Jump to content

Chimpazilla

Contributors
  • Posts

    2,786
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    2

1 Follower

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Female
  • Location
    Phoenix, AZ

Converted

  • Biography
    I started remixing in April 2011. I LOVE video games and game music! Anything Zelda, anything Mario. I could live in a Zelda game and be perfectly happy. ;-)
  • Real Name
    Kristina Scheps

Artist Settings

  • Collaboration Status
    3. Very Interested
  • Software - Digital Audio Workstation (DAW)
    Cubase
  • Composition & Production Skills
    Mixing & Mastering

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

Chimpazilla's Achievements

  1. Wow, that's an abrupt start, right to maximum volume and energy, instantly! I'm not sure that's optimal, rather, it's shocking. So, this was done on an app on a phone? For that, I'd say this is rather good (but I've never heard of Caustic and I'm sure it does more than I suspect). I think my fellow J's summarized the issues well. The limitations of the software leave the timbres sounding very dated, and the mixing is almost non-existent. Everything is overlapping in frequency making the soundscape very cluttered, and many of the timbres are super similar. The master is quite loud and almost pumpy. I also agree with MW that the riffing is cool but would be better utilized if it appears in the second half of the mix, after the theme has been established in a more simple way, otherwise it sounds out of place. The arrangement isn't all that bad, otherwise. I just think the production needs a pretty major overhaul. I'd love to hear this again, produced on a proper DAW! NO
  2. The two guys nailed it, this sounds like a midi with the instruments changed to your Chinese libraries. These instruments sound great! Although they need some finesse to sound natural, some humanization and reverb, and in this case I think some fleshing out with other timbres would make it sound fuller and nicer (like a nice full bass instrument, and some taiko or other drumming). There isn't much arrangement here other than the original writing with very little interpretation, and the whole thing barely clears our "two minute minimum" standard. This definitely sounds like a concept demo more than a finished track; the insufficient mastering and premature ending cutoff don't help change that perception. I'd love to hear this again fully fleshed out with a longer arrangement if you're interested in revisiting it! NO
  3. This mix is cool, it would be right at home in the actual Mario Kart 64! I love the synthwave, but to differentiate this even more from the source tune while keeping the synthwave, I think it would be a great idea to expand the arrangement with more changes in writing and instrumentation, a proper breakdown, drums dropping out for a section, more varied writing at some point, solos, altered drum patterns, etc. just more ways to keep it interesting and give it some dynamics. This arrangement sounds really repetitive as it stands. I agree with DarkSim that the track is mastered way too loud. I don't hear any crunchy overcompression artifacts but the track is pumping from the limiter being driven so hard. SPAN says the track is clipping billions of times. The production is good enough, it's the mastering that is a problem. I always recommend cutting lows from every element that isn't kick or bass, so you're not mastering any mud. Also, you can lower your input gain into your master channel, I do that by 5-8db before I even begin to write. This allows you to mix louder while not actually being louder. Then, you can bring up the volume in the master chain through a couple of compression and limiting stages, and get a really clean, loud mix with zero clipping or overcompression. NO (resubmit)
  4. Yikes, between 0:35-0:50, that is a crushing wall of sound, almost physically painful. I agree with MW this is an eclectic mix but it works and keeps it interesting, but I also agree with him about the mixing. He said the hats can't be heard, and that is because every other element is absolutely screaming in the range in which the hats should be heard. The mix needs a major EQ overhaul, cutting lows out of everything that isn't kick or bass, to make sure no low-end mud is getting mastered, and toning down highs and high-mids on elements that don't need to be that crispy, so that things like hats can sparkle and shine. I like this arrangement though! Also, the mastering is WAAAAAAAY too heavy, it is clipping according to SPAN, and hitting -6db RMS which is just stupid-loud for a mix of this type. The heavy master compression is surely adding to the over-crispy wall-of-sound effect. Once you've addressed the mixing (primarily EQ corrections and cuts) I guarantee this will master much better, sounding even louder but without the uncomfortable crispiness. I'd love to hear this again with the mixing and mastering fixed up! NO (resubmit)
  5. These are two interesting sources indeed, I had not heard them before. I love the metal concept for the remix. But I have to agree with my fellow J's that this arrangement comes across as extremely repetitive. The same phrases are repeated over and over, and the entire arrangement sounds like a backing track for lead writing that never shows up (what about adding a solo somewhere?). The mixing sounds generally good, although the kick and snare are mostly buried. The piece begins in an energetic gear and stays there for the entirety of the arrangement; a quieter/calmer breakdown near the middle would break it up nicely. I could already see that this track would have no dynamics looking at the waveform which is a consistent sausage. Fadeout endings, while not technically an OCR dealbreaker, are such a disappointment for me as they seem to say the artist lost interest in finishing the track. What's here sounds quite good, production and performance-wise, but needs direction, trimming, and possibly some lead work in order to maintain the listener's interest. NO
  6. This is a light, dreamy mix which is pleasant to hear. I think the performances are good generally, the slightly off-kilter writing fits the mood of the source tune well. I agree with XPRT that the leads are often mixed too far into the soundscape while strum guitars are too dominant on the sides. None of the mixing is dealbreaker for me though. I do agree with Larry that the source is under-represented for an OCR mix. I think this would be a fairly easy fix by putting the source melody into the sourceless sections subtly using a bell or some other backing timbre. The ending of the track is disappointing as it just drops off with no proper ending. I agree with DarkSim that the arrangement could have been better utilized to control the energy with full sections and softer breakdowns. I would love to have all these issues addressed, but the most important one for me is the lack of overt source use, 38.84% just isn't enough for us. NO (resubmit)
  7. I'm going to have to agree with the NOs on this one. The strings and brass are exposed enough for their fakeness to stick out. The arrangement is nice, but the samples aren't strong enough to carry it. The panning is quite heavy, in particular you have low brass and low strings sitting alone on the right side and you have harp and some bells completely on the left side, which feels very unbalanced. When the drum groove starts up at 1:48 it doesn't jive with the rest of the arrangement at all. It sounds like a leftover from a different song that got left in accidentally, and the drums drop out abruptly at 2:14. The ending feels like an afterthought. And as with your other tracks, mastering has been completely overlooked. This one's not quite ready for prime-time! NO
  8. Wow those first two minutes are LONG. I'm at 2:30 and the track is just barely getting going and peak volume is still -9db. At 2:45, things are changing but it still feels like a ramp-up. Ok, now at 3:08 there's finally what I would call a "drop" but the textures are so thin and anemic. The brass sounds weak and terrible and so do the drums which are also written extremely simply. The writing is verbatim to source, no source issues here. It's a very interesting concept to arrange this theme into a spaghetti western, but there's just way too little going on in the first three minutes, and the production overall needs serious work. This mix might be a lot of fun with ambience going on in the background, such as sounds of a western town, people talking, whiskey bottles clanking, and horses walking and snorting. But for this to work, the instrumental production needs to improve by a significant amount. NO
  9. What an awesome approach to this source tune. This mix is dynamic and exciting. I wish the super quiet sections weren't as long though, the fast paced sections are such a rush! Larry is right that the mixing causes the sounds to blend together into an amorphous mass, and that's a shame. Some strategic EQ treatment would fix that, in particular cutting lows out of instruments that don't need them, freeing up the low end to breathe. The track sounds very heavily compressed, evident mainly in the fullest sections, and I would prefer a fuller low end overall (the eq treatment I suggested will go a long way toward fixing that). There's too much sub-bass, causing the lows to drop out further, and the mix sounds a bit crispy. You'd get a fuller master out of this by carefully cutting sub-rumble out of everything. It sounds counterintuitive to say that cutting lows gets you more/fuller lows, but it's true. My biggest complaint though is the same as prophetik, that low brass has a slow attack that makes the writing sound behind the beat. The brass generally is the weak spot in your instrumentation. All of that sounds negative, but overall this mix is totally awesome. If it doesn't pass, I suggest making these changes and sending it back to us, in particular if you could get a better low-brass patch that would be great. Edit 4/22/22: I initially went "yes" on this track because I love it so much, but seeing all the NOs I listened again, this time on headphones. That slow-attack brass patch really sticks out, and the flute patch has a similar issue. I believe both patches need to be swapped out for something with a faster, more natural attack. And the over-compression and overall too-crispy sound is overwhelming on headphones. Please take my EQ suggestions to heart, cut out all unnecessary sub-rumble, and your master will be able to breathe without driving your compressors so hard. Then please send this delightful arrangement back to us! NO (please resubmit)
  10. What a cool unique approach to this track! I love it as a trap beat. I love the blend of sounds used here, and the bendy lead is excellent. There's a lot to love about this mix. It's not quite there for me though for a couple of reasons. The parts used are copy/pasted exactly in the first and second half, although they are not all playing at the same times, they are layered in different ways. This counts as variation, but just barely, because by the end it feels very repetitive. The trap beat having no variation throughout the track adds to the repetitiveness, something as simple as adding a shaker loop or changing the trap hat loop to something new as the arrangement moves along would help break it up. I don't have the problem with the strings that Larry has, I think they sound fine in this palette. (personal opinion incoming) I think the entire track would groove so much better if you would sidechain the kick to the various elements, in differing amounts. Sidechaining isn't always just a pumpy effect, it can be used as a mixing tactic to mesh things together. For example, I sidechain every element in my tracks, all with a quick attack and release, 2:1 ratio. Bass gets the heaviest (10-12db of gain reduction), pads get almost that much, backing plucks I give around 6db of gain reduction, and leads and even perc loops I give 1-3db of gain reduction (too subtle to notice, but cleans up the mixing quite a bit). If you try this, I can almost guarantee the whole thing is going to sound more cohesive. As it is now, the elements compete for attention when everything is playing and I can barely hear the kick or bass when it's all full, and sometimes I feel like the leads are just riding on top of the soundscape instead of fitting into it. I would love to hear this again with some better sidechaining done, but even if you don't, it needs some of the copy/pasta writing to be varied between the first and second repetitions. I do hope to hear this again soon though, it's really not that far from passing and it's an enjoyable listen! NO (please resubmit)
  11. This is a lovely arrangement of a beautiful, emotional theme. I'm agonizing over whether it should pass, but ultimately I'm with my fellow judges pointing out the production issues. XPRT is right that the harp needs a bass trim, it's booming in the lows. The winds don't sound great, the clarinet sustains sound awkward. The flute patch has constant vibrato which sounds very unnatural. The piano needs humanization to avoid sounding clunky. The strings are the worst of it for me though, the attacks are all the same making them sound very choppy and the patch sounds flat generally. The chords are gorgeous, they deserve better legato treatment than this. The glock does get quite loud at 2:25. There's a small rendering error/pop at 1:07. And of course, the mastering is falling short at -7db peak. Even if you do no mastering, perhaps just normalizing the track to somewhere around -0.5db to -1db would put the track in a better volume range compared to other tracks. This is a lovely tune but I think the production issues drag it just under the bar. I'd love to hear it again with those issues addressed. NO (resubmit)
  12. Truly awesome sound and writing ideas here, so much potential, but I'm afraid I'm on the side of the NOs here. Nearly half the arrangement is intro. At 1:30 I'm expecting a drop, following the sweep, but the energy remains the same as in the intro even with a new drum groove and guitar lead added. The lack of bass takes all the energy out of that section. If that first section had some real bass in it, it would sound more like a drop. As it stands, what should be a drop sounds almost like it could be an outro. At 2:22, there is some real bass present but only until 2:27 when it fades away again. Five seconds of bass! The arrangement plods along in first gear until the outro which arrives way too soon. This arrangement has no structure in my opinion, it's half intro and the rest is rambly. In the outro, that dance piano sounds very weak too. The lack of bass is a dealbreaker by itself, for me, unfortunately. I love the ideas you're working with here but this arrangement and the mixing need work. NO (resubmit)
  13. This mix has a few issues. It is a good start and has definite potential but it feels disjointed in a number of ways. I'm not sure the timbres fit together as well as they could. As MW pointed out, there's a problem with some of the leads, the one at 1:05 sounds like it's being played by a pad and it's way too weak. I like the fact that you changed up the lead instruments a lot, that's definitely a positive! Something happened to the melody writing at 2:08 and again at 2:20, it sounds like the writing of the two timbres playing together clashes with each other, making that little section sound awkward. The breakdown from 2:22 to 2:35 sounds choppy and awkward. At 3:00 there is a vocal or some kind of backing element that sounds very out of tune. On a repeat listen it sounds like it might be the flute from the intro, which only works by itself because of how it is written. The track also has no groove because I can't hear any sidechaining on anything, which also causes the kick to be buried when the soundscape is full. There is some fun synth writing in the track and I think there is potential here but it still needs some work. NO
  14. As Larry pointed out, the piano sounds very fake and prominent, especially since it opens up the track and it is so exposed. Other than that, I think this track is interesting and well produced. It sounds really nice on my system. There are a lot of little details and I like the chopped vocals a lot. Unfortunately I have to side with the NOs here because after the first half my ears are ready to hear something new. Since the soundscape is so full and busy, the repetition of the same elements becomes exhausting. There is a missed opportunity to really open this track up and add some new sounds for a nice sonic thrill, but it never arrives. Even dropping some of the elements like the vocal or piano during the second half (potentially bringing them back in for the finale) would really open it up. But as it stands now, it's just too repetitive. I would love to hear this again, with the piano sample improved and with some new arrangement ideas or different sound elements in the second half . NO (resubmit)
  15. Ok so I absolutely dig this song! But the guys are right, the lows are a problem. This could be posted and it wouldn't be awful per se but it would be a darn shame to post it with such a weak low end. The kick and that 808 bass need to slam. I did a quickie fix to the wav, I put a sharp low-cut at 25Hz (which cuts out a ton of mud, mud doesn't master nicely) and then put a whopping big amount of MB compression just on 125Hz and below, and this is how much better it sounds just from that: Cowboy with bumped lows It even sounds better balanced this way. So I would suggest bumping your lows, either in mixing or on your master, and send it right back so we can get this posted to the front page! NO (but please fix lows and send back)
×
×
  • Create New...