timaeus222   Members

Too much low end ambience on the kick. Muds things up too much. Not kidding, not trolling, and entirely true. Ask anyone. Don't even try to troll me with false statements on Soundcloud. It doesn't work.

The kick seems to sound a little like , which isn't what I would have expected to hear as the kick in a chiptune remix. Try to get it to sound like this. Or, you could just use that if you want. The snare is a little quiet, maybe by about 0.8~1.6dB.At 0:42, the lead on the left seems to be accompanied by mainly right-speaker material. Intuitively, it would make more sense to have that lead in the center, and to spread the backup widely, whether you do it with Stereo Shaping or pan instruments left and right in a balanced way. That lead is also a bit too loud, by about 1.6~2.4dB. If it's not entirely apparent, try turning the volume of the lead down to 0, and then turning it up slowly until it sounds just right. Drum rhythms are sounding better, and the synth modulations are helping a lot.

Alright, sounds better in the low end now. The first key change was a bit abrupt but not unwelcome. The arrangement does repeat a lot, though, and it seems like you just did three key changes, which don't really add more to the arrangement. Still though, the instrumentation was pretty Russian, which is good considering your influences.

There's some low end ambience from the hand drum reverb which muds up the mix.

What are you talking about? I didn't say anything about a melody. I didn't even use the word melody.

I just figured something out today... You don't need bitcrushing to make a dubstep "YAH" bass. https://app.box.com/s/53n5b94z8prn4i85gm12 - The expected way https://app.box.com/s/y0ubu6aw4jq3c4w9sklk - The apparently more common way (and the reason why these sound so resonant so often)

Maybe he should go see Myers for a quick discussion.

what the hell did you do

Listen to this. Listen to it. Now.

I like the quality of their ethnic sounds too. I just took a look at their Shahrazad, and it sounds pretty well done.

It does sound much better. Just polish it up some more in the sound design department.

Cosmic says his is coming along swimmingly.

Fer sure. It's not just WOMP WOMP CHOMP CHOMP YAH YAH WUB WUB. =D

Dun worry Jive, like any other duuude out there.

Hey hey. Offtopic is our thing, brah. On a related topic, .

If you can hear every instrument clearly note-for-note, or at least the harmonies, then it's not too much. There's just a little bit too much low end ambience on the really low end strings. Try raising the Low Cut on it just for that instrument.

I understand; I was just saying that the way you said it had skewed the meaning of Chris's statement too far in the objective direction. In a sense, it's kind of like an oversimplification.

What I had gotten from the analogy is: the book report is the listening session. the story is the song. the pages bound with glue is the song encoded well. the words written in ink is the song in rendered audio form. What I've been analogizing before in my life in the past was: book report = listening session. story = song. well-chosen wording = well-chosen instruments. cool fonts = cool plugin effects. essay structure = song arrangement sentence length variety = melodies and variations on those melodies interesting words = ear candy Side note: I should really write a short essay on that at one point, just to get my idea down.

Uh, that sounds like an overexaggerated analogy to me. It makes it seem like you were butchering Chris's statement more than you intended to. If I were to reverse your analogy, it would sound like this: Perhaps a more accurate one would be "it would be like writing a book report by saying you didn't like the story, but appreciated that the book had well-chosen wording and cool fonts.", as that would reverse to be "it would be like listening to a song and saying you didn't like it subjectively, but appreciated that the track had neat instruments and cool effects."

Yeah, most of the intro was Zebra, a few bounced WAV files and one instance of FM8, though theoretically some of those could be recreated with Zebra.

It's okay man. You did what you had time to do. Besides, the comment about the bass being like the one from 'Oldskool Demon' was a compliment.

Something of note: there are people who are influenced by 60s music, 70s music, other oldies eras, etc., and some of those people write remixes for OCR in those styles. That must mean those styles have some significance and merit. What is written today is better in production (which is the primary embodiment of "better music" for certain people), but some of it still draws inspiration from the notes, timbres, and styles of the past. For example, funk guitar and bass from the 70s brought the "SLAP DAT BASS" meme (maybe) and (did) make the slap bass popular and fun.

Fun fact: on my Round 2 entry, I drew from my own soundbank of duck-like synth leads (that I didn't even make for that specific remix)---80's acid house bass (as a lead), modified moog, and something I made myself that I can't really describe by name.

Yeah, I guess that's what I heard. It may just have sounded like it was clipping because the sample rate reduction was a bit too intense. Besides, it's not that big a deal that I was wrong. So what?

I just took it like it was written. Besides, if you gave me any example, I wouldn't say it wasn't complex, necessarily. I might say it's "not as complex" as something else, but that it does hold complexity in that it does this and that. I don't have an "official" definition for complexity, and I honestly haven't looked it up in any dictionary, but I will say that it's just "the level of objective execution of anything that can be observed". In my opinion, complexity isn't inexplicably, unequivocally, 100% opinion-based. I'm not saying you're inexperienced, but anyone who does want to really know complexity does need to learn more than "a little bit of basic knowledge on this and that". It's inherent in the nature of complexity, and I'm sure you could define in your own words what complexity is too. There are different levels of complexity, and while many people can hear complexities, not many can often describe what they hear, nor necessarily point it out every single time. Of course there are lots of types of complexities, but , and that it just comes across as "cool", "nice", "interesting", etc., and the observer comes across as speechless, regardless of what type of composition you compare. It can even be electronic to orchestral, and the generic person just needs to have enough experience in both to evaluate them in order to determine for themselves which is better or more complex by way of what they know.I have "arbitrarily self-imposed" standards, but they're not rules or even guidelines necessarily, and I try to leave most of my opinionated thoughts out often when I give feedback or reviews. I've just worked with synthesis and other material to a point where I can determine for myself with certainty in my own mind which filters sound smoother, higher quality, and richer, which sounds are well-constructed and well-modulated, which instruments have expressive articulations and emotional playing, when pseudo-live performances sound rhythmically tight, etc. It may seem like my opinion at times, but it still comes from what I know and what I've learned, and it's often just what I observe. However, there truly is such thing as a good song and a bad song, regardless of generic opinion. Even disregarding encoding, mixing, and mastering, if a song is badly written or badly played, then it's bad. For example, if you took a sequenced song supposed to emulate a live performance that has all sorts of jittery, very obviously off-sync playing (exaggeration), excessive reverb on some instruments, zero reverb on other instruments, with no panning, and compared it to a sequenced/MIDI-keyboarded song also emulating a live performance that has very rhythmically tight---but not rigid---playing, sufficient fitting reverb overall, and a 3D stereo image, then it would make total sense to say the second song is better, execution-wise. Both songs could have very musically complex harmonies, rhythms, and so on, but if one of them doesn't come across clearly enough, then by natural reasoning it needs work "in some way". To a small extent, the execution of a song can affect opinion. Even if you can't articulate the issue, it's present in the mind of someone else who can. Now if two songs were compared that were mixed with similar prowess with similarly well-executed arrangements, then it's not as clear which is better, but there's almost always a slight distinction between songs that gives one song the upper edge, present in the mind of someone who can notice it. For example, and were mixed similarly well and have similar arrangement skill, but the second song is a bit better because although both arrangements happen to be extremely emotive, creative, and not repetitive, the second song pulled off a longer result, also with apparently zero significant repetition. It's tougher to pull off a non-repetitious longer song than a non-repetitious shorter song. That isn't an exception, unlike how you pointed it out before, as any song can be applied to a repetition scenario. Repetition may not always be mentioned, but it is in the back of some people's minds at some point.The fact is, if two songs were mixed exactly the same way with exactly the same composer for both... in other words, in the case of the perfect comparison where you can only make judgments based on the magical nature of the notes, then it does come down to pure opinion (I like it, I don't like it) and not, as you say, "arbitarily self-imposed rules" (this note doesn't make sense in this key, this instrument doesn't fit as well as it does here, etc.).