timaeus222

Great, now I have three days to decide whether I should get the Evolve Mutations Bundle for $75 or THIS massive beast for $118, and my budget is $150. D: If I could get $65 in 10 days... I'd get both. EDIT: Okay, THAT'S IT. My decision is... ...I'm getting JUGGERNAUT!

Not bad. It doesn't really go anywhere per se, but it's pretty decently made. Good job.

Happy Birthday Dave! =DDD

I think I need to give you a helping hand here. What Gario said was he doesn't like Kanye West's music subjectively, but it is objectively "not THAT bad". What you said about milk happens to be a weak analogy, because from your (kinda vague) wording, it seems like you're saying "if you pretend this isn't milk, this milk won't taste bad, even though you don't like drinking milk", rather than "if you ignore the fact that this is milk, this drink actually doesn't look old and unrefrigerated, and the color doesn't make it unappetizing". The first one is entirely subjective, but the second one distinguishes between subjective and objective.

I'm done. I'm just gonna keep polishing it every day 'til Sunday!

That's true, but the concept of a remix usually brings in a sense of dynamics too. If you want someone to listen to something new without quitting in the middle of it, it's a good idea to aim for that as a goal. Atmosphere means a combination of instrumentation and style to create a type of feel that gives the listener an idea of how they should perceive the section. Is it high energy, is it a solo section, is it a bridge, is it an outtro? Okay, I'd say the loudness just improved some more. Even soundcloud is letting up now. Now the main issue is the stereo image, though EQ is still another issue. If you listen at 0:00 - 0:05, it sounds like all parts of the drum kit are playing dead center, and it makes them step on top of the other instruments. It also sounds like a MIDI rip 100% of the way, note by note. Good news is that I can hear all the significant instruments to a good enough extent to talk about them. 0:21 sounds like it should be a new section. For example, 0:22 could have three syncopated cymbals, panned right, then left, then right as a sort of break in the rhythm. 0:46 - 1:33 is the same as the beginning, so it's not worth going back to so soon. 1:33 ends up being an obvious shift to a new song. The lead at 2:03 - 2:18 has a little too much treble, so you should lower that. When 2:35 comes, the marimba-esque instrument adds some muddiness to the song and things get harder to hear. 2:42 - 3:49 sounds like another repeat, so I skipped to 3:49. Another obvious shift to the next song. The panning arp at 4:01 is too high pitched and resonant and hurts my ears. The drums are keeping a repetitive pattern which makes the pacing plod. 4:54 isn't a super obvious transition, but it's a new song again. The leads have way too much treble. Sudden ending.

I did take piano lessons for 9 years, but that just helped me improvise, and I didn't really learn music theory seriously at that point. I just write something if I think of something, but maybe around 1~4 hours a day, usually 2.

I'm not sure how to download that. I tried emailing it to myself. Didn't work.

It's definitely an improvement from before. It's kind of odd now that the snare is panned though. I think the 0:31 phaser bass is coming in too quickly. Maybe you could try fading it in. The 0:47 overhead drums are good, they just need to be a bit louder, because they sound like they're there but not obviously there. Right now it's like how hi hats usually tend to not be heard on the first listen. 0:50 is more full, but try to use a different bass there, or EQ it differently because it's really muddy. You could go the traditional route with a "reese" bass if you have one, or maybe a Pulse Width Modulation bass? I guess 1:20 could be a bridge, but the arp needs to have more variation. Going back and forth on those notes gets pretty grating. Maybe you could do some faster notes sometimes, like a glissando. Also, 1:55 sounds like it needs a transition, like a cymbal or something to connect the sections.

Organic, as in acoustic? Or vinyl? Both are "organic" to an extent. Some vinyl have an organic quality to them, and some vinyl are not, and it really depends on the sample pack you choose. I'd suggest When Alien Drum Robots Attack and MPC60 Vol 3 from goldbaby.co.nz Generally you can stay with the chord for the bass, but sometimes you can have the bass play "outside the box". For example, you can have a bass note one octave plus one whole step below the highest note in a chord and it could sound jazzy. A D chord with a G base would be a way to write a Dsus4 chord with the G shifted down an octave so it sounds less dissonant. In music theory it would be written as D/G. By the way, I don't really know music theory formally. xD

This is just personal preference, but 0:06's sub bass would be more pleasant if it was either an actual bass or high passed to eliminate some of the lowest sub bass frequencies. I'd say the acoustic rimshot could be layered with a mildly high passed snare with a pop-up feel to it. If you imagine a person hitting a snare drum and quickly lifting their hand after one hit, that's what "pop-up feel" means. 0:22 plucky lead is slightly too soft by about 0.4~1.2dB, so it feels too distant to be purposeful. 0:41 bass had the stereo image avaris would be looking for, but try to accomplish that without using a phaser, because a phaser may have presets that are supposed to do that already. It would mean you did that by accident. 0:44 is pretty bare with that squelchy synth. It needs something to lead into the DnB section, even if it's supposed to be a pseudo-fake-out. You could add in a white noise sweep downwards or something resembling that for the effect I'm thinking of. 0:49 has no cymbal, and the hi hats are mechanical. Why are the hi hats that fast, anyways? If you're going to do that, try having the highest volume being the first, second highest volume being the third, and third highest volume being the second and fourth hits I suppose. I wasn't sure at first what's in the low end. I thought it was a double bass, but it's an electro pluck bass. The snare should also be stronger here, and not just a rimshot. The lead also is not fitting either. It should be an elongated, flowing, somewhat floaty lead. 1:20 could be muddy, but to make sure, you could automate a high pass on the bassy instruments downwards from a point where it doesn't clash with that ambient impact, until the impact tail is over. The bass at 1:20 is actually really loud in a particular frequency, not necessarily in volume. 1:20 - 1:56 doesn't seem to have a direction to me. Based on what you wrote, I'm just waiting for some sort of buildup, but it never happens. The 1:56 automated arp staying on the same note a lot of the time is pretty repetitive. Keep working on it. Some of the sounds are interesting. You just gotta figure out which ones.

Okay, now it's more listenable. It's still too loud, but not to the extent where it's clipping and unbearable. The next thing you should look at is a sense of dynamics. The song, even with soundcloud's sub-par waveform rendering, looks and sounds like the same atmosphere, energy, and feel the entire time. Think about how you want it to start, how it should progress, where you want to go at each particular moment as you write it, and how you want it to end in a satisfying way. In each section, there should be a distinct atmosphere that separates it from other sections to show that it indeed is supposed to be a different section. For example, you can have a high energy section followed by a breakdown section that slowly, but not too slowly, builds back up to high energy. High energy is great, but too much of a good thing can be bad, as you well know. Afterwards, pacing is another good point of discussion. As you focus on dynamics and progression, you'll likely encounter issues with how long you linger on with any particular section. It doesn't make much of a difference how much you like it, because you wrote it, and you're usually biased towards your own work in a subjective way more than an objective way when you first start out. Here's where asking for community feedback really helps. They can help you develop a sense of when to move on to another section, how to connect them, and how to establish a good level of energy in each one to keep people's attention. From there, you could work on either sound selection common sense or equalization common sense. Personally, I believe the sound selection is the more important route, as without good sound selection, EQ won't give you as good of a song as you can get with better sounds. Without good audio input, you can't get good audio output. EQ is easier to learn than sound selection common sense, but it's better to focus on sound selection and learn EQ along the way.

I actually meant exactly what I said, but I'm gonna clarify some more then. I was saying that based on bLiNd and Sole Signal's skills with bass presence as an example, they match each other's level of skill very well. In a case like that, if the client truly can't tell who's better at mixing bass in particular, a degree would make a difference. If the client were to look at their musical styles, not skills, and decide which one fits their purposes and intents better, since bLiNd does mostly dance music, and Sole Signal loves to do cinematic and orchestral mainly, their compositional styles are pretty distinct, which makes the decision a bit easier even if a degree wasn't considered.

Yep, I agree. Try lowering the overall gain by, like, 5 dB. Seriously. You also need to not use a soft clipper.

I need to make this clear. There are some clients who won't hear much of a difference between your level of production and another person's level of production, and the main thing they'd look for is what styles you're capable of. If that's the case, the degree might actually be the deciding factor. If they CAN tell though, then it's safe to bet that polishing your portfolio is the better way to go. For example, let's say we were to compare bLiNd and Sole Signal. They both have a really good handle on bass presence, but to the general client, would they be able to choose if neither bLiNd nor Sole Signal had a degree? Maybe not. Would they be able to choose based on musical style rather than production quality? Yeah, probably. In the end, field experience is key. People normally care if you can definitely do something, not that you can theoretically do it.

I don't know if you feel like leaving it narrow like that, but it'd be nice if you did some panning and stereo imaging to make the mix more 3D.

This is actually pretty cool. There's some odd stereo panning on the kick drum and the weird tom-like hits at 0:29 though. 0:44 is alright, but it could also be improved with some automated resonance or a little extra reverb or both.

Take it from me; you just might get it.

The thought of sampling to me brings the idea of laziness or the inability to recreate something well enough to satisfy your tastes. Even though I've never sampled anything before nor will I ever (aside from granular synthesis), I'm not entirely against it occurring elsewhere. As long as it's different "enough" from the original and shows a significant effort to modify it, I'm okay with it. After all, if sampling were automatically wrong or illegal, granular synthesis would be kaput, right? If someone can tell it was sampled, though, that's when I say it's not done well enough to warrant an "OK", but if the artist is credited and/or negotiated with when necessary, I don't mind that much.

Yeah, please take a picture. It seems a bit vague to me. Not that I know of, as it's a new feature. It's even emphasized on the release video.

A degree is helpful, but not entirely necessary all the time. If you want a degree, it's still a good idea.

Hearing just a little overcompression from the kick, but not a huge deal. Interesting electro-retro remix.

This is one of my favorite games, and you definitely had a smooth arrangement here! Loved the transitional choices, and it flows really well.

1. If you're saying what I think you're saying, you can use the slicer to chop up the patterns. Click the ones you want and then click again to paste. If you're talking about the result of the "playing truncated notes" feature, try unchecking it in the Audio Settings. I'm not sure if that toggle is still there (I decided not to upgrade). 2. You don't have to adjust the micro-adjusting intervals if you don't want to. Just hold Alt and click-drag. That's max precision. 4. Looks like it's just a faster way to write in notes, but I wouldn't have been a fan of it. Seems like it lets you change your mind on what notes you write as you write them, though it's easy to make mistakes with it if you accidentally click...

I don't think Infenro is necessarily looking for dubstep wobbles only. could be something worthwhile to try to make, or maybe (the tremolo sweeping resonant bass in the background). The tone itself is usually based on experimentation and knowledge of your synth. If you have a synth that can route oscillators serially, this will help. You could try an oscillator routed to an FM oscillator for a distorted buzzy sound. Overdrive it afterwards, and then do the standard LFO to test it. Add a little resonance for some strength. Don't overdo it, because some people do that, and that's sometimes why dubstep gets grating. That's a generic wobble.