Jump to content

po!

Members
  • Posts

    206
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by po!

  1. And I agree, this is about tribute to music, but marginalization of one group with respect to another because of the desire to slap the Bad Dudes name is not tribute - it's cliquish & alienization.

    Why does our project marginalize BadAss? I definitely don't think it does. Maybe you think this project will be "better" and render their project marginal. Well, it's fine if you think that, but you have to realize when you think that, YOU are the one marginalizing BadAss.

    Ok, let me clarify it a bit then - track overlap isn't the problem necessarily, but the fact that some of these people could've been helping them.

    This statement could apply to all projects. Every project takes away people who could've helped with other projects. For example, I'm not doing the Wild Arms projects because I'm busy doing other projects. So why does our project specifically hurt BadAss in this regard and not other projects? There's no reason someone couldn't do both BadAss and Bad Dudes.

    Track overlap you say? There's PLENTY of tracks to choose from, seeing as the scope of both projects spans pretty much every video game ever made. This isn't some Super Dodge Ball or something with only a few tracks.

  2. If people have such a problem with 2 similar projects on OCR, then maybe we should remove Heroes vs Villains as on official OCR project?

    Personally, I would be against any kind of merging between the 2 projects. Our concept for this project came about through a bit of discussion which was totally independent of BadAss (in fact I only learned of BadAss today). We have our own vision of what we want to create.. so why not let BadAss be BadAss and let Bad Dudes be Bad Dudes.. which is how it was always intended to be.

  3. Honestly, why NOT have OCR do the entire heroes side while the Bad Dudes do the villains? Not for the purpose of segregating the community, but for the sheer thematic epic potential of it.

    it's a good idea and i'd like to see it happen, but it might be difficult if a baddude wanted to do a hero track and didn't have any ideas for a villain track. forcing or constraining tracks on people may not result in the best outcome, but i suppose there's already a decent constraint with the hero/villain pairs

  4. i almost always do EQ (and compression) as the first thing i ever do to a track. i generally lay down effects in the order that they usually go in the signal chain, ie.

    compression -> EQ -> chorus -> reverb

    there's a good reason for this order, as it goes from most fundamental alterations (compression) to least fundamental (reverb is just icing on the cake). reverb is always the very last thing i do to the entire mix.. after everything is done i just go track by track and add reverb sends

    i like to EQ as early as possible since it makes things easier to listen to, and also so that my EQ settings can evolve over time. every day i listen to the mix i have a fresh set of ears and can tweak the EQ to where eventually it settles into the "proper" EQ. sometimes i do get frustrated over the mix and will redo the EQ of every track from scratch if it sounds totally wrong

  5. My problem isn't complete writers block, more I'll write something a minute of something, have it sound decent, and just have no clue where to take it from there, so it'll stay a minute or two of wip foreverandeverandeverandeverandever.

    that happens to me ALL THE TIME. pretty much every thing i do hits this block at least once. usually i don't force anything.. coming back to it after some time off usually helps because by then i'll have different sounds and ideas in my head

  6. "HH Track 3" would make a really nice downtempo track.. slap some reverby female vocals on it and it would be MONEY. doesn't feel that much like hip hop though

    it's hard to explain what would make your tracks more hip hop. the only thing i can really say in general is that hip hop has to MAKE YOU WANNA NOD YOUR HEAD... unless we're talking about the more dancy commercial hip hop of the last decade. the bass, kick, snares and hats have to hit in a way that induces head movement

  7. if you're dealing with acapella vocals, the only way is to manually find the BPM. I usually do this by making a basic metronome beat (a hi-hat or something every quarter or eight note) and placing the vocals on top of it. Then I just adjust the tempo until they are in sync. Sometimes the vocals aren't at a consistent BPM, so in that case I cut the lyrics into sections and make sure each section is in tempo

  8. I actually read that differently than you. I've heard plenty of arguments against recording at 24/96 or even 24/48 simply because the final target will most likely be 16/44.1. Similarly I've heard of people wanting to record at 24/96 but end up settling for 24/88.2 because of the even-number sample rate conversion down to 44.1, for whatever that's worth. However, if we're not bound by CD Red Book standards, we can record and distribute at higher bit/sample rates. MP3, OGG, FLAC, etc. can handle it so I read the authors statement as one of a hope that we could lose those boundaries. In that sense, I share that hope.

    I wasn't really referring to aliasing/interpolation issues that arise when changing sampling rates, which is a totally different issue. I don't think the author is referring to that either, since he's comparing CD to MP3 and other "downloadable" formats, as if they are different types of data. I don't think he's referring to sampling rates, since like you mentioned they're capable of different sampling rates.

    Anyways, I'm really skeptical of the auto-normalization thang. I don't even think it accomplishes what it ideally should accomplish, which is change the VOLUME of the sound coming out of your speakers, and not the GAIN.

    Ideally if I'm listening to something really LOUD from the past decade and then listen to a track from the 70s, I'd turn the volume knob on my speakers to make them about the same volume.

    Things like Replay Gain only turn the volume on my computer, which is actually changing the GAIN (hence the name Replay Gain). So in order for auto-normalizing to work in the ideal way, it must be able to control VOLUME and not gain. That means it must have control of the hardware that's playing sounds (your speakers).

    Things like standalone mp3 players can do this since it's integrated software and hardware, but you would need USB-controlled speakers or something similar on your computer. I just don't see that becoming a standard...

    Even if Replay Gain became standard, it may not accomplish the correct goal. Yes, people wouldn't master as loud, but now you're effectively dividing the mastering. Replay Gain would do the final "master" and overcompress and you'd still be hearing overcompressed music coming out of your speakers since it's only able to control gain.

    Ok I have no idea why I'm rambling about this... back to work :<

  9. That's actually a pretty good article, until he gets to

    At some point, hopefully in the near future, mastering engineers will stop considering the 16 bit, 44.1 KHz CD the "target" and will start mastering for downloadable formats.

    Ummmm... what? Digital audio is pretty much the same "format" regardless of the final file type. CD/WAV, MP3, FLAC represent the same information, just using different compression schemes. That statement shows a flawed understanding of digital audio, and the whole article goes downhill from there

    Personally I think auto-normalizers like Replay Gain kinda suck.. I definitely have it turned off on my players. The point he makes about people mastering for auto-normalizers is only valid IF it becomes the standard for listening to audio, which I doubt will happen. It probably would have happened by now, since like he states, it came out a long time ago.

  10. it's gonna depend on the actual sample, but the general idea is to paste part of the sample back to back (thus looping a portion of it and extending its length) with a bit of overlap and crossfade the overlapped region. obviously if it contains any kind of attack or release you want to loop the middle sustained portion of the sample

  11. i agree with the room treatment suggestion. bass traps are expensive, but there's things you can do to improve your acoustics without spending much money.

    1) get your speakers on stands (NOT sitting on your desk) and put them at ear level. the desk surface will tend to trap and muddy bass. well any surface will do that, so....

    2) move your speakers away from any walls. bass traps are meant to help with this, by reducing the trapping effect of walls. but if you can't afford them, just moving your speakers away from walls will help a lot. most people place their desks and thus place their speakers pretty much against the wall. i noticed a huge difference in sound just by moving my desk away from the wall only 6 inches

    3) you could get something like mopads to help prevent vibrations. haven't tried them myself, but plan to.. but i've heard they do help

  12. Okay then, my question to you then sir is this: in what way would you have the judges pass judgment/suggestions on to aspiring artists? In other words, if you find fault in the method, how would you improve it? Because if you're not going to offer a solution to your perceived problem then you are simply whining.

    like i said, i don't think there's a problem here, that's why i'm not offering a solution. i don't think the judging process is bad, i was just trying to explain that i think it's a major factor in "The Evolution of OCR", whether we realize it or not

    why does it seem like every post that isn't heads-over-heel praise for the site is taken as an attack? *sigh*... i thought i was pretty clear that i'm not dissing the system. i'm not fond of judging/reviewing music in general, but i know that OCR needs the judging process to be what it is

  13. When Js make suggestions for resubmissions, we hope the artist feels they'll improve the song in a way they're personally happy with, that they only take suggestions on that level, and that they pass on whatever doesn't work with their vision for the piece.

    the thing is, the suggestions are always with respect to the criteria. it's always "fix X, Y, Z and it will be better and it will be accepted." i don't think i've ever seen a suggestion like "make this simpler and more repetitive, it will be better but it won't be acceptable for OCR."

    it's true that the artist doesn't have to listen to the suggestions, but you probably would if your goal is to get something posted. there's constant pushing on the judges forum, workshop forum, and WIP forum towards the OCReMix aesthetic

    i'm not saying criteria is bad.. i'm not saying the newer tracks are worse than the old.. i'm not saying i don't like the direction the site is going. i'm not being negative at all, even though some of you are inferring a slightly negative tone from my earlier post. i'm just offering my explanation of why people might think that the music has changed here over time

×
×
  • Create New...