Chimpazilla   Judges ⚖️

The artist's comment of "please accept this :'(" strikes me as sad, there's already low confidence that this mix will be good enough. Larry covered the points very well, I'm basically co-signing with him. The highs have been rolled off above 3KHz, and that alone does not suffice for lo-fi. The arrangement is simplistic and repetitive and overly conservative to the source song, and it lacks real personalization and development. I suggest you take that low-pass EQ off the mix, and focus on the arrangement first, giving it some personalization and proper structure. Introduce some changeups, some original this or that, textures and ear candy and whatnot. Then in the mixdown stage, that's when to focus on how to get this sounding like proper lo-fi, which is a process in and of itself and involves quite a bit more finesse than just slapping an EQ on the master and murdering the top end. NO

I wish I didn't have to concur, but I do. This is a dynamite arrangement and superduper fun idea. But the samples are not even close to good enough or working here, the fast runs on strings and brass in particular sound so unnatural. I love the idea of mixing the orchestral with electro, but the electro samples are sounding super dated as proph mentioned. The drum kit sounds not only dated but weak and unfitting as well. I also hear zero sidechaining... that's not a dealbreaker, but sidechaining at least the bass and a few low-mid and electro elements would add so much groove to the piece and also let the kick be heard. I'm not sold on the glitching, as with the samples I love the idea but not the execution. To me, this glitching sounds more like rendering errors than something purposeful. I don't know what technique you used for it, or what plugin, but this one just doesn't work for me. Each time it kicks in I think something is wrong with the render or my Cubase. So yeah, I concur with proph and Wake, awesome concept and very strong arrangement and good instrument choices, but all of it just sounds way too weak and dated sample-wise for prime time in 2025. NO

Interesting.... I agree this is lovely to listen to, but it's a reduction of the source song down to almost a little soundbite. The instruments don't sound perfect to me sample-wise but they don't sound terrible either (other than the four string notes at 1:45 which sound extremely fake since they are so exposed). This is a nice little comp, but it seems almost more like a short trailer or teaser or proof-of-concept and not a full track, at this short length. Half of this arrangement is buildup, one big swell and a soft outro and it's done. It just doesn't feel like a full arrangement, although it's a very nice start. NO

I have zero reason to believe this is AI, and the artist has an online presence that extends far enough back that I really have no doubt. He also mentioned his DAW and software, which is also quickly verifiable online. Nice typical Big Room arrangement here. Not sure why there is 3.3db of headroom, is this a premaster? The mixing is on the harsh side which I find unnecessary, every element has heavy distortion which means there isn't much contrast in the soundscape, and it feels somewhat abrasive. Not a dealbreaker, just makes it a bit hot on the eardrums. The lack of enough source makes it a dealbreaker for OCR however. Fun to hear in the big club though, I'm sure! NO

Very cool arrangement, great performances, vocals and energy. I love the concept! But wow is this dense, loud and crunchy. The guitars are indeed very loud compared to everything else. Very wide, very midrangey, and very, VERY loud. EK's vocals are so buried under the wall of sound. When I can hear her, for example at 0:30, she sounds very dry, and too upfront. She sounds too intimate compared to everything else, and that really emphasizes how everything was recorded in a separate space from each other. EK's vocals will need some further processing, some reverb (with some predelay, like 60-90ms), and there will need to be heavy EQ cuts on the guitars and backing elements so the vocals can cut through. You can even do this with a dynamic EQ, just make sure it sounds natural enough overall (no obvious dips). The screamo cuts through better than the female vocal, but there are spots that even the screamo is drowned out. Wow! The drum work is great! But yeah it's buried under the wall of guitars and backing elements, a good amount of the time. In the densest areas of the track, for example at 2:41, the high mids are dog-piling so hard between 3-4kHz that it is literally shredding my eardrums. It's just too many midrangey things playing at once, with no EQ used to let leads/vocals shine in front of the soundscape. This is an oppressive wall of sound! The master is driven very heavily. The numbers look ok (-10db RMS is totally fair), but the master sounds so crispy on top as if it has just been pushed too hard. From time to time I hear pumping in the master. You'll want to turn every stem down by several db so you have more mastering headroom, and also make sure with EQ that no instruments are playing any stray or unnecessary subs, lows, or inaudible rumble. This is a long arrangement, and it's pretty samey all the way through. The instruments, vocals and energy level remain constant once established. Having a low-energy, soft, and possibly drumless breakdown would really break up the relentless nature of this arrangement and let the listener have a break before another big section starts. As it stands, this arrangement is more of an assault on the listener rather than telling a story. This song has some terrific elements! As I said the performances and instruments and vocals are all great. But the mixing and processing are blowing it. I suggest going back to the drawing board on the mixing. Maybe just start with the drums and the bass, get those working well together with volume balancing and EQ, then add one element at a time, utilizing EQ and stereo placement to make sure that leads/vocals come through when they should, without sounding so buried, and without the soundscape feeling so cluttered and oppressive. NO (resubmit)

This is a wild romp through the Virulent source indeed, very creative and avante-garde. I like it, there's plenty of source and it's a fun listen. This version is not my master, and this master is as jnWake pointed out quite overhyped in the high mids and highs. The premaster was already quite heavy in those regions, as my master still indicates, but this master is screaming in the high mids and highs to the point of pain. The limiter has been cranked so high here, and also oddly it is limited at -1.2db which seems odd to me. I agree another shot at the master would be appropriate here. I'm happy to provide my master but that is absolutely not a requirement. NO (resubmit)

Cool concept! But I agree with proph in his assessment that the sections don't really pay off, they each build fairly well but what they build to isn't satisfying. I feel like there's a lot of great ideas here, arrangement wise, but as he said there's something missing in almost every section. The sections also become repetitive as they move along, as the same patterns and instruments repeat over and over. These sounds are strange. They sound dated to me, but more than that they sound dry and midrangey which makes this less pleasant to listen to than it could otherwise be. I think these timbres could be processed to sound much better than this. The drum kit is weak, which is a shame for DnB, and the drum samples themselves are not fitting for DnB. I hear zero sidechaining so the piece lacks groove. The master is extremely and unnecessarily loud and somewhat overcompressed (I'm pretty sure that pumping is overcompression and not sidechaining!) Ok I just read the writeup and you've said there's sidechaining, but I don't hear it, it's not being utilized to its full potential. The low end feels so weak to me, and this also makes the heavy midrange sound even more midrangey. Looking with an imager I see the lowest range (150Kz and below) is somewhat stereo spread, which is causing the low end to feel weak and unfocused. This arrangement has a lot going for it, just needs more mixing TLC and some arrangement and writing adjustments to get it where it needs to be. NO

I am reading along with proph's vote as I listen through this, and he has nailed it on all counts. I agree with everything he said but I'll add a few additional thoughts: The mixing is a mess. The elements do not sound cohesive, they feel like they are all playing in a separate room from each other. The balances are off, the vocal is way too loud and up-front, and the drums (even while going absolutely HAM) are mixed too quietly and in-the-back. There's too much going on with the drums for too much of the time, and there are too many elements/instruments playing at any given time, and what they are playing is usually too busy (the bassline doing arps is a prime example, it's just busy-writing and not foundational when it does that. The arps are fine, but maybe have a synth doing that, while the bass plays longer, foundational notes). I love the concept here! But the mix is just exhausting. I suggest revisiting this element by element, making sure that everything playing at any given time can be fully heard, and that is going to mean removing some elements from each section, really deciding what you want to hear in each section, give things their time to shine without having to compete (in frequency, soundscape placement and volume), then move on to something else with the same approach. When you've pared the soundscape down somewhat, use EQ to make sure the instruments aren't stepping on each other's toes, and maybe even widen some things and narrow others, so the whole soundscape is used effectively. And some of the writing needs to be simplified, the bass and drums most especially. Having one drumless or very calm breakdown section somewhere in the middle will also help greatly in managing the energy going on in this arrangement. That solo is wicked good! I really like that part, even if a faux geetar is used, it sounds excellent. The concept here is strong and fun, just needs some more mixing and arrangement TLC. NO

I think proph nailed his vote and I'm in full agreement with him on all points. Agreed about the boomy/wide bass, I put an imager on the track to be sure, and the bass is indeed wide. Narrowing the bass below 150Hz makes a huge difference to how the low end comes across. I always strive to make sure that the lowest range is mono on my basses and low drums, and I hit my masters with a monomaker below 125Hz as well, to be sure, so this doesn't happen. I love these vocals! Same as proph, I don't understand a single word other than "Link" (Linkie? hehe) "rupee" and "lynel" etc. but I am smiling listening to this!!! I also agree with proph's timestamping, unfortunately. It's not enough VGM source, and too much of the other Aguas track. That's a bummer indeed, because this is a very cool track! I agree that the chord sequence at 2:06 is not enough to tie that section to the source song, it's just too subtle on its own without any melody over it. Mixing-wise, the track sounds fine to me other than the left-panned-too-wide bass (which is an easy fix), and the master is a tad loud (especially for the style) but that's not a big deal, but the lack of VGM source and the overuse of the non-VGM source breaks the deal. I really enjoyed listening to this! NO

Cosigning with my fellow Js. Cool concept, and the composition and mix sound good enough to do very well on YouTube, Spotify and all the other socials, but for OCR we look for very specific things, including enough source use with thoughtful and creative interpretations, and real musicianship. While we allow limited use of AI tools to enhance a track, this submission (and the other tracks you submitted on the same day) is far too much AI for our standards. If we have misjudged this situation, I'd welcome some real, solid proof that these tracks were made with a lot more human involvement than we are hearing, but my feeling is that such proof cannot be provided. Best of luck to you with these, you've hopped on a shiny new lucrative bandwagon with these AI tracks, we just don't want to host music like this on OCR. NO

Cosigning with my fellow Js. Cool concept, and the composition and mix sound good enough to do very well on YouTube, Spotify and all the other socials, but for OCR we look for very specific things, including enough source use with thoughtful and creative interpretations, and real musicianship. While we allow limited use of AI tools to enhance a track, this submission (and the other tracks you submitted on the same day) is far too much AI for our standards. If we have misjudged this situation, I'd welcome some real, solid proof that these tracks were made with a lot more human involvement than we are hearing, but my feeling is that such proof cannot be provided. Best of luck to you with these, you've hopped on a shiny new lucrative bandwagon with these AI tracks, we just don't want to host music like this on OCR. NO

Cosigning with my fellow Js. Cool concept, and the composition and mix sound good enough to do very well on YouTube, Spotify and all the other socials, but for OCR we look for very specific things, including enough source use with thoughtful and creative interpretations, and real musicianship. While we allow limited use of AI tools to enhance a track, this submission (and the other tracks you submitted on the same day) is far too much AI for our standards. If we have misjudged this situation, I'd welcome some real, solid proof that these tracks were made with a lot more human involvement than we are hearing, but my feeling is that such proof cannot be provided. Best of luck to you with these, you've hopped on a shiny new lucrative bandwagon with these AI tracks, we just don't want to host music like this on OCR. NO

Cosigning with my fellow Js. Cool concept, and the composition and mix sound good enough to do very well on YouTube, Spotify and all the other socials, but for OCR we look for very specific things, including enough source use with thoughtful and creative interpretations, and real musicianship. While we allow limited use of AI tools to enhance a track, this submission (and the other tracks you submitted on the same day) is far too much AI for our standards. If we have misjudged this situation, I'd welcome some real, solid proof that these tracks were made with a lot more human involvement than we are hearing, but my feeling is that such proof cannot be provided. Best of luck to you with these, you've hopped on a shiny new lucrative bandwagon with these AI tracks, we just don't want to host music like this on OCR. NO

Cosigning with my fellow Js. Cool concept, and the composition and mix sound good enough to do very well on YouTube, Spotify and all the other socials, but for OCR we look for very specific things, including enough source use with thoughtful and creative interpretations, and real musicianship. While we allow limited use of AI tools to enhance a track, this submission (and the other tracks you submitted on the same day) is far too much AI for our standards. If we have misjudged this situation, I'd welcome some real, solid proof that these tracks were made with a lot more human involvement than we are hearing, but my feeling is that such proof cannot be provided. Best of luck to you with these, you've hopped on a shiny new lucrative bandwagon with these AI tracks, we just don't want to host music like this on OCR. NO

Cosigning with my fellow Js. Cool concept, and the composition and mix sound good enough to do very well on YouTube, Spotify and all the other socials, but for OCR we look for very specific things, including enough source use with thoughtful and creative interpretations, and real musicianship. While we allow limited use of AI tools to enhance a track, this submission (and the other tracks you submitted on the same day) is far too much AI for our standards. If we have misjudged this situation, I'd welcome some real, solid proof that these tracks were made with a lot more human involvement than we are hearing, but my feeling is that such proof cannot be provided. Best of luck to you with these, you've hopped on a shiny new lucrative bandwagon with these AI tracks, we just don't want to host music like this on OCR. NO

Cosigning with my fellow Js. Cool concept, and the composition and mix sound good enough to do very well on YouTube, Spotify and all the other socials, but for OCR we look for very specific things, including enough source use with thoughtful and creative interpretations, and real musicianship. While we allow limited use of AI tools to enhance a track, this submission (and the other tracks you submitted on the same day) is far too much AI for our standards. If we have misjudged this situation, I'd welcome some real, solid proof that these tracks were made with a lot more human involvement than we are hearing, but my feeling is that such proof cannot be provided. Best of luck to you with these, you've hopped on a shiny new lucrative bandwagon with these AI tracks, we just don't want to host music like this on OCR. NO

Cosigning with my fellow Js. Cool concept, and the composition and mix sound good enough to do very well on YouTube, Spotify and all the other socials, but for OCR we look for very specific things, including enough source use with thoughtful and creative interpretations, and real musicianship. While we allow limited use of AI tools to enhance a track, this submission (and the other tracks you submitted on the same day) is far too much AI for our standards. If we have misjudged this situation, I'd welcome some real, solid proof that these tracks were made with a lot more human involvement than we are hearing, but my feeling is that such proof cannot be provided. Best of luck to you with these, you've hopped on a shiny new lucrative bandwagon with these AI tracks, we just don't want to host music like this on OCR. NO

Cosigning with my fellow Js. Cool concept, and the composition and mix sound good enough to do very well on YouTube, Spotify and all the other socials, but for OCR we look for very specific things, including enough source use with thoughtful and creative interpretations, and real musicianship. While we allow limited use of AI tools to enhance a track, this submission (and the other tracks you submitted on the same day) is far too much AI for our standards. If we have misjudged this situation, I'd welcome some real, solid proof that these tracks were made with a lot more human involvement than we are hearing, but my feeling is that such proof cannot be provided. Best of luck to you with these, you've hopped on a shiny new lucrative bandwagon with these AI tracks, we just don't want to host music like this on OCR. NO

Cosigning with my fellow Js. Cool concept, and the composition and mix sound good enough to do very well on YouTube, Spotify and all the other socials, but for OCR we look for very specific things, including enough source use with thoughtful and creative interpretations, and real musicianship. While we allow limited use of AI tools to enhance a track, this submission (and the other tracks you submitted on the same day) is far too much AI for our standards. If we have misjudged this situation, I'd welcome some real, solid proof that these tracks were made with a lot more human involvement than we are hearing, but my feeling is that such proof cannot be provided. Best of luck to you with these, you've hopped on a shiny new lucrative bandwagon with these AI tracks, we just don't want to host music like this on OCR. NO

Cosigning with my fellow Js. Cool concept, and the composition and mix sound good enough to do very well on YouTube, Spotify and all the other socials, but for OCR we look for very specific things, including enough source use with thoughtful and creative interpretations, and real musicianship. While we allow limited use of AI tools to enhance a track, this submission (and the other tracks you submitted on the same day) is far too much AI for our standards. If we have misjudged this situation, I'd welcome some real, solid proof that these tracks were made with a lot more human involvement than we are hearing, but my feeling is that such proof cannot be provided. Best of luck to you with these, you've hopped on a shiny new lucrative bandwagon with these AI tracks, we just don't want to host music like this on OCR. NO

Cosigning with my fellow Js. Cool concept, and the composition and mix sound good enough to do very well on YouTube, Spotify and all the other socials, but for OCR we look for very specific things, including enough source use with thoughtful and creative interpretations, and real musicianship. While we allow limited use of AI tools to enhance a track, this submission (and the other tracks you submitted on the same day) is far too much AI for our standards. If we have misjudged this situation, I'd welcome some real, solid proof that these tracks were made with a lot more human involvement than we are hearing, but my feeling is that such proof cannot be provided. Best of luck to you with these, you've hopped on a shiny new lucrative bandwagon with these AI tracks, we just don't want to host music like this on OCR. NO

Cool original, and cool track but I agree with my fellow Js that the source song isn't nearly recognizable enough for OCR. The arrangement is cool but the sections get repetitive with the same instruments and patterns over and over. The mix is super low-heavy and the master is quite loud, I think the low end could be a bit better controlled so you have a little more headroom to work with and then there's no need to push the limiter so hard. But generally, this is a cool listen! Just not enough source for OCR. For OCR, the source song would need to be very easily identifiable, and you could do all kinds of original things over the top of it, that is a great remix strategy for such a simple and repetitive source. NO

Looking at my previous vote, it seems my mixing crits have all been addressed. This sounds much better balanced. This render seems to be a premaster, it spends most of its runtime around -5db peak, and only ever hits -2.3db peak at the fullest section. I'd be glad to do a master on this if desired. Regardless, this is enough production improvement for me to pass it as-is. Nice little personalized cover of one of my favorite Zelda tunes of all time. YES

This is my first time hearing this mix. Those are some fast triplets starting at 0:12! They sound just a bit clunky and rushed as proph said. I like the alternating-octave triplets at 1:27 and the doubled-octave triplets at 2:25, both of those sections flow more naturally to my ears. Overall this sounds competently played and is very pleasant to listen to. YES

This is the coolest idea ever, I LOVE this concept, so super groovy. But I have to agree with proph, it's coming off as simplistic due to the blocky-as-heck, stuck-to-the-grid piano sequencing, and uber-repetitive drum groove. It does feel like the arrangement is lacking something more going on in terms of an occasional countermelody or backing texture, as it's the same instruments and patterns again and again. Even some soft pad chords here and there, with some movement or very light gating on them, would add a lot of interest and groove to this. But the piano lead and also chords simply must be humanized a bit for it to sound natural and groovy. I also feel that the mixing could be done differently to get this more impactful, the bass needs to be a bit more present, and the kick sounds very quiet in the mix, so perhaps the low end overall could be brought out more, which could even be done in the mastering stage. There should be something more going on in the highs, there's the tiniest hat pattern I've ever heard, almost too quiet to hear. The main problem here is the stiff and repetitive sequencing, primarily piano and drums. Additional instruments, patterns, variation, ear candy etc. would also go a long way to making this sound much less robotic. I'd love to hear this again though! NO (resubmit)