timaeus222

This overall really close, IMO. There's just some small level issues. I believe I've finally mastered mixing rock and metal cleanly now, and I've found that having your lead guitar at -4dB, rhythm guitars at -5dB, and drums maxed out at 0dB with the proper compression will work. Also, you can start over on the synth lead volumes. Just drop it a lot, then raise it until you first hear it loudly enough. One other thing is to check and make sure you aren't overcompressing things. If you're using a compressor to keep volumes under control, don't do it too much; most of an instrument's character is in the parts of the sound wave that stray higher than its typical amplitude. It just doesn't seem like this song is really blowing me away just yet. The writing is there. Now just check your compression algorithms.

Cool, great work! The ending could use one more note, same as your current second to last note. The only other thing I'd say now is to really beef up the soundscape now that you have the balance and ideas down. Upgrade your sounds! Oh, and you should have a rimshot transition at 3:16. xD Kinda like at 1:44 in !EDIT: WAIT WAT. Did you speed up the tempo between 4:01 and 4:30? xD

Those toms. In general, the atmosphere is great. But yeah, I agree, definitely layer more snares on top of that at 1:04. You can probably still layer more 80s snares there to get the overall sound you want while still sticking to the 80s idea. At 1:36, the snare+clap layer is strong, but not in a preferable way. It feels like your clap is louder than your snare, but your clap is longer. Try choosing a shorter clap and a longer snare. There isn't too much reverb, but use a spectral analyzer and fix your levels. Make sure things are how loud they should sound. Some things are too soft, like at 2:12 and 4:35 with the guitar. The square lead at 3:13 could use some modulation, like vibrato to keep things interesting. Great ideas, keep it up!

Yeah, I still stand by what I said earlier; I just don't have critiques I can really say on EQ and balance for this song. xD Er... I didn't mean to say Sunken Ship. I meant S.S. Anne from RBY. xD (Read the top comments!)

No problem! Well, let's see... The snare at 0:51 still feels like its reverb is a bit too much. Try to have the reverb there lengthen the snare's waveform, but not feel like reverb. e.g. Give it a sort of hissy tail to make it sound like it's in a room with really good acoustics. At 0:58, the synth arpeggio still feels too loud; from what you wrote there, it appears the piano should be louder. Try increasing the velocities on the piano for that section and lowering the velocities on the synth arpeggio pattern on just that section until it sounds right. At 1:38, the solo(?) feels like it's meandering quite a bit. Try rewriting that a few times and picking the one you like best. Same at 1:55 with the EP. It kinda sounds like what I would have done in my first half year of mixing (been mixing for 1.5 years now).

If you can't think of a chord progression, think about how you want your song to sound during each measure. Then put a harmony note down. If it doesn't fit, shift it up or down until it does. Then write down what letters are in the harmony you have. Fill in what's missing (a middle note) and keep trying until you get the chord you want there. I already know music theory, but it still doesn't help me in FL Studio without the use of my MIDI keyboard. I can play chords better than I can think them up.

When I use a Kontakt library on FL and link the instance to one mixer channel, I can split it to two using the Wrapper settings and mapping the outputs. If I pan an output hard left and one hard right and put s(M)exoscope in the Master and I alter the mix level slider or knob on the one panned hard right, s(M)exoscope doesn't reflect that. In fact, it doesn't give any output at all if I mute the channel panned hard right; it only outputs the channel panned hard left. However, if I pan both to the center, I can mute one and the other will still be shown in s(M)exoscope. In fact, if both are panned center, both are shown in s(M)exoscope if both are not muted. Any idea why? EDIT: Never mind, can a mod delete this topic? It turns out s(M)exoscope is set to analyze only one channel at a time, so it can only look at something panned left OR right, not more than one.

LinuxSampler works well with SFZ and other soundfont types. http://download.linuxsampler.org/packages/win32/snapshots/ - latest version on the bottom. Maybe that'll help? Either way, it's really nice.

It's ironic how the second sentence is completely antithetical to the first in terms of a person's assumed composure. e.g. The second sentence is smarter than the first by a long shot. xD No offense, of course. Just kind of funny.

In that case, you should take a look at this:

I'm not a dubstep fan, but I do know that what you should really do is learn how to make patches on a plugin that is capable of making the sound you want for the wobbles. i.e. Massive, and if you're really good, Zebra2. *coughzirconcough*

I actually never use that, because honestly, since I have no control as to how it works other than the mix level, I just go for other plugins.

Ah, that's good. Yeah, I wanted to make sure everything was playing in full clarity first before I fixed any EQ issues.

Listening on my good headphones, I personally don't notice anything too out there, but that's just because I'm not an orchestral person. I don't think I hear anything weird with EQ or clarity though.

Haha, yeah. I really only use FL Limiter, Param EQ 2, Blood Overdrive (for my kicks), Waveshaper (rarely), and compressor (last resort).

Okay, how does this sound now? Anyone notice anything strange anymore? I believe I've fixed all overcompression problems, dynamics problems, and in consequence, have a "more modern" mixing caliber. Btw, if you notice something at 2:30, I do too. I think I need another reverse cymbal layer there. https://www.box.com/s/y52h5refxuc8381z1vxs - V4 https://www.box.com/s/nwc9c2a97t1mksy96edm - V3 https://www.box.com/s/51902283176a34f60bbe - V2 - Source Mirror 1 - Source Mirror 2

Seriously, anyone have any comments? Bump.

Not a bad first attempt. The first thing that bothered me was the snare at 0:24. Try getting a sample with more punch and a shorter tail. If your DAW can, try shortening the tail in your DAW and lowering the wet on the reverb by about 10%. The kick also sounds like the generic FL Studio template kick. Actually, it just might be that same sample. Are you using FL's default 4 drum samples? At 0:38, the lead sounds like its sustain is too low and the release is what is carrying the note along. Basically it sounds like a note is pressed and then let go really quickly with some added reverb, but not exactly like that. In short, make the note capable of lasting longer and add some vibrato expression on there. The "YAH" wub at 0:58 might be overused like that; it feels mechanical since the same vowel instance is repeated in a machine-gun-like fashion. See if you can't modify that patch to be more dynamic. Have the vowel change somehow, maybe through linking a slow LFO? 1 cycle per 2 seconds might work. Usually that's listed as "2/1". I'm thinking though that that sound is just the only one in the patch to begin with. I think you can make 1:39 shine some more. Sounds like an action-filled section, or at least, it could be. Might be a good time to change up the drum rhythm there. Maybe even add an organ solo after that section? The ending was pretty cool. That works for me. Again, not bad, just needs some sample upgrading, expression, and more polish.

Haha, Protricity totally nailed this one. I agree too, the original was terribly dull and in-your-face. This remix does feel too quiet at 0:36 - 1:36, but if the volume were pumped up by, what, 2 dB, then it might be the right volume. The mixing itself is just fine, though. 1:49 is not too quiet; I actually like that breakdown a lot. Aside from that, well, the rest is awesome. Ten thumbs up for turning *that* source into this remix. Oh wait. I don't have ten thumbs. Hey, guys? Lend me your thumbs! >

Hm, you've given it an 80's disco feel. Interesting. The stabs at 0:43 were an interesting transition. Really nice lead at 1:06. Some creative stuff going on here. It's not overly impressive, but it's pretty cool. Sweet toms too. Now that I think about it, the beginning and end leads sound like a guitar. xD

I'm not on my good headphones now, but I can tell you other things. I like the touch you put with Goldenrod's theme. It works pretty seamlessly with Pachelbel. Some compression issues, though. i.e. At 1:57, the lead is too soft and the arpeggio flute is too loud. Make sure to raise the volume until you first hear it enough. At 2:08, things start becoming more conservative; that was basically verbatim Pachelbel, actually. Try to be more creative, like you were in the intro. You had it going for a while there. At 2:40, you could even say it's the Abandoned Ship theme. In fact, if you say that, it would appear to be more impressive. xD Overall, the piece feels a bit simple. It looks like the majority of the piece has the same feel. Try changing the mood up a little. 1:58 was getting interesting, but that was a little long to get there. Maybe you could bring in more instruments to introduce a new soundscape but still keep the atmosphere you were going for with your other instruments. I think you can personalize this way more. Keep working on it!

Alright then, thanks! Although, I didn't mean that the definition of "modern" is arbitrary. I meant that your definition would vary slightly with other people. I thought "modern" meant "of this era", rather than "mixed with this era's expectations".

I agree with some of the level issues, but not all of them; I don't hear how the leads are too loud. The judges also said nothing about the arrangement other than the ending and the transition at 1:35 (and apparently you didn't say anything about that transition, so I guess can safely ignore that. First impressions matter more, right?). And it's kind of hard to process things "modernly" if your definition of "modern" is arbitrary in the sense that other people would define it slightly differently.