timaeus222

Damn, the drums on here are so good.

In some sense, the baroque feel of this almost reminds me of Lord of the Rings, . Dat's cool.

The vocoder reminds me of a Jamaican voice. Good stuff.

It's pretty normal. It doesn't happen to me anymore, but it used to. Now I just imagine it first and if it sounds good before I write it, then I write it out. I think you should save what you write, even if you think you hate it. You might like it the next day under a new light. Really though, if you seem to not like it, I think it's a combination of your instrument choice and the notes you write; I often see people writing notes that aren't suitable for the instrument they're writing for. So, maybe study more on the instruments you're writing for. You might also want to try writing the chords first for a change, to see what happens.

I think the xylophone is fine until 0:30, where it's too quiet. I think you could just scrap 0:05 - 0:30 and not lose much. The piccolo's a bit quiet throughout. The brass definitely needs more finesse before 0:30 than after; it's stiff but OK when more parts come in, but additionally filling out the textures before 1:06 and having more build to the dynamics can make that intro less repetitive. Maybe some low tuba/bass trombone blats, or fluttertonguing? At 0:30 - 1:06, you have a lot of quarter notes on the brass, contributing to the stiffness. Could use more offsetting of notes in the partwriting to make it less stiff. The drums before 1:06 could also use more variation, maybe through some syncopation, like a "kick drum" on the 1.5 beat (after first "snare") or something. Anything to get away from that overly looped feel. The drums just don't seem to change that much at all from the two main patterns used. Listening once through quickly, where are your strings? I could hardly hear them participating. I feel like they're too background. Any contra basses in the house? Violin & viola harmonization? Cello backup? Yeah, 1:55 - 2:54 just drags. The xylophone's getting so much solo time and is too loud too. I think this is supposed to sound majestic, but that feeling goes away at 2:16, when the xylophone goes and does its own thing and I'm like, "okay, when are you going to stop soloing; the other players want to move forward". You may have highlighted the xylophone a little too much and left the backing elements hanging. Overall, I think the major points to address are: - More drum variation. Say, syncopation? More aux perc (clave, woodblock, sleigh bells, etc)? Pretty much the biggest debated issue here. - Fuller textures. The strings can play a larger role IMO. It could hide the fakeness of the brass a bit. - Detail work. The 2:16 - 2:52 xylo solo is just too much IMO and is taking your (everyone's, but mostly yours, Alex) attention away from the backing elements. Needs more TLC in the accompaniment, and the xylophone needs to be quieter by about 1 or 2 dB in the velocities there. In FL Studio, you can highlight many notes with Ctrl+Click/Drag or something like that (I've gotten used to pressing Ctrl+Shift+Click/Drag) and do Alt+Mouse Wheel roll (or Alt+X) to lower all of them at once. - Slow intro. I think 0:05 - 0:30 doesn't have to be there, so I agree with Palpable on that. I find it to be sparse and underdeveloped with just drums + xylo + exposed brass. The drums by themselves can kinda handle themselves, but the drums + xylo still makes it seem empty in context. Good luck!

I thought the Aquatic Ambience at 1:02 could be louder, but other than that this is really awesome! Great ambient soundscape, big sound design from Omnisphere here, and the reverb is just right!

I highly recommend either the Grado SR-60i (32-ohm impedance) or Beyerdynamic DT-880 (32-ohm impedance; I have the 250-ohm for the Beyers, but still). The Grados are ~$80, and the Beyers are ~$400 (but you can generally find them below $300 online). The Grados are ones I would recommend if: - You're on a budget - You want a frequency response with great midrange, crisp treble, and clean (not necessarily full, but very discernible) bass - You won't mind itchy ears for about a month as you break it in (it wasn't that bad), or the rather long cord The Beyers are ones I would recommend if: - You don't mind spending at least $200 or you found an awesome sale like I did (51% off, hot damn!) - You want to do some serious bass mixing and treble mixing, with an excellent midrange and stereo field to boot - You want nice comfort while wearing headphones and a long-lasting build (velour pads!) The difference between the Grados and Beyers actually feels quite minimal at first. There is a seemingly subtle improvement in the uppermost treble and low bass when you first try the Beyers, but here's what I've got: bass mixing that previously took me close to 16 hours on the Grados... I fixed up in less than half an hour with the Beyers. True story (I'm referring to at 1:55). The Grados have a bit of boominess (~4 dB) near 80 Hz and a bit less accurate bass, and the Beyers have a slight dip (~2 dB) at 2000 Hz but are overall quite balanced and have really nice bass. Note that I took about 6 months to really get into them before changing my mind. I still have both, and I've used the Beyers for almost 1.5 years now. The Grados were open-back, and the Beyers are semi-open, making the bass mixing quite clear and not muffled. =393&graphID[]=963&scale=30"]Frequency Response Comparison Also, some important notes: - Price doesn't actually correlate with headphone quality; I've had $60 Sony headphones that were much, much more band-passed than the $15 skullcandies I use right now (for just listening). I would say, try looking headphones up on http://headphone.com/ if they have it on record, to have an idea of how dull-or-boomy-or-whatever the frequency response is. - Look for headphones with a reasonable impedance. I often see 32 ohms, which seems pretty common. I would go for those. The higher the impedance, the stronger the amplifier you need to get headphones outputting at a normal volume. It also gives you a worse treble response on average (the higher the impedance, the more upper treble frequencies are attenuated). - If the headphones are not made for mixing, don't buy them for mixing (I think that's a given...). I see Beats all the time where I live, and I just internally face palm whenever I see someone sporting Beats. Your beats don't get any tastier on those! (I did try them, to be fair, and to be honest, they were OK but not great)

'Doh! I was hoping the extra hours were just you double-checking stuff.

You know how you can put vibrato on a lead sound and increase the vibrato speed to a really high amount? That's the sound. It seems like the sound in front of the square-ish wave.

I'm making a video for this right now. Maybe it'll help more when I post it up. EDIT: http://youtu.be/RPmrXd3Zg08

I actually agree with the guy saying the panning is quite intense. I think it's too wide for headphones. Try to shoot for a range of 60% L/R max in this case. This is an interesting take. I think this is saturated in sub bass, though (especially 1:24 and on), but sparse in the bass above 60 Hz (that is, 60~200 Hz), and 1:58 - 2:01 sounds overcompressed. The major issue with this is it either sounds overcompressed or clipping, or both when you have all that sub bass going on, and it sounds incredibly boomy as well. Also, the lead at 1:23 - 1:56 could use more expression; it sounds like a generic -or-something lead to me, and screams of cheese.The complete stop at 2:37 just sounded like an abrupt ending. I think it needs something to add a tail to it before you lead back into the main motif. If I wasn't looking at my screen, I would think the song ended abruptly. Furthermore, 3:03 as an ending... was just sparse, and doesn't really resolve. Overall, you have some good ideas here, but it feels incomplete in arrangement, saturated in subs, and lacking in bass. You should consider checking the mixdown on a system other than what you typically use. Not everyone has sub woofers, or wants to use them in their neighborhood. And definitely flesh out the ending more.

WillRock for the rock Will2Byte for the chips (get it? 8 bits in one byte. I crack myself up)

If that's the case, then it didn't record at all. If your wheels are giving you an "I'm-connected" flashing icon on the upper left of the screen, if you saw the "Remote control settings" window, moved the wheel, and the window disappeared, then the wheel should be working. When you press Record, it should ask you to choose what you want to record. When you select Everything, it should work out then. (I'm not at my computer either) Later, check these: https://www.image-line.com/support/FLHelp/html/img_shot/settings_system_midi.png (Options > MIDI Settings) https://www.image-line.com/support/FLHelp/html/img_shot/midi_activity.jpg

You don't see the event edits in the piano roll? Or do you see them, but not hear anything happen due to them?

Does assigning the pitch wheel or modwheel even get past the "Remote control settings" window? If so, you should just be able to press Record, go for "Everything", and go record. What happens when you try to link the modwheel to CC#1? Do you roll the modwheel and see a small ModDepth window (with the 2D ring) on the bottom left and a "Remote control settings" window in the middle, but it doesn't go any further than that or assign the modwheel? If so, try enabling AutoDetect.

Well, those are primary factors I can think of. Another minor factor is the uppermost treble, because you hear less uppermost treble as you get older. Most of the OCR judges (besides WillRock, for example) are over 24 I believe. At some point they'll be less able to hear that uppermost treble so much that it becomes a minor issue for their ears. If they can't hear it, they can't judge it (usually). *shrug* Well, not everyone has sub woofers at home (maybe it bothers the neighbors), and in that sense it can count as a minor factor. Similarly, far less people have surround-sound home setups than stereo or mono home setups, and a lot of people just use headphones or earbuds to listen to music. Factor that in, and you've got two possible things OCR judges don't often need to discuss (IMO)!

While OCR is great as a community and holds reasonably high standards, I don't consider them higher than film music standards. For example, OCR doesn't discriminate between stereo music and surround-sound music (though I suppose surround sound might have some stereo phase cancellations on regular setups that may pose issues...), but film music has within its standards a surround-sound mixdown (for theaters) AND a regular stereo mixdown (for DVD, Blu-Ray, etc). Also, hardly have I ever seen OCR judges discuss sub bass as a major point when it comes to passing a mix (if it has happened, feel free to post it here), but sub bass is well-considered for film music. Not to sound 'elitist snob' or anything, but here are some examples of film music that I think transcends the OCR standards (in other words, if they were valid, source/original-balanced ReMixes of actual VGM, they would pass with flying colors): https://soundcloud.com/stephen-anderson/unity https://soundcloud.com/stephen-anderson/the-black-flag https://soundcloud.com/stephen-anderson/i-am-the-sentinel-credits The point of this is, you don't have to push yourself extremely hard when it comes to passing something on OCR---but if you just so happen to push yourself to make "film-quality" music, it may not be as hard to pass on OCR production-wise because you'd be pushing yourself harder than you need to.

developers and their drive for efficiency

To really be able to do it well, you have to put it into practice. While you actually do something physically, sometimes you make connections you wouldn't normally have figured out just from reading and theorizing about it. You can read, sure, but move forward from that too.

Neblix has some good points. Some further explanation: The "archaic" way he's talking about may also be called a form of a "stitching" method of sequencing, where you layer a bunch of suitable articulations that work together to make a more realistic performance overall. What I mean is, if you have a solo cello part playing by itself (btw, this isn't redundant!), it'll be fully exposed. Similar to what Neblix mentioned, while layering a real solo violin performance over a fake ensemble performance covers up the fakeness somewhat, you can also thicken up the overall sound by layering in various suitable solo cello articulations, and the sum total "hides" the fakeness of the performance a bit. It doesn't have to sound like an ensemble as a result; in fact it should still sound like your intention---a solo cello sound. The only difference is, it's a layered solo cello sound, which is in a sense "smoothing out" the fakeness. This is something Chimpazilla mentioned here, as well: http://ocremix.org/forums/showthread.php?t=46437 Also, "at OCR", the realism we shoot for is just so the average person can't tell it's fake. But the realism of the performance itself, while ideal, is not absolutely crucial. If the instrument isn't exposed enough, there is a little leeway as to how real it truly sounds. Something can sound slightly fake exposed, but real enough in context that it's 'passable' by OCR standards. Because we don't want it to be impossible. --- Yup, the 'professionals' do it fast merely because they have gotten used to doing it a certain way that happens to sound good (and they're aware that it does). But, it's no surprise to us that it's just careful manipulation of MIDI CC1 and 11 (among others), keyswitches potentially, and other automation. Well, that's the issue here. There isn't "little-to-no humanization". It all depends on the context. With poor samples, if the arrangement is exceptional, production isn't quite as emphasized (but still is quite important). You aren't expected to sound as good as real samples (tonally) by any means with free soundfonts. Someone good enough can tell the difference pretty quickly. What you'd have to work on here is the tonal realism through layering and performance realism also through layering. With great samples, the expectation is that you can get them to sound great and realistic enough because you have greater resources than those free soundfonts and because it's already tonally realistic. What you'd have to work on is the performance realism (and tonal realism, to a lesser extent), so you're halfway there. It's a little harder to tell what issues there are with good samples because they have realistic tones in themselves, but nevertheless, they should be treated with enough care that they convey a realistic performance, ideally. I'm not saying it's necessarily super-duper easy with any good samples, nor am I saying that there are less expectations with soundfonts, but you cannot expect that you can apply the same approach to soundfonts as you can with sample libraries.

I actually don't mind the autotune here. The 2:43 mark was rather unexpected of a shift though.

Would they be resized into thumbnails in posts or restricted to a small size in the first place?