timaeus222   Members

I think I like this more than I did last year. I don't know if you improved it, but either way, this is so good. That first lead just rocks, and you make me wanna write another funk remix with a similar vibe.

I'm currently through it about 3/4ths of the way if you wanted to know (started yesterday).

You need to market more. That helps more than just putting it up on a popular hosting site. I would still recommend Bandcamp though, for profit's purposes (though again, it doesn't guarantee or promote purchases, it just makes it possible).

Odd. Not to me it doesn't. I love working on a song when I'm inspired. Even if I'm not inspired, I'd still be doing something I love in general. Hours of work on a song is actually normal (if you don't finish lol). When I first started out, I did pretty sloppy work whenever I just said I was done with a song I worked on for a few hours. I'd estimate that it's normal for someone about a year into writing music to take about a week to crank out a 2-minute product with rough mixing, or a minute WIP or so with decent mixing, but that's just me. I dunno, maybe that'll help lend some perspective. You shouldn't be discouraged or depressed about specifically music if it's something you love to do and for some reason you feel you're learning too slowly or something. I learned slowly in my first year and a half. *shrugs*

Took longer than I thought, but I'm on the final render! It's about 98% there! EDIT: Done for now, now on to Mak's very quick fixes! (5:40) EDIT2: DONE and rendering! (6:09) EDIT3: Complete and posted on the forums! (7:52) EDIT4: More edits as per Jordan's request are going underway. (10:12) Almost there!

I might give it a shot. We'll see if it works out; at the very least, I hear every single component in the mix clearly enough to notate it, and I'm using noteflight, which lets me play back what I notated.

Almost there with that Vectorman remix! I'm on the last half hour or so of mixing it. Then I'll get to Mak's two small fixes.

Heyyyyy! Totally the first album I'll be posting in the Community forums! https://ajsmusic.bandcamp.com/album/the-chamomile-tea-ep This album is in a way an account of my friend's various love-life situations 'n stuff. You get the idea. Five tracks, recorded and produced in about 2 weeks, and most of these tracks were recorded and mixed from the very beginning in 3-10 hours each. Had to go at lightning speed I tell ya. My friend's comments: With the combined hard work of the "Chamomile Team"... Helen, Ray, David, Truong-Son, Veronica, Kalani, and myself over the past few months... And all of the experiences I've gone through in my life, all of the people I've met, and everything I've learned. I can finally do this. This is my story, my life, in musical form, my heart and soul in digital audio. This is... The Chamomile Tea EP. My comments: I really enjoyed being able to work on this album, even though it was so time-dependent. My personal favorite tracks are "If I Can't" and "4 AM". The bass writing I did for "If I Can't" was inspired by Vertical Horizon's "You're a God". That song was produced last, in... 6 hours. AJ is a pretty talented dude. Glad I got to work with him to get this up and running. Track 1 - Chamomile (Intro) Track 2 - Cinnamon & Sugar Track 3 - If I Can't Track 4 - 4 AM (feat. Helen Dinh) Track 5 - Last Letter (feat. Veronica Layos & Kalani Mojica) Andrew-Julian Soriano: Lead Vocals, Backing Vocals, Acoustic & Electric Guitars, Bass on Tracks 1, 2, and 5, Drum Arrangement, Production Truong-Son Nguyen: Bass on Track 3 and 4, Strings on Track 2, Drum Arrangement, Piano on Tracks 2 and 4, Production and Post-Processing Helen Dinh: Vocals on Track 4 Veronica Layos: Vocals on Track 5 Kalani Mojica: Electric Guitar on Track 5 Raymond Lee: Photography, Graphics David Gonzalez: Graphics

What is the point of this?

There, the rhythm guitar comes through more on the right. I also like what you added after 2:30. Ending needs more time to fade out, but overall it's an improvement.

http://audiogeekzine.com/2011/04/vocal-processing-and-mixing-tips/ It's case-by-case, but this is about as general as it gets, I think. In addition to this, I would suggest the de-essing I mentioned earlier if you hear sibilances, and possibly a little, tiny, slight automation down in the volume on those sibilances (you might not do this too often, but I've done it quite a bit in the last week).

Nice, the rhythmic errors show, but most of it is in the realm of human error (rather than just an actual mistake); what I would say counts as an actual mistake (some might call it "slop") would be: - the delayed note at 0:05 - the rushed note at 0:08 and 0:12 Just those. The tonal variation is definitely much better! The frequencies themselves, in case you wanna know, have quite a bit of low end, but then again, I don't really know how you recorded it. =P

When the rhythm guitar comes in with the rhythmic saw, it feels like the guitar is mostly on the left, even though the lower frequencies are kind of audible on the right, and I can't hear much of it on the right otherwise.

Much better on the drums, esp. the snare. The soundscape is also more filled in by the rhythm guitar, which is welcome. The panning is a bit awkward, though. I question why the rhythm guitar would be left and a synth would be on the right, rather than the rhythm guitar double-tracked (two takes, 100% panned left and right), with the synth in the center but mixed towards the back of the soundscape using a lower predelay on the reverb (so that the instrument feels closer to a wall behind it) and a slight, slight decrease on the dry mix/signal to attenuate the higher frequencies a little bit. Something like that. Just a convention comment, I would say. It actually also sounds less copy-paste and more swagger-like. You might want to also play new rhythm guitar parts with longer notes (rather than copy and paste the take from earlier on) for 2:10, since it sounds like a breakdown section, which naturally has lower energy, dynamically. Speaking of breakdown sections, you also have more structure. Good work, keep it up. Sounds like it could keep going for another half minute or so.

You got posted in 2012, so I'm kinda surprised at the sound quality here. But that's going to be a moot point in a moment. It's not annoying for me, actually. However, I do think this is very fake. How detrimental is it? Well, enough to be a NO on the judges panel (sorry), but it's not going to be primarily due to the arrangement. No way. The creative harmonies are really helping the interpretation level. It's not too close to the original at all. It diverges at 0:37 very nicely while retaining some DDD chord work. 0:56 still sounds like DDD but definitely sounds more solo-like than the original melody. 1:11 has some impressive chord progression work going on for a pretty climactic section. Note-wise, this is really, really, good. No doubt the source usage is above 50% too. The first thing I would consider though, is the runtime. You have a 2:05 mix, so the question is, does it develop enough in that amount of time to warrant that runtime? I would say yes. It's more of a gut feeling than a true evaluation, but yes, I do think it develops quickly enough in that amount of time. It doesn't feel too short. Check in my book. The secondary thing I would take another look at is the mechanical piano and e. piano, followed by the bass presence (which is a little loud). The piano is stiff and needs more velocity variation, mainly in magnitude, since its hard tone makes it sound robotic. This would be an easy fix if you had a better sample with more velocity layers and a more drastic velocity response. Maybe someone else who has a better piano sample could collab (for instance, I could, if you want). The same idea with the e. piano. As for the bass, it's not too far off. It's about... 0.8~1.6 dB too loud. The strings are something else I would look at too. They work as a climactic element, and in such a short piece, they need to be on point. Seems like they might be somewhat dry (but it could just be a long predelay on the reverb). I think after lowering the bass and fixing the piano and e. piano tonal hardness, it'll expose the strings more, and at that point checking the reverb would be a good idea to hide the fakeness a bit. Fake spiccato or staccato strings are pretty simple to work with, IMO, more so than, say, legato violins. So, overall, I would look at these things: - Piano and e. piano velocities to fix the tonal hardness issue as much as possible - Bass volume, by about 0.8~1.6 dB downwards - Possibly the strings reverb, maybe a sample upgrade if you can manage it, or layering more strings to thicken the timbre and hide the fakeness - General loudness (which might be fixed as you fix the piano, e. piano, and bass, but check it anyways). Should be about 0.4~0.8 dB quieter overall, more or less. It's short, but that's not necessarily grounds for rejection. I think a piece with a runtime of about 1:46, or something like that, has passed before.

Consider this: You get a USB port with the headphones. The DJJ-ERGO has mic and aux input, and runs on USB power. Unless I'm mistaken, if you want both, you should get a USB splitter. If you have one with two female ports and one male port, you can plug the male into the controller and have the two females, one for the headphones and one for the power cable.

Pfft, sounds realistic to me @ you and Meteo. Honestly, I would say 2, 5, 6, and 7 are totally doable in a year, but who said resolutions had to be a sure thing?

Sorry for the delay on Mak's mixing. Got some other mixing things thrown at me too. EDIT: Need. More. Time. Gah. Gonna try to make it by Saturday, noon.

Well, something it does affect is when you have strong transients in your singing (i.e. from aspirated or bilabial plosives), like if you say "POW!" (P) or "BAM!" (, or simply beatbox, it reduces the spike in the audio you'd get if you didn't have a pop filter. Sibilances (S) are something a "de-esser" was made for, but mainly, you'll just have to try to be more aware of how loud your s sounds are. It helps to be able to see and understand waveforms if you don't easily notice the loudness issues. Something like the smexoscope VST/AU lets you view them in your DAW. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pop_filter http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De-essing

You can definitely use mine if you wish, too! Anything up on OCR is totally fine with me. http://ocremix.org/artist/13147/timaeus222

haha, sounds like funky disco rock or something. =P

Oops, looks like it disappeared from the topic =P

The reverb in the snare in the beginning is the reverb it has the whole way through, right? It has too much midrange reflection. I can tell the decay time was intended, but the midrange reverberations get lost later on. If at all possible, the midrange reflections should be reduced; if you can't hear the characteristic parts of the reverb later on, they're just mudding up the mix (like at 1:05). I think the main bass is a little loud. Just volume, most noticeably, by about 0.6 dB. The kick, for me, has a little bit too much bass. Not by much, just a little, below 100 Hz. Most importantly though, there is a lot of cut and paste. 0:09 - 0:44 is basically identical to 0:44 - 1:27, 1:27 - 2:09, and 2:09 - 2:51. I really only hear very minor new things, and they don't change much at all; mainly I just hear lead swaps. The drums don't even change significantly between those four instances. The vibe works, the swing/reggae-like 12/8(?) feel sounds intentional, and the overall mood has potential for expansion; it just needs that expansion, variation, and just more interpretation across the board. Cutting and pasting temporarily is fine, but just doing that with 40-something seconds and calling it a remix is like looping a 1-minute VGM track a few times and calling it a full song. I think you can pump more effort into this!