Gario Posted April 5, 2019 Share Posted April 5, 2019 RebeccaETripp Rebecca Tripp http://www.crystalechosound.com/ ID: 48262 Game(s): Chrono Cross Song Title: Anti-Annihilation Matrix Songs Remixed: Chronopolis Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MindWanderer Posted June 4, 2019 Share Posted June 4, 2019 (edited) It's weird, and it takes a bit to become recognizable, but it gets there. There's a white noise wash throughout that is both distracting and reduces the clarity of the overall mix. I don't think it's a dealbreaker, though I'd much prefer if it were removed or at least toned down. Otherwise this perfectly fine, a nice departure from Rebecca's usual style and an interesting take on an unusual source. YES Edited June 4, 2019 by MindWanderer Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rexy Posted August 4, 2019 Share Posted August 4, 2019 (edited) Right off the bat, I saw that you've gone for a louder production than what I have previously heard from you. Have you been practicing, or did Gabriel help out with the render again? Still, it's a pleasant surprise. The instruments are not only mixed well, but there are subtle articulations on the early woodwinds, and the rest of the instrumentation has some lovely dynamic variance. I didn't mind the quiet robotic drone as much, though. It only jumped out rarely outside the beginning and ending, and even then it added to the rest of the percussive feel. The arrangement is also in a more unexpected direction than what I usually associate with you as well - way less conservative, with an engaging framework. It uses the B section's piano arpeggio as a rhythm part and treats the source's C section as a chorus at 1:45 and 3:36, but these halves also stood out from each other. The first half played around with the A section's second half through the strings, and the second half had the first half's A section on the panpipes before further interpretation. It's a lovely hint of attention to detail and shows an understanding of how to interpret the source while still making it recognizable. It's a more unusual Rebecca production that I've heard, and for me, it ticks all the right boxes. The only bit of homework I have for the future is to experiment with articulating the strings as well to match the attention on the woodwinds - because quite frankly, the production as a whole stands out as well. I'm in favor of hearing this on the front page! YES UPDATE 8/14/2018: I listened to the track again after seeing Larry's vote below. Using a visualizer as a guide, I sensed the piano overlapping some of the instrumentation at 1:02-2:02, 2:38-2:53 and 3:36-end. I also must admit the low drone's tone slightly de-emphasized some of the other lower-range instrumentation. However, the minimalist setup prevents these flubs from over-exposure and therefore reduces any negative impact to the soundscape. My Yes vote will still stand. Edited August 14, 2019 by Rexy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Liontamer Posted August 13, 2019 Share Posted August 13, 2019 This was cluttered and lacking clarity, and I didn't like how the piano line tended to rest in the same frequency range as other parts, and there were low parts that also served to add mud to the soundscape instead of just padding things out. See 2:34-3:08 for one of the worst offenders, e.g. low hum/drone noise, and cluttered textures (mostly from 2:48-3:08). The mixing and placement attempted to give this a spacious feel, but I didn't really feel much of that from the stereo spread. Arrangement was solid and carries this. Another pass at the production/mixing would be ideal, and I'm actually going to ask for another pass at the production/EQing, even though I could see this passing as is. NO (resubmit) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
prophetik music Posted August 19, 2019 Share Posted August 19, 2019 (edited) not gonna lie, i love all the CC remixes in the queue right now. what a unique approach this is. i feel like i've been saying this on all of your tracks i've looked at recently, and i don't mind in the slightest. the arrangement is fantastic and absolutely more than enough to pass on that ground. 2:53's recap in the piano and subsequent transformation stand out as a really great approach. this, as a whole, is much louder than your recent submissions, which i appreciate, but it also sounds really compressed. around 1:00 is an example of this - it sounds like the background is pumping around the brushes on the cymbals, and again around 1:22. it's happening a lot more than that, but that's where it stuck to me. it just sounds too loud. the mix feels like it can't breathe, which is compensated partially by the significant (and appreciated!) attention to panning and the stereo range. the compression needs to get backed off significantly to let the different instruments speak at their own levels. doing that will work wonders in making the soundscape speak clearer and avoiding the wads of low-end mulch that happen from about 2:35 onward. in regards to larry's comment, i believe that the mud is more caused by the slammed mastering than a problem with arrangement. i think another mastering pass like i mentioned above is enough to carry this. i also think that it needs more than a conditional could cover. NO Edited August 19, 2019 by prophetik music Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chimpazilla Posted January 9, 2020 Share Posted January 9, 2020 This is a fantastic arrangement, with all the elements well sequenced. I agree that this submission is louder than your usual submissions, but too loud, bordering on overcompression. A lot of the dynamic range has been lost as a result. I think if you can find a balance between this and your too-quiet submissions, you'll be at your mastering goal. I don't think the loud master is enough to warrant a resub in this case, although it's a close call. Cool track. The buzzy ending is a nice touch. YES Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sir_NutS Posted January 13, 2020 Share Posted January 13, 2020 We've been harping on volume issues in Rebecca's tracks for a while now, and I'm glad she's taking the advice to heart, but things went slightly far to the other side on this one. The trick with compression for these types of organic tracks is subtlety and not dialing in too much of it, and I think this one would be much cleaner and better with less compression. Specially the cymbals here have a long release due to reverb and its natural release envelope and it's triggering the compressor in a way that makes the mix sound too processed. Compression also brings out stuff that's not necessarily intended to be heard or to be upfront, and it's causing the mix to sound cluttered. It's bringing up some of the mud in the low/low-mids as well. There are moments such as around 3:32 where I can hear some ducking tho I'm not exactly sure if it's due to the mastering. I liked the mix of glitch elements with the organic arrangement, they aren't upfront but add a lot of detail and personality to the arrangement. The arrangement is sweet and detailed as usual. Tough decision here. I'm going to let this one through, as I think the mastering issues don't really bring the whole track down, it's just that it would be so much better with a cleaner mix. It's a very close call and I could see this one not making it. YES (Borderline) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DragonAvenger Posted February 6, 2020 Share Posted February 6, 2020 What a fun take on this track, which was already eclectic in it's own right! Really enjoyed the use of percussion and sound effects to really seal the 'industrial' feel mixed with the more organic instruments. I don't have anything to mention that wasn't already brought up, but I am glad you are working on bringing the volume up overall. I'm on the YES (borderline) side of the coin here, but keep practicing with that mastering/compression! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts