timaeus222

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.

Except Zoe didn't choose to post those nude pictures. Her vengeful ex did. You're basically saying it's Zoe's fault if she makes a mistake that leads her to get harassed by a chunk of the world. If that chunk of the world had the common sense to not react immaturely, then she would be fine, but apparently, it's hard to accept someone's opinion these days, even if you don't know them at all. It's not like she can just know how people will react (unless she goes off of the first time it happened), so just blaming her for not predicting who she has never met before will do to her... Dunno how that makes it Zoe's fault, especially because it began as, by Aristotle's definition, "an involuntary action"---doing something without knowing the consequences, but still having voluntarily made the decision, realizing the consequences later on (making it nonvoluntary later). See Nicomachean Ethics Book III. So no, she didn't ask for it. Anita kind of did, but not to the intensity that she got it. Sidenote... I made one post basically saying "meh, it's this dubstep that represents the stereotypical kind people who don't like it don't like", and lo and behold, over 6 months later, people are still arguing over it. 'Course, I made it in a , but oh well. Anyways. [/OT]

In short, we should really try NOT to do appeal to authority fallacies by throwing in a famous celebrity as the authority if they don't what they're talking about, but some of us (of the whole world) still do it anyway. Even a few scriptwriters for commercials. In the last month or so, I've seen about 2 or 3 commercials like that. Oh well. [/OT]

Pfft. I love this style. Loving the FM and PWM leads. Tons of expression on them, and the dynamics on this are more pronounced than they might seem. Maybe the bass could have been more glued to the soundscape, but that's minor.

By "OST", I mean if this happened to be part of a soundtrack to an original game of some sort, I wouldn't be surprised, just based on the sound design choices. Nothing wrong with that necessarily, just an observation. It's kind of like saying if you used Roland SC-88 samples to write orchestral scores, it might sound like Final Fantasy Tactics or Suikoden II music because that sounds close to what those used. And while some original VGM might be texturally sparse at times, remember that they might be doing it to accommodate for the sound effects used in the game, whereas a ReMix doesn't have to... preemptively mix to anticipate the addition of sound effects (usually it's more like, you want to add them sometime in the middle of the writing process, so that the sound effects hopefully don't become the main focus, but the music instead). Or, those were the best they could do with the resources they had, or perhaps it could just be how the composer intended it. Either way, with a ReMix, it should elevate the original at least a little bit since we have the resources to do so, and if the textures are fuller, it contributes to a more interpretive, nuanced experience.

I agree with this. I never quite thought about it in this way, but now that you say it, it's quite plausible that female characters' treatment within video games is indicative of an effort to be "historically" accurate (again, like you said, partially representative but not quite accurate to the actual past). I can't say I'm sure if those were the original intentions of the developers, but that would be nice! Unfortunately, at least with what I've found with a quick little google search, women over the age of 18 are pretty prominent gamers over boys under 18. The only reason why I revolve around the age of 18 is because generally, actually noticing that misrepresentation of women in video games might be indicative of trying to be accurate to history could be hard for people who haven't gone through all of high school yet. I, myself, felt like I became much more analytical than I used to be by the age of 17, but even more so after I began my university classes. Now, of course, I don't represent that many people my age, but at least, at 17~18, I took two difficult English courses, and that's what seemed to substantially elevate my thought processes... so there's my account. In other words, noticing this beautiful contrast seems to me like it comes from quite an analytical viewpoint, and while it would be great to see others noting this and seeing it in a new light, perhaps the rather even percentage of female gamers adds a little personal bias into the picture, and skews the common perception through some social media shenanigans... i.e. the thought, "ugh, why are we women being so misrepresented in this game?" kiiiinda overtakes the thought, "ooh, this is pretty historically accurate! Wow, I understand. So THAT'S why there's a misrepresentation of women in this! Cool!" (not that I'm even saying that's how ALL women are acting, of course, but... surely some are)

If you're interested, I actually made a music video of this pretty early on (like a year ago). It's a little cheesy, and probably kinda weird, mostly because I kept telling myself, "don't use anime clips, to avoid copyright infringement!". So basically it uses mostly images, but does it in a way that it isn't just a slideshow of images. Sorta stretching the limits of Sony Vegas, so to speak.

All of 0:00 - 0:36 feels too texturally sparse or dry. You either need more filler textures or wetter reverb, because it just feels empty there. The cymbals are all a bit abrasive, such as at 1:45 - 1:47. As a whole, the textures feel old; as in, this feels like it was a mixpost produced before 2007. With this arrangement, you basically need more textural development and complexity to keep interest; this almost feels like an OST rather than a remix to me.

Okay, I'm still getting the rising stab at 0:56 to be too upfront. Didn't seem any different. Drums are still really simple/repetitive, despite the other changing things happening around it and how this is dance-y. 2:04 white noise is too resonant. 2:13 reverse white noise is too. Better, but still lacking a clear direction. I just don't get how it's supposed to progress.

o.o well, alright then. You hard worker you. :3

When I said that the reverb should have a low dry mix and a sorta high wet mix, it basically already creates a slow attack, even though I actually wrote 0% for the attack in the ADSR. Reason being that more of the reverberation is present, which doesn't usually start at the same time as the dry signal. In a sense, we're both right because if we go with the vague description of the reverb that I gave and with the layering suggestions that you gave, if the attack was somewhere around 0~20%, it would be likely to sound pretty similar because the percussive attack is less audible. As for the reverb, if I go into more detail, it seems to involve a high amount of "Diffusion"[*1] and "Density"[*2], which means it smears the early reflections and creates somewhat of a hissy, smooth reverb tail, which is part of what the original sound seems to have. Also, if you listen further into the SF track, you might hear a little distortion in the sound before the piece kicks into higher gear. *1 - Diffusion is when a sound hits a wall and disperses back in a certain way; the higher the diffusion, the more reflected "instances" there are after the sound hits a wall. The higher the diffusion, the more smeared the reverberation. Another way to say it is that the higher the diffusion, the less smooth the surface is that reflects the sound back. *2 - Density is the number of computed reflections per second. In a sense, it's like bitrate, but for reverb reflections instead of bits. The higher the Density, the smoother and fuller the reverberation. Quoting from the ArtsAcoustic Reverb manual for a nice read:

The only thing is that demoed FL can't open project files, so yeah, we might just have to transfer WAV files. I'm not gonna push you to buy it in full. If you can get a Skype, we can add each other (and that is free). = instant sharing

I think you're right about the flanger. I dunno about the rest though. It seems to be a decent sampled guitar sustain with flanger, given the style of music being rock-ish, but less modern-sounding in the production.

Excellent blog post. Dare I call it concise for this tremendously complex topic?