timaeus222

Sorry Flex. Likes: 0:48 saw lead is great, just gotta bring up the volume a little bit. 1:23 square lead is interesting, and is on the right track to expressiveness. It just needs more attention to detail on the sequencing to give it a reasonable phrasing. For example, the third note could be longer with vibrato. 3:32 is okay and has a percolating soft arp. It does show some detailed texture. It sounds like the simple lead is sort of trading notes with the clavinet-esque instrument, though the disparate octaves makes it awkward. Actual important feedback: Intro strings are somewhat okay, but they would be better with a longer release or just being replaced outright with synthesized pads. The noticeable gaps in between sustains disjoint a potentially smooth flow in the phrasing. You could still BS bad strings samples with effective sequencing. It's been done before. 0:23 saw lead is static and not very expressive. If I were to write that part, I would sequence it such that the second and third notes, as well as the fourth and fifth notes overlap, for example, and use a legato voice mode. That applies to the rest of that melody in that section too. I'd also add an envelope to increase the cutoff frequency on a low pass filter quickly and then let it drop slowly (no Attack, lots of Decay, very little Sustain, and default Release). Right now it's sticking out too much. 0:26 bass plays two notes that appear to be random. It never played that high earlier. Then it makes some sense that it's a new section, and it didn't sound like a new section was introduced. Generally, a bass should be playing in its common range unless it's a Jaco Fretless Bass. That's really one of the only exceptions. You're better off using some other instrument to play those notes that aren't originally meant to be for a bass. At 0:42, I figured out that it's just a synthetic organ. That's not a bass, nor is it suited to act as one. 1:14 organ harmonies are muddled as closed chords, and would be much more texturally sophisticated if you distributed the lowest note to an actual bass and the third lowest note to a harmony synth. Right now it sounds dissonant because of the natural perfect fifth relationship in every single organ note of this particular timbre (every note has one soft note exactly 7 half steps up from it), which means organ players tend to stick to simple harmonies. 1:23 is extremely loud and overly pushed with the bass in particular. It's very boosted near 60Hz it seems, and should definitely be tamed some more. I'm surprised the snare is actually at a good volume, so good job on that. The first half of 1:23 sounds nearly exactly alike as the second half. I would have considered putting in a sense of progression with the lead notes and/or a sensible harmonic progression. In other words, there's very little variation on the musical notes. One of the most simple methods of rearrangement is to change the harmonies. It could be as easy as changing a C chord to a Cadd2 chord, just by adding in a D into a C-E-G triad. It just depends on what song it is. Eventually you'll get a feel for what chords make sense in what order. Nitpicks: 0:11 is one spot where congas show up. They're slightly too loud and don't benefit the mix by being in the center. If they were wider, it would be more effective. The 0:36 harmonizing sustaining simple synths could have a shorter decay, almost no sustain, and more release for a more percussive tone. . I want you to watch that from 11:57 until 13:22 and see what you can learn from that. It's essentially what I just said right here.0:56 snare has a bit too much reverb. If you can lower the wet mix by about 5~10%, that would improve it. After reaching 1:23, 0:55 sounds like it should be quieter and less energetic, and you could have done that by high passing the drums through automation in your DAW. If you can, just automate the frequency of a high passing band token in your EQ up enough, then when it's time, bring it back down. I wouldn't necessarily high pass every single thing in your mix other than your bass, though. If I were you, I'd only high pass a few things, and if I have some sounds that would mesh and layer nicely with the bass to create a fuller sound, I would just dip down clashing frequencies. For example, a generic bass layered with a clavinet would create a neat buzzy bass. 1:41 just sounds like a mistake to me, as if you accidentally sliced a drum pattern out to clone it and didn't put it back, or wanted to drop out the drums without remembering to put a way to lead the listener back into the song. 2:00 would be nicer with a connecting sound, like a cymbal, noise crash, filter sweep, etc. 2:02 is a troublesome section. You're using strings as a lead that seem to be from a free sound source, and that limits the realism of it. 2:19 saw lead is too loud and too simple. It may be weird to say it sounds mechanical, but it does. If you had that melody in your head all ready to go, it would take about 8 seconds to click it in with your mouse, so it needs more attention to phrasing detail. 2:27 is overloaded with bass like before at 1:23, but it sounds lo-fi now. It's as if you low passed your drums, or just your hi hats. I can also notice the two leads fighting for attention, which is probably what Kristina noticed too. 2:45 is very sparse, especially because now I can hear an intentional low pass, coupled with drums and a very upfront lead. I know it's supposed to be a drop, but it doesn't prepare me for it. People don't listen to songs on soundcloud all the time and people don't see waveforms while listening to songs on their computer or MP3 player (that would be a very cool and expensive MP3 player...) all the time, so you've got to assume that everything you do needs to connect smoothly so you can lead people through your song, like a flight attendant in a plane or a butler in a mansion. 2:55 is a bit louder than 1:23, mainly because of that bass like before. 3:14, believe it or not, gets even louder and even hurts my ears with that resonant bass frequency near 60Hz. Weird sound effect ending. ...What?

For me, I think I hear what OA's nitpick was. 1:16 vocals get pushed back behind the wubs, and it would be clearer if you automated a scoop in the mids at 1:16~2:02. You could also have done this with less pitch bend wubs.

I'm not exactly a signal chain expert, but essentially: When I say input, I mean the sound that plays from my computer before its frequencies get processed by FL Studio's Parametric EQs, assuming it's true that the amp works before all the internal DAW processing. If this is the case, my theory is that the EQ I had done would look the same (I have a spectral view in the EQ) as how it sounds. By output, I mean the sound that plays from my computer after its frequencies get processed by FL Studio's Parametric EQs, assuming it's true that the amp works after all the internal DAW processing. If this is the case, then maybe the EQ spectral view would look different from how it sounds. (I edited my previous post to fix a mix-up I wrote before)

The thing is, usually pads act as a good filler method---a way to fill in the missing gap in a song's frequencies. They tend to be there for the atmospherics of the song, but if done right, it will give a really great feel for people who want to relax. Sometimes if they're not exposed, you don't even hear them until you really try to hear them. Hearing the vocals makes me believe you had room for pads. Here is a list of some remixes with some amazing pad debuts (they're way better quality as downloaded MP3s than as YouTube video background music!):

For starters, it would be a good idea to not use YouTube as a "music" host. It does a compression method that ruins the original sound quality you had. Not to mention the 240p capitalizes on that effect. Some good hosts would be soundcloud, box, and tindeck. At some point you'll want to tag or label your own MP3's, so I'd suggest box or soundcloud in particular. These are things that you may or may not have the tools to fix, but that I noticed anyway: Intro strings are mechanically sequenced in the way of velocities because there is an oddly robotic phrasing to them. For example, in the first second or so, the fourth note should be louder than the third note, but it's the same velocity (which should correspond to volume most of the time). The drums that come in at 0:17 and other similar spots don't match the apparent atmosphere you established beforehand. Those drum timbres go with dubstep, and you had strings playing to nature sounds. As a result, the drums stick out a lot, and feel separate from the background instrumentation, rather than cohesive with it. I also recognize those drum samples as FL Studio's "Basic with limiter" template defaults. 1:18 brings in a sub bass of sorts, and it causes overcompression by the Master (hard knee) limiter, which pushes the kick and snare back and makes them weaker. The sidechained pad at 1:45 confuses me. It draws attention away from the (fake) lead violin and covers up the background staccato strings. 2:55 comes with no transition. Same with 3:30. And then fade out ending, which you could have easily not done. If you can write music, you can write an ending to it. It's a good start, and has the potential for lots more.

Well, I suppose there's another way I can think of to emulate that feel, but it would suggest using rich pads that sound space-like, which I'm not sure you have.

I've had this for 3 years now, and I still like it. I definitely agree with the repetitiveness, but the sound design kept me hooked regardless of the lazy repeats.

This sounds like Big Beat/Chillout. Getting .I'm pretty sure the intro can be fixed. The intro synth lead is too loud, and the pseudo-granular sound is better suited somewhere further along the remix as an occasional cymbal substitute. The intro itself is pretty sparse instrumentally, and some rich pads would serve it nicely. I agree with Gar that it should be twice as long so you can expand your ideas some more. The drums need work, but that can be addressed later. For now, there's too much reverb on at least the snare, but I'm not sure if it's a loop you're using or just one drum pattern, so it could also be on your kick and hi hats. The thin 0:20-0:45 bells are way too bright and just hurt my ears. Please change them. At 0:45, I can barely hear the bass or much else, and when the bells come in, it still hurts. It could be chill, keep it up.

Well, that's certainly a problem. I didn't hear much "sassiness" or "bite" in the sax quality, so I just went with it being a trumpet. Saxophones are nearly impossible to emulate without just recording one live. Now, I'm not trying to be hard on you, but it's a common excuse for a person who's just starting out to respond to constructive criticism in these ways. "It's the style", "I meant to do that", and "That's the idea. I wanted it to be like that" are common ways to say "You're not right, because I do know what I'm doing, and I can improve on my own." You were aiming to emulate a saxophone. That in itself asks for the emulation of a live performance, and so "chopped drums" that aren't supposed to sound real, as you say, won't fit the bill. It's one of those wishful paradoxes. Vocals can have a lot of reverb and still sound good, but in your case, the reverb presented a lot of early reflections and a really low crossover frequency for the low cut, which muddle the mid-range and low mids respectively and as a result make most of the words hard to understand. Any song that uses vocals in a leading way should have intelligible vocals. You said you "layered [it] over a vocoder...to give a synthy feel", but it didn't feel synthy to me. It felt digital and ever so slightly robotic, but not "synthy", which are two different things, though I do hear the vocoder effect. If you keep doing that, it's hard to actually improve. Very few people improve "on their own", without taking in and making use of community feedback. Getting straight compliments all day won't help you get better. Getting really positive feedback from non-musical people won't help either. I'd call that "false confidence" for that very reason. If you really want to get good at music producing, you're going to have to be more open-minded to the critiques people give. You can't just acknowledge that they have a point. You have to do some independent studying on what advice they give you, and familiarize yourself with what they're talking about. Once you get really good, you can distinguish for yourself who is completely right, who is subjectively right, and who is objectively right. Don't get discouraged, and keep working on your skills.

You can google "TapeIt Silverspike" if you want something to "render" your song faster. All you have to do is turn the recording feature on, play through the section of the song you want to check, and stop the recording. It'll be a high quality WAV you can preview at full speed. Right now, it sounds pretty good on its own, but it sounds narrow frequency-wise and spatially. The strings seem to be trapped behind the piano and the arp, and you need better stereo separation for better clarity. Reverb might also be too much. I've been trying my hand at a lot of cinematic music lately. I could mix and master your material if you want (if you can afford it. Negotiable). More info in my sig.

They're going to have an issue with sample quality. The trumpet is pretty fake-sounding, and the rapid kicks in the drums are going to come off as mechanical. Drums are also on auto-pilot, not to mention nearly half of the remix is one trumpet and drums. It's too sparse. I'm also having an issue with the clarity in the vocals. There's too much reverb and not enough intonation, so I can't figure out the words at all. It even sounds a little bit auto-tuned and over-delayed. It could also be the case that they'd say your delay is one-dimensional, since it isn't stereo ping-ping delay or anything of the sort. After the drums come back in, it's just a repeat of what you had before. Overall, there isn't enough substance to warrant a pass, I'm afraid. At least you won't have to wait 6 months to get an idea of how this does on the panel.

Subjectively, I would have liked richer pads and a richer bass tone overall, but the sounds work well together (though I will say the PWM lead at 3:47 didn't quite work tonally), so I like it.

The sample is really good on its own anyways. Maybe you can try adding some chorus and see how that goes.

This track is great, but suffers from almost-there-but-not-quite-good-enough sample quality. The EP is pretty good, but if you listen to 0:11 a few times, it doesn't have an extremely rich FM quality on the lower notes. Try listening to this Diggi Dis mockup I did. The strings pad is nice, but it lacks movement. Maybe you could give it a light tremolo or route an envelope to the filter. Anything subtle to make it less static, and maybe a very mild low pass to leave room for the EP tines. 0:35 - where did that phaser come from? I didn't hear it before. 0:39 bass could use a richer tone, and it would be interesting to see what you can achieve with some layering. You might get some inspiration from this. The 808 percussion seems to stick out a bit too much to me. 1:19 synth brass at first doesn't seem to fit the mood you were going for, and sticks out as well. Almost gives an old-school 90s vibe. If you gave the brass here at 1:19 as much attention to detail as you gave the brass at 1:45, it would work much better. The pauses near 2:12 were interesting, but it would be an effective choice to add something that trails off after the pause has come, as well as reverb with a longer decay (you can always automate a decay length knob if you need to bring it back down later). Take a listen to , for example. There's a resonant arp there that trails off, and makes sure the person knows the song isn't over.Nice solos later on, but 3:40 seems to be pretty simple compared to the add2 and sus4 chords you had before. Sounds like octaves to me until 3:50. Last chord at 4:17 sounded ever so slightly stiff, which makes it slightly less of an expected ending. Keep working on it, and I think it'll be a pretty enjoyable ReMix.

Heyheyhey, I didn't say anything about this yet? What? The bass is amazing in this ReMix. The ever-so-slight muddiness doesn't phase me at all. There's just too much epicness in the perfect sound selection to balance it all out.

From my schedule, looks like I'm gonna have to be in the third block.

Yeah, if only I had the money too. I'd aim for VSL or LASS any day.

Alright. Well, I saw the DXF patches every once in a while, but I never knew what "DXF" stood for. Then again I never really read manuals. I just figure stuff out and look in manuals for content that I know exists but don't know how to access. I'm no orchestral expert like I say sometimes, so I wouldn't know to look for something that is outside my realm of knowledge. I used the Trl KS patches in particular, so I figured if it's labeled "Trl" for trill, it's gotta be meant for trilling. I figure dynamic volume changes are just nitpicks. That's why I said what I said. Libraries that are easy to understand and use are very well-made, and as expensive as EWQL is, I would have expected it to be easier than that to use. It would have been nice to have a more user-friendly interface for Kontakt, instead of just the "default random instrument loaded" interface. I use articulations so that it sounds good, not necessarily real every time. Generally, whenever what I do sounds good, it sounds convincing anyway. It sounded satisfying to my ears, so I went with it. 2:22 had lead violins and violas, to clarify. Sometimes I do think violas sound brassy, but I did for sure use articulations that aren't so strong in the attack. Maybe the high velocities were loudening it and making it sound like brass, I dunno.

NECROMANCY OMGOMGOMG There's no rule against it, I figured I'd reuse this topic because it's related. I've had a headphone amp for awhile. Do headphone amps' frequency adjustment knobs change the frequencies of the output or input? I'm asking since if it changes for the input, my mixing isn't off, and if it changes for the output, then my mixing may be off (unless somehow I set the knobs to give me the perfect frequency accommodation for my headphones, which I highly doubt). If this sounds awkward, it made sense in my head.

A little resonant in the low mids, but not bad for bathroom acoustics. xD

Well, I wouldn't say the trill is fake. I used the articulation, so if you think it's fake, then that comment would apply to EWQL's programming. I don't play any strings instruments, so of course I wouldn't know. Plus, I did say this was my first orchestral song. It's definitely fully orchestral though, as it does use a full orchestra for a large part of it, which is my definition of "fully" anything. I did use many articulations on the trumpet at 1:39. It's just quiet for the sake of dynamics, so it's somewhat hard to notice. 2:08 staccato brass was definitely using the actual articulations, and I certainly didn't use the default articulation the whole time. Not really sure why you talked about soprano sustains at 2:22, since I didn't use any leading brass there, nor are any string patches I have actually notably called "Soprano violin". Thanks for the comments anyways.

I think Cosmic Sounds is using a host that requires logging in to view the picture. Here's the link I found while searching through the site code: https://08eqdq.dm1.livefilestore.com/y2p8GUAtdT2ykdXixzcd9HpbTuIKiY28rChAHKqq9AVO8IJHSDV0i9AKOMArQ_bq7LfLxte_J9oiAmGMeoJ462F4m3-LUhZ0ziR2IVRCPGPiyg/cosmicsounds.png?psid=1

I think the sustain on the intro pads is slightly too low, so it's sort of pulsing in and out. There's a distinct lack of bass at 0:16 and on. 0:38 needs something to connect the two sections. Maybe a cymbal or something. I can hear a decent amount of bass from the double bass you have at 0:38, but it doesn't come very often. There isn't really a leadin to 1:00. That's about it, really. Not too much to inspect at the moment.

Some more things: For some reason at 0:05 the waves sound really high passed. If they are, I'd suggest you not start high passing until 0:18 since it isn't necessary until then. The synth lead sounds about 1~3dB too loud, and the wurlitzer is about 0.4~1.2dB too loud. The 1:01 lead volume is fine as it is. 1:15 reverse cymbal doesn't line up with the cymbal, and for some reason the reverse cymbal is panned left, while the cymbal is panned center. 2:12 has the same issue. I feel like the shift into 1:24 comes too quickly. It would be smoother with either a reverse added or gradual percussive layering (in terms of both strength and volume). 1:52 lower lead feels buried. The arp-y lead is about 0.6~1.2dB too loud. 2:34 sounds like an ending without a connecting transitional sound. 3:51 piano sounds too quiet and dry, and the rest of the track feels like it drags on to the end with just the wave and helicopter sfx. Getting there.

I can hear a little pumping compression from the sub bass in the beginning. You might want to lower the volume of that a little, maybe by 0.6~1.2dB. It's also pushing back the kick and snare mostly, and other instruments too. You should lower the volume of both of those, until they peak at about -0.2dB (while the song is playing with all instruments on) so that you get the headroom for all the instruments to play comfortably.