Eino Keskitalo Posted September 5, 2014 Share Posted September 5, 2014 Little tweaking to the duet lead. I'm done! FC 4 2016/01/08 --- I've massaged the EQ & levels of leads & the arp once again, and adjusted the writing, so that whichever lead is the support lead will (hopefully) not step in the way of the other. Then in the final repeat of the "chorus" they both play as a duet, but (hopefully) adjusted so that they compliment each other. FC3 2014/10/10 ---- final candidate 2: FC2 2014/10/10 Some love for the levels, EQ and vibrato for the leads + arp; bass drum filtering & fills & stuff. I'd like to think I'm done, shout if you hear anything funny! (esp. the bass drum) ---- new, final candidate 1: FC1 2014/09/21 Bit more pad towards the end, some filtering of a lead instrument + mixing the snare/tom a bit up. ---- wip 1: WIP 2014/09/05 A techno rearrangement of Wandering Warriors from Shining Force II, with lots of Commodore 64 samples. This is a continuation of my PRC277 bonus track, and a part of the Shining Force II 2014 mix drive! I'll post a source breakdown later, since it is much modified & adapted. I think I'll do some lead variations and stuff at least. Mixing advice much appreciated! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eino Keskitalo Posted September 21, 2014 Author Share Posted September 21, 2014 (edited) new, final candidate 1: FC1 2014/09/21 Bit more pad towards the end, some filtering of a lead instrument + mixing the snare/tom up a bit. Still need to do the source breakdown. Probably done with this as far as the SFII Mix Drive goes, though feedback more than appreciated! Edited September 21, 2014 by evktalo Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bitl3gs Posted September 22, 2014 Share Posted September 22, 2014 anything with that big bombastic commodore snare gets the thumbs up from me nice job man. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Uffe von Lauterbach Posted September 22, 2014 Share Posted September 22, 2014 Loving the dirty C64 sounds. :9 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eino Keskitalo Posted September 25, 2014 Author Share Posted September 25, 2014 Thanks guys! , it's there pretty much the whole time, but the source has been appropriated for the style & key so much, it might not be obvious (but hopefully, it's still legit for OCR). So the breakdown will point out what comes from where.Source breakdown: 0:00-0:08 This arpeggio is present almost throughout the track. Based on 0:57-1:03. Here only the first measure is used. 0:08-0:23 Background pad based on the blasting horns in the intro 0:00-0:07 0:23-0:39 The bass follows the chord progression of 0:57-1:03 (the arp is still only based on the first measure). 0:39-0:54 The arp uses the first measure 3 times + the last measure, of 0:57-1:03. 0:54-1:10 The arp uses all the four measures of 0:57-1:03 along with the bass. 1:10-1:41 The melody is based on the fanfare bit at 1:11-1:20. 1:42-1:56 The melody is based on the high soaring melody at 0:36-0:50 1:56-2:03 This bit of the melody might be based (vaguely) on some part of the source, but I don't recognize it anymore. 2:03-2:11 Pretty much 0:07-0:14? 2:11-2:41 The "verse melody", 0:07-0:21 frpm source. What a missed opportunity to not use the source up to 0:35. 2:42-3:28 The chorus repeats with the same stuff as before. 3:28-3:47 The arp, the pad and bits of the fanfare are featured. I guess I'll put this up on mod review. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
timaeus222 Posted September 25, 2014 Share Posted September 25, 2014 The source usage would check out with me. No concerns there. Production sounds pretty good. Most things are clear. I would suggest some stronger vibrato on the left lead at 1:10 - 1:40 and in other places where it shows up. 1:21, for example, seems to have vibrato, but it's hard to detect, and it's a longer note than the previous moments at 1:10 - 1:21, so it's more noticeable there. Also, perhaps the two leads that were used there might be a little too loud overall. Maybe reducing them by about 1 dB or so can balance out the loudness of everything. For example, at 1:40 - 2:11, there's that C64 arp playing at the same time, occupying the midrange, so it gets a little crowded. You might also want to automate the midrange of that C64 arp down about 1.5dB or so to clear up room for the leads whenever they're playing alongside, then automate the midrange back up whenever the arp is by itself. I'd try it at 1000~2000Hz. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eino Keskitalo Posted September 25, 2014 Author Share Posted September 25, 2014 Thanks, that's really useful and precise! I've thought that the mix is a bit cluttered, so that's a good idea to try. Good call on the vibrato, the leads are a bit stiff here and there so yeaaah, I could actually do something about it. (: I actually haven't had any feel if the mixing/production is any good, but I've gotten a nice amount of positive feedback about it. The sound and balance just fell into place, and I haven't had to do my usual hours and hours of polish. Very strange! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Argle Posted September 25, 2014 Share Posted September 25, 2014 Wow, dat source. So that's what a bombastic orchestral piece turned into synth tones sounds like. Will get to this review soon. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
timaeus222 Posted September 26, 2014 Share Posted September 26, 2014 (edited) Thanks, that's really useful and precise! I've thought that the mix is a bit cluttered, so that's a good idea to try. Good call on the vibrato, the leads are a bit stiff here and there so yeaaah, I could actually do something about it. (:I actually haven't had any feel if the mixing/production is any good, but I've gotten a nice amount of positive feedback about it. The sound and balance just fell into place, and I haven't had to do my usual hours and hours of polish. Very strange! Yeah, when I do my mixing, I'm willing to automate EQ bands to make it sound right if I have to. With the stuff I apparently do, I usually end up doing it. For example, on that Apex 2014 remix I did, if you listen to the huge buildup near the middle, there's no way I could have done that without automated EQ bands. Edited September 26, 2014 by timaeus222 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yami Posted September 26, 2014 Share Posted September 26, 2014 Yeah, when I do my mixing, I'm willing to automate EQ bands to make it sound right if I have to. With the stuff I apparently do, I usually end up doing it. For example, on that Apex 2014 remix I did, if you listen to the huge buildup near the middle, there's no way I could have done that without automated EQ bands. Damn, I should try that some time, I never even thought about that Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Argle Posted October 6, 2014 Share Posted October 6, 2014 (edited) First of all thanks for the breakdown, it was very helpful. This isn't a very straightforward interpretation so it would have been quite a chore to stopwatch this. So thanks! I can hear all the usage, so that's cool. Truth be told it is actually a bit hard to review this track since it's so niche and specific. You definitely got the C64 thing going on. The chip parts all sound good. The kick though is kinda monotonous, it just thuds its way from start to finish. I feel you could break up the four on the floor occasionally, give a break in the action or put some kinda automation on it. Not sure how closely you're trying to hew to the C64 standard. I don't feel much of a backbeat either. I can hear the tom fill parts, so that's something. There are some areas that I think are too crowded from an arrangement standpoint, particularly start at 1:57-2:12 and 3:00-3:30. Because you're using such simple sounds when you pile 3 counter melodies on top of each other they all kind of get in each others way. It's fairly hard to pick out the focal melody. You may want to designate the primary melody in these dense sections and lower the other parts. Yeah, I think there are just too many parts all trying to fight for your attention. Overall it's fairly hard to criticize the production values because they are what they are. My favorite sound was the thin guitarrish part starting at 0:10 because it added some nice ambiance. I would humbly suggest some automation on tracks to increase interest, even if it takes you out of a strict C64 feel. I also think attention paid to the cluttered parts will definitely help the track. Hope this helps! /mod review Edited October 7, 2014 by Argle Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eino Keskitalo Posted October 7, 2014 Author Share Posted October 7, 2014 FWIW I'm not trying to adhere to any chiptune standard or ethos, these are just the sounds that happened to come together. I think the use of the C64 sounds is somewhat unorthodox (at least some of them), there's effects from the DAW on them, plus the kick and pad (the 0:10 sound you liked) are not from C64. So no worries in suggesting stuff that'd take it away from the C64 sound. Yeah, I can get behind the stuff you listed, and I believe I have some ideas for all your points. I'll try some low & high passing the bass drum occasionally, maybe swap the sample in places. I'll bring up the clap/snare, automate the arp EQs and with the dual lead stuff bring one of them to front at the time & put the other to the background. Thanks! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eino Keskitalo Posted October 10, 2014 Author Share Posted October 10, 2014 (edited) final candidate 2: FC2 2014/10/10 Some love for the levels, EQ and vibrato for the leads + arp; bass drum filtering & fills & stuff. I'd like to think I'm done, shout if you hear anything funny! (esp. the bass drum) I still have no other name for this than "Force Techno".. any ideas? Edited October 10, 2014 by evktalo Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
timaeus222 Posted October 10, 2014 Share Posted October 10, 2014 (edited) Hm, I still think 1:57 - 2:12 and 3:00 - 3:30 are too crowded. What I'm perceiving is that the lead is the one to the slight left at 1:57 and 3:00, but I'm getting distracted by the lead on the slight right and the C64 arp jumping in every now and then. So, I think you can automate the upper mids EQ of that arp down at those points, and maybe automate the volume down as well so that it's in the background, but still audible. A nice trick you can do is to automate down the dry mix on the reverb for the arp (assuming you have that knob on your reverb plugin; I mean, a lot of them do) to make it more distant when you need to shift the focus away for a while; that'll attenuate the treble a little as well. I think that maybe around 1 or 2 dB would be just enough with the dry mix. Also, the melody on the left and the right are each different rhythms at those time stamps, so if you try to listen to both at the same time, you may end up switching the listening focus between each lead. Because the timbres are so similar, it's hard to make that work with balance alone unless they either are more complementary rhythms (not necessarily matching exactly, just one lead allowing another to lead by taking the backseat and playing less busy notes, for example, could work great) to each other or somehow start out as countermelodies and converge at the end of the current section. It may help to hum the secondary melody out while the primary one is on playback. Here's an example from WillRock's stuff: (1:52 - 2:40)At this point the challenge is basically to balance (volume-wise and EQ-wise) the C64 arp and secondary lead parts even better than they are now so that someone would perceive the primary lead first, and the other sounds usually if they pay attention to them, and then write out particular rhythms in the secondary lead that allow it to complement the primary lead. Edited October 10, 2014 by timaeus222 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eino Keskitalo Posted October 10, 2014 Author Share Posted October 10, 2014 Good stuff once again.. so many thanks! I've massaged the EQ & levels of leads & the arp once again, and adjusted the writing, so that whichever lead is the support lead will (hopefully) not step in the way of the other. Then in the final repeat of the "chorus" they both play as a duet, but (hopefully) adjusted so that they compliment each other. FC3 2014/10/10 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
timaeus222 Posted October 10, 2014 Share Posted October 10, 2014 (edited) Hm... yeah, it's definitely better in terms of the balance. It's also hard to teach or learn how to get the melody rhythms "just right" so that a primary lead is evident, and right now I think they're really close, but I think it'll help if I hand you some more references in case you have other untapped ideas. This time, my own. There's not much substance in the sound design to these, so it's easier to focus on the notes. (It's not enough for a rejection by any means, but I figure it's something you have the potential to polish up ) https://app.box.com/s/6f2a2pmqhf3fwa3c9yxd - Complementary melodic rhythms (0:36 - 0:51, and it's a 1:19 loop). This one basically has partwriting that allows the leads to harmonize without being the exact same rhythms. https://app.box.com/s/6z684g948x1br7bxzg79 - Balancing the stereo space between leads and arps (0:29 - 0:47, and it's a 1:03 loop). This can give ideas on how you want to fill your stereo field to make up for sounds that are thin on their own. The arp is not playing a melody, but is occasionally harmonizing with the melody. https://app.box.com/s/mhuto5dpvgbi07gktbbc - Same as above, just different example (0:26 - 0:55, and it's a 1:02 loop). This makes use of one main melody and one seemingly not-present melody. The subtle melody is just embedded into the arp notes and is more choppy so that it's more inconspicuous, since it seems like more sustained melodies are generally what people focus on. Edited October 11, 2014 by timaeus222 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eino Keskitalo Posted October 16, 2014 Author Share Posted October 16, 2014 Thanks for the links. I'm definitely going to give another look to that. I'm taking a break from the tune to be more able to kill my darlings. To get a bit of distance to be a bit more objective. The FC3 version will be on the Sega Mixer Drive show tomorrow! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eino Keskitalo Posted January 8, 2016 Author Share Posted January 8, 2016 Little tweaking to the duet leads. Done! FC 4 2016/01/08 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.