zircon
-
Posts
8,297 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
17
Content Type
Articles
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by zircon
-
-
What do you mean by sync problems, exactly?
-
Make sure there's no time stretching occuring in the FL sampler (set all the knobs to "Reset" or "None"). Otherwise there should be no reason that would happen.
-
This is a really great track that I enjoyed quite a bit. One thing that endears it to me is that it's very similar stylistically to the kind of music that the television show MONK tends to play throughout the shows. Anyone who has watched it will know what I'm talking about. You could seriously sub this in for the old theme song (written by Jeff Beal) and it would fit perfectly.
-
I like this track, a lot.
-
I like snap a lot. Personally I don't usually use this many kicks in a pattern (and I'll usually vary the velocity a bit) but that's because I don't normally do hip hop stuff. Regardless this is cool.
-
My roommate uses the KRKs and since I'm about one foot away from where he sits, I hear them as well. To me they sound very nice. He likes them a lot also.
-
Tapco S5s and the KRK Rokit series are around that price range, and I know they're good.
-
With budget monitors, you sort of get what you pay for. There are a whole lot of factors that can color sound coming out of monitors, from the monitors themselves, to their placement in relation to eachother, their placement in relation to you, to your room, etc. Nonetheless it's definitely not a bad idea to have a pair as another reference. Keep in mind also that you're not looking for the BEST sound necessarily, just the most TRUE sound. That is why Yamaha NS10s were so popular for years among many engineers. They were not particularly good-sounding monitors, but they most accurately represented the home stereo systems of the time period and thus gave the most true mix.
-
Say you want to cut a loop in half and use the latter half only, you can't do that easily in FL unless you go into the wave editor and physically alter the sample.
Uh.. why wouldn't you just use an audio clip for that? Because that's exactly what you CAN do with them. I assumed that you were just arbitrarily choosing to use the Sampler, but now I'm wondering if you are aware of how audio clips work at all.
-
First of all, I love FL. I had to take a full course on Logic (which I did well in) and I hate it. FL does everything better, in my opinion. I did Lover Reef, which had tons of audio stuff, entirely in FL. Anyway;
Gol talked about this at one point. He said that the sampler will read time information from the file if it is encoded there. In other words, properly encoded files should not be stretching at all. And he's right, they don't. However, in the event you do encounter this, go to the Channel Settings tab, right click on the "Time" knob, and click None. I run into the same thing myself with some WAV files. Sometimes it sets that "Time" knob slightly so you can't even see that it's moved, but it has a noticeable efffect.
-
So does semi-weighted simply mean "heavier then a cheap MIDI keyboard, but lighter then a real piano"? If I work with many different virtual instruments, would it be better to go for no weight at all, or to even out and get a sem-weighted controller.
Well, it's not necessarily that it's heavier or lighter than a real piano or MIDI keyboard. Semi-weighted just means it's "somewhat realistic" and fully-weighted means it's "very realistic", basically. There are pianos with very light actions and pianos with heavy actions. They respond different ways depending on how much pressure you apply to the key. Anyway, I think a safe bet would be semiweighted. Nonweighted (what I use right now) is OK but it's really not any good for any complex performances, imo.
-
"Synth action" basically has no sort of resistance at all. It is not at all realistic in terms of comparison to piano action. Most smaller MIDI controllers are synth action. In regards to half weighted vs full weighted (or hammer action/graded hammer action) I wasn't quite sure of this myself so I decided to give Sweetwater a call. I was actually put on the line with a sales engineer who was an experienced pianist so I felt like I got someone who really knew what they were saying.
Basically, he said that the difference between the two action types is somewhat hard to articulate, in that they both operate off the same concept; they add resistance to the (usually plastic, but sometimes ivory) keys in order to make it seem more like a real piano. Fully weighted keyboards are apparently just more like a real piano in terms of the way the respond to different "touches", the effort it takes to move the keys down, and the speed at which they come back up. Semi weighted is more of an approximation of that effect than an exact emulation.
Edit: GLL beat me to it. Lemme build on what he said a bit.
Chances are, it's true that full vs semi weighted is a distinction that you won't care about unless you're a piano player. Even the sales engineer I spoke with said that - fully weighted keyboards are designed for people who really want the feel of a piano. That's not relevant for someone who's not trying to use a keyboard for that. For $200 you can pick up a nice M-Audio or Studiologic semiweighted controller; the full weighted version would probably be $100 more or so.
In regards to using a keyboard as a drum controller, hell, I did it at the NYC meetup. It feels natural to me. Hitting a bunch of different boxes is less intuitive, in my opinion - I've tried both. It's easy for me to remember "C is the bassdrum, E is the snare, F# is the closed hihat, G# is pedal hihat, A# is open hihat, and B is a high tom." It's not easy for me to remember "The 2nd pad from the left on the 2nd row from the top is a snare". All the pads look the same. I just have a hard time doing things that way.
-
Typically, I approach things one of two ways. One is a spontaneous method where I sit down at my computer with a tune in mind and see what comes out of my head. Often times I start with a simple riff, bassline, or drum loop and then build off of that into a full mix. This is usually the approach I take if I want to remix a specific theme, like for a project or something. Occasionally I will vary this up and start with the chorus or main melody of a song, but I find that this is usually not very effective and I prefer to start with a simple component of the original (like the bass line from Fei Long).
The other way is when I actually have an idea of what I want beforehand. I'll just be listening to music and get the inspiration to do a remix of a theme, such as Kefka or the sewer from Chrono Trigger. I'll often have a very basic idea in mind for something I want to do with the mix - by NO means a full plan, this is usually only like 15-45 seconds or so of material - and then I basically do my best to put down what I have in my head. Once I began working with my idea, I usually come up with more ideas, which eventually lead to a full fledged mix.
Regardless of what method I choose, it's within about 30-60 seconds of the song that I can tell whether I'd like to continue it and develop it or not.
-
Oops, again, didn't know that the ends actually had separate sounds. Lemme just briefly explain the mic types in question for you, that way you can make a decision yourself based on what you want.
In terms of condensers, you have varying diaphragm sizes. Small diaphragm condensers are usually used for stuff like cymbals with a lot of high frequency information. Large diaphragm condensers are common for vocals and other things that have a wider frequency range. Yours is a medium diaphragm so its pretty effective at both applications, I would wager.
Dynamic mics that are moving-coil also have different size diaphragms, like condensers. However, due to the way that they operate, they don't respond as quickly as condensers do, and thus overall tend to produce a less detailed sound. On the other hand, they are typically capable of recording a wider range of dynamics than condensers - eg. loud stuff - and generally capture a full range of frequencies well.
These are more or less generalizations. Individual mics have unique frequency responses. While I'm familiar with the theory behind this sort of thing, I readily admit I have not had a lot of field experience, so I can't give specific advice on what mics to use for what applications beyond what I've studied. I haven't really encountered the type of drum you are describing before, but basically you're saying that one side has a strong fundamental with lots of harmonics. With that kind of odd nature, I really don't know what would work better in this case.
-
Remember, compression will emphasize the dominant frequencies, so you can get away with alot of tone shaping if you add it some EQ before you compress. This can really help sculpt your drum sound to perfection.
I don't see how compression emphasizes dominant frequencies any more than simply turning up a volume knob would emphasize dominant frequencies, as it's just affecting dynamics. Maybe I'm missing something. This just seems a bit misleading.
-
Just to clarify, my suggestion was specifically for the double sided drum. For the tabla, you could mic it as you would a snare or tom.
Ok, so this thing is harmonically rich. I didn't know that. Typically, when recording stuff that is rich, people tend to like condensers. Dynamic mics are a little more suited for things where the definition of the sound is less important than its "power" (such as an electric guitar or a snare drum), or for things that are very loud (again, like drums). The M-Audio pulsar appears to be a condenser, which I think would be good for this kind of thing. You're not trying to capture raw trasient energy like a snare - there is detail that you want as well. So, I would imagine this mic would be adequate for that. If you are going to go ahead with using two mics, it would be best to get another mic of the same model, but any similarly constructed condenser would work as well.
-
Oh wow, this is really cool. I could make some nitpicks here about a few production aspects (mids-highs are a bit muddy at times, reverb/delay is sometimes excessive, and the wind instrument doesn't sound so hot), but for the most part, the synths are well-designed and executed, the beats are hot, and I LOVE THAT 3/4 CHANGEUP!!! Very creative! The switch to 'hardcore' all of a sudden is also unexpected, but welcome. The arrangement factor is most definitely there given the simplicity of the original.
I've heard a lot of electronic mixes and I can safely say this is one of the most unique and well-made ones of the lot. Great job.
YES
-
It is probably an issue with the physical configuration of your recording setup. You'd be hard pressed to find recording software that automatically forces you to record in mono. Here are some possible problems;
* The mic you are using only records in mono
* The input on your soundcard is mono (unlikely, but possible)
* The cable you are using only transmits mono
Without more information about your recording setup, including type of cable, type of mic, type of soundcard, and so on, it is difficult to give a more specific answer.
-
First thing is to keep in mind that microphone techniques, even though taught in books written by professional engineers or taught at recording schools, are more or less suggestions. There is no right or wrong way to approach mic selection or placement.
With that said, I can think of two ways to do this off the top of my head that would probably produce good results.
1. Use a simple cardioid microphone pointed approximately at the middle of the drum (I'm assuming you hold it so that the heads are parallel to the ground). Move the mic back perhaps a foot and see how that sounds. Adjust the distance as necessary. This will capture both heads equally in both volume and stereo placement. This will, however, introduce some room noise which may not be desired.
2. Use two separate cardioid microphones, one for each head. The exact distance from the drum head and their angle would be up for you to decide, but keep in mind this general rule. When micing something with two microphones in this manner, the distance between the two should be equal to the distance from one mic to the instrument times THREE. This is to best avoid phasing problems which can occur in this type of mic placement.
Now, depending on the timbre, it's possible that you might even want to use an omnidirectional mic placed above the center of the drum (again, the distance would be up to you). This would be a good idea if your room doesn't sound too bad, and if you are experiencing problems with very low/bassy frequencies that are typically accentuated at close mic distances due to the proximity effect.
These are just suggestions. To reiterate, there is no right or wrong way to approach this, and your best bet is trial and error. What I've written here are just some suggestions to get you started.
-
I'm not sure that it was the best idea to follow a similar instrumentation and stylistic interpretation as the original (which was in and of itself a driving dance tune with string marcatos and so forth). When the main beat comes in I was a bit surprised at the lack of low and low-mid power. The bass is very "rubbery" but lacks any real presence in those frequencies. Everything else is kind of thin and tinny. The timbres (processing aside) aren't bad, but they aren't anything to write home about either. In fact, overall, most of the sounds here used are pretty textbook synth patches for this style - pretty standard drumbeat too with no percussive variation to speak of. The lead and harmony synths tend to get muddied up very quickly as they're occupying the same frequencies. In my opinion the mixing/mastering as a whole could use some improvement - the ReMixing forum, as you know, is the place to go for advice there. My compression/limiter advice, combined with blind's tips on mastering, should give you a place to start.
The arrangement is unfortunately pretty basic. The original had a unique selection of sounds and some driving energy to it. There were numerous changeups including chord changes and melodic variations that you didn't include here. I think that you simplified the original for the worse, I suppose, since a lot of the material there was very cool to begin with. Given the short and repetitive nature of your arrangement (which again, left out material), I would recommend working on that aspect first. Changes to the mastering and production would be secondary in this case, in my opinion, though they are still issues.
NO
-
Some very cool concepts here. Great improv work, performances and sequencing is good throughout. The percussive aspects ARE on the barebones side and I would like to hear more variation there. The clicks also are unwanted, dunno where those are coming from (TO pointed them out). Finally, I think better choices could have been made in laying out the song, as it does seem to lose energy towards the second half, but overall, there were a lot of cool textural changes and compositional things that made it enjoyable to listen to. My only real problem with the arrangement is the rather abrupt ending.
I'd echo the concerns voiced by Larry that some of the sections are a little TOO low-key and sterile, and some of the notes are off, but I don't think these elements detract significantly enough to merit a NO. This ia close one, but
YES
-
The initial harder panning of that opening synth is quite obvious when it's by itself. You might consider centering it until later when you have more instruments in the texture.
While I do enjoy Fatty Acid's stuff, I voted NO on his last submission that I voted on as well. This I believe suffers from the same problems to a greater extent. The sounds are very simplistic and the beat is very basic with little variation. The arrangement isn't bad but it's on the more cautious side, and the fact that the percussion never changes and few new instruments are introduced makes it seem a little more repetitive than it should. The vinyl effect is also a little overdone at times, such as towards the end, where there are audible pops and clicks that could almost sound like clipping.
This is just really basic. Simple sine waves comprise several of the synths, an overall panning bias to the right for no apparent reason, no changeups with the beat (basically just two separate loops), no standout solos or original sections.. I would say that this is without question below our bar. Your other mixes have been better, I dunno what's up with this one.
NO
-
I agree that the disparity between the recording quality of the piano vs. the sampled stuff is noticeable and a bit jarring, especially considering the amount of room ambience in the piano recording. I appreciate some of the piano stuff that was going on, for sure, and I think with a slightly better recording (or recorded on a keyboard w/ good samples) it could be a nice focal point. However, the guitars are a bit sloppy in their performance and the lead doesn't stand out much. The drums aren't bad either but they're on the mechanical side, and the bass drum/snare are sort of lost in the mix for the most part. The transition from guitar to piano/harp works in theory but the way it is executed isn't as smooth as possible (timing differences). For whatever reason, when the piano comes back later it actually sounds better than it did at the beginning.
To summarize, I liked the piano parts a lot. I think building on those would be a good idea. Also, you don't need to be afraid about adding original material or some new chords to give the piece your own interpretive spin. This isn't a bad mix at all, just polish up the middle section, maybe work on the transitions some more, and perhaps try to integrate some new material as well to keep things interesting. I like the ideas here.
NO
-
Really basic drums and synths here, for the most part. The lead synth has a cool tone for the first few seconds, but it doesn't move enough, so it quickly becomes annoying. I like the subtle processing you did to it to keep it interesting but you need more, or an entirely new lead altogether. The texture is relatively minimal overal, with usually no more than a handful of parts at any given time. To keep things that minimal you have to make sure the parts you DO have are interesting and engaging. The drumbeat, for example, is not. It's very plain. I recommend varying it up more or layering additional percussive parts.
When the piano comes in, followed by the bell-type synth patch, things just get really muddy fast. I think I even heard a little bit of clipping so you need to watch your levels there. EQ the low-mid frequencies back and cut down on the reverb.
The arrangement is not too bad in terms of the overall interpretation actor, but there IS a lot of repetition and because of the lack of changes in the percussion and the lack of significant changes to the chord progression or dynamics, it feels like it doesn't go anywhere. The ending is a simple fade out, not good.
A lot of things here need to be polished. It seems like you know what you're doing in terms of putting together nice synth sounds but you gotta make them work together, and also work in the context of a 4:42 song. Also, polish the arrangement and rework some of the percussive sections, and you'll be a lot better off.
NO
OCR01465 - Sonic & Knuckles "Lover Reef"
in ReMix Reviews & Comments
Posted
Easily fixed problems don't mean a mix will be rejected. I personally have accepted plenty of mixes with easily fixable problems. Objectively speaking when I designed the arrangement here I did it in such a way to incorporate a good level of interpretation, variation, and original material. If this was put through the panel the arrangement factor would be fine every time. The vocals would be the only thing, if ANYTHING, that people would have a problem with, but again I have a pretty good grasp of vocal standards and this passes the bar in that category.
Let me be clear for a minute. As I posted a few times, we didn't finish this entirely in one night. Most of it was sketched out and conceived in one night. The lyrics were all written out, the basics of the arrangements were set down, the guitar rhythms were set, and so forth and so on. But Jill's vocals were recorded on her setup at home, Taucer's guitars, Shonen's part.. those were sent to me online a few days later where I integrated them with the rest of the mix on my own computer and polished it from there. DLux's part was the one recorded on my mic, and as you can hear the recording quality is significantly lower. If everything else was done on that, you'd be able to hear it!
Absolutely! Your feedback is much appreciated. Just clarifying a few things is all.