timaeus222

Either way, the hand placement would be the same; you would just leave your middle and index fingers in place and move your thumb for the high note. Hence, the intensity pattern is similar.

The velocity response is essentially a way to control how low/high velocities access the samples in the sample library. Generally, low velocities access low-intensity samples, and high velocities access high-intensity samples. Changing the velocity response can change it so that, for example, lower velocities access lower-intensity samples than before (exponential curve). EDIT: Yes, consider overlapping notes as well for the durations of each note. The way you wrote the right hand, the pianist plays staccato almost the whole time.

That's updated? For some reason I still hear similar velocities in the right hand. Maybe it'll work better after checking the velocity response.

Can you provide an example? Essentially, muddy sounds generally arise from too much frequency clash in the low-midrange (100~500 Hz or so), so you should check the amount of low-mids each instrument has and consider which ones actually need those frequencies. Or, alternatively, check the octaves that each instrument is occupying. When you "record", are you saying with a microphone, or through MIDI, or? Generally you could work towards fixing muddiness in multiple ways: Playing in different octaves Cutting the low end out of certain instruments that don't need bass frequencies (e.g. high pass or low shelf could work); sometimes you may have bassy ambient noise that you don't need. Raising the low cut frequency of any reverb you apply to the instruments until you start hearing a difference, and then find that borderline between where you stop hearing a difference and start hearing a difference.

Better, but yeah, still sounds like "MIDI". The faster phrases are a bit too perfect in terms of the evenness of the velocity magnitudes. Is it possible to adjust your sample library's velocity response? It might help to smooth out the hardness of the tone overall by making the slope more exponential than logarithmic.

Rozo and Slimy are right; the piano chords are noticeably stiff; I can tell that every note in each chord has zero timing offset with respect to the others and/or are quantized to the left edge of each grid subdivision (i.e. it's too robotic). I had made an audio example a while ago that illustrates the general difference between completely stiff rhythm and humanized rhythm but I can't find it. If I get the time tonight I can make a new example though, by quantizing something that's humanized. I like the transformation to a slow waltz. I played piano for about 8 years, so one thing I'd say is that on the left hand, on each [single-note]-[chord]-[chord] 3/4 pattern (or 6/4, depending on how you group the measures), the single note, generally played by your left pinkie, should be strongest, and the two chords, generally played by your left hand's middle finger+index finger+thumb, should be weaker. Those two chords should also not be exactly the same intensity. So, if we suppose velocities on a scale from 1 to 10, I would do something like [8]-[4]-[5] or [8]-[5]-[4] for the [single-note]-[chord]-[chord] velocity magnitudes. For the right hand, suppose the main, waltz-y parts of this (i.e. not the quieter outtro) are in 6/4 and we consider 6/4 measures, counting the beats as 1 2 3 || 2 2 3. Under those circumstances, for the right hand, I would emphasize the 1 of measure 1 and the 2 of measure 2 and have the velocities of the other notes in the pair of measures be lower. That's how I would prefer to play it naturally. EDIT: Example (Humanized) ~ Humanized rhythm and velocities Example (Robotic Rhythm) ~ No effort to humanize rhythm (except on grace notes, triplets, and other irregular/non-4/4 tuplets) Example (Robotic Velocities) ~ No effort to humanize velocities Example (Robotic Rhythm AND Velocities) ~ Literally no effort to humanize (except on grace notes, triplets, and other irregular/non-4/4 tuplets) You may notice that generally, humanized rhythm can be more subtle, but it's still significant, especially on chords. I would say that the humanization on your remix is roughly between the third and fourth examples, though closer to the fourth than the third.

Are you sure? Can you give us an example of something you've done with guitars?

The vocals could be more upfront. It's hard to hear them above the boomy bass, which is also too loud. You could try scooping the midrange on the bass and not boosting so much on the low-mids.

Pretty much agreed; the only thing I would question is what I bolded. I'm on board that anyone who has not trained his/her ears to listen for dynamic range, loudness, and the like would have trouble detecting pertinent issues, and that communicating to them via language like "dB RMS" is an effective way of conveying how loud something is without knowing how loud their system is. But it seems like you're also saying that taking a systematic, numeric approach makes it easier to learn how to write loud music properly. It might, if one doesn't get overly focused on what the numbers "ought" to be. For instance, it sounds like you prefer a borderline of -10 dB RMS, and Brandon as well. So, based on numbers and numbers alone, then I should expect that either of you would find the MP3 of this too loud. I seem to recall it being -6 dB RMS when I looked at it with Sonalksis FreeG Stereo, but correct me if I'm wrong. Personally, I intended it to be that loud, and I was aware that it was that loud. Based not on numbers, but on my ears, I don't believe it is too loud with respect to my vision (high energy, guitar-toting drum & bass). If by your ears you believe it is not too loud, then I don't think mere reference numbers, like for dB RMS, are sufficient to assert "too loud" or "too quiet" (perhaps our volume settings on our computers are different; always a possibility, as "too loud" can mean either actual volume or small crest factors), or sufficient to guide a "newbie" faster towards proper dynamic compression. It can be helpful though. Granted, they have to constantly train their ears on such material too; I think we agree on that. But if a "newbie" gets caught up on what the numbers "ought" to be, couldn't it hinder them more that they are shooting for a goal that might encourage his/her conforming to specific loudness standards? I'm all for numerical measures of 'loudness', but IMO, there comes a time where being less systematic might be more conducive to writing more creatively. Come to think of it (and I don't mean to belittle; this is just for discussion), Master Mi is one example that comes to mind when I consider someone who adheres to "EBU R128" loudness standards that he has continued to expressly praise, and yet, I find his music rather quiet (EX: https://soundcloud.com/master-mi/lufia-2-tyrant-breaker-master-mi-remix-version-15). Either he did not adhere to those standards properly, or something's wrong with those standards. Whatever the case, how loud his music sounds correlates with how much he adheres to those standards, no? That's my point. If anything, I would let your ears be your guide (or even someone else's whom you trust), and check numbers if you know that they aren't going to limit how you express yourself through music.

Neblix and APZX, you were technically correct on each point, but yeah, you guys could have been more polite (APZX, you were a bit more rambling, but nevertheless I get what you were going for, and Neblix, at least you removed some undesirable words). Thank you, Dan, for being that guy. Regardless, some good information here. Thanks!

I think you've inspired me to keep working on my book. Time to write about music production!

Can't remember if I still own Rayman Advance, but I'm sure I had a blast playing it.

Pretty fun performance. I thought it was pretty boomy and muffled though (too much low-mids in the kick and bass). You should keep working on it to make the production more crisp and clear.

I know there's an FAQ question about it here: http://ocremix.org/info/Frequently_Asked_Questions#Can_I_use_OC_ReMixes_in_my_YouTube_video.2C_website.2C_livestream.2C_podcast.2C_radio_show.2C_etc..3F but I want to make sure. I got a message on twitter about using some of my past OC ReMixes in a new Steam game; if I say yes, could that infringe on any copyrights? I know the game will be sold for profit.

I'm pretty sure I've had this problem before with my old laptop in 2007 or something. Perhaps something to do with previously-acquired viruses/trojans, or too many unexpected shutdowns (e.g. frozen screen -> press power button)?

I'm starting to think mid-April is a good next deadline. It evenly spaces out with the June deadline for the SFRG album.

Do you think you can get to near-completion by mid-April?

@The_Wizard_Lakmir @Clem @Theory of N @Brandon Strader @djpretzel @Rexy @Damashii!! @WillRock Yoooooo~ How's everyone doing on this? *nudge nudge*

This awesome OST.

I went back to this maybe about a year ago and redid it from scratch, calling it "Big Brute Force of Nature". It's up on OCR now!

This sounds like a cymbal layered with a dance kick (such as from Vengeance Club Essentials; there's a fast pitch envelope), a sub bass drop, and perhaps an ambient rim shot.

I really like this playlist of "mini-tutorials" for Zebra2; you don't have to have the same synth to get a feel for what each filter or oscillator does. If you listen to what is done in each tutorial, you should be able to analogize back to your synth. (If it's a good synth, it'd better have filters and oscillators.) Of course, it wouldn't do much good to watch and do nothing else; spend time practicing sound synthesis if you want to get better at sound synthesis. Apparently you want to learn it, but you're asking for stuff you have yet to practice or look into. I highly recommend that you get the fundamentals down, practice that, and work your way up. Some things you ought to know inside and out: What are the common oscillator waveforms? (Square, triangle, sine, saw, noise) What is an oscillator's role in the synth? What are the types of filters? (high pass, low pass, band pass, band reject, etc) What do filters do? When you develop more complex sounds on your own in a synth, if you remember how you made them, it should make it easier for you to correlate something you hear with the oscillators you can start with, which filters are used, which effects are used, etc. Practice. Even an hour each day is good.

Ah yeah, I see what you mean. I try to give feedback that is appropriate to the skill of the ReMixer so that he/she can improve gradually (or at least I used to, haha). I should do that more often.

Obviously I'm not Rozovian, but for another perspective, here's my take on it. Even if someone has some idea of what kind of OCR-oriented feedback they want (such as specifically mixing), they might not be aware of other issues that are also important (such as an overly-conservative arrangement, or an overly-liberal arrangement). I like the idea of adding a short description; it encourages people to actually spend time to say *something* about their track, and sometimes I see people post JUST the links and nothing else, and it feels like advertisement to me. I would be fine with having the goals there, and I think that would help more people than not, but I personally don't really need explicitly stated goals to figure them out. Maybe it's just me. It still helps more of the time to have those goals there, sure. It's fine and dandy to ask for specific feedback, and I'm aware you didn't imply the following, but I would not go so far as to suggest that being closed-minded towards feedback that was NOT requested is conducive to the ReMixer's learning. So, while I would support asking for specific feedback, I would also encourage being open-minded to all feedback, even if it was not asked for. It would be, again, because the ReMixer might need feedback on something they don't think they need help on. (Believe me, there are people out there every now and then who think they've got certain things down pat when they really don't, and then sometimes they deny the feedback they don't want because they didn't ask for it, or something crazy like that. )

This is pretty good. The production is good enough, but it can be better. It's fairly clear, though I think the instruments are lacking a little bit of excitement. I find that it's mainly because of the looped/copy-pasted rhythm guitar throughout, and the lack of expression on the lead that you have hold that note at 0:33. I can't really tell what it is because it feels like sustained synth brass or something, but nothing real. Compositionally this has some potential to it; it's the beginning of a nice groove, and could probably function as a "chorus" or "hook" in a more complete track. It's the lackluster expression that's making this sound less exciting than it wants to suggest. It sounds good but not great. You may want to listen to this as a point of comparison.