timaeus222

Actually, the aim is not to be "true to the original". The aim is to take the source and use it in a creative way, keeping it recognizable but still sufficiently interpretive.

It might help you to know that the idea of seeing other instrument channels in the same pattern is called "Ghost Channels".

The intro's a bit long, but once the drums come in at 0:38, it's very funky and the soundscape is unique and intriguing. The squelchy acid bass is cool. Now there's a sound I have yet to create on Zebra2. That said, the kick is feeling a bit weak. The snare is sufficient, but the kick is hard to hear; maybe you could try sidechaining the kick to the bass, or possibly even layering more kick samples on there to give it a wider character. Rather than just low end punch, perhaps a high end click? The saw pads you have appear to be slightly too loud, as they're obscuring the piano somewhat until 1:25. The transitions work. I especially liked 1:34. The saw lead at 1:36 appears to sound a bit mechanical. Yeah, synth leads have more lenience associated with them, but try not to make it seem machine-gun like. Maybe you could think about how a keyboardist would emphasize certain notes, and write your notes that way? The timbre of the lead works just fine. Aside from that, great ideas going there!

Oh, I see; I thought you happened to notice the major second moving into the major third that lasted for like half a second at 1:19. That would have been unbelievable. Well, for some reason, those notes are symbolic of the Mega Man Battle Network and Star Force series; they apparently denote pressure and tension. After all, this is the final battle to save the world from Andromeda, a space-themed war engine with the power to destroy planets. xD Cool, thank you for the feedback, and woah, you have a son.

I took a closer look at the waveform, and honestly, you have room to spare. It appears you're at -1.9dB! Some people boost their dB to -0.2! So since you have the headroom to boost certain instruments, do so (But not in the intro)!

Okay! I've fixed the dissonance at 1:19 (very quick and ephemeral but I'm surprised you noticed. xD), fixed/improved the bass (frequencies and pitch envelope), some fills, (velocities) the kick (punch), snare (volume), the first PWM lead (envelope sustain), and added some note variations to the formant-like lead at 1:30. I'd say it's completely ready for that video. ;D https://www.box.com/s/uy3b3hjhb8dt6ydlqytl - V2 https://www.box.com/s/n6s730lcl7fk3cwy15at - V1 Source:

Just to clarify, DnB is defined with really quick drums that have action-heavy fills, plus a really powerful bass. True, there should be a bit more low end to the bass. I did sidechain though! But oddly enough, I sent it to a different mixer track for a later drum timbre variation and that nullified the sidechaining. xD Whoops. Sure, why not? xD

I wrote this for a very specific purpose: to make my 1337th Youtube video badass. xD No, seriously. Anyways: Remix: https://www.box.com/s/n6s730lcl7fk3cwy15at - V1 Source: I finished this in 8 hours with breaks, and I really like how it turned out. I made half the non-percussion instrument patches myself in Zebra2 (including the strings lead patch!). This is my first DnB remix evar. Oh, and there is no MIDI of this source anywhere, so I did it all by ear. It's not intended to be OCR-level, but I still added some variations to keep it interesting, and of course, I paid extra close attention to EQ, dynamics, etc.

I agree, the reverb is very high. It makes everything blend a little too well, and it sounds excessively ambient. Reduce it some; it sounds like every single instrument is in one poorly constructed auditorium, kind of like a high school's gym, if you know what I mean. ;D Otherwise, sounds great.

After REALLY closely comparing the remix and the source, I'm proud to say that I hear the source in your arrangement enough for it to pass on the panel. I'd say the arrangement aspect in terms of amount of source usage is fantastic and really creative! The soundscape is another thing, but I'd say that's actually really close right now.

hm... There should be a better way to get the sound you want. Clipping on purpose is simply unheard of on OCR for the most part.

I started using a new compressor---Density MKIII. I personally think it sounds amazing on drums, especially when combined with TesslaSE (saturator). They're both free, but I seem to get a really great sound out of them. It could just be the samples I used, but I was satisfied within, like, 10 minutes. https://www.box.com/s/bavp93ekd2hph750rxgp - my (vFinal) VST test on a track in an OST being written by AngelCityOutlaw---Only drums were affected. He wrote it, and I mastered it. I put in a bass from Trilian and added reverb. http://varietyofsound.wordpress.com/downloads/ - You can find Density MKIII 3.0 and TesslaSE 1.2.1 here. Can I ask someone to try those two themselves and see if they like the quality? I like them, and people who gave reviews to the two of those liked them, but I'd like the opinion from a more experienced musician who loves using compressors and saturators. e.g. people who love strong drums.

Hm, I just want to clear this up. I believe when you increase the volume of a stereo system, it only multiplies the volume, and doesn't add to the dB. e.g. -0.2dB peaks will always be -0.2dB peaks, but you'll hear it at a louder volume. Or were you saying something different?

I found Variety of Sound makes some really good, free VSTs. http://varietyofsound.wordpress.com/downloads/ There's stuff like compressors (capable of parallel compression), saturators, pre-amps, reverb, chorus, etc. I particularly like Density MKIII. Combine that with TesslaSE and you've got yourself some pretty darn punchy drums.

I agree that it sounds like a wood block hit. I do think that there's some slight delay too, because I hear "two" hits.

What you said.

I agree with the 5 day timeframe, but I personally do it every morning. Since he didn't specify when in the day... I'll add that in the morning it appears to be best. Lots of people think better in the morning; at least, that's what I've found a lot of people saying on random google searches. Another thing is to close your eyes and only listen to a rendered audio file, not the project itself. Then see what stands out too much and write down notes on what to fix. Wait a day and see if you still want to fix that the next morning. If so, keep whatever you still want to fix and add anything new. You just do this four times, and then on the fifth morning, do your edits and take a fifth listen. I don't actually do that, but that's just because I feel decently confident about my ears. xD

I'd say the kick and snare need to cut through better, and the rhythm guitar should be a bit softer while the leads should be a bit louder. It feels like the rhythm guitar is overpowering the leads. Try sidechaining the kick and bass, notching the EQ of the bass where the kick is, and using a compressor to lower the volume of the rhythm guitar and raise the volume of the leads (for the compressor, try 0.5dB to the leads and -0.5dB to the rhythm guitar.

You know, there's a difference between sufficient saturation and audio clipping. Audio clipping is when it gets above 0dB without a limiter, and sufficient saturation simply gives you a more powerful sound at <=0dB with a limiter. Check to make sure your sounds aren't being limited and THEN going above 0dB. The order of FX in the mixer matters. Top first. What I'm hearing sounds more like clipping than saturation. You ought to check that out and lower the "clipping effect" or whatever YOU would call it. If you are aware that it's clipping "safely", then you should make it so everyone else will believe you by keeping the "clipping effect" minimalistic so that it's only sufficient, not oversaturated.

Hm... Yeah, aside from the snare, I'd say this is ready! Try getting a stronger snare than that, or boost it. To me, it unfortunately sounds kind of weak right now, but I think it's just too soft and needs to be louder. Really close!

On the first few seconds (strings) and at the 1:58 section (snares), I hear a little distortion. I don't know if you hear it, but you should fix that before submitting. For the snares, I don't think it's because they're overloading. It could be because of some other effect, but it sounds overloaded to me, as if there was some excessive bitcrushing. I really liked the shift to more electronica at 0:41. Pretty good transition there. 1:00 - Those toms... sweet. Pretty rich drums there. Sounds kind of like you've got some TR snares in there. Rich, but not quite there yet. I think you should look into compressing those drums... on purpose. I've just started using a new compressor recently called Density MKIII... it makes drums sound pretty awesome combined with some saturation effects. Get some more punch on the kick, mainly. You could apply it to all the percussion though. Do some parallel compression; half dry signal, half wet signal, something to that effect. It gives you a pretty cool combination of the original signal plus the new with extra "glue"/oomph. Aside from those comments, pretty cool track!

I have some small issues with this that unfortunately will have to wait: The snare is a bit too soft. I've taken a look at some professional guitar tracks and what you should do is make sure the snare is at about -1dB, but your whole track should be at about -0.7dB maximum altogether. Then, hard limit it to -1dB and normalize it to -0.2dB... three times (seriously, it seems like Sixto does that too; his tracks are borderline overload but they're compressed so well that it sounds just fine). xD Give that a shot and see how it sounds, and if you like it, and it wasn't approved, then it might help on the resub.

It feels like you have some bass compression and muddiness there. Try doing some compression work, and then lowering the reverb on the bass if you have any. Make sure the dry is at 100%. From the looks of the waveform, the majority of the song looks the same (even on soundcloud, where the waveform is "boosted" graphically), so surely something's up. That might give you more headroom to work with the kick and snare oomph, as well as the acoustic guitar volume. The solo at 0:13 could be re-recorded with more accuracy. Same with 1:49. The lead itself is fine at 0:13, but think the volume and dryness keep it from being awesome. And if you're a perfectionist, try crafting the E. Piano tone at 2:21 some more. The last thing is that the rhythm guitar could be softer, so lower the mix level on that by about 3% from its original.

Huge improvement! =D From here, I'd suggest working on the subtle quirks that make an arrangement engaging. i.e. nuances other people might not actually notice in the song that give expression to an instrument (like MIDI CC, ingenious sequencing, etc.), transitions that ensure the entire section is foreshadowing the next (melody rhythmic change-ups, snare rolls, reverse crashes, white noise sweeps, rim shots, and so on), etc. Things I'm noticing are: - The bass notes are repeating the same two pitches from 0:21 to 2:33 (which is a long time! xD). Try changing it up a little to give the feel you want, but also give the idea of a more complex structure. - 1:33 seems like a new section, but it doesn't sound too different from what came before it. Maybe you can change up the instruments so that even though you have a similar atmosphere, the instruments are different. ;D - 2:33 - this is very minor and not a big deal, but it would make more sense, just in my opinion, that the transition to 2:35 started at 2:32.5 instead of 2:33.5. It's sounding really good right now! The compression work made an awesome difference. =D

I think for the most part, it's very quiet, or at least, it would be quiet if the levels were balanced. e.g. 0:00 - 0:28, 0:53 - 1:52, which is about 1:30, or over half the song. It's worth looking into so you can add more elements and make it louder at some parts to give more of a progressive dynamic contrast. Basically, make sure each instrument is only as loud (in terms of amplitude, not relative volume) as you originally intended. If I were you, I'd put this hierarchy on your instruments: "Loudest" (anything below this) Square Lead (0:55, NOT the one at 1:52) Saw Lead (0:13), Square Lead (1:52, NOT the one at 0:55) Kick (0:27) Bass (0:27) White Noise sweeps (1:07 & other places) Pluck Arpeggio (beginning) Hi-Hats (beginning) "Softest" (anything above this) To do that, use a compressor. I'm sure your DAW has one. By the way, if I can identify every single instrument in your mix, that's a sign that you need more going on! ;D Basics of a sound compressor (not a technical compressor for audio files): - Similar to a limiter without the sidechaining capability. - Threshold is the upper limit to compress the instrument down towards. - Ratio is how heavy the compression is. - The compression knee can be Hard, Medium, Soft, or possibly "Vintage". Change to taste. Soft is best for light compression of elements you don't want to sound "overcompressed". - Gain is the dB boost. - Attack is how early the compression starts. - Release is how long the compression lasts. At 1:27, to make things simpler, I'd suggest switching the instrument playing the arp and the one playing the lead. If I'm correct, the instrument playing the lead at 1:27 was the same instrument playing the beginning arpeggio. Or, you could just clone that "arpeggio instrument" (pluck saw) and give it a different gain/boost in the compressor. Then you can just soften the lead's velocities there if it's velocity-sensitive. Actually, at 1:27, it would be a pretty good time to bring the energy back up as well. At 1:52, the square lead is a good volume because it could serve as a good breakdown section. Good luck!