timaeus222

Way to be delicate, Milo

Well, actually it's Sixto's remix, but my provision was that I credited OCR properly, so really, I would be doing this for someone else's track, on one of my videos. =P I sent the email to the company instead of YouTube, and no reply for 2 weeks now. Supposedly, they replied when other people tried, so... we'll see.

No, all I did was google those.

[1] http://www.scribd.com/doc/20798989/FTC-s-Final-Guides-re-Endorsements-and-Testimonials [2] http://www.reddit.com/r/KotakuInAction/comments/2njgyj/important_ftc_update_2_yes_the_ftc_is_going_to/ [3] http://www.reddit.com/r/KotakuInAction/comments/2nlbuu/important_ftc_update_3_yes_we_hit_pay_dirt_gawker/

You gave that example, so I took that example and addressed it. It's not a straw man. It's just going into specifics. If in fact that was irrelevant to your argument, then it would be a straw man, but because you said, "What you are arguing right now is the equivalent of claiming...", it was an apparently practical analogy that was incorporated to discuss the point of yours, that simply naming something that people should already know about is enough of a 'citation'. i.e. addressing it was sensible in bringing up the point that you shouldn't expect people to look into a topic in such a way that makes it of an unreasonable scope or a time-waster. Therefore, the 11000 pages remark was in the intended context, not irrelevant (though I will admit it is a stretch to presume you would want people to do that). It's not as easy as "oh yeah, it's a topic they should care about, so I'll let them read up on it on their own time before they continue their discussion with me." Not my point. You didn't even have to state whether or not you would consider it someone else's job to support your argument, because what I said was independent of a statement such as that one. It was merely advice for the problem where you had been making generalizations and other statements that you would need citations to say with such certainty, but you were sticking to ideas such as "I lived it", "this scenario has happened to people of this kind before", "it was something I experienced", "it's a matter of public record", "I'm pretty sure that...", and so on, i.e.: You simply shouldn't say stuff like the above here and leave them there for us to peruse because they're your assertions. It may seem intuitive, or interesting enough to look up, obligatory for context, or however you want to label it, but some statements such as those are broader or more generalizing than they may seem when you first type them out (not to mention some parts of them are just attacks...). Hence, zircon calling you out on citations, and... well... CHz choosing to cite you. [1] One problem with that. If you don't cite anything other than its name and then say something to the effect of "oh yeah, you can just Google it or look it up somehow. You'll find it.", it's not really citing it. CHz having to cite 7 sources (some of which he knew were probably insufficient as well) simply highlighted the unusual scope of your two claims---and that was only two sentences. What about the other claims... right? [2] If you and I discussed something, and you made a statement that you argue I should believe, and leave it at that, I don't know why I would look up information on it just so I would believe you. Why wouldn't you already have put up a source to back up that claim? This was indeed what I was thinking of earlier, when I said: By doing light (or heavy) research on what backs up your claim, in a way they would be ultimately strengthening your argument (really, they'd be furthering their contextual knowledge so that they better understand your argumentative stance, but... it's similar). In reference to the beginning of your post, apparently, what I said was not a straw man, because you just made it more explicit that it was relevant, even if you say you didn't say it earlier. By not citing sources for what you say, you make your statements remain as statements. If people choose not to cite for you, that's how the statements will remain. Whoops! [3] And you know, that sounds just like an attack. Didn't zircon already talk about this? [/quasi-deja vu] [4] Is it now? It appears to be something that is supposedly seen quite often! But wait! I don't remember the last time I saw that (I really don't, in all seriousness; it sounds quite underselling). Would you cite that, pretty please? (Of course I'm kidding, but you get my point, right?) Anyways, can we get back to GamerGate?

It sounds like it was made in FL Studio (which isn't necessarily a bad thing) with FL Slayer and FL Keys, plus maybe FPC (?). The guitar doesn't sound real, and the drums are weak. Keep trying though, I think you can get better at this.

No, that isn't true. If you said, "Obamacare is ineffective. Go read the Affordable Care Act. You'll see why, I'm telling ya. Everyone I know has said that.", I wouldn't go look. You would have to find the part of the ACA and specify what part you are referring to. One gaping problem: it's over 11000 pages. I already did a 9-page essay on it, got a nice grade on it from my professor, and it still confused the both of us (and I didn't even read the whole thing; I just found sources of people who might have, though they probably didn't). No one's going to sift through it or any other complicated source (or diverse set of sources from the wide-as-hell internet) finding what could possibly support your statements; that's your job, if you want to make your argument stronger. There are some things you can say without proof, like self-explanatory ideas, deductive logic, and things we should know as citizens of our own nations, among other things, but what you had been saying was desperately in need of sources. There's a reason why when putting citations of academic journals in research papers, you're supposed to specify the exact pages. I just don't get why CHz had to jump in and find 7 sources just to support your 2 one-sentence claims, but what a nice guy. A citation is a reference, but no, it's not someone else's obligation to strengthen your argument, it's yours. If you don't want to support your argument, it becomes a mere opinion, and one that doesn't really need to be taken seriously in the midst of other strong, well-supported arguments. If someone calls your source a weak one due to its irrelevance, poor writing, or otherwise, that's fair. It just means your argument would then be either weak due to poor support, or too hard to support due to its unreasonable scope (or other alternatives that I may have missed). Either way, it would be a huge fallacy (burden of proof) to say "your source is weak. If you can't back up your argument, it's wrong." All the other person ought to think is, "your source is weak and not credible, so I currently don't think I should believe your argument. Are there any other sources that you want to go find, or should I just move on and not believe you?" (calling an argument wrong and calling it weak are not the same thing). If someone does indeed ask for citations of your claims, then they're giving you a chance. Take it, to your benefit.

The food hast been eaten

There's a bit too much bass at 1:57 - 2:20 and 2:46 - 3:03 for me. It's just flooding my headphones. I'm using pretty generic Skullcandy earbuds right now, so I would expect some people with $15 earbuds to hear this too. Arrangement-wise, the drumwriting needs a lot more variation. It's just a basic copy-pasted pattern right now, from what I'm hearing. I don't really hear any fills besides in the transitions here and there. Also, Snake Man is really hard to hear at 0:44 - 1:02. Those notes are too short and just sound like blips. The decay should be increased from a higher starting point so that people can tell what notes those are. The melodic writing at 1:36 - 1:53 is also very repetitive. I know that's supposed to be a buildup, but it feels like it's plodding along until the leadin snares come in at 1:47 (although it's hard to tell they were snares until 1:50). Maybe you could make the lead timbre more dynamic with filter modulation or something more creative. So overall, the drums are too repetitive and transitions are not foreshadowing clearly enough for me that a new section is coming up. The lead and arp sound design are also pretty basic, sorry. Also, the source tune should be more prominent. I have to try pretty hard to notice what it's playing sometimes. On the bright side, the drums are produced relatively well, and in general the pacing would be fine for a club context if the drums had more fills. Other than that though, I'm just not able to find something to reel me in. This needs more substance.

What's this about sequenced piano? Rexy, sequencing piano? Wut. I mean, doesn't she play piano? xD Agreed though, the tone was a little too hard IMO. Some things sounded a little distant in the sound field (the drums were pretty upfront, lead and C64-ish arp were pretty far back, etc.), giving kind of a gap depth-wise for me, but mostly things clicked IMO. Yeah, this is great! Awesome writing on the piano and other melodic components, and on the harmonies in general.

Awesome, thanks very much! (This day just keeps getting better!)

Is there another option if I already have Juggernaut (which I do)?

Okay yeah, this is loud, but I think it's just about right for this context. We're RAWKING out, right? Suuuuuper solid stuff.

This is one of my favorite Metroid Prime remixes on the site. Loved the melodic embellishments, tangents, and direction in general. I hear Vig's crits, but man, some nitpicks there! My favorite instrument is that distorted rapid arpeggio that plays alongside the guitar. Slick production, slight lossiness aside. ;D

I think this is a great improvement. If you want it as a Bonus, I personally wouldn't have any more (major) crits.

This is excellent. One of the best remixes I've heard in a long time, and that's saying a lot. Still retains your style, but incorporates some effective film score-esque elements that create quite the brooding, freaky mood.

Eh, pardon me, Mak, but, er, rabbits is bigger than penguins. Happy Birthday!

Maybe it's just me, but 1:04 - 1:18 was a little bare, and I thought the bass was staying still a little too much in the first bit of that portion. Not a big deal though. I agree that the drums and guitar were a little pushed back in the mix, but I also agree it's not that much of a problem. I actually liked that transition at 1:53. Maybe the transition could have dragged on for a few more seconds, but a pretty sweet style shown there and everywhere else IMO. Loved the lead guitar and synth parts especially. I loved Scaredsim's "Turrimann" back in the day, 3 years ago. I like this almost as much, and that's saying a lot!

Oh yeah, I hear what the bass is now that I'm listening on my main headphones. This is something that's gonna happen---when you get new headphones, you have to get used to them, and if they're better than your previous pair, you have this 'obligation' to raise your mixing standards (or at least, I did). I can hear that bass now, but not with the other headphones, so that means the bass mixing can be clearer. And the low impact at 2:50... I could barely hear it with either pair of headphones =P

Brain twins. That is all.

Somehow I still find that funny.

Well, yeah, that's of course the idea. I just wasn't talking specifically about that. Yes, you're supposed to keep tracks on an album at a relatively close loudness so the dynamic flow makes sense and people aren't thrown off by drastic discrepancies in necessary listening volumes, i.e. ending a song quiet and proceeding into a very loud song is obviously going to be startling, and proceeding to a quiet intro from a loud song causes people to turn up the volume, only for the quiet intro to proceed into a loud portion, which is then too loud. Yes, you're supposed to be near a 'standard' dB RMS, more or less, but that's straightforward, at least to me. So no, it's not as if I don't understand that, it's that I didn't talk about it. Maybe I also just mixed up the cause/effect or wrote ambiguously. i.e. it's not that you should mix loudly so you can incorporate more details into your music, but that it's the consequence of mastering loudly that you can hear more detail in certain music without changing your volume. It's not a case of being careless if I didn't know I was being ambiguous. That's almost like saying speaking in ignorance is a result of not having time to proofread your notes. I'm not constantly on here, repeatedly revising what I say in the past before someone else reads it (sometimes I stay logged in for a long time, but that's only so I don't have to type as much out of sarcastic laziness). We're both in college, so you should understand both our perspectives here.

Well, here's my reasoning. The louder your music is, the more dynamic range you cover, but again, obviously, you don't want to squash your dynamics. I know if you keep pushing the limiter, you're going to either get overcompression or overcrowding, and if you get either one, you lose transient detail and uppermost treble, at the very least. But, my point is, something at, say, consistently -5 dB peaking amplitude vs. -2 dB peaking amplitude has details that are less audible, and you end up having to turn up the volume to hear them. That's why when I downloaded zircon's "Vessel of the Void" and saw that it was peaking at -3 dB consistently, I re-mastered it to 0 dB and the bass was siiiiiiiick. That's if you get too loud. I'm referring to quite below vs. near the 0 dB peak, or at the 0 dB peak vs. a little above (with a tolerant limiter, of course).

Well, yeah, you need it for a violin/piano arrangement; that's what the image said. What purpose is it for? Kickstarter? Selling it? Personal use? Free sharing? How realistic is it supposed to be? Give more information.