timaeus222

Interesting soundscape. A touch washed out at times, but otherwise, this does stand out well against the other CT remixes.

Excellent uplifting feel to this. Bring on the smiles.

Sole Signal with guitars from Fishy? Hell yeah. Put on your game face. Super glitch breakdown in the drums. The jazz in one part of it was a little weird, but other than that, this is pretty WAHPAH! Also, I could see myself writing a remix kind of like this. Makes me wish I could have collaborated with these two.

Wow, somehow it turned out how I expected: got matched up with Treasure Knight =p

This is pretty excellent! I'm sure it would pass on OCR.

I usually end up at 2:40~3:30 anyways, so personally I think that's fine too.

The only problem I see with this is that the attention is split between the whole set of posted ReMixes, rather than one or two, and that might decrease the number of people who comment. People might get overwhelmed.

Allllrighty, I've addressed these points, which I did agree with. Probably a result of wanting the arps to be heard, at first, but I ended up automating the mids down on the pads a touch to help that. A short list of final changes for educational purposes: - slight increase in reverbiness of the snare and the sine wave to increase the overall spatiousness and cohesiveness - slight levels fix of certain leads to expose some more of the nuances, and bass frequencies of bass and kick and make it more full - very minor automation of a pad's midrange to make the arp a touch clearer due to the leads being louder - adjusted overall loudness a little to compensate for a few things getting louder so that the uppermost treble doesn't get squashed too much I'm almost happy with this, so I'll sub this when I get the chance! In the meantime, I may lower the sub bass a little to bring back the dubstep nuances, and louden the snare a little bit.

DAMN, this is smooth! The bass is sooooo rich. Really cool granular and reverse effects. Amazing detail, too. Loving the occasional cello and bass pizzicato. I actually think this is better than the Blue Coin mix, so I'm glad you did this in addition to it!

Hm... I haven't heard this yet, so let's see... So, you're using the default snare, yes? Along with another one from FL's pack? Maybe default kick, too? I don't think they really fit, and honestly, I can't tell what genre you're in. What is this supposed to be? Metal? If so, yeah, I think you need a different kick and snare. Something more acoustic, rather than dance-oriented. Also, the guitar should be double-tracked as per the convention, which means one instance panned 100% left, the other instance slightly different and panned 100% right, then slightly offset in its alignment with the left instance. It'll give a wider stereo field and give the bass room to breathe (which consequently means you need a different sample because it'll be more exposed). I hear the overcompression, and it's pretty substantial, and still there. The bass notes are clashing occasionally (0:00, 0:06, etc.), and the bass sounds like an FL default plugin (or a Sytrus patch). Boo Bass? It's just too exposed in this context to sound realistic (or hide the fakeness of it). At 0:51, it's clearest that the midrange is overboosted. Hard to tell what, but I'm guessing it's the bass instrument. It's not supposed to be an instrument that you hear much of in the midrange; more so the low-mids and bass frequencies. Something I keep telling people is to boost much less often than you cut frequencies in the bass area. Boosting bass will usually create more muddiness. The organ is also fake-sounding (FL Keys?), but I wouldn't hold it against you because organs are actually pretty hard to get to sound realistic with samples. Lastly, the sound effects could be panned more creatively to give a greater sense of a big or wide stereo field. So, the arrangement of this is actually quite good, so this definitely has potential. Good solos. This feels a little repetitive when every instrument works together to create a wall of sound, such as at 1:12, 1:23, etc., because it sounds rigid in those spots. If even the drums do something different there, maybe something more subdivided, it'll help. The kick, snare, organ, and bass samples, sequencing, and processing are really diminishing what is otherwise quite a fun arrangement.

Actually, the site changed design substantially a few months ago, and there's still more to come!

I'm all for this.

Hah, yeah, single french horn player. =P

About your examples... Example 1 - Feels narrow, as if all the instrumentalists were sitting bunched together. There's a little trebly background noise. Example 2 - Same Example 3 - There's some more dimension to this than in 1. More explicitly, the piano kind of seems farther away than the trumpets, for example. It's better than 1, but still somewhat narrow. Just so that someone has listened to and addressed those examples.

LIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIVE as of 6:06 PM PST!

Yeah, I can see why it's not extremely clear. He meant to say that the limiter you have has a low tolerance for really loud peaks, so the loudest peaks you have are hitting the limiter pretty strongly, and it's creating overcompression because the limiter is pushing back. The louder the peak, the more the limiter squashes what's coming up against it. Think of it as a semi-dense, perfectly-attached, somewhat unyielding ceiling. You're stacking chairs, TVs, couches, and whatever you can vertically fit, to come close to the ceiling so that you can touch it, but as soon as you touch the ceiling, its Normal Force (think physics) pushes back down at you a little. The more you push against the semi-dense ceiling, the harder it pushes back. If you push hard enough but the ceiling doesn't break (if you raise your volume so that you're just bordering on too high), you can destabilize the crazy stuff you're standing on and fall off (the Normal Force of the ceiling is pushing you down, transferring the impulse through your body, and your legs end up pushing down on the objects below you). That's overcompression, and as described, it affects everything below you (or in the case of music, everything quieter than you). If you were strong enough and you pushed through the ceiling, you broke the ceiling. That's clipping. The denser the ceiling (the harder the Knee), the more tolerant it is to your loud peaks, and the less clipping there should be.

I think you can do it. May the luck be with you. [/cheeze]

EXACTLY! This part illustrates what I was debating about earlier:

The bolded part is the point I was saying, too. She can expect backlash. Just not really predict, with a good chance of being pretty much correct, a close estimate to the extent or severity to which it can happen. Anita and Zoe were both taking risks, yes. So good to know that you're on the same page too. But DusK, earlier, didn't think you were. Maybe now it'll be more clear, now that you said it explicitly here. Right, and this is not quite what's happening, yes. Anita and Zoe had some control. However, I did this example anyways to cover all the bases... or many of them at least. And that's what I'm aiming to clarify/retrieve/divulge here, between you, Meteo, and DusK in particular. It's not that you're wrong that Anita or Zoe are to blame for their mistakes, but it's the way you and those two are typing about it that comes across in more or less the opposite way each of you intended. Earlier, DusK claimed that you didn't mention the extent, whereas he emphasized that there was the issue of the extent.Anita and Zoe ARE to blame, but not so insensitively, because if they were theoretically psychic (as if it was possible) and they knew exactly what would happen, extent and all, they'd definitely alter how they would go about it if they still want to go about it at all. Additionally, you wanted people to agree with you on that point, but DusK, for example, didn't agree completely. The reason why is not what you said, but how you said it. The power of the euphemism vs. the dysphemism (I made up the name of the comparison, but anyways...). Not to mention the ad-hominem-toting face-off. Yeah, "don't let it get to you emotionally", etc., but it already happened. It's the difference between "perhaps she shouldn't have done that, because look where that got her---stuck in between a horde of attackers and cyberbullies" and "she shouldn't have made that stupid decision that got her stuck in between a horde of attackers and cyberbullies that would have clearly done that to her. She should have known better, but apparently she was dumb enough to do it anyway."

Again, yes, we know it, but we can't expect a particular person to just know it. How can you expect that you'll get bombarded by hatespeech, get death threats, and get hacked rather than simply just receiving some replies saying, "No, you're wrong, I disagree", or "gtfo, troll", or "you've probably never [insert past tense action here] before, have you"? Okay, sure, I'd expect one or two, maybe a few more, but not 50+ or 1000+. I, again, doubt that Anita Sarkeesian would have done those commentary videos if she knew, "for a fact" as you call it, that she would, as Dusk says it, get "doxxed, harassed, or...have [her] life threatened." Now, I'm not saying she definitely would have not done those videos had she predicted that (she did, to some reasonably safe extent), nor am I saying she definitely didn't predict that (she did, to some reasonably safe extent), but it would be a very plausible scenario to consider. You said it earlier---huge difference between "you should have known better" and "you deserved it" scenarios. Let's also include a "you couldn't have known better" scenario in there. Let's compare. 1: You know you're in a safe neighborhood; no car break-ins have ever happened before, but you leave your car doors locked anyways. Your iPhone slides out of your jeans' butt pocket and it sits in plain sight on the driver's seat. Oops. Well, you come back later, and you notice someone broke in and stole your iPhone. So then, is it really your fault that it was stolen? Okay, sure, it was, but should someone really call it out in that specific way? One, you didn't know it slid out of your pocket. Two, break-ins had never happened in that neighborhood before. Because you weren't aware that the phone slid out, and you heard from everyone you met (and they could all be trusted) that it was a safe place, it was a "you couldn't have known better"; it was out of your control. It was a nonvoluntary action because you suffered from your ignorance. You had no reason whatsoever to believe that it would happen, and you didn't even know your phone wasn't with you until you checked and went back to your car. "Oh shoot, someone stole my phone. I guess it fell out of my pocket..." 2: Same situation, but you purposefully left your phone on the seat ("I'll be right back! Stay riiiiight there. Don't move!"), in a locked car, and you assume that BECAUSE it's a safe neighborhood, nothing should happen. Then, it's a "you should have known better" scenario, if in fact someone does steal the phone because you had some control. You had some awareness of what could happen, but not complete awareness. It was partially involuntary action, but mostly a voluntary action because you made a reasoned-out decision (= voluntary) with a little ignorance that you didn't double back and realize; then, you later recognized that ignorance (= involuntary) and now you know better. "Oh, I thought someone might see my phone; I didn't reeeeally think someone was going to try and get it. I just thought they were going to stare at it for a while and walk away." 3: Same situation, but you put your phone there in plain sight on purpose, in a purposefully unlocked car, and you knew it was NOT a safe neighborhood. You knew that break-ins HAD happened before, and happened often, but you just assume that, maybe, just maybe, it wouldn't happen today. Then, it's "you deserved it" because you were completely aware of what might happen; it was a completely voluntary action. "Okay, yeeeeeaaah, maybe leaving my phone out in an unlocked car in an unsafe neighborhood WAS a bad idea..."

Absolutely, and it links back to that other post I made about Nicomachean Ethics.

I didn't see you say that, but you did say people should be aware of what consequences are possible, and that they should "just know" what to expect... which isn't realistic, and here's why. Saying that what you've experienced is true for you doesn't make it true for many people. Mainly, just true for you, because it's unclear how representative you or someone else is with respect to the majority of the world. Hence all the uncertainty Descartes, Quantitative Analysis chemists, and others say. You can use yourself or someone else to illustrate a point, but extrapolating one person as a practical generalization to a large group of people is a logical fallacy---a hasty generalization.

Well, at least by the wording, it came off that way for some. Notice you're saying "stupid", "willing to accept", etc. Again, not knowing it'll happen if it's never happened to you before is not really stupid. That's why I like the quote, "if you don't know something, then you haven't learned it yet"; it's more euphemistic that way, rather than saying, "if you don't know something, then you're not smart."

You know that, but we can't expect Zoe to know that. Heck, if Anita really, really knew that, maybe she wouldn't have been so upfront in her videos. Hence, involuntary action on Zoe's part, and partly voluntary, mostly involuntary action on Anita's part. i.e. Zoe didn't really know what her ex was going to do, and Anita didn't quite expect people to be so aggressive. If she "just knew", then she might not have even done those videos. At least, I wouldn't have, if I was her. I'd let someone else do it. See my previous post.