timaeus222

oh, the percussion sound that plays in place of a snare. I'm actually not sure how to make it, but it seems metallic with maybe some plate reverb (which may sound metallic sometimes) or something to match the industrial genre aesthetics. Maybe @lazygecko has an idea?

At 0:15? No, it's some sort of short sampled EDM "cheer" sound. You can't. Not in a way that sounds "great" anyways, and not in a way that can be fully described in a short, concrete manner. The short answer is that you'd need good sample quality, and the time and dedication to practice and get your sequencing skills up to par with the sample quality. You'd need an actual, dedicated orchestral sample library, on the order of a few hundred to a few thousand USD, such as East West Quantum Leap Symphonic Orchestra ($195~995), Vienna Symphonic Library (plain expensive), Spitfire Albion (~$500), and so on, and a lot of practice writing actual music. Depending on how good you are at figuring out what you need to improve on as you work with these instruments, it may take a few months to a few years. It's not easy, and it's not overnight.

Yeah, I have to say that I barely hear the guitars as well. I only hear the upper midrange of the rhythm guitars. I'll second the brass comments at 0:21; the sequencing is bleeding together, like many people are competing with each other. I'm also finding the violin at 0:43 to be awkwardly sequenced, because I can't quite tell what notes it's supposed to be playing. It's basically almost playing certain notes, and then there's kind of a change of mind in the middle of the note, like the "player" is falling behind.

1. Well, you could also listen to the ReMix for the musicality of it, without comparing to the original if you don't want to. 2. Because OCR hosts it in higher bitrate and at its original volume. And you can then bring it with you even when you don't have internet where you are.

Yeah, the vocals are pretty much in the forefront while the instruments in the background are just really pushed back, like you don't want people to listen to them. I liked your soundcloud version much better. Just saying. So you should submit that version to OCR.

Well, it's a pretty conservative arrangement; it sticks very closely to the original, pretty much verbatim actually. Also, phaser is easy to overdo, and I think the phaser is overdone on the lead; the saw lead at 0:29 lacks impact. The guitar is also pretty lifeless and noticeably... what, FL Slayer? Though you probably won't work on this more, I think you should work on the judicious usage of particular effects, and just bringing your own creativity into your arrangements. Try writing without using a MIDI, and imagine contributing to a more liberal arrangement.

I agree that it was pretty conservative and that the early saxes were pretty wide and upfront compared to the narrow accordion; I also think the sax solo was odd being mixed wide (when that, if not for the volume, kind of draws attention away from it a little bit). But I do think the sax solo helped get it over the bar in terms of interpretation, and while this is a pretty faithful arrangement, I liked the guitar, solo sax, and drum performances the most. The drummer seemed especially excited. Those fills!

The transitions sound better now! At 1:01 in the original, compare that to 1:03 in your ReMix; you should see the similarity in the steel drums you used as a lead. To help keep the arrangement from getting too conservative, even something as small as changing the lead can help differentiate from the original. But you could also just add some "trills" every now and then on the steel drums (like at 1:05.8 - 1:06.9, or 1:08.5 - 1:09.2) and that would help a little as well. You should then also notice the similarity in the bells at 1:08 in the original and the bells you use at 1:10. This applies all throughout 1:03 - 1:30. At 1:30 - 1:38, the steel drums could also be a bit more humanized. They seem almost quantized, if not all the way quantized (rigid rhythm), and the straight 8th notes are the main thing I'm pointing out here. Maybe some triplets or 16th notes at specific points (like at 1:32.8 - 1:33.0 and 1:36.0 - 1:36.5)? The notes are also pretty much verbatim here, and you have a chance here, that would help quite a bit, to write some original arpeggiated leadin notes. Maybe an upwards scale on the steel drums at 1:36.8 - 1:37.8 to parallel the piano? The lead at 1:52 is also clearer. The staccato helped draw attention to it, though the melodic contour could be more focused/less meandering at 2:03.5 - 2:05.1. I find that normally, the bass defines an underlying "implied" chord progression for the lead, and outlines the chords that work with the lead, so I think it would help to change the bass and chords to match the motion of the lead at 1:52 - 2:05. To me, 2:19 - 2:39 sounds like it could be a climax. Also, the lead notes on 2:46 - 2:54 remind me of an outtro; as a result, if 2:46 - 2:54 had the same drums as 2:40 - 2:46, and the bass at 2:46 - 2:54 was less stuttered, I think that would help give 2:46 - 2:54 a more focused direction that's more cohesive with what came before 2:46 and after 2:54 (specifically, leading towards the ending). Overall, it's definitely improved; you might also want to get a mod review to see what someone like Rozovian or Gario thinks.

Yeah, I'd have to agree with DevilBeats; the poly supersaws you have can have more interesting filter motion, and maybe some rhythmic interest to get them to provide the hype you're trying to bring. I keep wanting to hear a Reese or a more interesting bass as well, in addition to the semi-random wub bass you bring in every now and then. Also, you should add more variation in the second half where you have a lot of copy+paste. Go all the way; don't just stop here. (And the ReMix stops without fading out all the way.) In terms of Sound Design, this is maybe 70% there for me. In terms of arrangement... maybe 60% there. Needs that variation in the second half to differentiate from the first half.

This is some rap I can get behind. I watched phoenix wright playthroughs as a kid () and recently took a Criminal Justice class, so I have a better idea of how court proceedings work and can understand this better. Awesome piano playing, and I don't think the lyrics were overdone.

This track has become a 'classic' for me. I downloaded this a few years ago, and here I'm coming back to it. I forgot Diggi Dis even did this. But it still sounds like him!

Which "synth thing"? There are three. The percussive bass, the sustained bass (0:47), and the lofi basic waveform (triangle?) coming in at 0:47 - 0:58. The percussive bass is a basic waveform that has an ADSR envelope (with a positive modulation depth) linked to a low pass filter, with no Attack, a short Decay, no Sustain, and a short Release. That makes it sound like... well... percussion. You'll have to experiment to get the right sound, but that's a starting point. It might have some detuning. You may need some distortion modules to get closer to the exact sound. This is what I got, using a square wave, and then a saw wave with the detuning and distortion I mentioned: https://app.box.com/s/4mqhwor0jzpf13epj6ps75hh5kl1482i The sustained bass is basically a multi-voiced saw wave with some detuning (for timbral motion), and some careful distortion; you'd have to experiment with that to get it to sound closer to what you're hearing. It might be pulse-width modulation (basically, altering the wavelengths of the left and right halves of a waveform). This is what I got: https://app.box.com/s/wcua4i80zujydc49ckl2ldwu7xzgieo1 The third synth is, like I had said, a bitcrushed/lofi basic waveform. Bitcrushing essentially reduces either the sample rate or the resolution of the audio. Either way, it's basically a way to make something sound "older". dBlue Glitch v1.3 is one plugin of many that can do that. You'd again, have to experiment with waveforms to figure out which one it is, but it might be a triangle. This is what I got: https://app.box.com/s/ftskhb9a5n4qf3o69iee8p2f8yncrhrx It's probably supposed to be a honky tonk piano, like this one. I'm unsure if the composer had an actual honky tonk piano sample, but one way you can get something similar is by adding a little bit of chorus to the right piano sample. But as you might expect, you'd have to experiment with piano samples and find one that gives you the sound you want. This is what I got after writing something ragtime-like: https://app.box.com/s/cl4sazvjxouho0j7psks7ka989z4kyge And this gets pretty close to an actual honky tonk piano: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FNFeKEDAD_c Or, 4Front Piano is pretty old-sounding, and it's free. But I don't think the composer used an actual honky tonk piano sample; it seems like a regular piano playing a ragtime song.

Maybe straying a little from the original track with some new harmonies, or a marimba improvisation?

Yeah, but how long ago was "the past"? No offense, but you may not have known for sure whether or not they were using a limiter or compressor properly. If it hurted your ears, it isn't necessarily true that using a limiter or compressor is harmful to the result, though it isn't necessarily true that they used limiters/compressors improperly either. What I'm thinking of is more subtle. For example, here's a recording AngelCityOutlaw made for 'Let's Upset a 'Troid!': https://app.box.com/s/li4habfdpexpu83v9eogmo85ond38b8r - No compressor or limiter https://app.box.com/s/mxgcaohx1qrnjj5etc35ihoc6j5e927m - With compressor (The Glue) to control peaks They should sound very similar. But something did happen, and you can tell since their waveforms look like this--- Without compressor: With compressor: And this is helpful because it sounds very similar, yet it is overall more "even", so if you tend to have overcompression problems, this lessens those problems.

If I do use it, it would be to keep the peaks controlled (yet not overcompressed). But if I feel like I have to use a limiter to solve any problems with guitar processing, I probably would go back to the amp sim (pre-limiter) and check the internal EQ there. If your frequency distribution is pretty even, then the waveform should look fairly even as well.

Yeah, I just use one EQ instance (minor high pass near 28 Hz) and a limiter, usually, and occasionally, if I want a punchy final result and a little more cohesiveness ('gluing' together the instruments), a compressor for parallel compression. After I do all my mixing, there's not much I ever need to do on the Master track or post-render. In fact, I program my synth sounds so that they're clean (few overboosts or hollowness, if any) out-of-the-box, to minimize the amount of EQ I need to do to make them sound more "even" across multiple audio systems. These days, much of my EQ is fairly simple (low shelf below 200 Hz, a little mid-scooping, maybe a little low pass near 18000 Hz, etc), and then sometimes I'll take another pass through and do notch EQs and EQ band gain automation. The better the frequency distribution your sounds start out with, the less you need to EQ. I don't remember off the top of my head, but most of my electric guitar processing probably has a limiter or soft-knee compressor somewhere, either in the amp sim or within Shreddage 2X itself, just to keep the peaks controlled.

Yep. The easiest way is to just chop part of the recorded riff, clone it, and reverse it. In FL Studio, just use the Slicer tool at a specific spot (if necessary), and then click the audio clip at the top left corner and select Make unique. Then just open up the Channel settings window (double click the audio clip) and click the Reverse radio button under Precomputed effects. Drag the reversed clip to the spot you want it to be. 1. It's mixed relatively loudly, but with a good amount of warmth to the EQ near the low-mids without clipping, so instead of sounding loud, it sounds full. The sound that seems like something wavering in and out (like at 0:08) could be a guitar from the way the midrange sounds, but the point is that it has a long attack (as in, within the ADSR envelope), and it's somewhat like two FM (frequency modulation) oscillators linked in series with a touch of detune. In other words, its timbre moves in a way that is similar to a tibetan bowl, if that makes sense. 2. It comes in at 0:50, if I'm listening to the right sound. Seems similar to a xylophone or other mallet instrument with some very fast Delay with a low Feedback setting. 3. Yes, it's at 0:16, and it's essentially a basic 8-bit waveform (square wave?) with some fast Delay and a little bit of Reverb. Both hands sound to me like they're in the same room, so no, it sounds like one piano. The previously-discussed piano is just louder with maybe a little more low-mids warmth via EQ, but it's likely the same sample library or piano model.

I asked other people to chime in, as I have not used loudr.fm. I liked Bandcamp because: - I used it first - They have a large comprehensive FAQ should you have any questions, even nerdy ones like "OK, but why would anyone ever buy something they can hear in full for free?" or "Can I upload files with sample rates greater than 44.1 KHz?". - It offers multiple options for downloadable music filetypes, like AIFF, FLAC, MP3 V0, MP3 320, etc. - It streams your music in full, never partially, yet streams it in 128 kbps so that only buying it would give you good fidelity to the music - They make sure to tag your music for you so that even if you don't know how, it's already labeled with a title, artist, album, lyrics, etc. - You can always change your mind if you want and delete your account (some websites in general [not necessarily music related] don't allow you to delete a created account, so it's just stuck like that) But yeah, if anyone wants to vouch for loudr.fm, feel free! (and if you don't, it shouldn't discredit it.)

I just want you to really consider your options before choosing, that's all. It wouldn't be fair if I linked only to Bandcamp's pricing; you'd not have a reference point to compare to.

fyi, I used to be "39971", and now I'm "24526". Pretty sure we didn't lose 15445 members. (right? o.o)

Nice work! I think it'd be cool if you expanded it more with original content.

Nice Damage (?) drums. I'd say that they kind of drew your attention away from fine-tuning instruments other than your drums. Try disabling your drums for a moment and seeing how this sounds without them. Then, try getting the remaining instruments on-par with the drums. At 0:01 - 0:10, if you listen closely, you should be able to tell that the instruments have very similar velocities, so they're lacking the dynamics that would make them more expressive.

Personally I don't really like the chopped guitars at the beginning; practically speaking, it's not realistic, though it's a real guitar. Did you just record multiple separate staccato chords and insert them manually? The production is not too bad; the guitars sound good. I'd say the drums can punch through better; I can't hear the kick, and the snare is barely peeking through the guitars. Did you try adding some parallel compression to strengthen the transients (the drumhead impact in this case)? Try listening to these drums for comparison: Nice guitar arpeggios near the end at 1:55, though it was hard to hear it. Those notes were a good start to differentiating from the original.

I think you can work to improve past simply using two or three synths and a drum loop. Try learning more about what compositional components of the ReMix that you can contribute to in an original manner, and what genre you actually want to go for.