timaeus222

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.).

Reviews: Tandocca Scale Zerothemaster: The first pad's envelope needed a higher release to blend better, and the bell patch had too much reverb and delay. Nice arpeggiating reso backup. The 1:12 low pass filter automation was kind of out of place. Overall, I feel like you didn't have enough time to do much, as you used around 4 or 5 instruments: the pad, the reso backup, the saw lead, the bells, and the drums. Still, good job. Static Shock Cash: Nice evolving intro. Preferentially, the reso arp at 0:14 would have worked better with a legato filter LFO rather than a retrigger filter envelope. 0:55 seems like an awkward transition. Cohesive sounds overall, but some of it was a bit resonant. Good effort. Michael Jackson's Magic Space Dust Jason Covenant: Obvious Billie Jean inspiration. Staccato strings were actually a little mechanical. The EP notes seem repetitive for that first section before 0:46. The first snare actually seems to be too strong for this. It feels stronger than the kick. Nice guitar with Will. The structure seems to be more familiar as you go on, which is a sign of repetition. Good job overall on the replications. Haze Mr. L: There's an unusually stark imbalance in the frequencies. I can hear the kick best, followed by the bass, then the piano arp, followed by the lead. Nice pads. You had some nice, spacey filters. Top to Bottom Jivemaster: Hm... sounds like the first bass fails at the lower notes. Nice or influence on the vocals. Muddy at the 0:49 hit and the 0:54 vocoder effect and other instances of the vocoder. I made the 1:44 FM bitcrushed tremolo sweep before! Cool sound bro. =D Good clarity on the normal vocals. 3:44 vocal was clear. Nice distorted tones overall. Bit Shifted Ben Briggs: Aw man... I heard a bit of clipping at 0:08! Oh well. Nice interpretations on the chiptune stuff. The EP actually worked, though having to add "vibrato" on it (the EP version of auto pan) makes it hard to follow. Nice major modulation at 2:41. I was waiting for some real harmony for a while, as it was mainly just arp polyphony for a good portion of this. If you sub to OCR, please write an ending and fix the clipping. Foreigner KingTiger: Nice voice. I think I hear a little too much chorus on it, though. The kick is pretty snappy. I just wish the snare was louder so the kick doesn't "seem" so weak, because it really isn't weak. Timing on the voice is actually pretty good; not very many off-tempo moments. Eye of the Storm shadow24: Yeah, that wobble is off-sync like you know. The lead is a little scattershot. I can tell you really tried though. No harm in trying stuff. Good job. Imhotep Step Amphibious: Nice usage of dBlue Glitch. Tapestop was actually used well. The FM8 EP was a great choice of timbre. Some white noise filter sweeps like at 1:36 were a bit too resonant at the top of the sweep. Spinesharks Hakstock: Timbres overall were great. Very very slight overcompression, resulting in the snare being buried much of the time. Other than that, great job! Planetary Ripples Hylian Lemon: Nice soundscape. I liked the sine-like arp and the double bass(?). Some chiptune stuff was a little dry, IMO, like at 2:16, but other than that, it sound well-modulated. Just a few notes were awkward with the slightly slow attack in the 2:16 section. There is no Gravity on Mercury Jameson Sutton: Action feel is nice. The bass sounds like the one from the Oldskool Demon OC ReMix. Production is OK, but the balance is off overall. Note rhythms seem to be keyboarded in. Nice modulations here and there. Ancient Starlight Kuolema: Hm... nice Chrono Cross-esque atmosphere. Some of the instruments fell behind the beat though, like the left-panned strings and the lead flute. Sometimes you blew the flute too hard and got an Overblow effect (squeakiness). Playful ending.

I'm finding the sounds to be very dry and narrow. Chiptune is fine as long as it isn't so upfront that harsh frequencies are overexposed. The sounds in general are very basic saw waves playing generic sustains, so this needs more attention to detail on tone crafting, and synth modulations for vibrato, portamento, etc. And... did you change the tempo suddenly throughout? It sounds like it.

If you want to call this final, then here's what I have to say: The sounds are pretty basic overall, without much modulation on the synths. The stereo image is a bit better than before, but the track itself wants to be too loud and the loudest instruments get pushed back, making the track too quiet. The transitions are okay, but the sources, as I might imagine from your simply listing them for us, go completely in order without revisiting any sources after you've finished working with another source. As a result, it suffers from "medley-itis". i.e. It's just a song, then the next, then the next, until the list is fulfilled, and it makes for a very rigid structure. You may also have too many sources, considering how you forgot what one of them was called. If you want to write a medley, it needs to be more cohesive.

Like I said before, you need to turn down the resonances. Still hearing it. 1:10 - 1:45. And yes, the melody gets lost there. It's too quiet, and the wobbles have too much midrange.

Just a thought: "sidechaining and such" is mixing, and mastering is mainly mixing done on the Master track or on a finished rendered song.

How about noon EDT? I dunno if I could stand waking up at 8 AM PDT on a summer Wednesday.

Thanks man! I put up the arrangement as it is so far: https://app.box.com/s/z7nz5tzxxu2w8b0sjcal 2:23 and on is still being worked on, arrangement-wise and non-bass-mixing-wise.

I'm gonna miss that party. I don't get home until around 12PM EDT and I'm away at 10PM EDT.