AngelCityOutlaw

So I've been looking for a good string ensemble library for a while now, something that is versatile but sounds cinematic. My price range is not very high, so that disqualifies most of the libraries, I looked at Cinematic Strings 2.0 and they were priced well and sounded great to me. Then I discovered that the same guys that made Cinematic Strings 2.0 made something even higher end in this new "Cinematic Studio" series that they are creating.
So basically I was just wondering what you guys think about this library, it's only 400$, so 100$ more than cinematic strings 2.0, they sound great to me honestly. Would you recommend these for a someone new to composing with orchestral sample libraries? They're supposed to be easy to use and such.
Link to library: http://www.cinematicstudioseries.com/strings.html
Good demonstration video:
 

Is it just me or are all of your posts lately just you bragging about this and how you think mastering piano is easy? 
I don't mean to be a dick, but when you make topics like this, you just come off as really pretentious.
To your OP:
A) It's not true that no one else can do it. I had a teacher who definitely had absolute pitch. 
B ) Are you sure you have absolute pitch and not just really strong relative pitch?
A lot of people mistakenly think that a good sense of relative pitch is the same thing, but it's not. Just because you learned to play Countdown from Punch Out or Eye of The Tiger (which are not exactly complicated pieces) by ear (and remember them) doesn't mean you have perfect pitch and you are more likely to remember music learned from ear anyway, so the passage of time is not relevant. For example, I can often tell what tuning the guitars are in and how to play a particular guitar riff or chord progression without having an instrument to compare. However, at this point it's not so much because of my sense of pitch as it is my familiarity with electric guitar music and recognizing recurring patterns and timbres.
If you can hear a song just once and without singing or playing an instrument for reference you can name me all of the notes and their octaves, what chord and what inversion, in order and be right all the time, every time, then you have perfect pitch. Otherwise, it's just relative pitch.
 

It sounds like you're just "not tone deaf", which most people are also "not tone deaf".

Is it just me or are all of your posts lately just you bragging about this and how you think mastering piano is easy? 
I don't mean to be a dick, but when you make topics like this, you just come off as really pretentious.
To your OP:
A) It's not true that no one else can do it. I had a teacher who definitely had absolute pitch. 
B ) Are you sure you have absolute pitch and not just really strong relative pitch?
A lot of people mistakenly think that a good sense of relative pitch is the same thing, but it's not. Just because you learned to play Countdown from Punch Out or Eye of The Tiger (which are not exactly complicated pieces) by ear (and remember them) doesn't mean you have perfect pitch and you are more likely to remember music learned from ear anyway, so the passage of time is not relevant. For example, I can often tell what tuning the guitars are in and how to play a particular guitar riff or chord progression without having an instrument to compare. However, at this point it's not so much because of my sense of pitch as it is my familiarity with electric guitar music and recognizing recurring patterns and timbres.
If you can hear a song just once and without singing or playing an instrument for reference you can name me all of the notes and their octaves, what chord and what inversion, in order and be right all the time, every time, then you have perfect pitch. Otherwise, it's just relative pitch.
 

Hey.
Some rock music I did recently that has an anthemic, shuffle sort of vibe and possibly punk music influence.
Let me know if you love it, hate, or have mixed feelings that are strange and confusing about it.

No he's not, they are different things, actually. PSN refers to "PlayStation Network" which is Sony's online ecosystem/service for PlayStation products. The premium version of this is PS+ (PlayStation Plus) which offers "free" games to download every month for subscribers (that you only own while you are a paying "Plus" subscriber). This service is "extraordinarily successful," and Sony's offering of "free" games every month is something that MS also decided to do with Games for Gold on XBox Live. It's also something that Nintendo should do with their online service.
PlayStation Now, which is never referred to as "PSN," is Sony's game streaming service, similar to the old OnLive service. You pay a monthly fee and get streaming access to a library of games. These aren't downloaded or locally stored in anyway; you get an audio and video feed of the game and your controls are sent to the server that's running the game. The service has been live for a little while but there's nothing to suggest that it's "extraordinarily successful."
Now I do think Andy is right; Nintendo's first-party library is first-rate and is well suited towards a subscription based game streaming service. People love Nintendo games. But ACO is also not too far off the mark: game-streaming as a business isn't really proven yet. OnLive, the pioneer of this kind of service, isn't in business anymore, and Gaikai, one of OnLive's competitors, essentially turned into PlayStation Now; and we don't really know how well PlayStation Now is doing as a service.
There are a lot of things Nintendo could/should be doing with their back catalog; goodness knows their online "infrastructure" has been a total joke for over a decade. But Nintendo is a stubborn company that doesn't like being a follower; this leads to good things, like controller innovations and portable systems, but it also leads to bad things, like friend codes and game purchases locked to hardware rather than user accounts. We're finally seeing Nintendo make some concessions with their mobile games; Fire Emblem Heroes is a bog standard F2P gacha game, which is actually a great business decision on their part, because those kinds of games are moneymakers, but slightly disappointing artistically, because gacha games are fairly shallow experiences.
What Nintendo needs to do is find that balance between leading the industry in hardware and software innovation and catching up to what the industry has already accomplished with things like online services.

You want to use reverb as a send, not an insert. 
Create a track that has your reverb set to 100% wet, 0% dry and send your tracks to it. The higher the send level, the more reverb you get. 
Mic positions are great because you get the hall or scoring stages natural reflections, but if you're using different libraries, they won't sound as cohesive because they sound like they're in different places because they are. 
Which, for achieving acoustic realism across the mix, is not what you want

I'm just waiting for the entire series and get them all at once.
It's gonna be righteous 

What?

What?

Hey. 
Guitars definitely sound phony. Shreddage, I presume? Anyway, VST electric guitars sound like crap even with the best sequencing, but some things you can do to make them sound better. 
Automate the string preference and fretboard position so that your virtual guitarist is playing in the correct positions for the phrase, automate portamento speed, switch between down picking and alternate, use the sampled vibrato instead of the horrid lfo, your use of harmonics in the beginning is too excessive and perfect (latter is probably samples fault), I'd also say do your best to include slide ins, but sample libraries are shit at this. 
Furthermore, you only want as much distortion as is absolutely necessary. Even in death metal, getting a sweet twangy sound out of the guitar is what you want, because the harder you play the more the tubes break up and distort. This is why rock guitar players prefer tube amps; you get a constant fluctuation of distortion that really breathes life into the performance and no two notes are ever the same timbre exactly. 
Lastly, your synth is too loud, drums lack punch and it sounds to me like the tracks aren't all being routed to one good room reverb. You want it to sound like the band is jamming in the same place, but don't send the kick and bass.
Set a test tone generator to produce a sine wave at 50hz. Send this tone into a noise gate and set the threshold to immediately where it cuts out the sine. Sidechain the kick drum to the noise gate so that it lets the sine through when it hits (up the attack a bit) and you should have killer, clean (make sure nothing else is down at 50hz) sub bass on your kick that will create enough vibration to give the girl next door an orgasm and rattle her fillings loose.
Hope this helps! 

I'm with @The Damned on this one. Overpriced and gimmicky. I'm sure some of the games are going to be great, but I'm not willing to fork out $600+ CAD just to play the maybe two or three games I have a vague interest in.
I'd rather just get a new guitar for that price. I'll get much more use out of that and it already comes with a mobile play option!

Umm, PS1 and N64 didn't really have generated/generic chip sounds/samples like the 8-bit/16-bit stuff did (that's the simple way of saying it, a more accurate and detailed assessment I'm not learned on). PS1 had everything from the Roland Sound Canvas to the sort of real studio music you can get in games today, and N64 also used a lot of Roland Sound Canvas-grade romplers for generating samples.
I'd say if you're looking to get the "1998" sound or something, get you the Roland virtual Sound Canvas software (or the real thing, they're easily available) and the Korg Legacy M1 software since a lot of games even by the 32bit era were still using the M1. That will be more than a good starting place by then.

Indeed.
To be honest, I always find these aspirations to sound 100% like a 20 year old game soundtrack a little weird.
I mean, even these modern Chiptunes that would be made with Super Audio Cart or something are generally of a quality only dreamed of during the time of its samples' sources.

Perhaps that level of perfectionism should be recognized as the very lofty goal it is and not pursued any further. You're NEVER going to get something to sound 100% like whatever it is you're trying to sound like. Best you can do is the best you can do with what's currently available.

Additionally, I recommend getting the XV-5050 since it's a higher quality XV-5080 with even some Fantom sounds in it and can be found at half the cost of an XV-5080. The only real drawback is that it also has half the polyphony, but with a quality audio interface and some recording know-how, that problem can be worked out.

I would strongly urge (smack if need be) him to reconsider.
A USB audio interface is far cheaper and smarter than replacing a whole computer that still works. How exactly was he recording beforehand? This may explain the fried soundcard...?
Anyway, if he does get a new laptop (desktop is still lightyears better), any stock PC dual/quadcore laptop with around 8 gigs of RAM is more than enough for rock/metal production as the most taxing plugins usually used are drum VSTis, amp sims and time-based effects. Like, I just went to Best Buy's site and right on the homepage, they have a $499 laptop that meets exactly those specifications... 
 

I would strongly urge (smack if need be) him to reconsider.
A USB audio interface is far cheaper and smarter than replacing a whole computer that still works. How exactly was he recording beforehand? This may explain the fried soundcard...?
Anyway, if he does get a new laptop (desktop is still lightyears better), any stock PC dual/quadcore laptop with around 8 gigs of RAM is more than enough for rock/metal production as the most taxing plugins usually used are drum VSTis, amp sims and time-based effects. Like, I just went to Best Buy's site and right on the homepage, they have a $499 laptop that meets exactly those specifications... 
 

Chase Scene, film-score style track I did for 8Dio's composer search...contest...thing.
 
 

Learn how to sing.

Hey, I know I'm not really active here anymore and I don't really do VGM remixes anymore, but I did have this last minute idea playing the halloween event the other day.
I had to add a lot of original material and embellishments given that the theme is very short, but I think it turned out good for what it is. Happy Halloween!
 
 

Hey, I know I'm not really active here anymore and I don't really do VGM remixes anymore, but I did have this last minute idea playing the halloween event the other day.
I had to add a lot of original material and embellishments given that the theme is very short, but I think it turned out good for what it is. Happy Halloween!
 
 

A good Widowmaker on Shrine will die against a team of good everyone else
You're continually using skill as a way to try and shift the conversation of the viability of the character, when that's not really how it works. If you make suppositions like "if widowmaker player skill above a certain point and the enemy team is at or below that point or the players at or above that point are playing characters Widowmaker is strong against, then of course Widowmaker is OP HURR DURR"

We're not talking about that. We're talking about kit design, map design, overall meta (her winrate in competitive is bottom of the barrel). Skill is irrelevant; it's a team game, someone particularly good at something doesn't translate to how it interfaces with the other 11 players in the game so much as how that player is contributing to composition.
If your entire argument is that you get killstreaks with Widow, it's a really weak argument. The people you play against are shit. That is the far more likely scenario than that the general Overwatch community has no idea how to play Widowmaker effectively but you somehow do.
And for the record, Widowmaker is 4th place in KD despite her shitty winrate, so your citing of killstreaks isn't really contradicting anything; it's actually coinciding with the statistical trend that Widowmaker is good at killing people but not at winning the game.
Symmetra has the highest winrate in the entire roster, and Mei has a higher winrate than Junkrat. As for offense, Reaper has the highest winrate. McCree statistically fairs better then Pharah. Tracer fairs better than 76 (but they are both bottom of the barrel). You're right about Genji though; Shimada bro is dope.
http://masteroverwatch.com/heroes/pc/global/mode/ranked

I haven't posted or been on here in months, so I don't care if I get banned at this point; therefore, I'm just gonna go ahead and be straight up
What you're really asking here is, "If I give up on realism and half-ass it, will people still be willing to pay me money?" The answer, generally, is no. Not unless they really like your music specifically.
For every good indie game with a retro soundtrack, there are a lot more that use the "retro" shtick as an excuse for having shit visual fidelity and dated gameplay and hope that equally dated music will be cost effective and people will give it a pass because "it's retro". Most worthwhile modern chiptunes actually have pretty slick production values with a pseudo lo-fi sound.
What most people don't realize, is that the old soundtracks were as memorable and effective as they were because the composer had to know his/her stuff. Due to a severely limited number of voices on the soundchips of yore, composers relied on (masterfully written) polyphonic scores to create flowing music; they had a solid grasp on melody. It's not like now, where you can buy an M-Audio Keyboard, an expensive sample library and hold down some block chords, pound some drums and string ostinatos like everyone's favourite film composer who dumbed Hollywood Orchestras down to a pop band playing through string and horn ensembles — fuck the woodwinds.
My point is, there is a market for retro scores, but it's more in being able to write in that style with a limited number of voices than in a dated sound. If you're aiming to make money by specializing in retro scores, just be sure you're music is closer to Yoko Shimomura than Hans Zimmer and don't expect lo-fi to give you a pass.
 
 

I haven't posted or been on here in months, so I don't care if I get banned at this point; therefore, I'm just gonna go ahead and be straight up
What you're really asking here is, "If I give up on realism and half-ass it, will people still be willing to pay me money?" The answer, generally, is no. Not unless they really like your music specifically.
For every good indie game with a retro soundtrack, there are a lot more that use the "retro" shtick as an excuse for having shit visual fidelity and dated gameplay and hope that equally dated music will be cost effective and people will give it a pass because "it's retro". Most worthwhile modern chiptunes actually have pretty slick production values with a pseudo lo-fi sound.
What most people don't realize, is that the old soundtracks were as memorable and effective as they were because the composer had to know his/her stuff. Due to a severely limited number of voices on the soundchips of yore, composers relied on (masterfully written) polyphonic scores to create flowing music; they had a solid grasp on melody. It's not like now, where you can buy an M-Audio Keyboard, an expensive sample library and hold down some block chords, pound some drums and string ostinatos like everyone's favourite film composer who dumbed Hollywood Orchestras down to a pop band playing through string and horn ensembles — fuck the woodwinds.
My point is, there is a market for retro scores, but it's more in being able to write in that style with a limited number of voices than in a dated sound. If you're aiming to make money by specializing in retro scores, just be sure you're music is closer to Yoko Shimomura than Hans Zimmer and don't expect lo-fi to give you a pass.
 
 

The green screen is a nice touch lol