Beatdrop

Long overdue follow-up review (hey that sounded neat!): NO for all the reasons I said before and all the reasons that have already been mentioned (repetitive, bad sounds, etc.).

Shadow... tell me you taught yourself all of this. I'll be so amazed if you really did. Once again, nice work thoroughly answering that question. I've been neglecting this thread a bit too much lately, but lots of stuff's been going on in my life that has kept me away from forums quite often.

Uh, that doesn't sound like a problem with FL, but more appropriately a problem with your soundcard. I can't tell you what that problem is, though. Surely someone else will have some idea...

I first heard this about a week ago before it was on the panel (I believe) and back then, with the clipping and humongo encode, I had determined I'd give it a YES on the panel. Nothing's changed now, except that there's no clipping. Hooray for that! So despite the lower encode (because this song, long as it is, isn't repetitive), I'm going to go with my initial instinct to give it a YES for many reasons.

Well, we're at a tie. Anyone care to break it? I really do think this shouldn't go up though... I argued with my brother about it, and his only reason for thinking it deserves to be posted is the amount of effort involved, and I really don't think that's a good enough reason.

Hmmm... I think I actually agree 100% with all the reasons given for the previous NO's. The recording is god awful. It completely sounds like someone recorded this on a camcorder and then inputted the audio into their computer and recorded it as an MP3. Very not good. Plus, the musicians, as said before, are sub-par. They make lotsa goof-up's, and just don't sound very well organized. When these powers combine, THEY ARE CAPTAIN SUCKO! Okay, but seriously, the musicians and recording quality totally kill this one. I can't comment on the arrangement, but I really don't think I need to. NO

Shadow, you rule.

I like this. Hmmmm... where to start? Okay, well, I like the way it intros. That worked really well. The sounds are fabulous. The guitar, the saxaphone (later on), the drums, the synths, everything sounds good. The arrangement, although a tad on the repetitive side (not enough for me to score it negatively), is cool. It turns what was originally a rather Latin-ish song into a groovy techno work. It ends a little bit abruptly, but I thought this worked out pretty good even still. Anyway, enough good here for me to give it a YES

OOOOOOOOOOOOKAY! So, like, this song blatantly samples "Oops, I Did It Again" by Britney Spears. Great! NO

Right off the bat, it sounds pretty thin and there's a good share of noise in the recording. The arrangement is pretty cool. I like what you did with the short eight seconds of the original. The little interjection of the titlescreen's song was pretty neat about halfway through. The drums seem lacking to me. They just don't seem to carry this mix like they should. Some of the sounds are a bit GM-ish, but nothing too too bad. In particular, I didn't like the flute. The strings seemed to have a bit too sharp of an attack, as well. The mix really kills it, though. It sounds very very thin. Try EQing it a bit to bring out the sound, because this could have some real potential if you pulled it off better. NO

I can't give you the filename of the tutorial I'm talking about right now because I'm at school (away from FruityLoops). The "slide effect" you speak of is called portamento. There should be a knob for it in the track properties window.

*sigh* Go back a few pages and you'll find it. Automation is covered numerous times in this thread. Generators are any tracks in FruityLoops that generate sound. This includes the TS-404, 3xOsc, WASP, Simsynth, and sample tracks. You use them to create music, silly. There is a tutorial in FL specifically to illustrate how to use the Peak Controller. Please look through the Tutorials folder for it to find the answer to your question.

While, the answer is NO (unless you're using a demo), I'd still suggest buying it. If you're using a demo, you can't save your work, and that's extremely crappy. Use both the piano roll AND the step sequencer. The SS is good for drums and hits, while the piano roll should be used for almost everything else (including drum rolls).

I'm pretty sure that what you're trying to do is only possible using the Step Sequencer (in other words, no piano roll). It's not very difficult to do this: The Cut and Cut By numbers allow you to have one channel get cut off upon the triggering of another channel a la TR-909 hi-hats. For both channels, hit "Cut Itself" to assign a cut number to the channel, and then change the Cut By number of the channel you want to cut off to the number of the other channel by which it will be cut. For example, you have one sample that currently reads: CUT: 6 CUT BY: 6 and another that reads: CUT: 7 CUT BY: 7 In order to get the first one to cut off when the second one triggers, you would change either one to read: CUT: 6 CUT BY: 7

Um... Well, the sounds range from GM tones (perhaps samples of GM tones?) to really bad .wav samples or soundfonts. Except for the drums, they change their style a lot (from dancey club to rock and roll in the blink of an eye). In other words, they really don't fit. The arrangement sounds very close to the original. But even then, the instrumentation just makes it boring. NO

Don't try to use the TS-404, either. That things sucks up an assload of CPU, as well...

OW! *pulls the knife out of his chest* Well, there you have it. Your computer is highly inadequete for running FL. I'm running a 1GHz AMD Athlon with 512 megs of RAM and an SBLive! Value and I still kill FL a lot, but that's because I've got TEH M4D L33T FR00TL00P SK1llZZZZ... or maybe just because I throw a whole bunch of stuff into my songs. With each update, FL's system requirements take a slight step up. Of course, they don't have to, but if you want to use some of the new features in combination with each other as well as the older features, you're going to be building up a nice CPU usage... Your soundcard definitely has to go, you don't have enough memory, and your processor isn't quite good enough for even a relatively basic song.

Yeah, I like this. I listened to it a bunch of times through, and it hasn't gotten old. I can't say I like the use of an ACID loop for the drums, but I can't hold it against you either, as it's perfectly legal. Arrangement is nice, sounds are good enough for me, etc. YES

Er, yeah, this is pretty similar to the original. I'm not really even a big fan of the instrumentation... At least 50% of the sounds just sound low quality to me, but maybe that's just me. I'm awfully tired right now, anyway... that could be it... Anyhow NO

Hmmm... this is a tough call. The drums sound like they were recorded live. Cool. My only problem with them is that they're EQed rather thin. Guitar sounds nice, I could swear it's real, but the notes are dead on which means to me that it was either programmed or played by a guitar god... or a person with a quantize function built into their hands. The arrangement sounds pretty damn close to the original, but some of the dynamic aspects like the changes where the drums come in and then again where the strings come in. It helps to build up nicely. I did think it was a bit repetitive though, despite this. However, there were some mixing issues (not major) that kind of made the entire thing turn out a bit raw sounding. The guitar, if that's what it really is, could probably be a bit wider as far as stereo is concerned, and it could also be a tad louder. The drums get drowned out a little a couple times, but not too bad. They just sort of lose their footing at times. Anyhow, I'm going to have to say NO on this one. It's not too bad, but not quite up to par, I think...

This is quite comparable to Bad Tuna. Definitely a NO

It's not bad at all, but I think you picked a bad song to remix in that the original didn't have very much to it at all. That frankly explains why from the 2:00 mark up to the end (5:12), it's the same short melody of the original over and over. I think that you probably could have taken a few more liberties with the melody (transposing, adding to it, etc.) to have made it more interesting than it is here, and because of that, I'm going to say NO But other than that it sounds nice.

The arrangement sounds pretty nice to me, although the transitions are a bit rough in that they don't easily slide together. The sounds aren't that bad, I guess. Some of them sound pretty sound-module-esque (especially the distorted guitars, yeesh). The brass and strings instruments and such are pretty nice. The drums aren't too bad, either, although they're EQed pretty thin, and the toms sound rather GM-ish. A tad bit too much reverb on everything, too. I mean, there isn't a sound in this that isn't verbed... It also starts to feel as though it's dragging on once it gets to about the four minute mark. NO

1.) Not sure I understand what you're asking... 2.) Not yet, but you will be able to in 4.0 (beginning if next month). I'm not really sure why you'd want to anyway... 3.) Right-click on any knob and click "Edit automation"

*sigh* Orchestral Trance. *shakes head* Erm, and isn't this song from Zelda III? I don't remember it in the first Zelda... I think the nearly two minute intro could have been shortened quite a bit... things pick up way too gradually. By shortening all the beginning stuff, you could turn this SIX minute remix into a four or so minute remix, which is much more befitting of trance of this style. Do I hear FL 3xOsc presets? Hmmm... The arrangement is interesting, but it doesn't really seem to go anywhere at all. The way it is, it basically reminds me of one of those cheesy trance remixes of some aged classical work. I'm not too fond of those at all, to say the least... It's also pretty damn repetitive. The sounds aren't bad. They're crisp, at least. But they don't seem to have very much thickness to them. In fact, it seems like most of the warmth is coming from the copious amount of reverb thrown on the orchestral elements. And I'm sorry, but those drums are so remarkably clichè. Not only are they all TR-909 samples, but they're also rhythmically arranged in a way that really doesn't add anything new to the trance style as far as drums are concerned. NO