timaeus222

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.

No promises, but I'm gunning for Rollerball

Something else that I almost forgot to mention is the reverb response of the headphones. I proceeded through the following headphones: Sony MDR-7502 (~$40) -> ??? (forgot)(~$60) -> Shure SRH240A (~$60) -> Grado SR-60i (~$80) -> Beyerdynamic DT-880 (250 ohm) (~$400, but 51% off, so ~$200) How I would describe them is the following: Sony MDR-7502 - Hugely lacking in bass and treble (honestly, above 1000 Hz was terrible); didn't pay attention to the reverb response here Shure SRH240A - Rather washy (with reverb), lacking in bass and upper treble Grado SR-60i - Less washy, clean bass, crisp treble (somewhat hard for bass mixing, though) Beyerdynamic DT-880 - Just dry enough for some excellent clarity, well-defined bass (loving it for bass mixing), distinct treble (so I can tell the difference between 14000 Hz and 18000 Hz, for example) So if you can, I think you should test the headphones you want to get on a song with a lot of reverb to see how much clarity you get. This aspect of headphones could change the amount of reverb you want to put in your music. If you can't test it... I wish you luck on that!

You can build one here: http://www.headphone.com/pages/build-a-graph (there the Grados are called "Grado SR-60", though. I see AKG K240 MKII and Audio Technica ATH-M50x)

This actually sounds pretty cool. I liked the drop at 1:09, and the general ambient vibe you have is well done. When the drums come in at 1:37 though, things get muddy between the bass, piano, and kick drum, and the mix gets flooded in the low-mids. I think you should pick and choose what you want to retain low end and filter out the rest (though the kick can sidechain to the bass to help with the muddiness). I understand mixing this was pretty hard though.

Good question I'm not sure what else compares, other than the Grado SR-60i, since I have both. Those two are the best headphones that I *happened* to buy. I would second the AKG K240 though; if I remember correctly, djpretzel had them prior to switching to the Beyers. They compare pretty decently (besides the boost near 120 Hz, which could make you think your kick drums are ~5 dB stronger than they actually are; EDM kick drum fundamental frequencies are at about 80~160 Hz). The tapering above about 15000 Hz is pretty drastic, but fortunately, the gap between 15000 Hz and 20000 Hz isn't quite as noticeable as the gap between, say, 2000 Hz and 7000 Hz, in terms of the types of sounds that occupy those ranges.

lol I actually definitely typed [quote=Neblix] , so idk. The BBcode format changed for the quote tag since the transition.

Sometimes when you try something and it doesn't work the first time, that's pretty normal. You should be able to figure out what more to do if you, for example, listen in the morning with fresh ears. You could alternatively add, let's say, white noise with filter motion and reverb (i.e. wind SFX), or a soft (somewhat low-passed) ambient pad, or something. It doesn't have to be obviously-noticeable. Also, this is more of a personal thing, but I think you should try a different kick drum and replace that clap with something more snare-like. Currently it actually sounds like hip hop drums, which in this context I find distracting. I like the pad at 1:30, though. That was helpful to do (I don't believe that was there before). Interesting glitching you have going on later. Perhaps tone down the mix level (i.e. wet mix) of the glitch plugin to make the glitching more subtle and less jarring.

Gonna refer you to my response here: http://ocremix.org/community/topic/41012-need-headphone-recommendations/#entry787058 By the looks of the frequency response for the Sennheiser Momentum 1.0 though, I wouldn't recommend it for mixing above 2000 Hz at all. It just tapers off starting at 1000 Hz and has a huge dip at 4500 Hz. The attenuation starts getting significant above about 2000 Hz. 5 dB is quite a bit of an EQ cut. I would also consider whether it's open-back, semi-open, or closed-back. I would go for a semi-open pair (such as the Beyers) for proper bass mixing (bass doesn't escape as easily, but is also not as muffled), and low impedance for proper treble mixing (less attenuation of upper treble frequencies than higher impedances). By the way, just a side note, but if headphone specifications say "OMG FREQUENCY RESPONSE OF 3Hz~100kHz!!!", ignore that. You can really only hear at 20Hz~20kHz anyways, so it's not significantly noticeable.

That example probably involves some judges not actually recognizing what's realistic enough and what's not (it's actually quite hard). I would probably have said "the volume dip here sounds weird. What happened?" and focus on the liberal arrangement. Remember, they don't have to know formal music theory to be a judge, nor do they have to be a really good orchestrator. It's a plus, but not a necessity. So, that was simply a conflict due to mistaken observations. I believe it might have been Vig who said "The strings here sound better than some actual game scores, c'mon". "Reasonably" sophisticated is intended to sound general and has room for interpretation. It just means that it should sound like some actual effort was put into making it sound good (now whether or not that effort is apparent from the listener's perspective is another thing). The example you are referring to with JRPG scores having retro orchestral instruments is that they are emulating a specific sound, like how the Roland SC-88 has orchestral sounds that were used in something like Final Fantasy Tactics or Suikoden II. If you are emulating the specific sound, then having those technically fake orchestral instruments is OK. It's more questionable whether it's a fit for OCR. Perhaps a more practical way of saying it is, "Did you truly accomplish what you intended?", or perhaps, "Did you accomplish what we believe you intended?", rather than "Did you accomplish what we believe fits in with the OCR standards?". If someone IS going for "real", and there's a few slip-ups, it still hurts it, but according to certain people's standards, some might take it more seriously than others. Generally, the people who are great at orchestrating would be more partial towards great orchestration vs. not-so-great.

Yes, the tonic ("home note") is F# in F# Dorian, since if you use that mode, you are still using the sharps in E Major, but continually going back to F# as your home note. If for some reason you start on F# at first, and then continually go back to E, you are essentially playing in E Major still. Nabeel happened to say this as well (correct me if I'm wrong):

Even though F# Dorian is the Dorian mode in which you start on F# (i.e., of E Major), and C# Minor can be called the relative minor of E Major, they use the same notes and note intervals (but not the same note "window", so to speak). What I mean is, C# Minor is also the Aeolian mode in which you start on C# (i.e., of E Major), just in terms of an actual key. See below. https://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Music_Theory/Modes Overall: Ionian of E Major: E Major (original key) Dorian of E Major: F# Dorian ("window" shifted to the second note, F#) [...] Aeolian of E Major: C# Aeolian ("window" shifted to the sixth note, C#) C# Minor (see how the notes match up with C# Aeolian?): Locrian of E Major: D# Locrian ("window" shifted to the seventh note, D#)

It's really all about the context. It tends to be that whenever someone uses an instrument that sounds fake, it was in a context where it was presumably intended to sound real and did not. I, more often than not, hear orchestral remixes with stiff orchestration, and in those cases the instruments weren't treated with suitable CC11 automation and proper articulation layering to make them sound realistic enough. I think it would be fair to reject a mix like that for that reason. However, this OC ReMix has FL Slayer pretty prominently in it; clearly FL Slayer is a fake guitar, but in this context it happened to suit the soundscape (from both the judges' and my perspectives). In this case, there likely was no intention to make the guitar sound real, because it was just an aesthetic choice as a dubstep element. It's not to say, however, that if something less fake than FL Slayer was used for the guitar element, and its sequencing sounded fake, that it would also be overlooked and assumed as aesthetic choice. It could have been an attempt at using a real guitar in a dubstep track (which is completely rational; see Metalstep), and not successfully accomplishing that. So, it's not like the judges just assume that fake, clearly-sequenced instruments are bad, nor assume that a fake instrument that sounds like a synth is automatically OK. If they don't already, they should consider the context (which I strongly believe they do).

The orchestration is somewhat hollow-sounding. It kind of has a hole in the low-mids. There's already timpani there, but it's not enough to make this sound full enough. That aside, another concern I have for this is that there is a lack of cohesion between the instruments' reverb. The trumpet in the intro is quite dry, and the violin is a tad dry too (the harp is fine). As a result, they stick out too much and it doesn't really sound like they're in the same room. The percussion is OK, but I think tightening up the rhythm made it too stiff. 1:52 is also weird. I can hear the trumpet somehow phasing. 2:01 is quite bare, and you can hear it's pretty much trumpet + timpani + violin. It needs more of a low end padding to fill the soundscape, like with legato cello and contrabass. Maybe some viola in there would help. Lastly, the arrangement is rather conservative and follows the original pretty closely (at least, besides 1:39 - 1:51, for example). Overall, I would say the main issues would be conservative arrangement, the low-midrange is not present enough throughout the mix, and the trumpet and violin are too dry and are sticking out too much. The arrangement can be more creative and incorporate more interesting directions (just try not to stray too far away from the source).

I would add more variation in the left hand so that you aren't doing the three-hit pattern (with one note with your pinkie and then two chords with your middle finger and thumb) as often. I've been hearing that throughout pretty much the entire piece. Maybe switch to arpeggios every now and then (wherever it makes sense), or switch up the overall rhythm. I do hear that you've added your own chord alterations, which is a plus, and 3:07 - 3:15 was a good example of varying your pacing. I don't know if 3:00 - 3:01 was intentional, but it feels out of the key.