timaeus222

At 0:27, the reverb and delay on the piano has a little bit too much feedback, so it's returning the wet signal for a little too long. If you reduce it by about 5~10%, it should be fine. At 0:57 or so (wherever it is that it's the middle of 0:55's bass drum-esque hit and 1:00's low pass filter), you could put a sweep of some sort that signals the low pass, maybe a decimated tremolo sweep. Right now it makes me want the low pass to not come so early. I think a phaser transition at 1:09 would fit in pretty well. Just automate the effect on and off. The snare isn't bad, but it has room for improvement. Right now, it sounds like it's high passed to make room for the kick frequencies. Try removing any sort of high pass you have and instead, notch the snare where the kick fundamental is, and do a narrow peaking band for the kick at the same spot. If your snare wasn't high passed at all, then you need a low end punch layer. It should be most evident at 1:33 where it's exposed. 1:34, without the snare, sounds more lo-fi than before, so the frequency distribution of the drums is a bit off. I guess you could try a narrow peaking boost on the kick near 4000Hz and see how that goes. The transition at 1:55 can use some more detail-oriented fixes. Maybe some retro toms, or something more to fully connect the sections. The strings at 1:58 are too loud, as the choir there is just barely squeezing through, and the brass as well (the brass is faring a bit better). You could also do a little scoop on the EQ of the strings where the brass' "bite" would be, but not boost that frequency in the brass (because it's strong enough). 2:11 really has it packed, and I could barely hear the transitional kicks. You might need to adjust some velocities there. The supersaw lead at 2:19 is a bit too detuned, and it creates a buzzy, somewhat grating sound. 3:06 has a weird granular sound fading out. Not sure why it's there. Believe it or not, the production is actually pretty good on this so far. I liked the bit of decimation at 0:34 btw.

You should feel good about it. I have an E. Piano Kontakt library, but I find that (free) soundfont to be a really close second.

Hehe, he made it by one day. Talk about close. I really don't mind about source usage all that much when listening to this, as I never played Metroid before anyways. Great jazz adaptation. Pretty icy smooth.

As I had said in my review earlier, 1:17 felt a bit disparate with the jump in dynamics as compared to the section before it. You had essentially a full soundscape, then just an organ for a bit, then back to full. It might just be the source having been shifted to the left, eliminating the first few seconds of source from that climax, that contributed to that. Aside from that, it sounds pretty good.

Well, the volume issue is fixed. I would hope that your DAW shows you volume changes in dB though. So far it's a good effort, but I'm not sure how the song is supposed to progress. Currently, it sounds like somewhat random effects pasted in. Try thinking about what you want to do after each section, and compare it with what you already have. It might not match.

This, as well. Some new guys try adding variations that really don't contribute to flow, and that's not how it goes. Get a feel for how a real drummer would do it, and emulate that rhythmically, whether it's with an electronic or acoustic kit. Also, replacing drum sounds and using the same rhythm for those new sounds isn't automatically considered "mixing up drum patterns". You do still need new rhythm.

Ignoring the quality of your samples: Yep, the non-drums are too quiet, but the drums are a good volume by themselves. Just lower the volume of the drums by about 1.6dB, and by the time you increase the volume of everything else to a suitable volume, it should all stack to reach -0.2dB or so.

Sometimes you can get away with not changing up your drums that much if everything else changes well enough and often enough, but it still remains important to at least not use an unchanged, untouched drum loop.

I can't say I *really* did that super seriously, but as I was searching for my top five picks, a good amount of themes got stuck in my head, so I recognized them well enough.

This is pretty awesome. I think your arp at 1:16 to the right is my favorite patch in this remix.

To be honest, the brass isn't too far off tonally. The bite is there, but it shows up pretty spontaneously. For compression, try these settings off a brass section preset I made once before: Threshold: -21.6dB Ratio: 4.8:1 Gain: 3.5dB Attack: 69.7ms Release: 800ms Mix Level: 45% (if applicable)

Gotcha; I didn't want to use any rhythm guitar though, as it isn't fitting in the retro funk electro genre I was doing. I chose to go the funky route with wah EPs, spiccato strings reminiscent of the Bee Gees's "Stayin' Alive", PWM bass, and a whole lot of custom duck-like lead synths (80s acid house bass as lead, moog lead mod, and something of my own).

Dude, I'm not defending myself. I'm just setting things straight and clearing things up. Sometimes people are unfamiliar with what it is I musically write, and I kinda do have to explain it.

That's because it was used as the FL Metronome sound, but it doesn't mean it's necessarily a "bad sample". Old, sure. 17 seconds is a little too fast to already start upping the energy so much; besides, those seconds are all one related section, so the energy should be relatively the same until 0:21. I also actually paid loads of attention to the strings section, as I've given critique before on mechanical spiccato, so I had to "back up my skills". I guess. I was just emulating how it was used in the old Commodore 64, so however it sounded back then is however I should emulate it now. Sometimes when I read comments I see them using odd vocabulary that doesn't really match what something's actually called, so I was using your wording, so to speak, to stay consistent with how you said it. However, 0:21 does, in fact, have strong drums (and more drums, actually), which is why I was wondering how there seems to be not much of an energy jump between 0:17 and 0:21.

Probably my best effort yet in terms of production and attention to detail. This remix fuses Junk Man from Mega Man 7 with Moliarty's Tower from Darkwing Duck for the Wily Castle ReMix Gauntlet 2013 Round 2. Inspired by Joshua Morse and zircon. I've also never tried this genre before nor mixed with instruments exactly like this before. EDIT: Tweaked a LOT of the production before the j00jes got to see it. https://soundcloud.com/timaeus222/wcrg2013-round2entry-rushriders Sources: Junk Man (Mega Man 7) Source Breakdown: 0:00 - 0:11 = Darkwing Duck (0:41.1 - 0:44) [Near loop point] 0:11 - 0:16 = Junk Man (0:00 - 0:07) 0:16 - 0:21 = Darkwing Duck (0:41.1 - 0:44) [Near loop point] and Junk Man (0:00 - 0:07) 0:21 - 0:28 = Darkwing Duck (0:00 - 0:05.4) 0:28 - 0:32 = Junk Man (0:07 - 0:12) and Darkwing Duck (0:02.8 - 0:03. 0:32 - 0:41.8 = Junk Man (0:22.4 - 0:31.4) 0:41.8 - 0:47.4 = Darkwing Duck (0:15 - 0:16. 0:47.4 - 1:18.4 = Darkwing Duck (0:16.8 - 0:29.9) 1:18.4 - 1:23.2 = Junk Man (0:00 - 0:07) 1:23.2 - 1:28 = Darkwing Duck (0:41.1 - 0:44) [Near loop point] and Junk Man (0:00 - 0:07) 1:28 - 1:39.6 = Darkwing Duck (0:29.9 - 0:41.1) 1:39.6 - 1:43.5 = Junk Man (0:48 - 0:53.2) 1:43.5 - 1:47.4 = Darkwing Duck (0:29.9 - 0:41.1) 1:47.4 - 1:51.3 = Junk Man (0:42.9 - 0:48) 1:51.3 - 1:55.2 = Darkwing Duck (0:29.9 - 0:41.1) 1:55.2 - 1:59 = Junk Man (0:48 - 0:53.2) 1:59 - 2:08.7 = Junk Man (0:22.4 - 0:31.4) 2:08.7 - 2:14.5 = Darkwing Duck (0:15 - 0:16. 2:14.5 - 2:30 = Darkwing Duck (0:16.8 - 0:29.9) 2:30 - 2:46.4 = Darkwing Duck (0:41.1 - 0:44) [Near loop point]

It's an 808 rim shot, and it's fun to use. It fits into the 90s retro funk electro style I was going with. I don't get why there "isn't" enough energy in the first "refrain". The drums are pretty powerful IMO, and I might be the only one who slowed down the last four notes in the first iteration of the first Darkwing Duck section to fit into four jazzy chords. I don't get what you mean at all with the C64 arp. The wording is unclear.

This. Seriously though, the production on your drums is, oddly enough, not an easy thing for people to do, so at times they kinda skimp on the variation after they hear their drums sounding good.

Just give up. Do teh technomangaz and ull get ur votez

This is more low quality than I remember. I can really hear the huge difference between the MP3 and the video BGM, lol. And the MP3 is way bettarrrrrrr

Kristina is on the money as well. It helps quite a bit to switch to another genre if your mind naturally shifts that way. Eventually you'll have that type of intuition.

There's still a panning issue in the entire track. It's so far panned that there's literally nothing in the middle except for the weak mellotron choir sample. It sounds very fake, and just doesn't cut it. The distortion on the guitar at 0:53 is too much, and you should reduce it by about 5~10%. This amount sounds sharp and thin, and it's blurring the clarity of the notes. The kick is too weak as you heard from avaris, and should be louder. The hi hats are slightly too loud.

I listened on speakers earlier, but on headphones it still sounds fine. There isn't any background noise from the hi hats at all, or from anything at all. That's reverb, nothing wrong with that on the hi hats.

Yup, pretty important. I try to have patterns go v1, v2, v1, v3, v1, v2, v4, v5 for one section, where v4 is similar to v1 somewhat. Variation is key in reducing repetition.

It is bare. The intro phaser didn't really connect too well with 0:07. You don't have a lead until 1:07, and that's almost 1/3 of the remix already. Yes, you do have reverb, but reverb alone isn't going to fill any soundscapes. You need to fill in open frequencies with instruments that meaningfully contribute to the soundscape in an inviting manner. The kick was OK until 0:36. At that point, you need a tighter kick and more of other percussion than a few tom hits and a tinny snare. I don't even hear a single hi hat. =O 0:52 was especially bare. It almost sounds like a fake piano, but anyways, it's not enough to be a little mini breakdown. You need some filler instrument, like a pad or sweeper drone. 1:36 gets muddy in the low end, and an easy part to fixing it is to raise the lead one octave up. 2:06-2:35 is a repeat of the intro a few times with the drums of 0:37, a few new tom hits, and less reverb on the phaser saw. 2:35-3:39 is a repeat of 1:06-2:05 with the addition of the phaser saw and no notes changed. If I could name two times that you repeated things, it's a good sign to put more effort into your work. I think you can do it. Try to think of something to vary up a section significantly from the previous one, and try really hard not to repeat anything verbatim.

Looks like you knew your source well either way. Sometimes it gets hard to determine whether a source was interpreted just right or too much. I did get something privately rejected because it was too liberal, with unsaid comments that I surmise didn't call the production a dealbreaker (album-to-be track eval). I agreed with how it turned out, as I did variations too early. It could happen to anyone though! Also, that EP... killer. Trust me when I say that's one of the best EPs I've ever heard, especially in the low range.