prophetik music

the clear writeup with source breakdown is helpful. thanks for the technical details. intro percussion is heavily effected, as is the initial synth work. heavy emphasis on stutters is great and drives the piece forward. the conversion to a piece that's essentially in one (not truly a waltz, waltzes traditionally emphasize 1 and 3 and this is more 1 and 2, still interesting) is a great choice for the track. there is a ton of movement on every part as expected based on description. the lead instrument at 1:15 sounds distressingly out of time initially, and doesn't ever really settle into the beat until halfway through the section. it indeed repeats a second time, but there's extra flourishes in here and the activity on each synth is notably different this time around, likely due to what michael mentioned about mapping his LFOs externally. the part at 2:30 is less audibly out of time without the beat under it, and the transition to just the kalimba is really neat. i wish the final chord could sustain more but that's the instrument. i really didn't care for the timing issues around 1:15-1:25, but aside from that this is a fascinating approach to the original. taking something that sounds so medieval and transferring it into an electronic version of a similarly old style is great juxtaposition. i definitely believe you hit your goal with this one. YES

hard to not hear Pillar of Salt when i hear this original. some old-school synth sounds in this track. the hats and the 303 bass at about 1:25 or so are super retro and i love it. the subsequent stutter in the lead at 1:34 was perfect. around this point i noticed that there's no actual pads in the track - talk about progressive, that's a long time for additive arrangement - but there's some background synth work right after this so that's great. there's a 'drop' at about 2:40 that functions as a great palate cleanser and allows some new synths to come in. i liked the shift a lot as a method to drive the track forward. that said, around the 4:00 point i again was getting ready to hear something else. there's a shift at 4:28 towards more sustained synths which was a nice contrast to what we've seen to this point. there's a recap with the same three over two pattern to a drop that leads to the outro, which is extended as expected for a track that's as patient as this one is. the actual end (the reversed filtered gong) is a little weird, but it's a fine way to cut off the ending vs. just a kick/snare combo like you'd normally see. this is a fun track to listen to. it doesn't go anywhere fast, but it's nice work with synths and sounds great when really pushed up volume-wise. nice work. YES

intro is still comically quiet. should be boosted by 5-8db at least. initial presentation is enjoyable. i like the layering of the lead guitar with flute. 1:01 is certainly dense but didn't feel overly so to me (take that with a grain of salt, i like music that is absolutely slammed with content). the drums especially feel a lot cleaner in this version - the snare is much snappier, and the kick is more presence vs. tone, without losing it completely. nice work there. i do still think there's too much doubling in the orchestra parts, but it's more listenable this time, so it's not as bad. the choir at 3:36 is still hard to hear - there's more EQing that could be done there, and it definitely could have been louder, but it gets the idea across, and is more approachable this time around. the gutteral part is also a lot easier to hear this time around, although i still can't really make it out (could be louder, also i'm terrible at words with complex backgrounds). there's some significant panning elements which may be part of why it's hard to put together. the building action at 5:25 into 5:23 is probably my favorite part of the piece. still a lot of layering, but the huge band sound alongside the rock set sounds great. the sustains covering everything up here are fixes, as is bringing back the drums relative to the lead. this is a great arrangement. there's some production questions but overall this is tons cleaner than before. i'm comfortable saying this is over the bar now. it's certainly still quiet overall, but it's a great track that's fun to listen to. nice job taking criticism and improving the overall package. YES

i think this probably needs a new name. also, the music sounds more like a credits theme than a main theme, i think. or maybe that's just me? intro is indeed verby - the noise on that swooshy pad that's used a lot doesn't help either. we don't really get the initial melodic material until probably 0:50 or so, but the rest of the intro is interesting enough that i didn't mind. the auto-panning lead used for the initial melodic material is a little offputting for me, and the hard-panned synths in the left ear at 1:24 are both pretty loud and conflict directly with the head at that point as well. this entire melodic section feels very much like the original, with only a little that's not in the original. i agree that there's a direct copypasta in here as well which isn't a great look when it's also not really perfect. there's a nice break at about 2:30 that is well-deserved after all that pasta. the glide leads are neat and a fun idea. the more rhythmic approach here also serves to make for a more unique soundscape to the more generic vibe of the first two minutes. the synth solo here is fine. there's another, bigger break at 3:32 which is an even more significant vibe check, and sounds great. the rhythmic piano and half-time drums here together sound great, and it's nice hearing the bass do something other than octaves as well. the panning is pretty significant again, but it's not a huge issue. there's a big hit at 4:36, and it feels like it's heading to an ending. stylistically, though, i get why you did a further outro, but i think it probably was done at 4:59 and the rest is kind of a waste of what could have been used earlier in the track. it works, though, i certainly don't mind it as much as it seems MW did. overall, your synth selection was good, the feel of the track is good despite being hand-played, and the overall approach sounds solid. i have no issues around arrangement or mastering. this is a fun track. YES

some real meaty intro work. the heavily verbed fm pads sound great, and that intro synth is real nasty. there's a real funky arp that comes in at 0:47 that's super aggressively loud - maybe too loud - and then some drums that build in around the one minute mark. there's some leads that are in at 1:12, with another shift in timbre. throughout this entire first minute or so i've really appreciated the space in between some of the repeated tones - gives it a really hard, robotic feel. there's another big build into 1:48, and we hear some more similar stuff to what we heard prior to that in different voicings. there's more of the melodic material in a hornet lead that falls off hard after 2:25. we get another big FM-y build of noise and a hard falloff at 2:48 with glitchy effects, and this progresses to an outro. my one complaint in the arrangement is we never get a big blow through the melodic material with both a meaty, heavy bass instrument playing and the big higher synths going at it. it feels like we get two parts to the whole but never hear them combined. that said, what's here is a fun arrangement that doesn't overstay its welcome. the mastering is big but doesn't feel too loud (outside the initial presentation of the big FM arp at 0:47) and doesn't ever feel crunchy unintentionally. nice work. YES

never finished FFV myself, but there are a ton of fun elements in it, and the music stands out throughout. intro features some instruments that are in different spaces, from the sound of it. verb and volumes are inconsistent. strings at 0:33 sound bad even if they're not next to live instruments - like PS2 bad. flute performance is great as well as the oboe performance, with some pitch disparities here and there. the disparity between the glock and vibes (and audible distance/room tones) is significant and sounds not good at all - the glock is just lacking any room presence and sounds like it's right in front. i don't get the care taken with other instruments and then plopping it in with no verb whatsoever. there's a nice descending line passed around for the ending. this is not exciting but it's competent despite my criticisms. it's straightforward without a lot from an arrangement perspective that wasn't in the original, but it executes and sounds nice if you're a fan of RET's music. I GUESS

catchy opening, roughly what was expected but well-done. agree it's a messy mastering job that felt quite drum heavy to me. there's a nice break at 0:57 and we're quickly back to the band sound. the solo brass samples are pretty rough and obviously fake, but the full band tones sound a lot better, and the backing parts for the solo were nice. a quick break, another shout chorus, and it's already over at under 2:20. it doesn't sound clean, but it's a fun track that doesn't overstay. i'm good with this. YES

"finds his consciousness expanding to the point that it clips through the walls of his reality"...incredible two seconds of silence at the beginning that can easily be trimmed. agree with chimps that the panning is significant, but it's not too bad. it's got FTL-ish vibes in the intro with the synth selections especially. the drums at 0:54 are instant headbobbers, that's great. there's a big break around 1:44, and it drops back and lets the plectral instrument carry the chord structure for a bit. similar to the first section, there's a lot of additive elements here that build nicely to a big overall sound that's pleasing and creative. the harmonies at 3:30 or so are just great and do a good job keeping it unique still. there's another break right at 3:30, and we get some more beat focus coming out of that which is nice. another break and we get an outro that initially felt like a fadeout but redeemed itself the time change was creative and a neat idea to keep it fresh for the last fifteen seconds or so. this sounds great, has a good structure and arrangement, and does a great job reinventing itself over and over again. easy yes! YES

the breakdown from lucas is very helpful. this is a tough one because there's so much fun stuff in the original's background that draws my attention from the melodic content! it's just a great original lucas's suggestion to slow down the original by 50% makes a lot of sense - there's a lot more correlative material when you hear it at that speed. i don't have any concerns about adaptation of the original. it may be easier to consider it if you hear that he breaks up the a section into two 8-bar sections, and he often just repeats the first 8 rather than going to the second 8 with the resolution in the end. the other thing i heard a lot of is intentionally replacing the cadential chords with various predominant color chords, which is a barbershop trope but certainly makes it hard to hear where it's going. all that said, this is well over the bar in terms of content. in terms of the actual arrangements, there's certainly some high points for me (2:30's initial chord for example), and there's some parts that i felt were clumsy at best (the block chords right after it). but it's competent and executes barbershop tropes without issue. there's some fun references too, like ending on the maj7 chord before the outro as a reference to...essentially every mario soundtrack somewhere. the performance across the board is solid. i've got some personal nitpicks but it's not like it's getting re-recorded to fix timbral issues, so i won't bother writing them out. i do think that there is a lot of really obvious pitch adjustment used especially for unisons and perfect intervals, and it sounds pretty robo because there's too much pitch drift adjustment. but i get that you can't always just go punch in thirty takes of something, so i'm assuming that's what happened. i'm comfortable with lucas's breakdown and the original content in the track. the arrangement is solid and recorded well. the mastering is clear and never gets in the way of anything. there's probably complaints about the highly technical/synthetic nature of the arrangement, but i think this is absolutely meeting our guidelines. YES

what a neat original. elements of the armed services anthems in there which is fun. intro is def fun! mastering is immediately an issue after the saws, but i love the energy this opening has. the synth choice for the melody at around 0:18 is not my favorite - it's really generic and doesn't have much dynamic energy to it to hold up against a very active background. i'd encourage you to use something with more verve - maybe some LFO-based envelope modulation, or more activity overall. the lead at 0:47 is a great, active lead that's got some really fun effecting on it. the track goes back to the original more boring lead after that, and plays out towards a big sfx at 1:26. there's an extended percussion-less airy section with some fun noodling - i like the ideas here, but it lacks direction. something that's a little more rhythmic - not much! just a little - will help keep the track from foundering there. there's a big intense bit at 1:54, that drops off and then we've got what's effectively an outro. i think the outro's fine, really, but more transition is needed between the section at 1:54 and the ending at 2:07. from a mastering perspective, there is a ton of sub-40hz content which is causing there to be a lot of mess in the final master. rolling that off heavily would help a ton. from there, then spend some time EQing each individual instrument into its own 'shelf' of sound, so that everything feels like it's in the same place and doesn't have to shout over something else. lastly, work on balancing each instrument so that one instrument isn't dominating (i often turn the master way down until i only hear one thing, and balance i can hear everything even when it's quiet). that'll help with making the overall feel more even. this is a fun idea! it needs more technical work, i think. NO

wow, talk about variety in originals. volcanic has some really dope concepts in it. love the fat intro sound. i wouldn't mind some compression and volumization on the band sound, but it's a fun sound. the initial lead with the volcanic melody is a bit hard to hear, but is a neat synth choice. the transition between sections is honestly kind of weird, but so's the original, so i get it. this first section through about 0:42 is then repeated with what sounds like little to no change, which is not great. there's a B section that meanders a bit at 1:22, and then we get to a poppy vibe at about 1:42 that's honestly head-bobbing. the hat in the right ear is a bit loud, but this is a great section and i really liked it. there's a bit of a drop/break at 2:19, and a time change into a faster tempo, complete with flourishes in the keys and big drop before the band comes back in with the opening title material. the remixer wisely doesn't sit on this a lot, but puts another drop to allow it to build to the end rush. the solo at about 3:30 is great and thematically appropriate. from 4:00 out we've got a big blow to the end, and a simple but effective ending. i was honestly on the fence initially about this simply because the beginning is not volumized super well. however, the second half absolutely changed my mind. this fits very well in the style you chose and the stuff you've added in make for a great, enjoyable experience overall. excellent work. YES

the initial chimes (?) playing the chromatic ascending motif sound pretty fake. the entire initial 17 seconds are pretty fakey. the subsequently fleshed out section at 0:17 sounds a lot better, although the sustained celli are pretty echoy and loud. the bird sounds here enhance the vibe rather than detract which is really nice. there are some assorted brass and percussive elements added in around 0:40, and the orchestration of the melodic material at around 1:02 is nice and unique from earlier versions. there's some fun motivic passing concepts after that, and we get the B section at about 1:38. there's still some very loud sustains here from the additive nature of the room verb on the sustained elements, but the ideas are well-handled despite being atmospheric. the track is very short, which is unfortunate as i feel like there's more that could be done, and the dynamic range (finally no headroom!) is enormous, which detracts from the opening and ending. but what's here is unique and a creative take that draws from elements of the in-game situation to influence the arrangement choices, which i appreciate a lot. YES

intro feels a ton like the intro to the first track on Relics of the Chozo, that's a fun reference. the intro bass sounds pretty generic. i'd encourage you to add some space and a bit of treble especially so it's not so guttural. there's a lot of overlap around 1:00 with the low airy synths as well. the entire section at 1:08 feels really similar to the original, same timbres and ideas. the break at 1:44 is nice, and i like some of the exploration done there. 2:14's groove coming back actually felt kind of recycled, and would have been an excellent place to mix up the vibe. 2:31 has some differences but feels very similar to the section at 1:08. the fadeout doesn't do this track any favors. from a mastering perspective, there's a lot of layering in the low mids between the bass and some lower synths. i love the timbre of that low airy synth but it's making mud pies down there. i'm super on the fence about this one to be honest. i like the whistle synth, the percussion is interesting, and the initial vibe is really fun, but it's hard to hear a remix that's done with similar timbres and similar structure and similar layout and think that it's a totally different work. i think i'm just slightly on the negative side here. i think it's just too close for our standards. it's a nice track to listen to outside of the nits that i mentioned, just doesn't fulfill the arrangement requirements. NO

intro has some interesting (if common for Castlevania remixes) sfx, and the arpeggio going pretty hard. there's a fat club kick and percs that hit at 0:35, and that feels pretty good initially with the arp in the background. there's a bit of a cut with the bass goofing around and doing some funky stuff, and then there's a key change and the arp comes back (same instrument, same octave, same stuff). that transitions to a keyboard and then back to the same synth. there's an extended outro with the arp and sfx, and then it's done on a chord. this is...not really enough arrangement. MW's right to point out that the arp is hammering away for >75% of the piece, and it's mostly in the same instrument, in the same octave as the original, and there's little variation there. what's more, the original has virtually nothing aside from that arp and a sustained bass tone, so this is essentially the original being repeated with a beat under it. this feels very much like a cover, and isn't transformative enough to really call it a remix. a 30s break in the middle (around 0:50) isn't enough to change that. arpeggiated source tunes are hard to arrange - i've had some experience, like with the face temple remix i did a decade or two ago. there are a lot of ways to add your own feel to the track that aren't just layering in the same arpeggio. adding in a unique solo line, practicing subtractive arrangement by dropping out parts of the arp, extending the arpeggio rather than just keeping it between a few tones, and actively passing around the outlined chords between instruments would have all been helpful ways to mix up this tune and not keep it so similar throughout. ultimately, though, this just doesn't have enough transformative arrangement. there's nothing that makes this uniquely yours. it's also so short that even if you did have something unique, it'd be a flash in the pan. so, in short, this needs more arrangement to it. i think it sounds good (although choosing to just keep repeating the arp really got tiring after a while) from a mastering perspective, but there needs to be more variation from the original to avoid being called a cover. NO

what a fun original. i've never even heard of this game. intro is certainly 90s-reminiscent. the lead especially is a great sound. there's a big build that starts at 0:40. i think the saws here are too loud - they're balanced for the main band sound at 0:56, not for playing by themselves. the whole band sound though sounds great - bass is meaty, drums feel balanced, the pads aren't overwhelming or missing entirely. there's a cut to triple meter at 1:25. this is a fun sound - i've always like triple meter EDM since i feel it rolls along better - and bringing back the initial lead is a good idea. there's a drum cut at 1:55, and the (very loud) saws are here too. i started to get fatigued a bit with how loud they were than everything else around this point. there's a recap of 0:55 here with some solo parts noodling around it. it's very loud through here, and then we get the triple meter cut again. there's some new parts in the leads here to keep it different. the ending is minimal but sufficient. this is a fun take! i'm not as ebullient about it as emu is, but i definitely think there's enough to keep it interesting to keep it over the bar. i wish it wasn't so overly loud and you'd taken more time with the volume automation to prevent the saws from running over everything when the drums aren't playing, but overall it's a fun take. YES

those are both very relevant and fair points.

the voiceover recording quality is distractingly poor. it's very noticeable and does not sound good, especially compared to how organically the saxes and guitar are recorded. i think that removing the heavy reverb and toning that back to be much more organic was a great choice from last time, but it still sounds like you recorded it on a poor mic. i feel that the diction, emotion, and pace are all fine, however, so my issue is more with the technical aspect. i wouldn't mind if it was the slightest bit slower, particularly around the 3:15 range, but that's more a nit than anything. the backing music is cute! the first set of backing parts are really enjoyable, well performed, and well-scored. the sax parts at 0:51 are distractingly off in terms of timing both initially and occasionally throughout the rest of the section. the lead is noticeably ahead of the beat, the the alto in the right ear is also ahead compared to the mandolin/uke and low winds. the triplet section around 2:00 is also really rough initially. it's distractingly bad when it happens. 3:44's attacks and timing are much better - this section sounds great. the bari's a bit wild and you get some air column issues on the recording (always record a bari sax off-axis so you don't get air pressure artifacts and volume changes due to the left pinky notes closing the column too far!). the resolution at 5:10 is beautiful. the writing at 5:15 is a cute idea. it's wildly out of tune, even not counting how strange of a choice the synth behind it is. the synth's overtones are so present that the instrument sounds out of tune with itself as it arpeggiates chords (same issue that you get from church bells, as an example). i get the music box idea but it sounds bad, especially next to wide vibrato and pitchy note cores in the singers. this part desperately needs some autotuning to level out the pitch drift and maybe tone in the width of the vibrato. the initial timing in the singers is also dissimilar. elephant in the room - this is a great remix *idea* if you take out the spoken word and just listen to the main remix. in other words, if Eyes on Me (Obsession) is a remix, so is this. that track is numbered in the three digits, though, so i get that it may be grandfathered in. as it is, though, i think there's more than enough here to count as a remix. that said, this isn't executed well enough. the voiceover sounds like it's recorded with a headset mic. the voices at the end are significantly in need of remediation. those two together are enough for me to reject this. beyond that, the timing issues throughout are troublesome but could easily be fixed via autotune software that autodetects notes and transitions - i've used it regularly for instrumental timing fixes in the past, and it's nearly flawless in this application. the ending musicbox synth is honestly difficult to listen to. even a glock would be a better choice there. these issues may be somewhat time-consuming to fix, but i think they'd make a huge upgrade in the track overall and the enjoyability of it. NO

my original vote criticized the scatterbrained mastering and copy/paste. let's see what we have here. 2.5db headroom. sounds much better cranked up imo. the bass is definitely tamed quite a lot! the synths sound like they're in the same bucket more than they used to be, so that's nice. the intro breakbeat is also actually break instead of loop, so that's nice too. the second iteration of everything continues to mix it up too, so it's not just the same thing. the break at 2:22 is needed and well-timed, and the shoutout from the horns is a good complexity. 3:02 continues to keep it mixed up too, even if we're back to what sounds like the first breakbeat loop. the transition and fadeout at 3:33 is still kind of sudden, but it's fine, just a bit extended. the tail can probably be trimmed to take 10s off with a better fade envelope. this is a great example of making a better track from some simple changes. there's so many more interesting things here now. nice work. YES

interesting opening. agree that the intro synth lick feels pretty flat. the track kind of chills around the original's arp with lots of noodling around between the lead buzzy synth, the guitar's sustains, and eventually some keys. there's a lot of intonation issues, specifically around the first lead instrument, and that's really unpleasant to listen to despite having some fun ideas it's handling. there's a quirky break around 1:46, and after about 30s of noodling, we get some post-rock style building into a full band tone that sounds awesome as long as that out-of-tune lead doesn't play. i actually like this a lot more than my fellow judges, i think. i found the ~90s where there was a lot of noodling around the initial arpeggio to be fun and interestingly handled. i agree that it's just a bit too buzzy to be enjoyable, and that detuned lead is just a huge fly in the ointment as well. the end is great and significant and i wish it was twice as long and had a longer tail. i think though that i'd consider this to be 'under' the bar by a little. NO edit 4/6: the intonation improvements on the lead that before were bad are much better, and much less bothersome. i'm good with a YES on this now. the popping artifacts that MW mentioned sound to me like artifacts from the instruments used, and while noticeable weren't bothersome to me since everything's so buzzy/artifacty as it is.

some clipping and really weird phases for the intro parts. it levels out at 0:33. right off the bat, the bass and the kick are both really quiet. this is a very, very guitar-forward mix to its detriment. it doesn't sound even kind of balanced right now. a glance at the waveform and it's heavily limited as well. i think there's enough arrangement here, but it's admittedly pretty conservative. the variety of backing textures and extra flair brought in by the leads are nice however. the drums overall are hard to hear but are indeed doing interesting things throughout. the loudest part of the mix via a spectrum analyzer is below 20hz, which is why it sounds so dense and muddy. a rolloff on this and something to bring up the highs are desperately needed. really everything needs an EQ pass badly. i can't pass this one as-is. it needs significant production attention. NO

thought i recognized this when i started listening. it's a great track that's fun to listen to. ultimately i didn't find overt source usage that was not included in MW's representation above. there's some stuff that's pretty close and i'd consider enough if we were at 48% usage and we needed a bit more, but it's a ton of new melodic content over the old chord progressions, and much of the track doesn't refer to the original melody so it's not even obvious what track it's remixing. unfortunately this doesn't meet our criteria for being able to be posted. NO

the initial hit of noodly synth, EP, filtered drums, and lo-fi strings is a great sound. there's a great groove to what the drums are doing and the vibe is really nice. there's a drop at 1:19 and it picks back up at 1:30 with a slick synth solo. it's a touch out of time here and there but sounds great - i especially like the lfo on the lead tone to keep it moving. the subsequent bridge section is also great and functions well as a way to mix it up without drastically changing the soundtrack. there's a recap of the B section of the initial lead for the last 20 seconds or so, and then a (somewhat sudden) ending and fade. overall i think this sounds great! there's a lot of care taken with the drums to keep them relevant and not on autopilot throughout. the synth leads are carefully chosen and the solo is great. the two tracks go very well together as well. i'd have liked to hear more of a prepared ending, but what's here is sufficient. nice work. YES

really obvious limiter pumping right off the bad. not a great sign given that it's just a fuzzy pad and pianos. the bongos are indeed really out of nowhere and don't feel like they're part of the mix. similarly, once everything comes in at 0:42, the mix overall sounds super dense with no treble. what's being played is pretty standard stadium anthem style stuff. there's a big drop at 1:24, some more bongos and a return of the keys, and then it blows through the melodic material (on a copy-paste, as far as i can see) and then it's just sorta done with zero prep or outro around the ending. from an arrangement perspective, there is a lot of repetitive material here done exactly the same. i get it, it's trance, you hear repetitive stuff all the time, but most trance is additive or subtractive in the way it approaches things (ie. pare it down, add more back in) to make things not just the same loop over and over. i don't hear that here. the altered chord progression is nice (aside from the third-to-last 'chord' that is just a unison and sounds weird alongside everything else) but admittedly there's very little outside the initial hook. it's not like the track has unique synth work, a special drum pattern or usage, or something else driving it forward. i'm on the other side of the fence from MW. i think this is too derivative of itself. even if the mastering wasn't dull and the pumping wasn't bad and the synth work wasn't very generic and the ending existed, i think the same hook being copy-pasted for over half the track on the clock is too much. NO

track does sound oddly mixed - nothing sounds like it's in the same place, with the snares feeling like you're watching someone play them through a door. the intro is cute, but just sounds strange. the synth with the arp at 0:36 is immediately recognizable, but the drum loop laid over it has a really heavy shuffle and it feels weird next to such a rigidly performed synth, and the snare fill again being rigidly quantized sounds really weird. the fadeout is way long for how long the piece is. you've got 30ish seconds of intro, barely more than a minute of material, then a long fadeout. it's not really enough time for transformative arrangement. i don't think this is really all there yet. it feels like a demo with some neat ideas but that needs a lot more polish. NO

nice initial hit. i appreciate the patience in the build - you've got a 7+ minute palette, using all of it is definitely the right choice. the initial hit at 0:55 where the bass comes in feels great, and the fat, short snare sounds great alongside it. we start to get more obvious theme correlations around 1:30, and there's a great drop and extended exploration before it really starts to build hard into the complete picture. again, the patience is just very good. i didn't expect the liquidy chorus for a quarter of the track, but it was a fun shift and helped keep the half-time feel going alongside the synthy strings and distant keys. when the wide arpy lead comes in after the 4 minute mark, you really get the feel that it's time to buckle in because now you're going to be in a ride to the finish. i loved the anticipation this built. 4:45 is a great payoff, and getting the extended outro from 6:07 onward was even better since i figured we were going to be in a downswing after the payoff finally had hit. the track is mastered effectively and sounds great. it features source throughout and handles it in a new but recognizable fashion. excellent work - this is a track i'll definitely be coming back to. YES