big giant circles

Lawlercopter? Ohh, this mix is baller. Or should I say Bawler. Alright, enough of my terrible puns, or whatever they are. NO seriously, this is freaking awesome! I'm being a bit selfish here, I'm pretty much only rejecting this now for the reason Vig did, in that while this is really awesome, It could be awesome-er-er. Touch up the couple places Larry's mentioned (especially the brass at :53--maybe add some ambiance, ya know, reverb etc), and maybe try what Vig said about tweaking the climax. Or to me, I felt that while the climax was good, it was so abruptly halted that it was kind of antagonistic to that climax. Man, for the love of all things musical, resubmit this or may your computer explode into tiny pieces.

I'm probably going to have to revote on this. I have the Halo 2 volume 1 OST, and this theme is actually from vol 2. Here's a little Youtewbz for you kids. Halo 2 - Unforgotten: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MXLNB2K-YA0 Halo 3 - Unforgotten: [url]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2YACQ8OKszI[/url] written in code because of ghey smilies. I think he may have used some of the source from the menu music as well: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_9C_9vYrzVs

Pretty dang good guitar playing. I tip my hat to you, bro. I'm going to echo the sentiment that the overall is that there's too much straight forward cover action going on, aside from the few measures where it was apparent that it wasn't the melody verbatim. The drums are sequenced very well, although they could use probably run them through a compressor and EQ to help give 'em more punch in the mix. Wish I could offer you more specific help as to how you might further expand so the interpretation doesn't seem so straight forward and conforms a little more to what we like to look for here on OCR. I will say I'd consider reworking the transition between the two themes at 1:10, I felt like the segue felt a hair unnatural and slightly awkward/sudden. Perhaps take a listen to Sixto's mixes, he has a couple songs that are similar to this style, and he does a great job throwing extra levels of interpretation on them, so you might try to emulate his technique a bit on that front. Sorry to reject this, if our votes were based on performance alone, this would be an easy yes. NO

Yeah, I also opened a support ticket. I already had the "Million Users Served" download waiting for me in the users area on IK's site, and I went ahead and grabbed Amplitube DUO. I've already got Guitar Rig 3, but whuteva. Maybe it'll have some cool tones too. Probably going to snag T-Racks 3 Standard whenever we sort out the rest of the mess. I personally don't care about SampleTanks 2 L, since I've already got XL.

just to clarify, Sampletank L is like 2-ish gigs, and Sampletank XL is like 7 or so

Soundtrack rocks! Everyone did awesome. Jose, I thought you did especially well with the endings, nice work!

bear in mind, stuff like guitar rig and amplitube don't have to be explicitly used on a guitar. You can get some pretty wicked sounds by using them on synths, vox, drums, etc.

Which is why I said I'm getting a kick out of it. No hostility here, man.

Depends on the track. I have before. But I don't see why so many people are confusing encoding quality with overall musical and/or production quality. They're not exactly interchangeable. It's like trying to compare listening to a fart played as a 24 bit 192khz wave vs a decent music track mp3 played at 192kbps. It's not even a proper comparison. At any rate, I don't even care if a FLAC torrent is put out at this point. The folks like Moguta have explained themselves the most sensibly, and I respect that. At this point I'm still just getting an enormous kick at all the folks saying "hey, I can tell a difference..."

That is insane. I signed up. I've actually got Sampletank 2.5 XL, which is quite a bit larger, so I don't really care about Sampletank 2.5L, but eh, so I guess I'll have an extra I also credited Andrew Aversa for the referral points thing.

well, first off, this made me lol I didn't realize that Toontrack EZ Drummer was so paranoid I recognize those preset fills from anywhere. The other give away is that EZD does not incorporate any crashes into the fills. You need to add them manually, and you didn't, so that's kind of a bummer. Lot of dissonance going on in this track. While I appreciate the uniqueness of the attempt, there's just a lot of unpleasantness going on. The eerie pad intro was aight, but the synth guitar at :51 was way too dry, and as LT might say, too exposed. Then at 1:10, it sounds like the pad takes a chromatic step upward while the guitar riff repeats, and the clashing that ensues is not all that appealing. Then again at 1:35ish, the pad changes tone yet again, but still not staying parallel to the would-be key that the guitar is playing in. Guitar squeels at 1:43 and 1:55 were kind of odd... Chimes/belltones behind it were nice, but again, with the clashing guitar and pads, I'm afraid there's not much salvaging the track seeing as it's gone on for over 3 minutes already in this way. At 3:10 the guitar actually goes a little berserk, which in and of itself, I thought was pretty cool. When the chugga guitar chords come in at 3:31, I thought the track was finally about as close to cohesion as possible. Also the track backing seems to sit on the root note pretty much the entire time, giving little to no appropriate deviation of the bassline to accomodate a more harmonious progression. Pretty amateur stuff, really, but as always, keep practicing. Sorry about the fall through, it happens from time to time. And next time, don't be embarrassed to admit that you're using EZ Drummer NO

PM'd to me on 10/25, he just now got the file info to me. He said he's since got the email confirmation, but I thought it only fair to go ahead and post to the panel here. -BGC Probably. Liontamer has told me that the email has been doing that a bit lately. Also, tell me the name of the remix and specifically when you sent it and I can double check to see if it's on the panel. I just sent it. I know it's been a month or so, but My power supply crapped out on me. Thanks a million. I don't see it on the panel. Go ahead and copy+paste your email submission to me here and I'll see it get to the panel. It would also be great if you make sure your message includes the game title, the actual song in the game that you've remixed, and preferably your own breakdown of how the remix compares to the source tune. Sorry for your trouble so far. Ok... sorry it took me so long, I haven't been on the forums in a while. I sent it, and got a conformation email, but I'll give you what I wrote anyhow. "The first time I sent this remix, it didn't go through, so big giant circles said I should re-send it. this was like 3 or four weeks ago, though (computer troubles), so here goes. Your ReMixer name Thronan Your real name Devin Tierney ( except the drums. The drummer wishes to remain unnamed because he's paranoid) Your email address Thronan@yahoo.com Your website N/A Your userid 26184 Name of game(s) arranged Donkey Kong Country Name of individual song(s) arranged Aquatic Ambiance The song starts off completely ambient, until a high-hat counts off for the guitar, which is the lead for this section of the song. Then It steps up for the main section of the song with a complete drum track, but still a little hollow. After a shredding solo, a heavier version of the main part is played. Then it switches to a Dream-Theater-style Prog-Metal feast with a beautiful lead saw. As it winds down, the lead synth is a beautiful yet bizzare arpeggiation of the background ambience. Enjoy, I hope. " Thanks again.

Whew! Finally glad to hear this! Man, you guys put on a rockin' performance of this track, Shael! (If I actually make it to M7) I want to hear this live, yo! Great job!

NeEdZ MoAr AzN CoWbElL!! Nice work, dave! Glad to hear a finished version, haven't heard this since you let us hear the 40 second or so WIP. It's ethno-electronica, one of my favorite styles. And it's got that hint of trademark pretzel funk to it, I dig. YES

that's the spirit!

Well, I do agree with you there, but as far as a single piece of hardware goes, they're not bad Naturally, you get better quality with VSTs.

Ahh, well, he did do two remixes of Blue, so It can technically work both ways

lol, I keep thinking "Hi, I'm Darkesword. You might remember me from such threads as OCR-tan, Membership Cards, Judge Cereal, and Remix Tshirts thread." Like, "Hi, I'm Troy McClure. You may remember me from such other nature films as 'Earwigs, Ew.' and 'Man Vs Nature... The Road To Victory'." -Simpsons

I can only imagine that's Ziwtra's Terranigma Blue ReMixes. Here's one -

I'm going to have to disagree with you there. I'd wager that less than 1% of people can tell. This is all subjective, of course. You don't have substantial backing for your claim, and neither do I I'd also wager that less than 5-10% of people can tell the difference between 192 and 256. Well, Higher bitrate isn't too far behind, let's just wait and see. This is true. I was speaking more in the context of if the tracks were hosted directly on OCR/mirrors. Again, this is a pretty subjective statement My line of thinking tends to be why care about something when you cant tell the difference? Well, that's not what I was talking about at all. I apologize for the confusion caused by my wording there. I said "Plus, how many of you are really going to sit and even attempt to scrutinize quality of the music once you're actually listening to it?" What I SHOULD have said is how many of you are really going to sit and even attempt to scrutinize the (192+) encoding quality of the music once you're actually listening to it?. Judging the overall quality of a work of music as I do as a judge is not quite the same as nitpicking the difference between a high bitrate mp3 and lossless. That being said, myself and other judges do make sure there's not any obvious and notable flaws that are a direct result of poor or LQ encoding. And I don't recall a single time that it's ever happened to a submission that was encoded at 192. Well, ouch. I throw my hands up in the air and admit that I do tend to use my own experience as a basic standard, but I like to think I'm mature enough that I'm not ever afraid to be proven wrong either. I apologize, but I still haven't heard anyone say anything that necessitates having uncompressed/lossless quality, especially when (again with the figureless assumptions) most people cannot tell the difference. It pains me that there's no actual way to run an ABX test for everyone in the community, because I'm confident the results would show that it doesn't matter. Also, looking at the polls, as of me typing this, 17 out of 112 people have voted for FLAC, or roughly 15%. So, essentially 85% of the people that have voted are not troubled by high quality mp3s. So really, I suppose my argument is needless anyway. Cheers.

That's cool, and I respect that, but I guess I'm just having a difficult time comprehending when and where and why another format would be so important to have. Also, upon looking back, I didn't necessarily mean for my post to sound so abrasive to everyone who may have requested FLAC or wav, but rather just the people who seem to get particularly indignant about the matter.

so holding down the keys causes an endless cycle? interesting, i'll have to try that.

I'm going to reiterate what I already said, only a bit more boldly. I bet over 99% of you jokers whining about FLAC can't even tell the difference between it and 256kbps mp3s. I just don't understand why so many of you seem to get so indignant when defending your (apparently) superhumanly sensitive ears. And if you can't tell the difference, why bother with the extra hard drive space, not to mention hosting space and bandwidth. That stuff's not free, you know. Furthermore, who really makes wav CDs anymore? I'm sure a few people do, but lets face it, it's a dying medium. Most car CD players now either have an 1/8th" input to accomodate an mp3 player/ipod, or else read mp3 CDs, which obviously store way more music. Plus, how many of you are really going to sit and even attempt to scrutinize quality of the music once you're actually listening to it? Chances are, you're probably going to be multitasking or listening in your car or something anyway. And since you're probably NOT going to be running them through high-end studio monitors (or even decent headphones I wager), I say again, why so adamant? It just doesn't make sense. I'm having a difficult time seeing the logic, and so far, no one's been able to prove any valid legitimacy to the issue. Stop pretending like you have some sort of highly evolved sense of hearing guys and come back down to us here in the sensible world.

cool, but i'm going to wager that's a script.

very nice, malc!