timaeus222   Members

This is a question you've answered before, but it's a different type of situation. Similar question answered here: http://ocremix.org/forums/showthread.php?t=34717 My version of the question: I'm writing a ReMix for submission, and it uses a countermelody line inspired by Billy Joel's . The countermelody is audible, but not the main focus, and it's pretty subtle. Snippet 1, Snippet 2Essentially, about 25% of the ReMix uses that in total so far (it's about 90% of the intended final length at the moment), in those two sections specifically. Assuming this would have passed based on production, would this still be eligible, or should I adjust the notes (I wouldn't have a problem removing the countermelody altogether in Snippet 1 to make some headroom)?

:d :d Wait, how did the YouTube links get lowercased in the quote?

, or ?

At 0:13, the piano is about 0.4~0.8dB too loud, to me; at 0:30, you should try a cymbal to signal the low pass; and at 0:38, the gate width is a tad too long, IMO.

When you use Zebra patches, it's wise to check in the Mixer section of the oscillators (Phase/Sync, Osc FX, Mixer) and look at the Width knob. If it's all the way up, it's really wide already, so widening it with Fruity Stereo Shaper is somewhat redundant. As you might imagine, if the Width knob is at 0, then it's mono. Hm... yeah, I hear the pizzicato now. It didn't really sound like pizzicato at first, though. I think it's because it's a sample that's a little far from the mic, which makes it a bit duller. When I write string parts, I do a little more than just EQ and "String Section Hall" reverb (ArtsAcoustic preset with less wet mix). I put it closer to the listener with Fruity Stereo Enhancer's phase inversion since an orchestral diagram has strings pretty much next to or right in front of the conductor.

lol, I hear the intonation in that. I would have just said "wtf" and left it that, though, if you hadn't pointed it out. Here's something I just now noticed. It's in the treble range, so I guess my older headphones were just that bad. at 0:34 - 0:39 (0:29 - 0:34 in the MP3), there is a buzzy PWM bass seeping through.

Just to clarify, Zebra is the only synth I know of that displays exactly what you're using and nothing extra, which I find very convenient. Even though I've stayed with it for over a year now, I still believe it's relatively easy to use if you work with it enough. I understand if you aren't sure how to get a thinner filter on Zebra, but I believe it just takes some experimentation with envelope depths, filter choices, and wavetable drawing. I'm not sure though why you said Massive has a thinner filter than Zebra, because we both know Massive can create some pretty fat dubstep wobbles. Although Zebra is also capable of doing that, it's actually much harder from my experience using it because the wavetable that Massive has is very close to the typical target tone, and in Zebra I've had to play around with it quite a bit to emulate the fat sound of Massive (in fact, at one point I've managed to recreate the Modern Talking wavetable somehow). Maybe you're just comparing the initialize patches?

Hm... did you do any stereo separation? I can hear the wind, shakers, triangle, Damage drums, pseudo-chime (2:19), organ, flute, and strings, but I don't hear the brass very well. I kind of hear something that sounds french horn-like at 2:30, but its timbre is really similar to the flute at that point.

I think my favorite part was 2:16 - 3:01.

I'm not sure what it is you're hearing. What are you referring to in those remixes?

I respect your opinion, but what DO you "hate" about Zebra? I find it to be my main resource for sounds, and it's practically endless what you can make with it, at least to me.

Geez Luiz 10char

Now, basically just pick out another song, point out something interesting you noticed in it, and have someone else see if they can hear it.

Here's something I've learned at one point. 90% pan is pretty much the same between headphones and speakers. I often pan my cymbals 25%, rides 25%, and hi hats 12~19% whichever way.

Something I thought of just now to help out newcomers, beginners, and people looking to improve. Here's the idea: Find a song, any song. Find an interesting detail in it, and point it out. Try to identify it by a name if you can. It can be subtle or obvious. Have the next person see if they can hear that detail, and then have them pick another song. It can be the same song if it's a different detail, but try to pick a different song. Starting it off: at about 0:31, there is a distant ambient hit. I actually didn't notice that until two days ago, and I've had the Globulous album for a few months now. The next person to hear this continues it.

I'm surprised you went with Diva, Dan. I thought for sure you were going to say Zebra2, 'cause that's what I'm gonna suggest. Suggestions: Zebra2 (do-it-all synth, quite literally) Omnisphere (don't have it, I want it, too expensive for me)

I second Sir_NutS on the Darkwing Duck. I really liked that show as a kid, back when I actually had Toon Disney. If it so happens that you're going to take suggestions for round 3 too, I'm actually going to suggest it for round 3 rather than round 2, simply because I'd be participating in round 3.

Hm, well, something I can say now is that the drum kit isn't panned in a noticeable way yet. Sounds like the hi hat and ride are still center. I haven't seen an actual drum kit in a long time, but the one at my old school had a ride-and-cymbal-in-one on the right and a hi hat on the left.

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.