timaeus222   Members

Because the badder the ass-album is, the more well-rounded it is. Or I guess it's the other way around.

Subbed a few hours ago! Here's a rough source breakdown: 0:12.0 - 0:19.7 = Doppler (0:01.2 - 0:08.6) 0:24.0 - 0:34.4, 0:36.0 - 0:38.2 = Doppler (0:01.2 - 0:08.6) 0:42.1 - 0:43.8 = Doppler (0:01.2 - 0:08.6) 0:48.1 - 0:52.4, 0:54.0 - 0:58.4 = Doppler (0:21.0 - 0:23.0) 1:00.0 - 1:03.0, 1:06.0 - 1:09.0 = Doppler (0:23.4 - 0:25.4) 1:12.0 - 1:15.0, 1:18.0 - 1:33.0 = Cyber Peacock (0:15.6 - 0:35.3) 1:48.0 - 1:52.5, 1:54.0 - 1:58.9 = Doppler (0:11.0 - 0:13.5) 2:00.0 - 2:10.4, 2:12.0 - 2:14.9 = Doppler (0:01.2 - 0:08.6) 2:18.1 - 2:21.0 = Doppler (0:01.2 - 0:08.6) 2:24.0 - 2:28.4, 2:30.0 - 2:34.3 = Doppler (0:21.0 - 0:23.0) 2:36.0 - 2:39.0, 2:42.0 - 2:45.0 = Doppler (0:23.4 - 0:25.4) 7.7 + 10.4 + 2.2 + 1.7 + 4.1 + 4.4 + 3.0 + 3.0 + 3.0 + 15.0 + 4.5 + 4.9 + 10.4 + 2.9 + 2.9 + 4.4 + 4.3 + 3.0 + 3.0 = 94.8/182.1 = ~52.1% Might want to grab a lemonade or something before you listen to my track.

I found the lead melodic contour to be somewhat noodly/meandering and/or busy at 0:56 - 1:08 and 1:14 - 1:43 (was waiting for it to take a bit of a break; 1:48 - 1:58 made more sense written that way IMO), but harmonically it still made sense. Smartly written, but I felt like less scales would have helped make it more memorable.

Of course this'll make it.

My track's pretty much done now, and I'm leaving room for anticipated last-minute updates Somewhat minimalist, and not ZOMG6MINUTESLONG, but I'm liking it. I will say though that the source usage could be seen as rather liberal due to the drastic stylistic shift and the majority being in a different key, so I'll provide a source breakdown sometime before the due time. EDIT: Oops. Gotta make a few notes more conservative. =P EDIT2: there!

People learn, and you know what, that's what I'd say today.

With organic samples that allow you to do something "ultra-realistic", once you learn how to use them inside and out, the goal I would put out is to well-sequence a plausible performance. If the samples are good but still missing a few non-crucial features (like for example, an electric lead guitar library without the capacity for power chord slides, or a violin library that doesn't have pizzicato... that isn't the end of the world), you can still sequence a performance that does not involve a feature you don't have. That performance could potentially still be realistic; it'll just be less comprehensive as to what techniques are used. If the library is missing a crucial feature though (like no hammer-ons and pull-offs for a electric lead guitar library, or no slurs for a violin library---TRAVESTY I SAY!), keep browsing your options. In any case, for VGM, "super realistic" samples would be nice, but it's not always necessary. Like Snaps said, if it "sounds good", it's good to go. For example, obviously the Plants Vs. Zombies soundtrack uses a few orchestral instruments in an old-school, electronic-orchestral soundscape, and they're not realistic by a long shot. Yet, Laura Shigihara went with that for the soundtrack, and I personally love the soundtrack because I think the quality of the instruments exhibits a memorable "character" to the PvZ soundscape.

Haha, just to be clear, I only provided a buttload of feedback, and Antanas handled the mixing all himself (which is impressive persistence!). Finally went through! YEAH!

This brings a great, fresh, new take on an old theme. Seriously innovative and well-crafted. +1

timaeus222 ~ Zero Tolerance Bounce Too High (Vanishing Gungaroo in Palace Ground [X]) Electric Moves & Cephalopod Grooves (Volt Kraken in Palace Ground [X]) Firefly (Shining Hotarunicus in Palace Ground [X])

Oh, my bad; I forgot that the first bullet point was your team name and username.

I'm seeing the votes, and I'm thinking, wait a minute... o.o Gotta keep that in mind.

I'll be mixing this week. It'll be pretty cool!

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.