timaeus222

Woah, don't render as AVI and then just use it like that. That's gonna turn out huge compared to other extensions. Other extensions might be 3 times smaller or even smaller than that. Something you could do to alleviate the ridiculous file size (if you happen to have AVI files on hand) is googling VirtualDub. It's essentially an AVI file processor. If you open an AVI in there, set it to a codec that should turn out smaller (like Microsoft Video 1, or a favorite of your choice), chop the video length if you need to, etc. It's actually pretty easy to get used to. Then just re-save it (in a different folder) as a new AVI (you might have to actually type in ".avi" without the quotes or it might accidentally save as a "File"), then if you want you could just replace the old file if you like the new product. As a result, it should turn out even smaller when it's rendered as a smaller filetype than if you didn't process the AVI in VirtualDub. Try out some of the smaller extensions like M2T, MP4, MP2, WMV, MOV, etc. For some reason or another, even though YouTube doesn't explicitly state it accepts M2T or MP2, I've uploaded M2T in the past (a year ago) without any problems. Who knows, it might have changed. You could try it anyway with no drawback. Extensions like that are going to render and upload faster, and from what I've done, the quality is reduced by a negligible amount. Something I do sometimes is sharpen the whole video a little bit via video FX (maybe 10~20%) to compensate for the pixel quality reduction. Try to keep it, say, under 400MB for 2 minutes if you can. It really depends on the video content. For example, an HD WMV file could be around 100~200MB or so at 2 minutes' length. YouTube accepts, IIRC, 100GB or less, but smaller is much more convenient IMO. It's not like you really need to upload a 30+ minute video many times... right? That aside, around 2 months ago I decided I'd keep my audio quality up to par, so if possible and if that matters to you, it'd be a good idea for you to create a rendering template where the encoding is very high. 24-bit 48 kHz should be sufficient, although I actually overdo it on purpose and do 24-bit 96kHz. So far, I've tried watching my own videos in 720p and comparing that to 144p, and there's literally no perceivable difference in audio quality to me, even after YouTube's audio compression algorithm. I used to hear a huge difference before I changed up my encoding options, and many people would expect that to be the case too, with such a drastic resolution difference. Now, I don't, so I'm happy. You could also check this article out for more info on encoding for YouTube.

Since we're somewhat favoring Vegas here, I'll chime in and say I've apparently used it for almost five years. The UI is very friendly, and I seem to recall I got used to it in half a day.

Last I heard, closed back makes it difficult to mix bass.

Did you try FL's auto-bridging on 64-bit plugins (that is, if you still use FL all that much)? I have 5 GB RAM and I'm running libraries relatively well.

I'm just elaborating on what I believe you said, that's all. The quotation marks aren't supposed to make any difference; it just makes it correlate to the preset I named.

It just so happens that if you look at the waveforms of acoustic and electric basses, they often turn out to be somewhat wavy (often most evident ~1.5sec in). In many cases, on a C4, there's a 64-ish Hz natural resonance on the string that was plucked. Now, this is not always the case, depending on the amp, sample, or articulation, but it sometimes is. This particular graphic is of a 100% amp signal with no compressor on it, internal or external (this round robin shows it most at ~1.7sec). If you look in a graphic analyzer, it should show loads of bass at ~60~70Hz. Here's what that waveform sounds like. As you could see, it doesn't look like it could take up that much room in a mix, but sounds will stack up. Ecto didn't articulate this completely, but I believe the compression he is talking about is the kind to lightly push down on those natural resonances to "control the dynamics" (which is why there's a preset on Cytomic's The Glue called "Gtr Bass - Controlled Dynamics"). It lets the bass fit in the mix better, but it only transparently affects those resonances, which isn't significantly harmful to the tone overall.

Good luck man!

Yeah, the snare compression worked well enough; it's coming through pretty well. I don't really have much of an issue with the first saw lead (1:19). It's a neat timbre, and I like the late filter envelope on it. Something I noticed on that is it doesn't appear to have noticeable reverb when it's most exposed, so it's somewhat upfront, but I can still hear the background low-passed automated saw waves, so the volume and reverb aren't a big deal. I like the new chords on the piano, if that's indeed where you put them. I compared the first version to the second one in that post, and I like the (higher) volume of the snare on the first one and the (lower) volume of the lead on the second one. The snare was actually already really good on the first one. In short, the lead volume on the first one *could* be a bit lower, but that's about it for volumes (and anything else I noticed)!

At 0:11 and 0:20, I feel like the piano doubling up in a rhythmically same way as the lead is a bit rigid; maybe you could put chords there on the piano and skip the second note of every three note segment. If it's source, you'd still have the lead playing it. The drums sound like the strongest element in the mix; in fact, they seem to be the main proponent to carrying the mix. 0:48~0:54 is literally just drums and a lead, so you might want to add more there (and in other places). Filler content would really spice up an arrangement with an already-stellar modified 4/4 drum rhythm. Now that I think about it, I really only hear 5 (or is it 4?) instruments total. The two (or are there two copies of one lead for less phase-y polyphony?) leads, the bass, the drums, and the piano. The one thing that I find awkward in the sequencing is the two heavy portamentos in a row at 1:50. The rest is pretty safely done or well-done.

Great improvement! The only thing I'd suggest now is to do some light compression on the snare; just enough to get it to come through a little more, and that's about it! You really nailed an 80's/Modern Pop fusion atmosphere.

Sometimes it's a good idea to have a way to check whether it worked or not. FL Studio's limiter has a visual display, but I dunno what Cubase does on that aspect. I'd like you to try not sending the kick to the master and then checking with a spectral analyzer to see whether or not the bass looks or sounds like it was pushed down. If it does, then your sidechaining worked. You can compare it with an instance where the kick's instrument slot is turned off so it literally doesn't send any sound to your DAW, and it should look like nothing happened to the bass.

It does sound kinda 80's mixed with disco. Kinda like , especially in the bass. You might get some ideas from there.I think if you want to emulate the 80's snare, it might benefit from being a little lighter and more floaty. Right now it seems to cover kind of a thick frequency range with some frequencies that don't really contribute to the overall tone. The snare from the link sounds almost like a hybrid tom-snare; there's a more distinct pitch to it. I feel like the 3:04 high-passed pseudo-buildup puts a modern pop twist on the 80's feel. At the end, I was focusing on the toms at 4:17 and they felt somewhat narrow; you could try panning them (more?) and seeing how that goes.

I hear a noticeable rhythmic problem on the bongo-esque percussion playing (0:11, for example). Sounds like a latency issue?

Take advantage of that, man. Sing some deeeeep bass vocals (1:47)! =D

Yep, and that's basically how it ended up. I could have just said "follow the sending knobs", but hearing the difference might help me remember better. Oh, btw, I left you some feedback/help on your Round 1 track. =)

It sounds like you're saying you want to use a compressor on a send as well as another compressor in the mixer track. I happen to do that. The other option you suggested seems to simply be not using the compressor in the mixer track. Am I interpreting you correctly? Either way, the first method I described might be more risky, as you have two compressors in a row and you have to manage both, but as long as you know what you're doing and you can check your work somehow (like with a spectral analyzer), I wouldn't advise against it. I've never tried this experiment before, but I just did now: I was thinking the signal chain does go [mixer track (leaves wet) -> send (leaves wet) -> master], though if you follow your sending knobs it should be somewhat self-explanatory. Here's what I did: I went for the extreme and did some insanely bad-sounding distortion on purpose on the mixer track of a snare. I routed the snare to a drum send with a default reverb preset. In that way, it sounded like the reverb affected the snare after the distortion since the reverb was more prevalent. When I put the same reverb on the mixer track and put the same distortion effect on the send (i.e. swapped the plugins' spots), the distortion was more prevalent. As a result, I believe that it does go [mixer track (leaves wet) -> send (leaves wet) -> master]. That info should be of some use.

I almost wish I didn't go two rounds ago so I could go now, but hey, it's Darke's pick.

Pretty fun mix. Sweet soloing at 2:17.

As for the soundfonts I was referring to before, here are a set of (free) piano soundfonts I collected and sorted through for sufficient (purely bit-rate-based) audio quality. Add your own reverb and it should sound pretty decent.

That's actually a really good sample library in my opinion. There are better ones out there by my preference, but from the demos and other videos about it, loads of care went into making it. However, it's a good idea to consider that there are plenty of piano timbres out there to sample, so whether a sample library is "good-sounding" doesn't mean it will fit well into every single track you write. If you're going to write many songs that use piano, then it's wise to check out many other sample libraries out there and sift through as many different timbres as you can and find what you like best for your own style. Even soundfonts could work well with your preferred reverb. =) That said, $40 is an awesome deal for a product like that, and in my opinion you should go for it if you're intending to write intimate, calm songs from what I can hear. I'm not sure if it can be used in an energetic track as I can't find higher energy demos [that use higher velocities], but I highly doubt a high end Native Instruments library would be that limited. Many others cost over $100, including the one I like to use---TruePianos for $180.

Thanks for the advice, which I *will* keep in mind. In all seriousness, what I said---it's just advice, not rigid "taught" material. Whether they learn *more* has something to do with whether or not they try out advice given to them, though. If they don't try it and the person just so happens to be right or has a good idea to try, then the advisee basically didn't get to experience what the advisor had suggested. Part of learning is independent study and acquiring feedback, so following some of the feedback suggestions is still a good idea to *quicken* your learning if you feel confident that you can distinguish good from bad well enough. Again, I'm not saying you have to or should follow advice. It would just be somewhat closed-minded to refuse to do so for your entire life and do everything yourself with zero help. That aside, I've gone back and finished synthesizing examples for classes and timbres of synths I named that might be unknown to some people. That should be more helpful.

Yes. I just have a hard time sometimes wording things so that people perceive it as suggestions only because I don't often do long posts like that unless I really want to help. Aside from that, much of what I say really is just suggestion, and it'd make total sense to assume that by default as it's generally the case it's not a "rule" anyways. In some cases though, something is just way off in a mix, and if you don't say anything about it, the remixer won't learn. And if you do say something about it, but emphasize that it's just your suggestion, then they might just not try it at all if they're not open to it, in which case it's essentially the same as your not saying anything at all. Anyways, I'll be going back to that large post I made and synthesizing examples.

I'm just trying to not waste forum posts and just editing ones I've written already.

Yes, I realize that, but I did edit my post after you wrote this, so you really didn't *need* to write this. I'm talking about parallel compression built into the compressor, like the one I have. Besides, about a minute before you posted, I had in the post:

I'm not saying it's a fact; it's a testimony, that's all. I'm not going to say "in my opinion" or "in his opinion" or "in her opinion" every single time I type. However, the compressor I use and essentially every other compressors have a gain knob (a very common, basic knob to have on a compressor), and if that's too high, yes, you will squash your transients. With parallel compression there is some leeway, but you still have to be careful if you're using a compressor that has parallel compression capabilities built into it, like The Glue. How else would I have created this to help KingTiger on his Round 1 entry?