and G per octave, perhaps, but whatever the case, it has almost no unique velocity layer samples).

Sure you can have fun, but if you don't take it all that seriously, how will you improve?

Random nitpicks: 1) Hm... Something's off at 0:14. Not sure what. It's not sounding that "big", and it's kind of cluttered, but only because of the levels, not the number of instruments (because something like this is doable). At 0:16 though, it'd be pretty funny if you put a brass hit. 2) 0:18 - snare is very quiet, kick is buried 3) 0:40 and other similar spots - cymbal is buried 4) 0:50 - the chiptune lead sounds oddly upfront and loud, especially after the quieter previous section. 5) 1:07 - piano sounds a bit mechanical in its timing and velocities. 6) 1:51, 2:11 - sounds pretty piercing, especially on that high note. Dunno why the piano is doubling up with some sort of high synth lead in unison. Maybe the synth lead there could be sent backwards with some reverb and slightly lowering the dry mix? Additionally you may want to fade it out with some automation and then bring the volume back up later, maybe. 7) 1:56 sounds like a chance for you to create a cool chord progression and give a sense of a new section coming up. This is essentially chiptune jazz, so I'd expect jazzy harmonies. 2:16 - piano here sounds especially upfront and exposed, and it sounds a bit dry and a little bit mechanical. Sounds like what Byproduct may be hearing. In general I'd consider points 5 and 8 the most beneficial to work towards fixing, followed by 1-4, then 7, then 6. 0:50 sounds okay to me in terms of arrangement, though a connecting sound may help tie it together with the previous section. It does go from a pretty full section to a very sparse section. Overall, this is pretty cool, man. Tighten up the production some more, and let's polish this up!

Synthetic as in... well... synthesized. i.e. not a drum sample or a recorded drum sound. It's not referring to whether or not it's "supposed" to sound fake, because that's not the point. Either way, the way it functions like a snare but doesn't quite sound like a snare means it's playing a drum part that could fittingly be played with a real snare drum, but it sounds tom-like in timbre. Besides, there are some people who say toms are kind of like pitched snares anyways.

It's synthetic. It's not really a snare per se, but it's functioning like one while having a timbre similar to that of a tom.

Oh, okay. I assumed you were using Zebra.

Actually, when I say internal EQ module, I assume you knew I meant VCF-Notch, VCF-Peaking, etc. Those don't actually act as statically positioned EQs. They edit the harmonics of the sound, so wherever those resonances move, whether it's an LFO, pitch shift, or a different note, the same edit will be done at that/those particular targeted harmonic(s). At least, that's what I've found when I started using those more. Low cutoffs on VCF-Peaking or high cutoffs on VCF-Notch with low band widths should reduce the resonant harmonic without runing the character of the sound.

I personally think halc's had better tracks, but this is still really awesome.

1) Learn the ins and outs of a few synths you think you may like, but not too many so that you can get as good with each one as possible. This will help you think about what sounds fit best together in your own opinion (and objectively to anyone) and what aspects of the sound design of a particular sound needs improvement in your own opinion (and objectively to anyone). 2) Familiarize yourself with DAW shortcut commands so that your workflow isn't hindering your learning speed as much as if you didn't know any DAW shortcut commands. 3) Do A/B comparisons of EQ changes, compression edits, reverb tweaks, etc. until you realize which one you subjectively like better and which one objectively sounds less detrimental to the sound. Make sure you can say that you subjectively like better the one that objectively sounds better. That way you aren't teaching yourself backwards, and you can tell (without explicitly comparing to another similar sound/atmosphere) whether or not your edit will be more universally well-received. This is a form of ear training. Having good audio equipment in the first place will help. 4) Actively listen to tracks you admire the production of, and try to analyze why something works well or why something doesn't work well (subjectively to you or objectively to anyone). 5) Learn at least basic music theory. i.e. What key are you in, is it major or minor, what's the tonic / root note, and what sounds harmonically reasonable.

Have you tried lowering any sort of waveshaping/distortion a bit, or perhaps using an internal EQ module (i.e. VCF-EQ in Zebra2) to EQ down any resonances? Chorus could work, but it working may mostly come from the side effect of adding it. i.e. I think chorus will indirectly help, but the other two things would directly help.

Wait, why can't you just write phonetics? Wouldn't that be more intuitive?

This album is so good. The haters are all wrong.

I'm glad I waited this long to give a proper review to this track. Because back then I wouldn't have given this as much credit as I do now. So good. <3

This is sounding much better. I think the bubbly lead may have too much delay as I can hear the delay, but eh. When this first starts, the drums feel very narrow. The cymbal is typically panned more than it is now. Either left or right is fine; I've heard both. The kick sounds pretty good as it is, but the snare can be more dominant. This might help. The guitars sound great; the bass could use more oomph, but it's not necessary.

C'mon guys, let's get those tracks in! :S

I'd be down for that.

Haha, actually, I was just saying that you had made no votes in any of the topics.

Sounds like frequency modulation synthesis with some detuning, multiple voices, and waveshaping/distortion for the pad (somewhat low upper cutoff frequency), and there's granular synthesis on slightly bitcrushed vocals (saying "space") with automation on the grain width. New Sonic Arts Granite is great for the granular synthesis. The radio FX is done with a white noise generator, some pitch bending, delay, and a little band passing. The bass at 2:50 is a filter envelope saw bass with a really low upper cutoff frequency. ----- Big pads are usually fattened with detuning, scaling the harmonics with light distortion, and widening the stereo image.

He was doing something an hour ago. /stalker moment

Will needs to get going on this; he already got a message with my finished mix. >.>

Recall that I've co-volunteered.