timaeus222

The original bitrate you have is normal for a 16-bit WAV file. I wouldn't worry too much about the 218 kbps MP3. For example, I encoded this ReMix in VBR1, and on OCR, it displays as 232 kbps. VBR1 continuously changes the bit rate (how accurately your song is reproduced bit-by-bit) to accommodate for the minimum bitrate required to give a specific level of fidelity every second in the ReMix. So, having a bit rate displayed on the Properties window of your MP3 that is greater than 192 kbps (which is for constant bit rate) is totally normal.

An odd bitrate like that (as opposed to 224/256/288/320/etc kbps) may have arisen from encoding in variable bit rate; the directions ask for "VBR1", which is an alternative option to 192 kbps.

Nono, resend it as soon as possible, so that there isn't confusion as to when the original email was sent (which could have delayed the evaluation).

Resend the message early; the date given on the email would be the day that you send it, so if you send it, say, several months later, it will seem like the original email was first sent on that later date. Then, if the original email isn't examined to determine the original date, the evaluation may be delayed. I've had this happen to me before, and it took a bit of effort to clear that up, because apparently, some Judges use gmail.

This is some downright unsettling processing. Some very obscure sound design here. Distorted pitch-shifted comb filters (the metallic stuff at 0:33 - 0:42), those glitched drums, short-delay-time metallic delayed vox (2:30), some VERY upfront glitching (1:23, 1:33, 2:58, 3:04, etc), and kind of a phasered backdrop make for a slew of spooky textures.

+1

The album is already done; coming out in around a month.

Seeing as how I'm still in college, I can't really pay out, but I shared the link on Facebook and Twitter; hope it helps!

Nah, it was just that I got what you were going for and was just fine with that vibraphone as a lead (0:06 and 0:23). I was just meaning that I typically imagine mallet instruments in less energetic contexts, but it still makes sense as-is, regardless. Yeah, I'm more on board with that than before. But, what if you fade in the e. piano (say, playing chords) while the lead synth is still fading out? Yeah, I'm getting a more energetic sound at 0:35, 1:23, and 1:54. That background moving chordal synth at 0:35 (comes in off the beat) helps land it in the 80s as well as adding more excitement. Not that it's necessarily a bad thing, but the overall beefed up sections (0:35, 1:23, and 1:54), to me, currently sound like a mixture between energetic music and atmospheric music because of the sustained acoustic piano (atmospheric) and the drums and syncopated moving synth (energetic). It's somewhat pulling me more towards atmospheric than energetic because of the prominence of the piano, but it's not a big deal IMO. It's something I would personally keep working to kind of "shift that equilibrium", but even if you don't, it doesn't really bother me too much. The extra vibrato expression on the lead at 1:11 definitely helped it draw more attention to itself, which is what a lead ought to do. Great new noise sweeps throughout; improved this loads! The breakdown at 1:23 also seems fuller than before, not just from the pad, but also from the movement of the bass at 1:35 and what I think are more complex chords in the e. piano (could just be that the harmonies are clearer, idk). I'd be pretty happy with it! The transition at 1:39 works for me, and the one at 1:53 was just about right as well. Cool bending guitar-like sound at 1:53 - 2:05. At first, the off-beat e. piano here seemed to stand out a bit, and I wasn't sure if there was supposed to be a lead here. To me that section seems like a bunch of chords and a guitar-like texture coming in and out, but for some reason I feel like there should be a lead here; I'm thinking maybe it's because of that syncopated DX7-like e. piano having that particular rhythm and because its tone has that FM glassiness. Maybe play around with this a bit more to see if you can make it sound more purposeful as a lead-less section. It's not really a significant issue, per se, just something that strikes me as slightly odd. The fast vibe arpeggios at 2:20 and 2:32 sound cleaner to me, and it's really making sense now. The transition at 2:39 has the piano carry on with low chords (dunno if you had it that way earlier), and I'd say that works well like this. ----- Definite improvement over the previous version! It's much more focused, and I'm getting an even clearer vision of what you're going for. It's making lots more sense than V1, for sure. Anyone else have some thoughts?

Sounds like a slightly distant anvil (metallic pot-like clang). Not sure how to synthesize that, but you could find similar sounds in the Impact Soundworks Reforged library. They give a sampler pack with 42 WAV files (and a bunch of NKI files for Kontakt). Or, maybe you could use a tubular bell sound and detune it / make it more atonal, then layer a very quiet gong. The hit at about 0:08 sounds like a quiet gong was played underneath the metallic clang.

Still pretty unclear what you mean. I think you might be talking about this song. If so, are you referring to the sound at 2:07? I can't hear anything that resembles a "small shrinking bubble" at 2:02. The sound at 2:07 is a reverse kick drum, though, and that might be "bubbly" to some people if the kick drum has a noticeable pitch envelope (a dive downwards in pitch; reversing a sound that dives quickly downwards in pitch can sound somewhat like a bubble, I suppose). Is this what you mean? Can you describe the "high parts" more specifically than instruments "[not in] the bass-drop part"? What you said corresponds to almost anything.

Are you talking about sidechained saw waves? If not, I still don't know what a "popped bubble" implies. What timestamp? Be more specific.

What are you talking about?

The step sequencer still makes pattern clips like you can make in the piano roll, but if you mean "can it be converted into piano-roll notes?", then yes (right click the channel, click "Send to piano roll"). You don't have to do it that way, but you can. If you mean "can I reuse chunks of notes from the step sequencer patterns in a convenient way", then yes. When you place step sequencer patterns in the Playlist/Multitrack/Arranger window, if you left-click the upper-left corner of the pattern, clicking "Make Unique" lets you duplicate the pattern without losing the original, and you can edit the new clone to add variation that way. I do that all the time, and it really helps my workflow. Copying and pasting is also pretty quick; if you want to paste the same pattern clip or entire chunks of piano-roll notes multiple times, try pressing Ctrl+B and holding that. Alternatively, you can highlight multiple pattern clips in the Playlist using Ctrl+Left-click-drag, and then Shift+Left-click-drag to clone a bunch of patterns at once. You could place audio samples on the timeline, but I personally only do that if I want to align transients (like when using vocals, cymbals/reverse cymbals, cinematic risers, etc). It's otherwise quite hard to align something like a reverse cymbal.

FL doesn't have good drum samples for Drumstep, plain and simple. I'd suggest you look for electronic drum samples more suited for that genre. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drum_and_bass#Subgenres I use BHK Rough Connections and Bladerunners Dread.

I layer my drums in FL Studio using the Layer tool, and I write my patterns using the step sequencer. It's by far the easiest method that I've used to write drums for dubstep, electro house, and drum & bass music. I tend to use some distortion/waveshaping to strengthen the fundamentals should I need some real snap to the drums (like for EDM snares), and I use some parallel compression to make them punchier. I like layering stuff from BHK Rough Connections (Drum & Bass), Bladerunners Dread (Drum & Bass), When Alien Drum Robots Attack (general Roland TR-808/909 samples for electro and dubstep music), MPC60 Vol. 1-3 (dubstep, hip hop, etc), and Black Octopus Leviathan (dance/trance). Together that's over 5000 drum samples. This is one track I've written using mainly the WADRA and MPC60 drums: http://ocremix.org/remix/OCR03225

Because sometimes that kind of thing, depending on the Release of the most prominent sound(s), can bleed through the loop point and clash with the note at the beginning of the loop, even though one might expect it to turn out fine. Depends on context!

Is it just me or is that first snare at 0:28 - 0:36 slightly panned left? Kind of odd. I still think this is really loud (much like 'Schizophrenic'), I'm not much of a fan of the rising saws starting at 0:44, the hi hats are a tad bit piercing, and the bass is surprisingly basic, but oh well. I like the amount of energy in this arrangement. It certainly hits hard, and sure, it's not really dubstep, but it still has similar elements that remind me of what I unfortunately don't like about the particular kind of dubstep that I don't like (rising saws, piercing production, loud mixing). I agree with Jivemaster that some more breakdown sections would have been nice. I can see some EDM fans liking this, and you'd probably get a dance floor jumping, but it's not for me (and I usually love dubstep!).

Alright, looking at the arrangement and sound design specifically: 0:00 - 0:34 is interesting; I might use a different instrument for the lead, but okay, sure, I'm on board with that. 0:34 - 0:57 sounds like it's supposed to be high energy, but I think the lead you used at 0:47 - 0:50 and 0:51 - 0:56 is too ambient to be carrying the track as the lead like that. It seems disjointed when I compare it to the energetic legato arp at 0:49 - 0:51, so I think you should utilize those notes, but adapt them to a more assertive lead and make the melodic contour more expressive. 1:00 - 1:23 can use a transition leading into it, like a soft cymbal for instance. This section also still seems strange, like Will said, with the upfront (fairly dry) basic chiptune waveform. I can kind of see what you're going for, but at minimum, I think you should incorporate more motion into it to elevate the tonal sophistication of it (as per OCR standards: "Synthesized and sampled elements must be reasonably sophisticated"), because right now it's just sustaining. Maybe through some pulse-width modulation (PWM)? Imagine a square wave, and then apply an LFO to change the wavelength of every other half of each cycle. That's pulse-width modulation. You could also additionally incorporate some vibrato for more expression. The interjecting harp (?) is pretty cool; it vaguely reminds me of a tropical rain forest. The transition out of 1:23 doesn't completely leave me satisfied, personally; you do have that reverse cymbal, and that low impact, which are both suitable, but perhaps have a trebly sweep as well? It could also be because 1:23 - 1:39 is pretty bare. All I hear is a simple bass and an e. piano (and a pad that faded out), and this section ends up making me feel like the track stopped (which is perhaps one part that Will was referring to). I think you can fill in the soundscape more, with something like a pad, for instance. Preferably nothing rhythmic, so you don't complicate your tempo change (I know that sometimes tempo changes can be tough for me to get right when a lot of rhythmic elements are playing). A transition out of 1:39 is also something that would help keep the momentum going. 2:04 - 2:38 is almost like an extension of 0:47 - 0:57, so what I said for 0:34 - 0:57 also applies here. For example, at 2:31 - 2:33, the fast marimba is super messy. 2:38 - 2:44 sounds like it stopped, and then suddenly started again. At 2:50 - 2:58, I think it would be interesting to swap out only that part for a new lead that then carries on after the short pause at 2:53, but it's up to you. 3:33 also sounds like it stopped completely, and that could actually be the ending, but you put more after it, so it leaves me confused. Personally, I think you should either take out the e. piano outtro or move the tempo change from just before 3:33 to just before the last note of the e. piano outtro, and connect the two parts a little better at 3:33. Overall, still a little rough, but I can see what you're going for, and it's becoming a bit clearer what the final version might sound like.

Thanks @nitrozsz! I really enjoyed writing the part at 1:59 - 3:07.

Because that's the one genre I don't produce at all.

Oh yeah! I think this reminded me of this theme. I find the melody to be rather strange sometimes, and though it works, I think it's kind of half-resolving at those times---resolving melodically but not always harmonically. I do really like the choppy processing (like the metallic snare at around 1:04, for instance). The mixing is also very clean for what's going on (and there's a lot going on!). My favorite part is after 2:52 all the way to the end when we have this constant tradeoff of interacting leads (the harmonies also work best there IMO). It does seem to carry on for quite a while after 2:52, but I'd be proud of what's there.

I didn't mean in terms of the sound design, but just the compositional aspect / notes.

The mixing feels weird; it's like you took something that compositionally sounds like an 80s rock song and applied orchestral-style mixing. As a result, there's some substantial low-mids muddiness, mainly from the piano and pad, like at 0:52 - 0:57, for example. The drums also feel buried under the marimba and piano sometimes (like at 0:06 - 0:34), so they could use some careful compression to make them punchier and more exciting. The drum writing can also be more energetic and less stiff. So, try toning it down on the piano and pad reverb, liven up those drums, and perhaps hone in more on that 80s rock feel that you seem to have accidentally somewhat landed on here.

fyi, I did just finish a Remember Me ReMix, so just for you, I'll submit it soon.