Jump to content

Final Fantasy VII - Holding my thoughts in my heart


Recommended Posts

Hey kick sounds much better! A lot of the synths seem to be overly bright. Might just be my headphones at work.

It's all about drawing in the listener and keeping them interested over the entire length of the track.

THank you avaris, surely a simple advice but maybe the hardest to achieve:)

Not going to go back over prev versions, but of the 07.20.2012:

You've already had some good technical feedback so here's a more emotional overview.

Loved the slow intro, the build was just right and when things kicked off at the minute mark I found myself tapping my foot along. Perfect; that's just what you want :mrgreen:

Wasn't too keen on the changup at the 2 minute mark, somewhere along the way the middle section lost my interest. Don't know why. Fortunately at the 2.30 breakdown my interest was regained and I loved it from there to the end.

Well done for a good track, I really enjoyed it

And thank you swifthom,knowing someone liked this helped me to pull off some efforts on improving the track:)

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 57
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

For some reason, the sub bass that goes up until 0:39 bugs me. It might be because I just listened to someone else's Jungle-style remix, but anyways, that's how it appears to be.

At 0:45, I do agree with Rozo. The kick has a crazy amount of low end, and the decay on it is kind of irritating, no offense. Try using a different kick, one that's not so heavy on the subs or has so wide a frequency range in the lows.

At 0:49 - 0:52, the arp starts to get out of tune. I don't know if you wanted that, but it feels awkward to me. Otherwise, definitely try something like a constant timbre change. That would help a lot on its repetitive tone.

For some reason, the trance lead seems a tad over-detuned. Try reducing the detune on that just a bit, maybe about 2%, and that might help. I hear some rapid LFO on it sometimes, and it doesn't work that well with such a detuned lead.

Overall, add some more progressive elements and ideas in. It feels really repetitive most of the time. Good luck. :D

Link to post
Share on other sites
For some reason, the sub bass that goes up until 0:39 bugs me. It might be because I just listened to someone else's Jungle-style remix, but anyways, that's how it appears to be.

At 0:45, I do agree with Rozo. The kick has a crazy amount of low end, and the decay on it is kind of irritating, no offense. Try using a different kick, one that's not so heavy on the subs or has so wide a frequency range in the lows.

At 0:49 - 0:52, the arp starts to get out of tune. I don't know if you wanted that, but it feels awkward to me. Otherwise, definitely try something like a constant timbre change. That would help a lot on its repetitive tone.

For some reason, the trance lead seems a tad over-detuned. Try reducing the detune on that just a bit, maybe about 2%, and that might help. I hear some rapid LFO on it sometimes, and it doesn't work that well with such a detuned lead.

Overall, add some more progressive elements and ideas in. It feels really repetitive most of the time. Good luck. :D

Thanks for your comment.

Probably a matter of taste, but i do like how the sub string and the kick sounds.

What i can't notice is the getting out of tune of the arp, surely is not something i wanted, there is no changes in the arp loop except an envelope filter with the frequency slowly growing from the beginning of the track and starting decreasing when the main lead kicks in.

Speaking of the main lead, no lfo's on it, probably you're pointing at the small pitch shiftings i recorded for it.You're probably right on the over detuning, since it's a 5-synths based sound,i'll see what i can do.

However i'm switching to mod review, want to have some official critics.

Link to post
Share on other sites

MOD REVIEW

Damn, that's a nice beat, man! Freakin' love it. The constant juxtaposition of triplets and duplets is perfect. I did a short comparison between the two tracks, and I noticed a great deal of production clean-up that went into this version - much less soundscape mess, so excellent work.

That synth at 1:48 doesn't quite come in clearly. It's hard to hear it over everything else. You might consider raising it an octave or something so it doesn't blend as much as into the rest of the track. I will mention that this synth makes a small mess of things sonically when it comes in earlier, too - raising it up an octave could fix all of that. Tinker with it; give that synth some more TLC, and it'll be great for your mix.

Strangely, I looked at your 7-20 track, first. I got to looking at your latest track, and noticed that it's considerably messier at 1:05 this time around - that detuned synth really creates a mess... again, raising it an octave would do you wonders. You've got too much sound going at once in that area in both tracks, but what surprised me in the newer track is that at 0:38 you get a similar problem (that wasn't an issue in the older track). It's like you added reverb or stereo separation to some of your synths, and it made the sounds blend more this time around. Sharpen your sounds so they don't blend as much in that section - remove some reverb or centralize the sound a bit for the arp synth, or something, to clean up the soundscape in that area.

In all honesty, the rest of the track seems up for personal opinion. I found the arrangement to be acceptably varied, it has enough source, the drums sound nice and meaty (if a touch repetitive - not a deal breaker, imo) and it's overall very well produced. This genre kind of needs to be a little bit repetitive, so while it does have a repetitive nature, that's to be expected. Tinker with that synth, clean up the soundscape in the early part of the track and submit this bad boy - I think you'll do just fine on the panel this time around.

Loved it, nice work!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok, I know the main issue with this track - it's the mastering and EQ. Man, this track sounds like a recording of a live performance by a 90's German techno band at a stadium played on a tired cassette tape. I love it, and it's fun to listen to, and it reminds me of my misspent youth, but mastering has a long way to go before this is on par with OCR standards. I like the stereo effects, but you drown everything in reverb. So dial back on reverb a little bit, I think you have too much of it on every instrument, or are you applying it to the entire track?

At 0:47 you have a nice pump going when the kick comes in. However, I would recommend sidechaining the hoover synth that comes in at 1:06, it doesn't have to be much more, just a little bit more, so that the mix continues to pump.

The clap/snare at 1:45 is poor. You need something way better there. It is weak and cheesy. And from this point on you have some good ideas, but it all just is so mushed together and drowned in reverb.

I am actually surprised by this, but your piano section sounds better and clearer than the rest of the mix. That is not to say that the piano sounds good - it sounds way mechanical, but fits the genre and would be passable if the rest of the mastering is up to par.

My recommendation - turn down all the reverb knobs, take off all the EQing you might have done, turn down all the volumes. Then start bringing the volumes up, little by little, but don't overdo it. Then, start adding reverb, also very gently. If that is starting to sound right, then tweak your EQ, which shouldn't really require that much work. "Smiley face" EQ over the entire mix should suffice to start with. And replace that snare/clap.

Finally, the arrangement. It is more or less straight forward, and I think the long intro and the final section that are devoid of the main melody will work against you when you submit. I would recommend adding the main theme (possibly via the piano) from 3:38 to 4:03.

Best of luck and I can't wait for an update!

Btw, it looks like you are using Reason. If you want, PM me and maybe I can give you a more hands-on advice.

Link to post
Share on other sites
MOD REVIEW

Tinker with that synth, clean up the soundscape in the early part of the track and submit this bad boy - I think you'll do just fine on the panel this time around.

Loved it, nice work!

Thanks Gario, i'll try my best!

Ok, I know the main issue with this track - it's the mastering and EQ. Man, this track sounds like a recording of a live performance by a 90's German techno band at a stadium played on a tired cassette tape. I love it, and it's fun to listen to, and it reminds me of my misspent youth, but mastering has a long way to go before this is on par with OCR standards. I like the stereo effects, but you drown everything in reverb. So dial back on reverb a little bit, I think you have too much of it on every instrument, or are you applying it to the entire track?

At 0:47 you have a nice pump going when the kick comes in. However, I would recommend sidechaining the hoover synth that comes in at 1:06, it doesn't have to be much more, just a little bit more, so that the mix continues to pump.

The clap/snare at 1:45 is poor. You need something way better there. It is weak and cheesy. And from this point on you have some good ideas, but it all just is so mushed together and drowned in reverb.

I am actually surprised by this, but your piano section sounds better and clearer than the rest of the mix. That is not to say that the piano sounds good - it sounds way mechanical, but fits the genre and would be passable if the rest of the mastering is up to par.

My recommendation - turn down all the reverb knobs, take off all the EQing you might have done, turn down all the volumes. Then start bringing the volumes up, little by little, but don't overdo it. Then, start adding reverb, also very gently. If that is starting to sound right, then tweak your EQ, which shouldn't really require that much work. "Smiley face" EQ over the entire mix should suffice to start with. And replace that snare/clap.

Finally, the arrangement. It is more or less straight forward, and I think the long intro and the final section that are devoid of the main melody will work against you when you submit. I would recommend adding the main theme (possibly via the piano) from 3:38 to 4:03.

Best of luck and I can't wait for an update!

Btw, it looks like you are using Reason. If you want, PM me and maybe I can give you a more hands-on advice.

Well, thanks a lot for your advice, i'll try to follow what you say and clean up all reverbs (yes, i've used a lot of them, but not over the entire track, but in lot of instruments)and see what happens.

However, i'll surely pm you for some more support.

Now, back to work!

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 1 year later...

Well, i don't know if it's good policy to bump such an old thread after more than a year,but i have some news.

My pc was too slow to handle the track back then, so i abandoned it and moved along with new projects.

More then a year have passed, i've learned something in my other projects so i decided to go back to this one, and i swear that it took me one day just to figure out which device was doing what once i opened Reason project, it was a total mess.

After a week, here's the result,hope to have some feedback from you guys.

https://soundcloud.com/blindzoom/wip_holding

I'm sorry if the links to older versions in this thread doesn't work anymore:|

Link to post
Share on other sites

First things first, LOUD. Gotta lower the volume of everything by about 1~2dB. It's pumping in the overcompressed way.

Like two years ago, I actually still don't like the sub bass up until 0:39. It's so exposed that once I accidentally focus on it, it gets grating. Some sort of evolving bassy pad would evoke much more interest than a simple sustained sine wave. If the sound design is full, you don't need a layer of low end to fill that gap. Might as well design a sound that works in the first place rather than plop something bassy in to superficially do the job.

At 1:00, there's quite a bit of reverb on the snare. I understand you want that effect, but it would help to noise gate the snare after the reverb in the chain to make sure it has reverb but the reverb doesn't interfere so much with the treble in the track.

I'm not sure I really "get" the panning LFO on the lead at 1:06. It's okay in context, but in reality it's occupying a lot of stereo space and not really leaving a lot of room for any other elements. Its treble needs to be tamed as well with notch EQ so that you can at least hear the other elements more clearly. Also, I find the new hi hat layer at 1:21 to be quite distracting. They feel like they belong in a different genre. Your main drums make this sound like a swing-rhythm bass-heavy track, while the hi hats say straight trance. A swing rhythm playing at the same time as a straight rhythm throws me off.

At 1:43, the builddown implies a breakdown section, but instead you continue the arrangement as before. It disrupts the pacing and I think it feels out of place. 3:24 has those same hi hats as before, but here, when juxtaposed with the plucky synth arp, it's even more evident that it feels rhythmically off.

The arrangement, although repetitive, I suppose is borderline in that regard. I believe that that combined with the production issues would give this either a NO (borderline) or NO (resubmit).

Edited by timaeus222
Link to post
Share on other sites
Fun stuff. I personally found the off-beat LFO on the lead from 0:40-1:42 to be distracting and irritating, but otherwise I thought this was an entertaining take on the source. I do agree with earlier commenters that there seem to be some overlapping frequencies, but I'm not an expert.

Thank you, i'll get rid f that LFO

First things first, LOUD. Gotta lower the volume of everything by about 1~2dB. It's pumping in the overcompressed way.

Like two years ago, I actually still don't like the sub bass up until 0:39. It's so exposed that once I accidentally focus on it, it gets grating. Some sort of evolving bassy pad would evoke much more interest than a simple sustained sine wave. If the sound design is full, you don't need a layer of low end to fill that gap. Might as well design a sound that works in the first place rather than plop something bassy in to superficially do the job.

At 1:00, there's quite a bit of reverb on the snare. I understand you want that effect, but it would help to noise gate the snare after the reverb in the chain to make sure it has reverb but the reverb doesn't interfere so much with the treble in the track.

I'm not sure I really "get" the panning LFO on the lead at 1:06. It's okay in context, but in reality it's occupying a lot of stereo space and not really leaving a lot of room for any other elements. Its treble needs to be tamed as well with notch EQ so that you can at least hear the other elements more clearly. Also, I find the new hi hat layer at 1:21 to be quite distracting. They feel like they belong in a different genre. Your main drums make this sound like a swing-rhythm bass-heavy track, while the hi hats say straight trance. A swing rhythm playing at the same time as a straight rhythm throws me off.

At 1:43, the builddown implies a breakdown section, but instead you continue the arrangement as before. It disrupts the pacing and I think it feels out of place. 3:24 has those same hi hats as before, but here, when juxtaposed with the plucky synth arp, it's even more evident that it feels rhythmically off.

The arrangement, although repetitive, I suppose is borderline in that regard. I believe that that combined with the production issues would give this either a NO (borderline) or NO (resubmit).

Thank you timaeus, i promise you i'll change that sub pad into something better.

As for the rythmic part, i have to admit that i just used the patterns\instruments i left 1 year ago as they were,wiothout adjusting them to the changes i made to other synths\bass\pads.Seems like i'm gonna keep only the kick and redo the rest from scratch.

As for the loudness, the Reason export peaks at about -7dB before mastering, which i thought to be good, so i think you are pointing out something in the mastering section.If you can tell me something more precise on this subject, it'd be great.

Well, looks like i'm going back to WIP

Link to post
Share on other sites
As for the loudness, the Reason export peaks at about -7dB before mastering, which i thought to be good, so i think you are pointing out something in the mastering section.If you can tell me something more precise on this subject, it'd be great.

Well, looks like i'm going back to WIP

Yeah, by the loudness, I don't mean it's really near 0dB, but I mean it feels a little overly pushed by the limiter. I'm unsure why, though.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...

Decided to take a good 2 steps back,here's how it's going.

https://soundcloud.com/blindzoom/holding-wip-27-1

just put a limiter on top of the track, and some instruments are not EQed yet, this is just to give you an heads up.

Wanted to do some call-respond with the lead, in the spirit of the source, but i'm not happy at all with how the lead sounds with a single note melody , so i'll probably drop some chords on it

Link to post
Share on other sites

Haa, it's in fine taste to bump a thread if you're updating the track, no matter how long ago it's been, lol. Man, it IS kind of surreal to see comments that I made over a year ago and have absolutely no recollection of making said comments. Anyway...

Yeah, I still really enjoy where you took this source, with them triplets and happy mood and classic synths. I know you're working on it still, but I suggest taking a look at that balancing of the synths - that texture triplet synth should be more in the background while the theme pops out more. I will also say that the drums are fairly boring. I understand that this is dance and the bass really needs to be pumping, but change the hat patterns or something, since it becomes an earsore after a solid two minutes of it. For that matter, the hats and snare could stand to be brought up in volume.

I'm assuming this song isn't finished, length-wise, since it sounds a bit too short, atm, and it doesn't sound like it ends properly. It'll be nice to hear it finished again :)

I still like this track, though. I'm glad you decided to continue with it!

Link to post
Share on other sites
Haa, it's in fine taste to bump a thread if you're updating the track, no matter how long ago it's been, lol. Man, it IS kind of surreal to see comments that I made over a year ago and have absolutely no recollection of making said comments. Anyway...

Yeah, I still really enjoy where you took this source, with them triplets and happy mood and classic synths. I know you're working on it still, but I suggest taking a look at that balancing of the synths - that texture triplet synth should be more in the background while the theme pops out more. I will also say that the drums are fairly boring. I understand that this is dance and the bass really needs to be pumping, but change the hat patterns or something, since it becomes an earsore after a solid two minutes of it. For that matter, the hats and snare could stand to be brought up in volume.

I'm assuming this song isn't finished, length-wise, since it sounds a bit too short, atm, and it doesn't sound like it ends properly. It'll be nice to hear it finished again :)

I still like this track, though. I'm glad you decided to continue with it!

lol it has been strange to me to bump such an old thread, but i LOVE the source and i will never stop until i'll get to do something i really like with it.

Yes the track is unfinished, in fact i pratically restarded it from scratch and i'm still arranging, i know levels are way off and some instruments are wrongly placed (the triplets synth is probably going to be at the center while as it were in the previous versionsthe lead will be put far in the stereo field) , and the offbeat cymbal is the only percussion in place atm and the kick also needs some variation in pattern, i'll repost once i'm done with the writing.

Again, thank you all for the suggestions!

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 3 weeks later...

Updating, since i'm moving towards the end of the arrangement.

(no mastering in this version)

https://soundcloud.com/blindzoom/wip_holding-16-2

First of all, and is for you @timaeus222, no more intro subpad but a much more pleasant intro with some strings, plus more fidelity with the source.

Second, in the attempt to clean up unecessary instruments since the track is getting pretty big, i deleted part of the triplet synth thinking it wasn't in use, so only teh "hitting" part is left and the melodic part is gone, i saved after that, i'll have to redo that since it was sounding good.

Still some things i'm not 100% ok in the arrangement but the structure of the track is there, only the outro missing.Also percussion.Also fx:)

I tried to give some personalization to the melody in the second part of the track, hope to not have gone too far away from the source, please give me some opinion on this matter.

Still far away from finished, but i hope to be moving in the right direction:)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Nice intro. The strings sound static, though, as their volumes stay relatively level, and whenever they stop playing, it's an abrupt silence. i.e. 0:23 and 0:33.

I think if the kick had some transient shaping to tighten the timbre, it would help a bit more with the repetition, but it's really not that big of a deal. The lead at 1:20 seems to have a fairly high amount of reverb, and it sounds distant. It could be dismissed as stylistic choice, but I think it can be a bit more upfront since it's a lead. Also not a big deal.

Probably the issue you could start focusing on is the breakdown section at 3:07. It goes on for a minute, so it's a nice long time that can be polished up for maximum effect. I'm finding the piano's higher notes to be noticeably mechanical in the velocities and note timing, and like before, the strings have a static volume. Their volume could be automated to add swells for realism.

The sounds chosen have some clashes, especially at 4:47 and on. The piano gets buried behind the sidechained supersaw, so the saw is either too loud or it has frequencies that can be notched to make room for the frequencies of the piano that would bring out its desirable characteristics.

Overall, the progression for this is less repetitive than a lot of trance music out there. It can be less repetitive, but it doesn't bother me that much, at least. The production has some room for improvement but is not bad right now. The piano and strings need some humanization like mentioned above, and some EQ to clear up some muddiness and clashing would really help. Good job so far. :)

Edited by timaeus222
Link to post
Share on other sites
Nice intro. The strings sound static, though, as their volumes stay relatively level, and whenever they stop playing, it's an abrupt silence. i.e. 0:23 and 0:33.

I'm aware of this, i mean i know it sounds weird. But the strings are stopping quite drastically also in the source.

i think the biggest problem is the lower pad, i may try to automate its release just for those two parts and leave the higher strings as they are.

Or simply make the notes longer, i'll give it a go

I think if the kick had some transient shaping to tighten the timbre, it would help a bit more with the repetition, but it's really not that big of a deal.

I have no clue of how to deal on this, time to get some infos on transient shaping

The lead at 1:20 seems to have a fairly high amount of reverb, and it sounds distant. It could be dismissed as stylistic choice, but I think it can be a bit more upfront since it's a lead. Also not a big deal.

I opted for the reverb since when put uprfront, the higher notes were totally unpleasant, maybe i should try to automate the dry\wet of the reverb to be more present on higher notes.

The sounds chosen have some clashes, especially at 4:47 and on. The piano gets buried behind the sidechained supersaw, so the saw is either too loud or it has frequencies that can be notched to make room for the frequencies of the piano that would bring out its desirable characteristics.

Overall, the progression for this is less repetitive than a lot of trance music out there. It can be less repetitive, but it doesn't bother me that much, at least. The production has some room for improvement but is not bad right now. The piano and strings need some humanization like mentioned above, and some EQ to clear up some muddiness and clashing would really help.

I'm on it!

Good job so far.

Thank you, and thank you again for your constructive criticism, that's what i need.I'm all ears for other suggestions.

Link to post
Share on other sites
I opted for the reverb since when put uprfront, the higher notes were totally unpleasant, maybe i should try to automate the dry\wet of the reverb to be more present on higher notes.

An easier approach could be to just EQ down the treble a bit with a shelving EQ (e.g. limit-to-growth-style curve). Or, you could try some very light chorusing to blend the harmonics together a little, which could make harsh frequencies more pleasant. The main purpose of reverb is to let the instrument fit in the mix and sound natural, like the natural ambience in a room, but if you make the instrument sound more pleasant before it hits the reverb application (e.g. dry signal), you shouldn't have to raise the wet signal or lower the dry signal in the reverb to fix harshness. :)

I have no clue of how to deal on this, time to get some infos on transient shaping

The basic premise of transient shaping is that it is like sculpting a sound. All things have form, and similarly, all sounds have an associated waveform (<-- this is of a cymbal). A transient shaper's purpose is to adjust the length of the sound (the sustain), starting at a certain moment in time after that the sound has played (the attack, basically controlling the nearness of the sound), and optionally boost the sound's loudness (via the gain). With this you can either make a sound tighter or longer, and it's up to you what sounds good to you in certain contexts, though in some cases it may sound out of place. i.e. ambient music doesn't call for dubsteppish snares with long sustains.

The reason why I say this is a suggestion and not necessary (but helpful) is that many 'good' transient shapers are commercial. My favorite is Transient Master from Native Instruments ($99). Some free ones are Transient, dominion, and Bittersweet III. I haven't tried the second two yet, but I think I'll try them later too.

Edited by timaeus222
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 4 weeks later...

The basic premise of transient shaping is that it is like sculpting a sound. All things have form, and similarly, all sounds have an associated waveform (<-- this is of a cymbal). A transient shaper's purpose is to adjust the length of the sound (the sustain), starting at a certain moment in time after that the sound has played (the attack, basically controlling the nearness of the sound), and optionally boost the sound's loudness (via the gain). With this you can either make a sound tighter or longer, and it's up to you what sounds good to you in certain contexts, though in some cases it may sound out of place. i.e. ambient music doesn't call for dubsteppish snares with long sustains.

The reason why I say this is a suggestion and not necessary (but helpful) is that many 'good' transient shapers are commercial. My favorite is Transient Master from Native Instruments ($99). Some free ones are Transient, dominion, and Bittersweet III. I haven't tried the second two yet, but I think I'll try them later too.

Sorry for the late response, but i had to look into the subject before replying.

I use Reason, so no VST allowed, however thanks to you i discovered that it has its own transient shaper inside a drum maschine i never use,and i had to make a little practice with it. Very useful tool, i've always played with layered samples and modified its parameters to design the sound, but having a transient designer on top of that really makes things easier.

https://soundcloud.com/blindzoom/wip-holding-16-3

New version, i put a lot of time trying to clean up things, really had an hard time fitting the piano which was in the same frequencies of the final lead and of the sidechained sawpad,hope it is good enough because i don't think i can do better without removing one of the 3 instruments.

Also gave a little humanization on strings and piano in the breakdown (only in dynamics, not in timing btw), and added a piano outro.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, this is sounding much better.

The lead at 1:09 and so on could be louder if you can manage that without much overcompression. It sounds a bit more distant than I think you would want it.

The piano's coming through, but it sounds kind of "plunky" and hard, no matter what velocities you had. I don't know if you wanted that, but that's how it sounds, and it makes the chords in the breakdown section sound "blocky" (very quantized).

I assume you had the most trouble with 4:34? It doesn't sound too bad, actually. If you want the piano to come through more, you can look for the quality of the tone you want to come through, then notch EQ the sidechained saw wave a bit there and that should help.

Great job so far. This is turning into a cohesive track.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Yeah, this is sounding much better.

The lead at 1:09 and so on could be louder if you can manage that without much overcompression. It sounds a bit more distant than I think you would want it.

Yes i already tried to give it a little more volume, but it made feel the track empty once it stops playing, and also was partially covering the other instruments while playing at an higher volume (not that much, like a +1dB, but was enough to start conflicting)

The piano's coming through, but it sounds kind of "plunky" and hard, no matter what velocities you had. I don't know if you wanted that, but that's how it sounds, and it makes the chords in the breakdown section sound "blocky" (very quantized).

I assume you had the most trouble with 4:34? It doesn't sound too bad, actually. If you want the piano to come through more, you can look for the quality of the tone you want to come through, then notch EQ the sidechained saw wave a bit there and that should help.

Yes the part from 4.34 was what gave me headache, i already EQed what i could, there's nothing more i can do without one of the 3 instruments to start sound weak and empty, i removed what i could (especially from the sawpad)and boosted a couple notches around 650-700Hz and 1-1.2Khz on the piano to let it come trough, and i actually like how it sounds.

I have to tell you that the breakdown (and the intro-outro) has two differents pianos, one for the lower notes (a grand piano)and one for the higher, with different eq for each other to separate them.Maybe i can put some work on the lower one, but i'd prefer not to touch the higher one:)

Great job so far. This is turning into a cohesive track.

Thank you!

I have now to put some work on the snare and fix some things in filters automations, maybe i'll add some hi-hats but i'm kinda ok with the rytmic part, i don't feel like i'm far away from finishing now.

Thank you again for your support timaeus, i appreaciate it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...