timaeus222

I'm not saying it's something you reference and then use. What I said was that you can use it to analyze what has already been written (which is why I said "happens to follow theory").

Something about joining and doing Route 27.

You can't just forget what you've learned and hope to play something in the key just like that. You have to at least implicitly know music theory, even if you can't explain it formally, to write something that happens to follow theory.

Why don't you want another browser? I've been using Firefox for almost 10 years, and I've yet to switch back to any (pre-10) Windows-native browser because of website-rendering capabilities, internet security, etc. I find that the difference between browsers is mainly the under-the-hood efficiency, features, and looks, honestly. It's not going to hurt you to switch to (or even add) a better browser (Firefox, Chrome, ...), especially if you don't like what you're using. It's straightforward to just uninstall a browser after you've tried it.

Just find it on a keyboard or on the piano roll in your DAW. You have all the time in the world to find a pitch.

Well, I'm finding that the execution overall is pretty consistent, actually, so I think 1:41 - 2:52 is about as solid as 0:00 - 1:41. I would personally add vibrato onto that supersaw at 1:41 - 2:52 though so that it's more expressive/sophisticated, and/or make the tone less detuned (the suggestion to lower the detuning is more from a personal standpoint). One way you could do this is assign an LFO (low-frequency oscillator) to the pitch knob inside your synth and increase the LFO depth to 1 half step or so. I actually like the acoustic kit; you seem to be going for a big, rock-ish sound, based on your sound selection, and so far I think it works. You said you're not sure what the genre is, but now that I've given you my perspective on it, hopefully that'll give you some ideas on making the overall sound more cohesive. For example, I found the tubular bell and funk keys samples to be out of place with the genre it feels like to me, although I get that you might have picked the tubular bells because you had strings (and they're both in an orchestra). What I think you could also consider is checking whether your sequencing is humanized enough. Are your notes all quantized (100% perfect rhythm)? If so, I think you can make them less perfect so that the ReMix sounds more like a real-life performance, because human beings don't have 100% perfect rhythm (even a few milliseconds of offset can help, especially on chords).

You could always just find it in your DAW's piano roll.

At the very beginning, to me it feels odd to have the trumpet playing, but no other brass (as far as I can tell). I recall that you do have other brass samples, and I hear some of that at 1:14 (trombone and french horn could work there). Perhaps work towards making this part more of an ensemble sound in the intro. I'm guessing that's a solo trumpet, which could explain the apparent feel of it being one voice instead of multiple voices. I understand if you want it to be like a violin/trumpet duet or something, for balance purposes. I do like how the trumpet trades off with the violin on the melody at 0:40 - 0:55. I think you could play with that a bit more and have the trumpet harmonize with the violin at 0:45 - 0:55. At 1:01 - 1:04, perhaps change those 4 descending notes, because I think it's out of the key (seems like you are playing a major scale over a minor chord?). At 1:12 - 1:28, I might be hearing a... is that a chanting choir? xD Does your trumpet sample have any other articulations? I think if you use the "blatty" tone (the strong one you are using most right now) less often, it could help on the realism since it seems like a tone you get when you blow hard. For example, you could use a softer tone on softer parts, like at 1:44 - 1:58, or blend it a little more with the ensemble brass. The phasing's gone! I have that violin library, by the way, and I like how it sounds here. So, this definitely improved! Sounds fuller too. I still like that harp!

At some point you have to realize where your samples have their limits. Sometimes a particular performance is too difficult to emulate precisely, so maybe you're, let's say, 90% there, and that may sound like a realistic-enough, yet slightly different performance. For example, I recreated the first solo for Bohemian Rhapsody two years ago. It still holds up pretty well today IMO, but it sounds like a different performance when you compare it to the original (besides the tone of the guitar and the obvious lack of vocals in mine). I think mine sounds a little too perfect, specifically in how the notes connect on the ascending scales, for example.

The awkwardness I heard was that you went from a reverbed orchestral soundscape to an emptier soundscape, and then to a fuller soundscape. If the guitar lead was electric instead, then I wouldn't think it was awkward. It's pretty minor in comparison to the reverb and EQ comments I had though.

I'm also going to provide a (heavy metal) example of drums/guitar/bass before and after compression so you can hear what I mean when I say the drums can be punchier (note that obviously I will be using a different kit; also, the only difference is the compression. The EQ and reverb is unchanged unless otherwise specified). I am also separating the heavy metal guitars and bass from the drums so you can focus on the individual instruments. (The example is a recreation of part of my friend's retired band's metal songs) EDIT: https://app.box.com/s/pu67atb6l42147hy3fdz14j9xwjy2zoe Included (with my remarks): Drums (uncompressed, with EQ) --- Sounds pretty good, but consider that this is only in isolation, not in context. Drums (compressed, with EQ) --- Louder, punchier, but consider that this is only in isolation, not in context. Guitars+Bass (uncompressed, with EQ) --- Slightly quieter than the compressed one, but not much difference (pretty slight overall) Guitars+Bass (compressed, with EQ) --- Not much difference, but I hear that the bass is more "well-defined" and the guitar has (very slightly) more upper harmonic; hardly noticeable to the ears, but noticeable to the eyes on a spectroscope Everything (uncompressed, no EQ) --- Sounds completely imbalanced; the drums are buried and the guitars and bass are murky. Everything (uncompressed, with EQ) --- Sounds better; guitars and bass are more audible, and most of the drum kit is actually noticeable in the song. However, the snare is still a bit buried Everything (compressed, with EQ) --- Final result of compression + EQ. This is actually heavy, and you can hear the snare easily. YMMV on the drum kit prominence itself, but the point is that it's not buried. Take it as you will, but that's the full list of what I think you need to consider to hear the differences I want to convey. Whatever you take away from this, just know that I'm only trying to help, not pick on you.

Well, it was sounding pretty good up until 1:58. At that point it's noticeable that the weak point here is the orchestral instruments. The timpani is noticeably muddy, and the soundscape at 1:58 - 2:15 is murky and washy. The reverb on the strings hides their fakeness a bit, but I'm hearing a pretty substantial amount of that reverb. Perhaps raising the low cut on the timpani a bit can help. I also thought 2:15 - 2:22 could use a bit more fullness, since I thought it was an awkward transition, texturally, to 2:23. I would have expected that guitar lead to be more similar to the one at 2:23. Other than that, this is pretty solid. But I do consider what I mentioned to be somewhat major, so hopefully you haven't submitted yet.

The drums sound not overcompressed now, so that's good. However, I would call them dull-sounding, tonally, since they lack punch in a ReMix that likely is supposed to sound punchy. By now you can guess that I would suggest adding (parallel) compression to add punch so that your drums are more powerful. It's true that the previous drum preset had poor compression, but that's because of the settings themselves, not because of compression in and of itself. If you actually compressed the drums yourself, then you would have more control and thus, if you knew how you could optimally apply compression, I bet you wouldn't be as against it as you are today. The low cut on the reverb for the piano is low, or that pad you mentioned has noticeable frequencies below 200 Hz, so frequencies below 200 Hz are being reverberated, which clashes with the guitar and/or bass. (see 3:32 in your video) "Makes the piano a bit more stronger and remaining in the hall as a contrast to the pretty strong bass lines." I'm sorry, but this is kind of a bogus reason to substantiate why you made it that way. It literally sounds like you *want* the piano to compete with the bass (and come out on top). Honestly, I don't see any reason why you would intentionally create a soundscape that involves the combination of a bass and a reverbed layered piano/pad that obstructs the clarity of the bass frequencies (unless you aren't fully aware of the consequences of such a situation). Less clarity means that less people will be able to distinguish what's going on in the music (that should be intuitive). Remember that what you want to hear and what is actually the case are not necessarily the same thing. You should be listening in the effort of accurately hearing what is actually the case, and seeing how you might improve the mixing. You can capably raise the low cut frequency for your reverb (provided you have that setting in it) so that the frequencies below 200 Hz are not affected by the reverb as much; then your bass will be clearer since that low frequency range will be less cluttered. Not hugely clearer, but clearer. "Dull" and "lifeless" are very strong words (and everything you do with VST compression is in relation to the sound quality). And in fact, proper compression ADDS life and punch to drums, and what I hear from zircon's track is just that. That's why I even recommended that as your standard in compression. If compression "nearly always" makes drums more dull and lifeless, then unless the Beatles are the exception somehow to your "nearly always", the Beatles' drums would sound "a bit dull and lifeless". And I like the Beatles.

It depends on context and intention. If you're trying to imitate something realistic, you need to use realistic samples. If you plan to digitally process the realistic instruments in an electronic context, it's not as important that they sound realistic anymore. If you're trying to imitate something that sounds like the Final Fantasy Tactics soundtrack, which is not a realistic orchestral sound but is instead a retro one, then no, you don't need realistic samples---you'd need something like the sounds of the Roland SC-88, because that's pretty much what was used for many '90s orchestral game scores. EDIT: to clarify, the Roland SC-88 example has emphasis on authenticity rather than realism.

Exactly. And that bolded part is how I roll.

Wait. So no one can get exactly 6 points, or is it a typo? o.o

Uh, I had to turn up my volume from 32% to 72% to hear enough detail. That happened to be the near-equivalent of 16 dB... (And I never go higher than 32% on headphones, or 52% on speakers, which is really saying something.) An example of taking advantage of full dynamic range: https://soundcloud.com/biggiantcircles/borderlands-2-tropical-paradise-exploration

What did you do to make this quiet? Did you turn down the volumes of the individual instruments, or did you turn down the Master track volume? The former is the way that will help you more. The latter will keep all the issues you had when the Master track volume is not changed. I still hear overcompression on the drums. And this is far too quiet for normal listening, by the way. I don't want to turn my volume up from 32 to 72 (16 dB). Also, check your piano sequencing and reverb. There's a lot of low end clutter, not much tone variance in the piano, and it feels quantized. I again refer you back to the Lufia 2 mix I showed you earlier. That is a mixing standard I would shoot for.

Looks like Palace Ground to me.

Second pick ain't bad. Sweet!

Yeah, I agree with Brandon. Over time, I've found myself able to make mixing decisions on headphones other than my primary ones (the Beyers), and even my semi-crappy speakers.

Okay, I initially wasn't sure, but I'm feeling what I'm writing, so I'll keep going with it. Claim confirmed! Rollerball!

I know they're not synonymous. Clearly, mastering is usually considered a separate process, and it certainly is not merely mixing on the Master track, but I never said I did both. In that case it was Master track compression.

The only difference between the before and after tracks that I showed was literally the Master compression. That's it. Don't assume.

I'm assuming GR means gain reduction. Unsure what that corresponds to (perhaps Threshold), but I have: Threshold: -16.0 dB Range: -63.0 dB Makeup Gain: 4.0 dB Attack: 3 ms Ratio: "4" (options: 2, 4, 10, so approximately "mild", "medium", and "high" respectively) --- I rarely use 10, but I rarely feel the need to Release: 0.1 seconds Peak Clipping: On High Pass: 50 Hz (affects 50 ~ 20000 Hz) 40% Wet Mix, 60% Dry Mix (Note that I didn't even say what the values are for the individual drum busses, which have gains closer to 10 dB, thresholds closer to -15~-20 dB, and about 50/50 wet/dry) For practical reasons, I would much rather get everything "right" before doing anything substantial on the Master track, like Master track compression. If it doesn't sound good without Master track edits, there's probably something off elsewhere. Even with this compression though, clearly it was an example of not overdoing it, and so I don't see why I should not. I understand that some people might overdo it, but I'm paying close attention to that these days so that I can avoid writing music that is way too loud.