You are not logged in.


New Member

burgermonz(Mar 29th 2018, 5:17am)

Jsckofblaze(Mar 15th 2018, 4:25am)

groble(Mar 6th 2018, 8:13pm)

Calicko(Feb 22nd 2018, 11:25pm)

wewantmoneee(Feb 14th 2018, 7:00pm)


  • Members: 2,208
  • Threads: 9,760
  • Postings: 145,797 (ø 27.97/day)
  • Greetings to our newest member: burgermonz

At the moment there arenĀ“t any members active..


CW Mo Tu We Th Fr Sa Su
40 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
41 8 9 10 11 12 13 14
42 15 16 17 18 19 20 21
43 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
44 29 30 31 1 2 3 4


GMT/UTC --> +1 during summer time



Posts: 724

Location: London, UK

  • Send private message


Wednesday, October 5th 2011, 8:44am

Good point - we'll treat the whole score as a replaceable module in that case.
Morcroft Darkes


Wednesday, October 5th 2011, 8:47am

Yes exactly!

Less chance an update could corrupt a savefile or something too, I think?

This post has been edited 1 times, last edit by "Lux" (Oct 5th 2011, 8:50am)


Friday, October 7th 2011, 9:10am

Decided to keep the melody & elaborate orchestration.

Current revision:…y%20%281%29.mp3


Thursday, October 13th 2011, 9:28pm


Originally posted by Lux
Current revision:…y%20%281%29.mp3

Some general tips:

When creating background percussion, such as found in the beginning of this piece, you'll want to bunch it all together acoustically by applying moderate compression, possibly with a transient shaper to soften the attacks. Also, you might want to try using a very strong parallel compression and keep the original at a very low level with EQ boosts at the snap and thud levels, just enough to heighten the strikes. Mind the machine gun effect here, as well.

The entire track is missing volume dynamics. Particularly the repeated snapping harp-like instrument (the name of which currently escapes me though I have that same sample) needs a lot more up and down in its lines. Keep in mind that the strings section almost never, if at all, play at steady volume. Every chord is either a dynamic hill (up and down) or part of one. In other words, the CC11 should always be moving either up or down.

Some instruments are far louder than they should be. The snare drum for one almost overpowers the mix in one point, something that won't happen in an organic recording. Double it with more instruments and percussion to create swells.

For the brass, try using the higher level velocity samples with the CC7 turned down, numb the mid-range a bit and heighten the flare, up in the kHz's.

As for the composition and arrangement itself, try developing at least two themes per track. There's nothing wrong with using ACACBC form composition for soundtrack music. In fact, modifying it usually gives a good result that is dynamic whilst still easy enough to follow.


Saturday, October 15th 2011, 2:10pm



Thanks for the lovely feedback <3 Do appreciate it! Now, sound engineering lingo isn't really my forte, but I /think/ I understood most of it.

I've done a lot of work on the volume dynamics in the revision I linked to above, but it's taken a bit of time as I still lack a midi keyboard with a mod wheel (the one I have has got a stretch/pitch wheel, but I can't for my life modify it to send CC11 :< ). I've to type in all the midi commands & velocities by hand, which I just tend to do during processing.

I've made some adjustments to the orchestration, done a bit of equalizing on the brass (haven't started on the strings yet) to try and make the instruments more fair, volume wise, and easier to make out, though the tuba's still a bit loud. Will fix that during processing.

I don't really have any clue about compression or transient shapers, really... Audio engineering was a completely different class than composition in the school I went to so I've never even touched the tools x]
Did play around with it though, mainly on the brass & the percussion.

I do think it sounds a little better, but definitely needs a bit of work.

And the sample you refer to is a NOTION3 tremolo mandolin sample.

But seriously, thank you so much for that feedback! It's helping!

This post has been edited 1 times, last edit by "Lux" (Oct 15th 2011, 9:16pm)



Posts: 724

Location: London, UK

  • Send private message


Saturday, October 15th 2011, 7:46pm

Definitely enjoying this - it's got the right feel as far as I'm concerned.

I'm going to make no comments at all on it from a technical perspective: there's exactly nothing I can contribute to add to Xae's analysis! I think I understood about half of it - and that imperfectly!

The new version does seem more dynamic, though. Looking forward to the next iteration.
Morcroft Darkes

Social bookmarks