timaeus222

Yeah, you could probably merge the checklist posts and the "ATTN" topic's first posts.

All y'all are crazy. The PWM lead simply rises over the top of the heavy guitar, so it makes total sense for it to be used.

I agree that the piano by itself in the intro isn't enough; in other words, it's too sparse IMO, for 40 seconds of material with nothing else. I get that you were probably going for an isolated feel with the pause at 0:18 - 0:23, but it just makes the track sound unintentionally simple and empty. The thing is, does it make sense without the video? I would say no. The violin sample tone is alright, but the sequencing is lacking in realism. I can tell that from the phase reset that occurs on every single note. Each note repeatedly swells in the same way. It may not be obvious on the lower velocities, but that's what's happening. That's a sign that it lacks round robins, which are crucial to realism. The sample also appears to have the exact same volume envelope every time. A human being is more random than that. No human being plays the same exact thing over and over again, in the exact same way, 100%. You have to figure out how to overcome that with your sample, using volume automation and really paying attention to the swells you get as a result. It can't be assumed that you always get what you expect when you do something in a DAW, and this should be kept in mind. The harp is indeed loudest near 1:00 and on. The timing also seems a touch off on the second note in each copy+pasted pattern. You may have wanted it to be the melody, but if so, I don't often hear harps as melodic instruments unless in subtle circumstances, so keep that in mind. Maybe consider changing instrument roles around. Yep, the guitar strumming is strum-down only. What is better is if you imagine an actual guitarist, because they do not strum down all the time. That is not efficient or realistic technique. You can tell that it is only strum-down from again, the phase reset of the sample. That is almost always what happens with samples that don't have round robin. Keep in mind that with round robins, you can play multiple samples per note on the same velocity. Without a decently complex algorithm (a cycling script, which you don't find in soundfonts), you can only play one sample per note per velocity. That means unless your simple plugin has different samples at very slight velocity differences, you cannot get altering up/down strums without literally alternating your sequencing for each note, without round robins. You may be able to do it by repitching each note a bit and then writing the note in so that it's the same pitch again, shifting the harmonics with a degradation trick, but play around with that before you actually do it if you do it. Most importantly though, yes, there is a lot of copy+paste with layering of elements. It's really not enough IMO to add variation. Change the actual notes, too. Your instruments are not electronic---they're organic; treat them like organic instruments and the fact that they are played by real people. Real people don't play the same thing over and over again, whether it's the notes played or the playing style or the tendencies in their technique. Subtlety substantially matters here.

This sounds like something you could probably get a high school choir to sing and it wouldn't sound out of place. It's got this feel of soothing comfort in that when you're in the library, you have the means to appreciate (in solitude?) the beauty of the language, interpretations, and perceptions you find in each author's work.

timaeus222 Overture 20XX (Crystal Snail in Observatory Hall [X]) Brewing Beerliever (Blizzard Buffalo in Observatory Hall [X]) Go Ahead And Jump (Vanishing Gungaroo in Observatory Hall) Zero Tolerance

Just so it's clear, the title of my track has that hyphen so it's "Sky-High Rollers"---that way, the rollers are sky-high, and we got none of those high-rollers that are of the sky sort.

Isn't it more confusing that way? Couldn't you look at the artist's accepted OC ReMixes if there are any, and go off of what you think of them production-wise? Or, you could see if you agree with them; popular agreement doesn't really indicate who is most accurate (there's that one phrase, "the ignorant masses"). Make your own judgments too.

You know you could just PM a mod, right?

If anything, I believe that they would be flattered. (I would, anyway, if it were to happen to me.)

Yeah, I love Guitar Rig as well. Although it is a guitar amp sim (and I do use it for guitars), I often use the Transient Master component in there for my drums.

What did you find most useful in Komplete? (I say that because it's pretty large/broad)

I agree with the crits, but ultimately I love how this turned out. It's interesting that this is kind of an organic/electronic glitch hop track rather than purely electronic, and I find that it distinguishes it well from other tracks of a similar genre. It's also a bit surprising that the bass in the glitch hop sections was the source sometimes, but it felt natural to me, rather than feeling forced. I thought the most creative part was 2:03 - 2:21, where you had a swung interpretation with some intermediate/neighboring notes.

Great execution! I like the almost-Complextro feel of this. Good job on keeping the dynamics varied as well. Dat ring modulation at 3:16. I did hear a new bass at 1:43 in the new version (it fits). At 3:36, I actually like the older version---the newer version could have had a less piercing lead there. So maybe submitting the wrong track was a good thing!

Yep, that is definitely a duduk! Really cool take on this theme. It's kind of tragedic and lamenting, indeed.

Yes. It's a simple tremolo. But y'know, the real thing would be less machine-gun.

Or maybe he's Mr. Popo.

The thing is, you have to spend more time than an hour to really have a decent idea of whether or not the track has potential. I would suggest that you give yourself at least 1-2 weeks, if not more, on the same track before you judge that it "won't be good" and suddenly decide to stash it away somewhere. You didn't even post it here for other people to give you input! (By the way, I think "Land of Pools and Masks" has the most potential out of all your tracks to be some sort of town theme. It reminds me of this: https://soundcloud.com/isworks/puddle-jumping-dressed-by)

Try finding a track you want to imitate for inspiration, and, oh, let's say, try remixing this? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L9GXV5ueRBY (something with a decently memorable melody that maybe you can adapt to multiple genre possibilities) or maybe this? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kbl0s7tJDHA (something that has some interesting chords)

I second Serum. Been using it too, lately, and I definitely find it really intuitive (and also replaced Massive for me. ). Ever used Zebra? I find that to be extremely versatile, and the synthesis interface displays in a well-organized manner IMO. I have two audio demos here if they interest you. http://tproductions.comeze.com/demos/Z2CombFilterDemo.mp3 http://tproductions.comeze.com/demos/Z2FMMotionDemo.mp3 And a video example: I've been using Zebra for over 3 years now, and I plan to keep using it.

Hm, the intro kinda lacks the ambitious sort of soundscape I would expect you to go for. For example, at 0:24, I would expect a drone to fill the bottom and keep things full for the moment, until 0:48. 1:13 is where the arrangement really starts to represent your usual caliber. Even then though, beef up that snare. The ride is kinda covering it up on my side. In general I feel like the low end could definitely use a more impactful production value. Specifically, I found 1:13 - 1:55 to have some low end, but the bass synth lacks presence/detail. The arrangement lives up to your past ReMixes for sure, but yeah, overall... The production can use more impact on the low end (aka more intense bass mixing) and another run through filling the soundscape in a few somewhat empty spots. Oh yeah, and that ride. Would you be willing to collab on this? =D

Hah, yeah, I hear it. Glad you heard past the tempo difference!

Woohoo, you're still here!

Pretty good foundation, actually. Pacing sounds good. Mixing is mostly there. Interpretation is pretty solid. Drums could use more variation to add to the flow of the arrangement. You're definitely on the right track. At 0:46 and 2:46, the violin could use more treble to brighten it up and a bit less low-mids to allow the background strings to come through a bit better. Right now it's too dull/muffled. The lead at 1:02 can really be more expressive; it just sounds like a basic saw wave. Give it some vibrato or filter motion, or some sort of motion to add interest. At 1:25 - 1:44, the piano really isn't that realistic, so maybe replace that with a light arp synth? At 2:04 - 2:46, it's the same deal as at 1:02---could have more expression! It's too plain! You could also add more to the impact at 3:06. Maybe a snare roll up to a downwards white-noise filter sweep or similar? Lastly, the outtro piano could use some delay or something to hide the fakeness; it's actually pretty easy to tell that it's sequenced. Offset/humanize the rhythm slightly so that it's not so quantized. Overall, the major issues for me: - Violin mixing at 0:46 and 2:46 - More drum variation rather than just glitching every now and then. Core pattern is too autopilot IMO - Mechanical piano needs humanized timing, and ping-pong delay would help (I could see a replacement sound at 1:25 - 1:44 working, but not super necessary) - Leads at 1:02 and 2:04 are too simple---needs more expression Other minor stuff but would be great to do: - Longer impact at 3:06, basically, plus a transition up to that would be good - Another transition layer at 1:44 perhaps? Not too necessary but would help - Background strings could use higher low-cut on the reverb to minimize muddiness with the bass - Bass seems pretty simple in tone, especially noticeable at 0:42

I totally read that as Millennium Puzzle problem.

I'm not saying that if I provide one, that it is necessary. It's there if someone needs it so that they know what to listen for. An interpretation isn't always immediately recognizable. There are some [to be unnamed] remixers here who may have a hard time translating someone else's interpretation of a source tune into a different key, tempo, and mood at the same time (all three of which I have done, which is why I provided that breakdown, for those who want it).