timaeus222

By far. Oh yes. The specs say it all.

What do you mean? They're all new if you haven't bought them before. What's new to you? Some synths share the same types of sound synthesis capabilities and so they can be used to create the same sounds with slight differences due to the internal circuitry. To be specific, I would suggest you check out Zebra2's demo. However, I wouldn't say it's indicative of what it can do; in fact, I would say that the demos show less than a quarter of what Zebra2 can do (just look at how many patches have been made for it). If you do the math, it comes out to nearly 5000 free patches.

He's a Geobro. #Legen-dairy

That's true, but while visually it's slightly different, listening for the differences, there's almost none, so you might as well save computer space and just render as 224. Hardly ever will you need 320 (I haven't, at least, in all the time I've written any music). Anyways, I'll give this a listen sometime soon.

There's no truly better quality than that high of an encoding. In fact, 224 kbps is practically indistinguishable with a 16-bit 44.1 kHz WAV file.

A quick tip on writing complextro is to treat even a few seconds of remix seriously; if it's 6-second-chunks of goodness, then focus on creating an interesting pattern (not like "pattern blocks" in FL Studio, but a predictability of sorts) and vary it slightly every 6 seconds. For what I've done with complextro, the key is to create a pattern and tweak it to form a progression of patterns. You might find it helpful to study (especially at 2:06).

Nice, I've been meaning to remix this properly sometime. Alright, let's get crackin'. =) ...Okay, I'm gonna start with the mixing first because it jumped out at me first. Just so you know, there ARE some good ideas in here. I'll get to them later. Some of the sounds you have here are slightly resonant to ultra-resonant. Yowzers. Some others are just basic. As a result, to me this comes off as both sparse and (I hate to say it, but) painful. Some sounds could just use more EQ polish in general to clean things up. Here's the timestamp breakdown: 0:00 - 0:25 - This sound is, simply put, generic; it's a polyphonic filtered synth, basically. Since it's the only thing playing anything tonal, the soundscape comes off to me as sparse. Also, you can high pass it above around 200Hz. You don't need anything below that for that sound in particular, although it has some sub bass somehow, which wonks up the waveform a bit. The hi hats here are also a hair resonant at 14886 Hz (± 1000 Hz), by about 0.8 dB (they come back again around 2:33 too). 0:25 - 0:27 - The descending lead here actually hurts. It's resonant, but with this, you can lower the resonance in the synth itself. It's at 9624 Hz (± 200 Hz), specifically on that first high note, but you should rotate the knob until it's reduced by about 10~15%. 0:32 - 0:58 - The high pass-like saw is a little resonant at 10886 Hz (± 1000 Hz) by about 3.6 dB and at 15455 Hz (± 2000 Hz) by about 6.4 dB. It also gets to the point where I want to fast forward until it's past 0:58, because the high pass is at too high a cutoff frequency and because those two resonances are there. The resonances should be able to be fixed using the resonance knob in your synth. Maybe reduce it by about 10~25%. Actually, that's all the timestamps; all of these sounds were used later during your copy-pastes. The arrangement itself is what I would consider the major issue here though (textural sparseness, incompatible harmonies, lack of direction, copy-paste). 0:29 - 0:32 doesn't fit; the drums appear to imply that it's a "main" musical section, but its placement in the arrangement implies to be a transition into 0:32. I don't think the drums here should be anything more than overhead drums, like hi hats, tambourines, shakers, etc., because it's like you're "getting ahead of yourself", in a sense. You're not at the drop yet; what's at 0:58 is more like where it drops. I could see 0:45 - 0:58 being a short leadin towards 0:58. 0:58 - 1:10 is where it starts losing direction. The harmonies are clashing; you have two different keys going on at the same time, and the part of the Koopa's Road being used here makes the remix sound like it's not dropping at 0:58, but at 0:32, and instead, it makes it feel like 0:58 is just... "Welcome back to the 'main' section. You remember 0:32? Well, here's part 2, 0:58!". It's like the remix that can't stand still and wants to jiggle all around, stand up, do some stretching, sit down, and stand back up again. I think it would help to instead hold off on using that part just yet, and use the part you had at 0:45 - 0:58, but more melodically grounded and not just holding back on using a melody. 1:10 - 1:30 just doesn't sound like it fits. It's more of that "I don't know what I'm doing" type of deal where the remix doesn't stick to one mean-free path; it tries everything, and wants to collide with everything it sees (or I'm in the mood to talk about ideal gases). The snare roll makes me think it'll get heavier, but it gets lighter and downgrades the drum beat to a basic 4-on-the-floor, and it doesn't make a great deal of sense in my opinion. Where's the transition? Why are we crossing over to a different genre? Why now? The kick roll at 1:30 goes over to the corny end of transitions in my opinion, but nevertheless, from that I expected something heavier, and it got lighter, as a sub-bass-toting breakdown section in a sense. It's not lightness in the sense that there's not much bass, but that it doesn't feel full. I actually think that section has merit though, but it should be fuller. There's almost nothing in the midrange at 1:32 - 1:52. At 1:58 - 2:11, it can make sense to get into that dubstep mode, but it needs a pretty killer transition to tell people you're going to bring it in, at about 1:56 - 1:58 perhaps. Maybe a bass drop with a filter LFO that slows down, followed by one big snare hit right before 1:58. Consequently it would make sense to fill in the low mids at 1:58 - 2:11 as well. Keep in mind that not everyone uses subwoofers when listening to music. Also, the 2:08 transition felt like a cop-out to me; you have cymbals, right? Sweeps? Reverses? Something in the treble range? I think you should use those more often. I haven't heard a single cymbal yet! Wha? 2:24 - 2:59 just sounds like a copy-paste of 0:58 - 1:33. Needs much more variation. It sounds exactly the same. Same with 3:00 - 3:31. Almost exactly the same. The ending, as you may predict by this point, is texturally sparse. It sounds like one high-passed polyphonic pad playing lead. I know you wanted to bring the energy down by that time, but I think as a result of... I guess overly bringing it down, it came off to me as "thin" (not enough body in the midrange, at the very least, if not low-mids). --- Sorry to have so much to say, but there it is. To sum it up, the major issues are that this arrangement has too much copy-paste, it has little direction to the arrangement flow (does whatever it wants), is missing 6+ transitions, has some resonant sounds (hi hat, high passed polyphonic synth, initial descending lead), has incompatible, clashing harmonies, and textural sparseness in most sections due to the basic nature of these sounds and also due to how you clearly have room to add more sounds. I did really like the sub bass-centric breakdown section and the temporary dubstep side-venture. What I would suggest you do is to study the music that you like more closely. Listen for what transitions those people use, what elements precisely are in the soundscape that you are familiar with in some sense (sweeps, pads, arps, keys, etc), the tonal character of the drums, of the bass, the general balance of instruments (what's in front, what's in back, what's wide, what's narrow, what's barely noticeable, etc), but most importantly, the overall structure. If your remix or song goes too many places in one sitting, people will question why. If it repeats too much, some people will stop it early and move on. Try to have a grasp of how some people form their structure. This is a good song to study: http://zirconstudios.bandcamp.com/track/the-end What you could look for here: - The layering of the pads in the intro (listen for the shimmering layer, the sweeping layer, and the choir-like main layer) - How it shifts to a syncopated halftime-ish drum beat at 0:46 and adds a buzzy bass and gets fuller at 0:58, then 1:04 by adding overhead drums like open hi hats and rides) - How it transitions at 1:09 - 1:12 with a band-passed drum loop followed by a set of FM sounds - And so on. Just pay close attention to how it's proceeding. Chord progressions, melodic focus, drum arrangement, as much as you can pick out. You can probably listen to this more than 10 times and still not notice everything, so don't feel like everything's going to come up to you on the first few listens. It'll come with time.

I kinda wish the naked demos actually didn't have the reverb, just so the essential character of the violins is more evident, but oh well. Based on what I CAN hear from the naked demos, this library is... about what I would expect for $45 USD. It's not bad but it's not great either. The Symphony No. 25 demo doesn't sound convincing to me in the first 7 seconds. The notes don't really connect too well. If you want a violin sample library (solo and ensemble), I would suggest "Friedlander Violin" for $125. It has controllable portamento speed, vibrato speed, vibrato mix, vibrato type (the latter three NOT available in most libraries), slur, bow switch legato, and tremolo, among other features. Info page: http://www.embertone.com/instruments/friedlanderviolinupgrade15.php Demos: https://soundcloud.com/embertone/sets/friedlander-violin

Yeah, the Avien lead was an accompaniment/countermelody. EDIT: Oh yeah, I used something from Xenos Soundworks's "Forever 80's" Zebra library (just $6!) called "LD Sunglasses" (the panning breakdown section lead).

One of them is the "Breakdown Lead" from zircon's soundset "Zebra Tetralogy", and the other, I think, was Space Runner or something from Zebranautic Revolution (Vol. 1 of 2!). They're slightly modified though, where the former layer now has vibrato, and the latter layer has vibrato adjusted to the same LFO rate (1/4 sync, Rate knob = 134) and a bit of an upper treble high shelf lowering. And thanks, APZX. I'll consider spicing up the 3o3 a little, though I might actually just replace the wind SFX, and possibly the 3o3, with a big-ish pad.

Acid 10 works with (or should work with) all VSTs and VSTis. http://www.sonycreativesoftware.com/musicstudio/techspec If you're looking for specific VST suggestions, I have a (currently incomplete) list here: http://tproductions.comeze.com/recommendations.php

Wow this is LOUD, and it's only the youtube video. The MP3 is probably louder. Yeah, I see your repetition crits, and I raise you some resonance and click/pop crits! Not bad. Generally produced well, and it has a likable flair to it. Does feel pretty copy-pasta and occasionally sparse, but what's there slightly edges by IMO.

Thanks! =) Sand Canyon is more of a small cameo; it's in the breakdown section, though a bit liberal. It shows up in the piano melody before the explicit Grass Land 2 melody in the breakdown section, and in the bass right before the breakdown section ends. Sounds like I could tweak it a bit to match the original notes some more. I wanted to adapt it to the new harmonies. Yeah, the bass is my favorite instrument here. Weather Report really made a fantastic decision when they asked Pastorius to join, so I'm using a Jaco bass to emulate him.

HOO-RAH! /10char

Yeah, he still has to filter through and find what he wants, but hey, it's all piano-related now.

Have you tried the tags? http://ocremix.org/forums/tags.php?tag=piano

Heavy, hard-hitting, slamming jam. My only small gripes are that it felt a little flooded in the lower bass (like at 3:37) in the actual audio file (the youtube video is quieter of course), and that I questioned the choked cymbals at 2:12 or so since there were so many of them that it felt to me like you had some bad luck with rendering glitches or something, but those are pretty minor things. Great contribution to the album. =)

I think with the resources you have, you can get even better results, so keep it up. You might also want to see if this library piques your interest. There's a whole lot of cinematic impacts, reverses, sweeps, textures, etc. in there, and all of them are incredibly well-polished (so much so that I try to EQ them very minimally), not to mention an incredibly versatile bass synthesis engine and drum processing engine with the same amount of polish. shows off the library rather well in my opinion.

Since BadAss 3 is finalizing stuff now, I'd like to offer my mixing/mastering services for this album, as well as the following: Electric and synth bass (especially dark bass wobbles) Electric guitar (rhythm, maybe lead, depending on the track) Countermelodic elements, or ear candy filler Cinematic textures, impacts, sweeps, risers, etc. Standard orchestral strings stuff (staccato, legato, pizzi, etc)

Yeah, but you could have done it with a cleaner way. Retuning that percussion in that way sounded like if the same thing were done to vocals, you would get that "slow motion" feel that hip hop producers have used so much. It may appear to sound like a comment based on taste, but I'm not making it based on taste; I'm considering how artificial the tuning is and how it could have been more gracefully accomplished, volume-wise (no offense to you, of course). As it is, the dynamics jumped up from a low point to a high point, and after the transition lowered a little bit from that high point, which seems strange since I would expect it to go from low (previous section) to high (the fill) to higher (next section). I think a smoother way to transition would be to use the hi hats to foreshadow it, and then a snare fill.

HOLA! I took a request from a guy on twitter (DeucesWildMedia) to remix Kirby's Dreamland 3. This is what I came up with so far in a Jazz Fusion style, with some hefty influence from (with supah bass playa Jaco Pastorius) while combining the style I used in a previously posted OC ReMix belonging to Chimpazilla and I. Apparently "Flower Garden" from Yoshi Touch & Go fit rather well so I put it in too. Thought I'd let you guys take a look rather than work on it in private =P Feel free to chime in with any suggestions. I'm thinking of incorporating a drum solo after this, then maybe I'll taper off the dynamics and slowly build it back up, using some notes and ideas from the first breakdown section. Grass Land 2: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hLnqF9KKvTA (main) Sand Canyon 3: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jt5arkk5lVo (cameo) Ripple Field 3: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ub0iWyJYLko (main-ish) Flower Garden: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=refalB4VM6o (cameo) V1: https://app.box.com/s/jxs7p28ff4cimzvc58fdwf442ctomk9g Final Version: https://app.box.com/s/50yyxi6hzdwsjqzg9d44bfudh424ebd5 Source Breakdown: 0:03.28 - 0:08.95, 0:09.77 - 0:13.84, 0:16.26 - 0:21.83 = Grass Land 2 (0:00.00 - 0:06.47) [bass and piano] 0:22.75 - 0:27.61 = Grass Land 2 (0:06.47 - 0:12.88) 0:29.24 - 0:38.96, 0:42.21 - 0:53.76 = Ripple Field 3 (0:00.00 - 0:25.36) 0:42.21 - 0:48.69 = Flower Garden (Yoshi) (0:00.00 - 0:26.70) [background sine wave] 1:04.90 - 1:06.91 = Sand Canyon 3 (0:00.00 - 0:02.45) [Different "mood"] 1:08.15 - 1:15.58 = Grass Land 2 (0:00.00 - 0:06.47) 1:17.88 - 1:19.91 = Sand Canyon 3 (0:00.00 - 0:02.45) [Different "mood"; bass] 1:21.13 - 1:32.68, 1:34.10 - 1:45.04 = Ripple Field 3 (0:00.00 - 0:25.36) [Mostly retained bass, with solos + interpretation] 1:47.07 - 2:13.01 = Wild solos! 2:00.05 - 2:01.66, 2:06.52 - 2:13.01 = Grass Land 2 (0:00.00 - 0:06.47) 2:13.01 - 2:22.34 = Grass Land 2 (0:12.88 - 0:24.09) [bass solo] 2:25.99 - 2:31.87 = Grass Land 2 (0:12.88 - 0:24.09) 2:35.71 - 2:37.75 = Sand Canyon 3 (0:00.00 - 0:02.45) [Different "mood"] 2:42.21 - 2:47.07, 2:48.70 - 2:52.75, 2:55.17 - 3:00.74 = Grass Land 2 (0:00.00 - 0:06.47) [bass and piano] 3:01.66 - 3:06.50 = Grass Land 2 (0:00.00 - 0:06.47) 3:06.50 - 3:32.09 = Havona-style ending Grass Land 2: 5.67 + 4.07 + 5.57 + 4.86 + 7.43 + 1.61 + 6.49 + 9.33 + 5.88 + 4.86 + 4.05 + 5.57 + 4.84 = 70.23 70.23/212.09 = 33.11% Ripple Field 3: 9.72 + 11.55 + 11.55 + 10.94 = 43.76 43.76/212.09 = 20.63% Sand Canyon 3: 2.01 + 2.03 + 2.04 = 6.08 6.08/212.09 = 2.87% Flower Garden: = 6.48 6.48/212.09 = 3.06% Total (note the Flower Garden overlap): 120.07/212.09 = 56.61%

Well, okay. Honestly, I don't think it's bad at all. I also don't think it's "generic 'epic music' shit" or anything that inconsiderate guy in a youtube comment said. 100 hours of effort doesn't seem enough for music of this kind, though. I think you could have spent more time to refine it, because there are some realism issues that brought it down from "awesome" to "good". For example, I might spend about 50-70 hours on a song if I want it to be absolutely spot-on with no issues whatsoever, so if it was something like this album I would have spent about 250~350 hours. Just something to consider. What I thought could have used improvement was the musical development of each track (too static to maintain interest for long enough), the orchestral sequencing (detached notes when connected notes would work better, too many emphases making all the emphases moot, etc.), and each track's overall mixing (too reserved, could be more bombastic and big). "Edge of Freedom" sounded a little repetitive and its dynamics didn't seem to change that much, but in general the notes clicked well and the samples were good quality at the outset, but the strings sounded too detached in some parts that breaks the realism. It reminds me of this track though, which I think is a success on your part. You might have the same strings library he does. Nice usage of Damage, seems like. "The Last Battalion" had the same realism issues. Specifically, the strings' phrasing sounded unrealistic in the way the legato articulations were connected, and generally sounded detached and weak when more defined notes could have been accomplished by layering articulations with stronger attacks. "Seismic Shift" didn't quite reel me in until about 0:50, though at that point I was hoping for a heavier, fuller soundscape but didn't get more than a plodding soundscape that felt like it had too many emphases. As a result none of the emphases sounded like emphases. "Aeon Phobia" was pretty cool. The intro pad was a nice lead-in, and made for a good atmosphere. This might be my favorite track on this album. Unfortunately it was the shortest. I think you could have made it longer, though it felt like the length wasn't too short based on the development overall. "Maximus Victorious" had the same strings articulations issues; the staccato notes are all so similar and as a result, no emphases really were that evident. The bass mixing could also be cleaner; the piano kinda clashes with the bassy drums (I can't tell if you have timpani in there or not). The drumwriting itself is pretty good here. So, overall, few parts of this actually stood out to me, but it's definitely better than you think it is. You might want to take a listen to these for reference tracks: https://soundcloud.com/stephen-anderson/inspired-guns-credits-music https://soundcloud.com/stephen-anderson/the-black-flag https://soundcloud.com/stephen-anderson/orc-wars-opening-sequence https://soundcloud.com/stephen-anderson/i-am-the-sentinel-credits https://soundcloud.com/isworks/juggernaut-fates-reckoning https://soundcloud.com/isworks/juggernaut-darkness-ft-shreddage2

Okay, now I'm actually listening to it (looks like it's an old one you've done before). Yeah, the flute is indeed mechanical, because the notes are detached. Whether you recorded it for real or not, it sounds too stilted as I mentioned earlier, and it's just how you chose to play it that makes it sound stiff. As for the bass, I do agree with Skrypnyk, it doesn't sound like it's contributing much to the soundscape, and it sounds plain with no distinct articulations. It's as if it's a sine wave, but not quite. At 0:40, I agree again with Skrypnyk that too many things are going on at once. I hear the piano on the right, the flute on the left, the piano on the left, the bass in the center, the metal percussion on the left, the hi hats, snare, kick... wow, that's a lot. I think the pianos need more rhythmic synergy in the partwriting to sound more cohesive and in agreement with each other, and the flute can be more centered at that point (automation?) to let the left piano come through more. At 1:36, by "sloppy" transition he probably meant the retuned metal percussion; it sounds too artificial. Also, I see what Skrypnyk means by breakbeat. The drum pattern at 1:39, for example, has a lot of snare fills in a row, and is in the style of breakbeat (not to mention it raises the energy of the track, even though there's ambience at that time as well). If you took those snare fills out and made it more plain, it could sound more downtempo and less conflicting in the amount of energy conveyed.

Though I can't listen to this right now, I think I can figure out what he meant, and maybe you can take another listen and see if you notice these issues this time. - I'm guessing the flute playing itself was just stiff, as in, it was stilted, or it could use more natural phrasing. If in fact it's actually a real recording, it's already realistic, but the performance was probably just too lacking in natural flow. Maybe find a youtube video of a solo flute performance and listen to how it sounds, paying close attention to slurs, pitch bends, hard/soft blowing, long phrases, etc. - I'll look into this some more later, but I'm guessing the dynamics didn't portray what you intended up until 0:40 and there is midrange clutter or something at 0:40. - As for the mix not knowing what it wants to be, that just means the remix is combining incompatible genres, or the structure is strange in that it shifts between an unexpected sequence of genres. Skrypnyk did mention a lack of direction in the arrangement flow.