timaeus222 Posted May 5, 2012 Share Posted May 5, 2012 https://www.box.com/s/7b056a8c3417d31bae5c - 192 kbps https://www.box.com/s/51902283176a34f60bbe - 224 kbps This is an ambient, possibly synthpop remix of "Hell Freezes Over" from Jazz Jackrabbit 2. Tell me what you guys think! I'm submitting this soon. - Mirror 1 - Mirror 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DjMystix Posted May 5, 2012 Share Posted May 5, 2012 https://www.box.com/s/7b056a8c3417d31bae5c - 192 kbpshttps://www.box.com/s/51902283176a34f60bbe - 224 kbps This is an ambient, possibly synthpop remix of "Hell Freezes Over" from Jazz Jackrabbit 2. Tell me what you guys think! I'm submitting this soon. would be great if you can link to the source too I am not familiar with the source but I loved this. Excellent synth leads and I also loved the bass. Not sure about that compression/phasing at 1:08 and then at 2:26, It isn't adding anything to the track but rather than a distraction IMO. A little bit of mixing adjustment required here I think, it's sounding like almost at the edge of the highs; leads can come in the front a bit. Overall, it sounds like it can perfectly fit in a 2D side-scroller (not just Jazz, but maybe Sonic too). I think it is a great mix and needs just a little fine tuning before you submit Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
timaeus222 Posted May 5, 2012 Author Share Posted May 5, 2012 Haha, right, I almost forgot, thanks for reminding me. xD - Mirror 1 - Mirror 2Yeah, that phaser part was meant to be a leadin, but I was also thinking of refining it again. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
timaeus222 Posted May 7, 2012 Author Share Posted May 7, 2012 I updated the remix and removed the phaser! https://www.box.com/s/7b056a8c3417d31bae5c - 192 kbps (v2) https://www.box.com/s/51902283176a34f60bbe - 224 kbps (v2) I'm submitting this at this moment (anyone is still free to tell me what they think! ). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DjMystix Posted May 9, 2012 Share Posted May 9, 2012 Sounds good to me. Like I said, I am unfamiliar with the source but it really sounds nice. Why don't you run it with Mods first before submitting? You know, just to get more experienced opinion Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
timaeus222 Posted May 10, 2012 Author Share Posted May 10, 2012 Since I had already submitted, I think I'll wait for a judges' decision first. xD Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
timaeus222 Posted October 10, 2012 Author Share Posted October 10, 2012 Man. Okay, after 4 months of waiting for the judges, I took in their feedback and spent about two weeks working on it again. I think I've completely overhauled it and blasted it beyond what I originally intended, and there's some really cool stuff happening here now. Very cool source to look at, and your approach is a lot of fun. There are definitely some aspects of this that are holding it back right now, so I'll get right to them.The biggest thing I noticed is how little sonic variance there is throughout the piece. The lead bell synth is always the lead bell synth, the backing is all the backing, you get the idea. Some change-ups will really help add more interest and keep my ears from getting tired. Consider what other instruments you want to include in the mix, that will both work with the synths you have, and maybe sounds that can help the track evolve as well into something different. The transition at 1:35 is really awkward, there's no way around it. I'm not sure if you're dropping a beat or if something's getting lost, but it definitely needs to be reworked. The track overall has some good moments with a lot of energy, and I think you can improve on that by having the drumwork be a bit more interactive with what's going on. There are definitely some change-ups, but some appropriate fills could help add that extra bit. I think this is a solid start, and I'm defintely hearing an improvement in you, Tim. I'd use the WIP forums for this one to get some more feedback and keep improving on it! I think this has a really strong intro, It was exciting immediately. Some of the transitions were really awkward though. Deia mentioned the one at 1:35 and I definitely agree, that needs to be re-evaluated and adjusted to flow better. I do think having a more sturdy beat would help with timing as well. The beat is interesting right now, but a section where it is slightly more straightforward and driving would help anchor a section. Overall I feel this is pretty close, It has a lot of great elements and just needs some detail polish. I think a stronger ending would also help, it currently sounds a bit too abrupt. Definite promise here though, I encourage you to give it another go. Agreed that the intro was very exciting, but the song didn't deliver on that promise. I wasn't feeling a lot of the drums used in this, they were thin and weak compared to the synths used. Actually, the low-end needed more presence overall. Apart from that, I didn't hear much wrong with this. Even the transition that Deia and Andrew mentioned didn't throw me, it seemed like you were intentionally leaving out a measure there and I liked it. Fix the drums and the balance and this would be a pass to me. What I'm surprised about is that none of the judges said anything about the remix getting "washed in reverb" (which I think it was) or "overly boosted" (I actually heard the distortion from the toms in the intro). I was apparently waveshaping really unnecessarily and had a LOT of EQ overboosts, so I'm surprised they said nothing on that. Maybe they knew that I knew? Maybe they agreed with the levels I had and I somehow got lucky? Hm. The main critiques were "little low end" (sure, in the main action-y sections I would say), "weak drums, work on the sound and also how it flows with the music" (agreeable), "lack of sonic variance" (agreed), "odd transition at 1:35 and similar repeats" (maybe, but I thought it was interesting), and "abrupt ending" (kind of true because of the snare roll). Well, I believe I've fixed everything except the "odd transition at 1:35 and similar repeats", but that's only because I like it. In fact, Palpable said he liked it. I'm hoping the new section I added pushes it over the top and makes those time-signature-bending transitions negligible. At 1:35, I actually did a transition consisting of 1.75 bars then 2.25 bars. I shifted the midpoint of the 4 bars left by 1/4 bar. I thought it would make the transition more interesting. I'll change it, though, if anyone objects. Basically, I did a boatload of production fixes, added a new section (with humanized piano, mind you), and (hopefully) consequently made the ending less abrupt. I request feedback on: - Drumwork - Clarity of instruments - The two "awkward" transitions where I left out a measure and put it back in later. I basically changed it from [4/4, 4/4] to [7/8, 9/8]. This was one of my "creative" injections into the arrangement. This is at 1:33. I dunno, I really like that measure offset. xD If anyone wants me to fix that, then I will. I just have to fill in 1/4 measure and then take out the last 1/4 measure. Less basically: - Removed excessive waveshaping - Fixed EQ overboosts and excessive reverb - Did proper compression work - Fixed sections for dynamic contrast - Gave way more oomph to the first section's kick (brand new kick), and introduced new drums in the new section (1:41) that have a much less "stale" sound to them (My favorite TR percs). - Of course, the new section at 1:41. New instruments all around. I also designed the majority of them. Pads, leads, basses, and arpeggios are custom Z2 patches. https://www.box.com/s/nwc9c2a97t1mksy96edm - V3 https://www.box.com/s/51902283176a34f60bbe - V2 - Source Mirror 1 - Source Mirror 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magellanic Posted October 13, 2012 Share Posted October 13, 2012 - Drumwork: I think is great. Fits the style nicely. The production is absolutely fine on them just..........feels like they need a bit more body, especially the snare. The balance I think is fine its just getting abit more low-end of the snare. At 1:41, the gentler style suits but still same prob (imo) with the lack of body on the snare. Panning the cymbals and upper percussion a bit wider could add a bit more in the way of width and space. -Arrangement: I think its great. Sometimes I feel like sections could settle for a little longer they do. Its down to the drum beats used, as there are a lot of changeups but that's ultimately a good thing and personal taste. I love that melody at 3:07 but it definitely needs a more climatic/definite finish. The melody is gorgeous and arranged well, so why not do that typical emotive pop counter-melody or highlight some phrases of it with some new harmonies. The bell-lead at 3:17ish is a little too weak, I reckon it can still be gentle without being lost in the background. All opinion though so take with a pinch of salt. -Transition: Listened to this without knowing where it was and didn't hear of feel anything awkward. Flows really nicely and gives a great feel. So yeah, see what the mods say and hope that helps you some. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
timaeus222 Posted October 14, 2012 Author Share Posted October 14, 2012 - Drumwork: I think is great. Fits the style nicely. The production is absolutely fine on them just..........feels like they need a bit more body, especially the snare. The balance I think is fine its just getting abit more low-end of the snare. At 1:41, the gentler style suits but still same prob (imo) with the lack of body on the snare. Panning the cymbals and upper percussion a bit wider could add a bit more in the way of width and space. Yeah, I do kind of want to find a good low end snare to layer on, but I haven't really found one yet in my collection. It's probably somewhere in there. There are some sections where I don't want a strong snare, though, like 0:56 and 1:41. In those sections, they're kind of like "transitions between dynamics" so it's not just "tack in a reverse cymbal and call it good". The cymbals and hats are EWQL, but I'll try to replace them with the individual types of NKIs rather than the full kit NKIs so I can manually pan or not pan them. The kits automatically pan the samples which is weird to me. Sometimes it's a bit much. -Arrangement: I think its great. Sometimes I feel like sections could settle for a little longer they do. Its down to the drum beats used, as there are a lot of changeups but that's ultimately a good thing and personal taste. I love that melody at 3:07 but it definitely needs a more climatic/definite finish. The melody is gorgeous and arranged well, so why not do that typical emotive pop counter-melody or highlight some phrases of it with some new harmonies. The bell-lead at 3:17ish is a little too weak, I reckon it can still be gentle without being lost in the background. All opinion though so take with a pinch of salt. Well, at 3:17, it's almost the same as 0:25. I guess I could layer it with something else, but I just don't want it to overpower other things in amplitude, so I had left it as one layer. Maybe I could just figure something out with one layer. There has to be something else going on but I can't hear it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rozovian Posted October 15, 2012 Share Posted October 15, 2012 This is ambient? Production sounds as good as the original - which is dated. While your sounds are higher quality, the mixing is a loud mess. While it's good to have leads louder than backing, they don't need to be this loud. Likewise bass and a lot of other stuff. Just listen to how everything else disappears under the clap. The dynamics are different, but the track follows the source a bit too closely to be a clean pass by my idea of an ocr arrangement. Definitely a track you can do stuff with, you just gotta get out of the idea of redoing the source over a more modern backing and instead find a new idea, a new thing to do with it. You've got a good base to build on here, with the melodies already in there, as well as a slew of cool sounds to work with. Just find the idea. ARRANGEMENT / INTERPRETATION - Too conservative - sticks too close to the source PRODUCTION - Too loud ~ Low-quality samples - you can keep the oldschool stuff, it's cool, but you gotta process those sounds to fit with the more modern ones - Overcompressed (pumping/no dynamics) ~ Mixing is muddy (eg. too many sounds in the same range) - could be cleaner rather than just have everything amped up STRUCTURE - Too repetitive - it feels like a repeat of the source, which already reused some melodies between parts. it doesn't really need to change up all the time, it just gotta change enough to let our ears breathe new air, if that analogy makes any sense. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
timaeus222 Posted October 15, 2012 Author Share Posted October 15, 2012 This is ambient?Production sounds as good as the original - which is dated. While your sounds are higher quality, the mixing is a loud mess. While it's good to have leads louder than backing, they don't need to be this loud. Likewise bass and a lot of other stuff. Just listen to how everything else disappears under the clap. The dynamics are different, but the track follows the source a bit too closely to be a clean pass by my idea of an ocr arrangement. Definitely a track you can do stuff with, you just gotta get out of the idea of redoing the source over a more modern backing and instead find a new idea, a new thing to do with it. You've got a good base to build on here, with the melodies already in there, as well as a slew of cool sounds to work with. Just find the idea. ARRANGEMENT / INTERPRETATION - Too conservative - sticks too close to the source PRODUCTION - Too loud ~ Low-quality samples - you can keep the oldschool stuff, it's cool, but you gotta process those sounds to fit with the more modern ones - Overcompressed (pumping/no dynamics) ~ Mixing is muddy (eg. too many sounds in the same range) - could be cleaner rather than just have everything amped up STRUCTURE - Too repetitive - it feels like a repeat of the source, which already reused some melodies between parts. it doesn't really need to change up all the time, it just gotta change enough to let our ears breathe new air, if that analogy makes any sense. I agree with some of the level issues, but not all of them; I don't hear how the leads are too loud. The judges also said nothing about the arrangement other than the ending and the transition at 1:35 (and apparently you didn't say anything about that transition, so I guess can safely ignore that. First impressions matter more, right?). And it's kind of hard to process things "modernly" if your definition of "modern" is arbitrary in the sense that other people would define it slightly differently. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rozovian Posted October 15, 2012 Share Posted October 15, 2012 Everyone has their own ears. The judges you had were apparently cool with arrangement, others might object, and as I'm not a judge I ultimately have no real say. Good for your arrangement, at least. Regarding levels, try dropping lead levels and slowly raising them until you hear them over the other tracks. It's a trick that works when balancing any kind of track, tho you might wanna even out the drums and other stuff before calling any adjustment final. 1:35 is actually a pretty cool transition. I'm not quite as fond of the one that follows, nor the part that follows. Personal preference, I guess. edit: By modern, I mean that unlike the source, which is tracker music without reverb, eq, compression, and other tools we take for granted in DAWs; a modern sound is more flexible. Tracks have room for each other in their frequency balance and dynamics, there's a greater variation in note sound (as opposed to single, unfiltered samples), more humanization (where appropriate), and more space/placement effects. In other words, a modern sound is one that makes use of the bigger toolbox. I don't mean to say that the source is unrefined or that the composer didn't put thought into the sound design - with trackers you kind'a had to - but that the resulting sound is, compared to modern standards, raw and direct. Visually, it's cartoons with static elements, hard shading and primary colors, as opposed to the smoother motion, greater palette and freedom to choose shading based on style. Physically, it's cast-iron tools versus those made out of laser-cut compound materials. It's not arbitrary. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
timaeus222 Posted October 15, 2012 Author Share Posted October 15, 2012 Everyone has their own ears. The judges you had were apparently cool with arrangement, others might object, and as I'm not a judge I ultimately have no real say. Good for your arrangement, at least. Regarding levels, try dropping lead levels and slowly raising them until you hear them over the other tracks. It's a trick that works when balancing any kind of track, tho you might wanna even out the drums and other stuff before calling any adjustment final. 1:35 is actually a pretty cool transition. I'm not quite as fond of the one that follows, nor the part that follows. Personal preference, I guess. edit: By modern, I mean that unlike the source, which is tracker music without reverb, eq, compression, and other tools we take for granted in DAWs; a modern sound is more flexible. Tracks have room for each other in their frequency balance and dynamics, there's a greater variation in note sound (as opposed to single, unfiltered samples), more humanization (where appropriate), and more space/placement effects. In other words, a modern sound is one that makes use of the bigger toolbox. I don't mean to say that the source is unrefined or that the composer didn't put thought into the sound design - with trackers you kind'a had to - but that the resulting sound is, compared to modern standards, raw and direct. Visually, it's cartoons with static elements, hard shading and primary colors, as opposed to the smoother motion, greater palette and freedom to choose shading based on style. Physically, it's cast-iron tools versus those made out of laser-cut compound materials. It's not arbitrary. Alright then, thanks! Although, I didn't mean that the definition of "modern" is arbitrary. I meant that your definition would vary slightly with other people. I thought "modern" meant "of this era", rather than "mixed with this era's expectations". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
timaeus222 Posted October 17, 2012 Author Share Posted October 17, 2012 Okay, how does this sound now? Anyone notice anything strange anymore? I believe I've fixed all overcompression problems, dynamics problems, and in consequence, have a "more modern" mixing caliber. Btw, if you notice something at 2:30, I do too. I think I need another reverse cymbal layer there. https://www.box.com/s/y52h5refxuc8381z1vxs - V4 https://www.box.com/s/nwc9c2a97t1mksy96edm - V3 https://www.box.com/s/51902283176a34f60bbe - V2 - Source Mirror 1 - Source Mirror 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chimpazilla Posted October 17, 2012 Share Posted October 17, 2012 I just did a quick side-by-side of versions 3 and 4, and wow, you brought it ALIVE. HUGE difference, it sounds much more 3d now. Nice job. I didn't even hear those sounds on the left and right before (starting at 1:11), in version 3. They are there now. So much better. The only thing I notice now is the bass may be just a drop too loud in the lowest end. Just a drop. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
timaeus222 Posted October 18, 2012 Author Share Posted October 18, 2012 I just did a quick side-by-side of versions 3 and 4, and wow, you brought it ALIVE. HUGE difference, it sounds much more 3d now. Nice job. I didn't even hear those sounds on the left and right before (starting at 1:11), in version 3. They are there now. So much better.The only thing I notice now is the bass may be just a drop too loud in the lowest end. Just a drop. Ah, that's good. Yeah, I wanted to make sure everything was playing in full clarity first before I fixed any EQ issues. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
timaeus222 Posted November 23, 2012 Author Share Posted November 23, 2012 Okay, I'm sure I've addressed lots of issues now! Everything should be much clearer (the bell lead is the most evident), more powerful and wide, now soft knee compressed, and more awesome. There are some new drum samples, too (like the TR-808 snare at 2:11) and smoother transitions between dynamics. I tried something completely new: purposefully duplicating a note so that there are 6-8 notes in the piano roll layered in the same spot. I did that to "create" a new, louder cymbal sound (i.e. at 1:35) from one of the softer RR samples from EWQL. I'm hearing something I didn't hear before, on my own mix no less, at 0:11-0:12 (the weooohhh). xD Also noticing that the kick might need to be louder at 1:11 - 1:41 and 3:07 - 3:15, and the piano reverb might need to be adjusted. Ready for mod review! https://www.box.com/s/pa8az3lhy0mhegj6kf2z - V5 https://www.box.com/s/y52h5refxuc8381z1vxs - V4 https://www.box.com/s/nwc9c2a97t1mksy96edm - V3 https://www.box.com/s/51902283176a34f60bbe - V2/V1 - Source Mirror 1 - Source Mirror 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rozovian Posted November 25, 2012 Share Posted November 25, 2012 Your lead bell sound is a tad too bright. The whole track could probably use a little less highs. Not much, a dB or two. Beyond that, and a very subjective dislike of your snare (which is probably a little too loud, objectively), I think this is ready for the judges. You can probably scratch the whole Ambient tag. This is so not ambient. PRODUCTION - Too loud - but not by much Great work. It still has the cool retro sound design, but the production is a lot more suited for today. It's about time you get posted, and I think this will get you there. Here's hoping. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
timaeus222 Posted November 25, 2012 Author Share Posted November 25, 2012 Your lead bell sound is a tad too bright. The whole track could probably use a little less highs. Not much, a dB or two. Beyond that, and a very subjective dislike of your snare (which is probably a little too loud, objectively), I think this is ready for the judges.You can probably scratch the whole Ambient tag. This is so not ambient. PRODUCTION - Too loud - but not by much Great work. It still has the cool retro sound design, but the production is a lot more suited for today. It's about time you get posted, and I think this will get you there. Here's hoping. Alright, sweet! I think I'll also address an issue I believe I have with dynamics. I remember how you said when sounds stack, they might additively create a louder waveform, so I'll see if I can fix that up keeping that in mind. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chimpazilla Posted November 25, 2012 Share Posted November 25, 2012 Nice job T! Good luck this time around. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
timaeus222 Posted November 25, 2012 Author Share Posted November 25, 2012 Nice job T! Good luck this time around. Thanks a lot! EDIT: There we go, now everything's edited and set! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.