timaeus222

Y'know, I liked having my real name displayed. =P

That's not quite what I meant. What you have there is simply a video embed with resized margins to only show the controls. The video itself is still loading in full; what I had in mind was what I would still think is hard: extracting audio from the FLV file and using that as what's embedded, in an audio embed. I would imagine it requires a scanthrough of the video to rip the audio and a dynamic generation of a resultant audio file (like youtube-mp3.org). Honestly, that just sounds like a hassle; it's like reading through a file's coding line by line instead of looking at the whole thing at once (because you can't look at an entire video in zero time), and it sounds like a lot of work to do on each and every video embed. That's why I would prefer just having the link by itself, so that resources on OCR itself aren't too heavily taxed and there are no extra clicks; you just click once to see the video, versus clicking once to see a website that plays the video. The main differences are that you'll know what the video is before you click once, and that the video embed is harder to load than a simple link.

I find it hilarious that some of my favorite metal is made with sample libraries. Top 5: https://soundcloud.com/isworks/shreddage-2-nuclear-dubstep-by If you haven't heard this, your life isn't complete yet. https://soundcloud.com/isworks/shreddage-2-wing-it-by-magnic Loved the vocals here, especially the low speaking part. http://ocremix.org/remix/OCR02070 Once you know who made this, 'nuff said. https://soundcloud.com/isworks/shreddage-2-subterrenea-by-ian Pretty much defines djent IMO. Super heavy, low tuning, and just brutal. http://ocremix.org/remix/OCR02676 Plenty of character in this. I don't see this as bad singing, just very emotional singing. --- And just for kicks, this dissonant, almost-metalstep thing I made, 'cause dubstep/metal mashups don't get enough love: http://ocremix.org/remix/OCR02773

Ultimately I can sum up the sources of some of my past mixing issues to be (pre-2015): 1. Overboosting EQ in general Sometimes it's slight, sometimes it's super obvious. Listen closely. 2. Not choosing good sounds from the get-go Pick bad stuff, and you won't have a cohesive palette to work with. Furthermore, if the EQ on the sample is good as-is, you don't have to EQ as much to get it to sound good in context. 3. Volume imbalance between instruments This depends on your listening levels, but ultimately, it's hard to get volumes just right sometimes, especially when the complexity of the layering is high. 4. Not-so-good audio system Goal: flat frequency response, ideally. That way, you're not biased towards certain boosts or cuts to compensate (or overcompensate). 5. Compensating for loud mixing with poor-quality compressors Yeah. Think before you put on compressors. Why would you want to use something if you don't know why you're using it? Hardest thing to fix for me: 1 Easiest thing to fix for me: 5 If you get a good audio system, you'll be on track to addressing most of those. That's not to say it won't be hard. The rest is constant practice, patience, and critical listening. Good luck.

Actually, the /forums/ directory currently redirects to the /community/ directory, so that's nice!

That would imply some sort of extraction scheme to isolate the audio from a YouTube video, for example. I think that would be quite hard... Now if it was audio embedding by itself, that would be interesting. Also, x( Can no longer delete your own posts?

By phasing issues, I'm referring to how phase cancellation happens more audibly when you are mixing in mono. If you take two identical sine waves and overlay them spot on (in phase), they will turn out twice as loud due to the "Principle of Superposition". Assuming an x axis at y = 0, as you shift one sine wave to the right, there is a progressively increasing phase shift, and what you get is a progressively increasing phase cancellation between the negative and positive values of each sine wave. Figure 1. Two sine waves overlapping, at a phase shift greater than 0. This phasing may be considered an issue when certain qualities of your sounds are made less audible because they partially cancel out, and the phasing is more audible when everything is in one channel (mono) than when everything is spread out in two channels (stereo). This phasing sounds like you're pushing down on your sound at potentially irregular moments in time. This may be hard to imagine, but let's say you drew out two identical sine waves on identically-sized pieces of paper (or you could actually do it in real life if that helps). Basically, what you're effectively doing in stereo in real life is taking those pieces of paper and aligning them approximately diagonally, in a sense, and they are approaching your ears at, let's say, 60 degree angles. So, they have less direct phase cancellation and the effects of that are less audible. This picture below is like a top view, where the blue lines are the horizontal edges of the pieces of paper, or the top of your sine waves. Figure 2. A typical speaker setup in a home listening area. You might find it easier if you try playing around with this Excel sheet: https://app.box.com/s/fxbkgaxkodku2nmsk52oj7i5lotyvncc (note that 10^-16 is close enough to 0)

The loudness I mix at these days is exactly where I want to keep doing it; I use zircon's "Level Bounce" as my maximum loudness reference. I actually used to mix more quietly. But yeah, I'm not going any louder than that reference. I mix about that loudly so people won't get startled if they hear a really loud track after a quieter track. With actual numbers, I often reach about -8 to -6 dB RMS. Of course, I don't purposefully mix this loudly; it just happens to be optimal for my setup, and I just happen to like it at this level. Not too loud, not too quiet.

Not too bad. In general the mixing is good. I did find the drastic panning at 0:50, etc. to be jarring, though. It didn't seem to make sense given the lack of elements at intermediate panning positions. 1:15 sounds like a nice climax, but I didn't expect that. Maybe it came too quickly, because I didn't hear anything foreshadowing it. You could have done something as simple as omitting the drums at 1:13 - 1:15 and adding a bass drop and it could work better. Things are also fairly cluttered in the treble at 2:28 - 2:52. A little "generic" in the sound design, but still pretty nice. The arrangement works well IMO.

In more technical terms, the z-index of the dropdown menu happens to be smaller than that of the Overview container. Something in the CSS, I would think.

Yeah, I can't find it either. It used to be under "User CP > Edit Options"; I don't see what I could do under "Edit Profile".

Any links to youtube videos *posted as purely links* so far are displaying a youtube embed; should just be listed as a regular link to minimize load times.

It's a reasonable estimate. In other words, if 'enough' people care, then it's more practical to do so. But if it's "less than 5%" or so, as you say, it doesn't sound practical, the way you made it sound. And then you say "0,1% is problematic" (or 0.1% or whatever you meant) when it's unreasonable on the part of Image-Line "alienating" the user base? 0 to 1% is almost nothing---it just made your stance sound less motivated (i.e. it's like you said "if it's less than 5%, people should care; heck, even if it's 0 or 1%, people should care"). Yes, they SHOULD care, but practically, would you expect that they would? About 1%? That's Neblix's point. Blunt, but there you go.

What audio system do you have? The audio system is quite a major component in your workflow, and it decides how you believe your music sounds. And about mixing with those built-in effects off, if you need to do that to improve them, then sure. If they are already good as they are, then take off what doesn't make it sound suitable to the context rather than taking off everything. Sometimes the built-in reverb sounds better than the external reverb you have.

Not bad at all! Obviously some mechanical sequencing on the piano, and that bass at 0:33 was pretty far back (and harmonizing with itself? ), but it definitely got more personalized at 1:30 with the neat chord progression and at 2:23 where the rhythms and harmonies are played with more. Sounds like you locked into a good groove at 3:13. Good work.

How are things going for you guys?

The only thing I'd say about that is, if you wear them, do they make your ears scrunch up a bit if your ears are too big?

If I find myself stuck into a certain structure, I try humming what I want to happen next, so I don't end up copying and pasting so much. It tends to be a sensible direction for my musical writing. But it might not work for everyone (I sing).

Am I the only one who sees an unsaid joke? You're "stoked". Your new system can "shoot lasers". You use lasers in Raman Spectroscopy, creating STOKES shifts and ANTISTOKES shifts from the central Rayleigh line. ...No? (I r geek) Okay.

Yeah, I get your frustration, but I don't feel that way about the automation system in FL. Sure, you can't literally highlight points on an automation clip and paste them within the same clip, but I'm okay with that. I'm used to it, and a bunch of the keyboard shortcuts, plus I tend to click around quickly. It would be a nice feature to be able to do that, though, for people who are still getting used to it.

Well, it might not be obvious, but you can copy and paste the automation clip data (FL 11 at least): 1. Left click the upper left of the automation clip (the squiggle next to the name). Click "Channel settings". 2. Click the down arrow on the upper left, then Articulator > Copy/Paste state. C+P the whole thing as it is. There ya go. You can also reassign one clip to multiple knobs/sliders/etc. (a different method)

Well, there's one great advantage to Make Unique; it retains the event edits you do, and you don't have to re-record them, just modify them (unless you want to re-record). I use Make Unique pretty often, and I find it keeps my workflow going.

Nice underwater, glassy textures in the beginning! I love the ambient soundscape you've created here. Cool synth solo too. I agree, I like the staccato run because it stands out.