DDRKirby(ISQ)

i'm pretty sure there's a way...but I totally forgot and don't have access to reason anymore. someone else handle this please.

...unless you are doing something where a keyboard would not be useful at all. ...but in general, yes. keyboards are almost never bad investments.

yes, in general there are no "cookie-cutter" soundpacks, otherwise you'd hear those sounds being used in every mix! (how boring...) if you have a specific idea of what you want, there's a thread for that. things along the lines of saxophone sounds are -usually- better suited to "soundfonts" than samples, since they actually use multiple samples depending the pitch played (as opposed to just using one sample and pitching it up/down). kind of a lackluster explanation I know, but i'm sure you can research it yourself if you desire. Darkesword has some soundfonts here that you can grab.

so you're exporting from FL into a wav, then you're importing that wav back into FL for mastering, then you're exporting directly to mp3 from FL?? it's mostly agreed that it's a better idea to convert to mp3 separately once you have your final .wav export. You can use the LAME mp3 encoder for this, or something else if you wish. This will also isolate the problem to see whether it's your mastering, or if its your compression.

pretty much afaik. there might be some kind of clever workaround using phase cancelling, you could try inverting the dry signal and adding it to the dry+wet signal but dont count on it working... some effects just dont make SENSE to just isolate the "effect" sound (e.g. distortion plugins). This only makes sense for effects that ADD sound, so that's reverb, chorus, etc.

i don't understand. Are you asking about mastering as in using limiters, slight eq, maximizers, compressors, etc. as the final step in your production chain, or are you talking about encoding the final mix from a wav to an mp3? Does the wav sound fine and then after you encode/upload you get "haziness" or is it already a problem straight out of FL? I also don't get what "hazy" means. There's nothing glaringly obviously wrong about the mix, although i have to admit i'm not really listening to it closely under ideal conditions (bunch of noise here). More importantly, what did you use to "tweak" the wav?

zircon, thanks again for the work, however I would request that for the purposes of -tutorial videos-, focus less on WHAT you did and more on HOW and WHY you did it. This last vid was interesting, but it -didn't- give me any insight into your actual workflow (since you didn't actually do any further work on the song) and the "production tips" you mentioned were alluded to but not explained in any appreciable depth. If I am missing something, please explain to me specifically what I was supposed to get out of this vid that is supposed to help me produce better. on the flip side, if you were aiming to show us how your projects looked in terms of playlist/pattern layout, and give us a taste of what you have in the works, you did an A+ job (b^^)b also, dBlue glitch for the lulz. 8D great plugin, but yes, so easy to use terribly... also, the avi works fine, aside from slight video/audio desync issues which IMHO are not that big of an issue.

much appreciated~ those sample packs helped me out so much when i was an FLnoob...o_o "finally something to use other than C_Kick and C_Snare!!! 8D"

well the other alternative is creating new projects expressly for the purpose of serving as tutorials, using only FL builtin plugins + external samples. Unless of course, you want to bounce a bunch of stuff to wav. But I wouldn't want to... Also @ zircon, do you remember where those big free drum packs labeled "Bass Drum", "Snare", "Hats", came from? I have those too and I remember grabbing them from -someone- here who was kind enough to post them, but I can't really recall who and was curious. ...was it YOU? ^^;

great idea! and seconded.

specific sounds, i like, i like. everyone loves synth programming/drum processing tidbits... especially if you used anything like PWM, ringmod, even FM since i'm interested in delving into those techniques at some point.

I know I said short and sweet clips would probably be easier, but if in doubt you can feel safe erring on the side of talking more, rather than talking less. Granted, it increases filesizes, but I personally don't mind sitting through it at all, if it teaches me something, or even inspires me in any way.

nice. While you didn't really "teach" anything specifically, seeing what your thoughts were in terms of the structure of a remix was enlightening and helps with the "remixes can be a lot trickier than original songs" problem that comes up sometimes. next time you can focus on covering a particular issue in more detail. again, thanks for taking the time to do this.

you mean like 0:48 of this gem?

recording apparatus? but I never use such a thing~ anyways, either do DJPs idea (which is more involved), or do short byte-sized clips. Not only will those be short and sweet and let you focus in on specific aspects, it would probably be less work for YOU and thus be easier and quicker to do. also, whatever you end up doing, thank you thank you thank you~

As an aside, I always put every single one of my channels on an FX track and never leave anything routed straight to master out. Two reasons, one because i feel like it makes mixing things easier, and two because it actually lets me solo a channel that I want in the mixer, rather than hitting "solo" and getting that channel....plus everything else that's been routed to master.

for the last solution, I've known about that but haven't liked it too much. works fine unless I have a mixer track that I'm using solely for routing, like I have effects on it and other channels get routed through it, but nothing comes directly into it. Then it considers that to be a "free mixer track" and slaps something on it. boo. you could create a dummy channel and route it in there so it doesn't think it's free anymore, but that seems ugly.

yes randomization is definitely not a "pretty" solution here.

First of all, if you're doing that much work to add variations, then I don't see why you should be satisfied with having the same notes played each time, even if it is with different velocities. Of course this depends entirely on what kind of track you're making, but I would say you want to alter the actual note hits too, no? That aside, all of the easy solutions i can see to this problem do involve either copying the pattern you have, or at least those notes, and then changing the copy. There's been some discussion on other threads about why doing your work in one big piano roll pattern may make this easier. The other way that I can think to do it would be to automate the volume (or even something not so conventional, like the panning, or the cutoff filter, or something whacky) of that channel or of that instrument. This seems pretty inelegant to me, but I guess it could work. You could either do the automation manually or, if you just wanted it to be random, you could use an LFO that has a "random sample and hold" setting (such as the one in the Peak Controller). There is also a "randomizer" function in the piano roll that would be helpful if you wanted to batch randomize a lot of velocities at once, provided that all of the notes you want to affect are in the same pattern. I believe FL has something along the lines of humanizing presets and grooves or something like that as well, but I never really bothered to look at those much.

of course. agree wholeheartedly and thanks for the explanation ^^

method 1: copy + paste notes into a different measure of the pattern, substitute crash hit. method 2: copy + paste notes into a different pattern, substitute crash hit. o_o;? not saying that you should change the way you work, but I don't think the reasoning is right (your initial point was good, but your specific example is not working for me). edit: ok maybe you don't like having to manually position the new pattern. I can understand that. But wait! when you use the piano roll, you have to manually position the new notes...

learning how to produce does not require good headphones. learning how to produce WELL requires good headphones. (most of the time)

http://ddrkirby.googlepages.com/FLexp100.zip let me know if it doesn't work. It was made back in FL6 or something so that could -possibly- cause an issue or two with missing samples or such, but hopefully not. it didn't really have an "official" ending, but things kinda just finished up on their own after nabrin did his section and ended it with the "I've come to put an end to this" sample. this was really fun to listen to~ also I found this short mp3 clip in the folder where the project file was and I have no idea where it really came from (go figure). http://ddrkirby.googlepages.com/Nabrin1.mp3

wait a minute, has no one bothered to mention http://www.ocremix.org/forums/showthread.php?t=11586 and more importantly, http://www.ocremix.org/forums/showthread.php?t=1468 ?

Regarding soundcards, I'm still using the one I have built-in to my computer. I haven't bothered to actually check, but I'm guessing it's pretty crappy since it's an onboard...whatever, you know, nonprofessional consumer soundcard. Sure, I'm probably losing some kind of audio quality in the digital to analog conversion, but that's not really that much of a concern to me (not really that heavy on the audiophile stuff). If I wanted better sound quality I'd first invest in a better pair of headphones (from experience I am -fairly- sure the ones I have are too heavy on the bass). I do no recording at ALL (everything is sequenced by hand)--this is why I can get away with not having a good soundcard. Also the rest of my computer is good enough that it'll never choke, even on a busy project (though the really beastly project files require tweaking the buffer size, but even so it's not that big of a deal). so it's not necessarily important to get a better soundcard, though it is extremely dependent on what you are doing. either that or I'm totally missing some knowledge as to what soundcards do.