Deprecated: mysql_connect(): The mysql extension is deprecated and will be removed in the future: use mysqli or PDO instead in /storage/content/49/145849/famitracker.com/public_html/forum/classes/dbHandler.php on line 29
FamiTracker
Hello everybody! I'm new to this community, though not entirely new to making chiptunes - this is my fourth complete song (I have a few others, and all can be found on my Youtube channel, though admittedly they are not very good). This song utilizes the VRC6 expansion chip, and I must say that I find the additional channels to be VERY welcome. This is an original song - it is not a cover or remix of any kind.
I used a bunch of complex time signatures in this song (a partial list can be found in the video description linked below). I am a a big prog fan, and I love composing in any non-4/4 time signature - I think it lends a very unique feel to a song and can allow for much more interesting melodies.
Feedback and constructive criticism are welcomed and encouraged!
If you'd like to hear the song without downloading the .ftm file, you can listen to it here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MELB7M70oHY
I'm having trouble getting into a few of the time sigs, they just sound kinda messy and random, frame 0D seems a bit too long (That might be nitpicking honestly lol) but from then on it sounds pretty good, I do have a problem with some the entire song goes together, it feels like the channels are fighting against each other and just feels kinda messy, also you should try adding more flare to your lead instruments, I like the idea (or concept) of this song, and if you work on it some more it can really improve into something amazing, keep it up!
_______________________
B00daW wrote: Memes are are like cheese; perishable.
Follow me on SoundCloud! http://soundcloud.com/thislinkisnttaken
It's not bad, but you've got so many channels on bass that you've got no room to be able to fill out the rest of the song - chords, arps, harmonies, countermelodies?
_______________________
[quote=iGotno_scope]im going to continue making this crazy stuff then after a while my style will be so sick that you will be like damn suuun that shit is so sick i dont even get it. i will be like bro its ok.. you dont have to.[/quote]
I agree with Pie on this one. The track is good from a songwriting stance, but you can totally flesh it out with some arps and other stuff going around.
I took the first measure of the second frame on the second 2A03 pulse and did something that would sound cool if you were to flesh it out. I would have done the whole frame and the other instruments too, but I cba considering it's 5:15 AM, but hopefully you get the picture. Real basic triads blah.
Thanks for the feedback everybody! The issue I was working with was that with 8 channels, having them clash was a big concern - especially since this is my first time using the VRC6 chip it was tricky to get them all to work together.
I did consider adding a second main melody to parts of the song - the issue is, they frequently clashed and produced a grating sound, but lower frequencies (<= low 2nd octave) didn't have that issue, so the backing arpeggios and melodies were usually in the bass range. I sought to make more use of the triangle to help accommodate for that - each section (for the most part) has its own unique groove (but I guess that's how it should be huh?)
Of course, that's part of the learning process - I appreciate the feedback given and will certainly keep it in mind!
@Cloud: I'll take a look at what you made.
EDIT: Did you guys open this in 0.4.1? I composed this in 0.3.7 (it was the version sitting on my desk at the time I began to work on this song), and I think 0.4.1 will cancel out all the effects unless you extend the FX bars. If not the song won't sound the way it should.
imo you had no need to use the VRC6 expansion with the bass you had going. With harmonies and counter harmonies, they really shouldn't clash if you have a correct note choice (correct is entirely subjective at that). I always tend to drop the volume of one of the lines slightly as well. If I'm feeling really bold I change the duty cycle too. Changing the duty cycle might actually be it for your arps. Also keep in mind they don't have to be in the spotlight. You can have some subtle arps in the back to fill out the soundscape.
I opened it up in some .4 version. Not sure witch one tbh, but the FX slots were extended.
Yes, this could have easily been squished into the 5 channels 2A03 has to offer.
While it's certainly not necessary to conform to the status-quo here, one has to wonder why anyone would bother adding additional channels just for a slightly more complex timbre or an octave or something.
Additionally, I can't help but ask why you've decided to change the [url=http://www.famitracker.com/wiki/index.php?title=Tempo]tempo to 148 in a piece that makes heavy use of unusual/varied timing. Changing the tempo generally results in FamiTracker making somewhat arbitrary ([url=http://www.famitracker.com/forum/posts.php?id=3928]algorithmic) decisions as to how many frames are in each row, and you'll wind up with uncontrollable... 'artifacts'... for lack of a better word that aren't really worth the difference of 2 BPM.
That said, I appreciate the subtle complexity of this track, and hope to see you continue your efforts.
_______________________
The only things certain in life are death and uncertainty.
[quote=Necrophageon]Yes, this could have easily been squished into the 5 channels 2A03 has to offer.[/quote]
So could the Akumajou Densetsu soundtrack, as evidenced by the North American release.
Just saying just because you can limit yourself to 5 channels, doesn't mean you [i]have to[/i]. A little bit of excess is nice sometimes. :)
_______________________
Follow me on [url=https://twitter.com/jrlepage2a03]Twitter.
I record (some) NSFs on hardware. Feel free to [url=http://www.famitracker.com/forum/posts.php?id=3633]request a hardware render.
[quote=Necrophageon]it's certainly not necessary to conform to the status-quo here[/quote]Hey, I covered that base. :P I've been guilty off such things on occasion because I liked it.
I was really just reiterating... a world of other options/possibilities exist, and it's good to be aware of them.
_______________________
The only things certain in life are death and uncertainty.
[quote=jrlepage][quote=Necrophageon]Yes, this could have easily been squished into the 5 channels 2A03 has to offer.[/quote]
So could the Akumajou Densetsu soundtrack, as evidenced by the North American release.
Just saying just because you can limit yourself to 5 channels, doesn't mean you [i]have to[/i]. A little bit of excess is nice sometimes. [/quote]
^ This. Actually, I found that during creation of the song 5 channels really wasn't enough for most of the effects and "fullness" of the song that I wanted. The thing is, I tend to obsess over small and minor details in the song - the other channels, if not contributing additional texture effects, either contain subtle bass arpeggios running at about half the volume of the main song, or were used for additional sound effects (the "dun-dun-dun" is such an example - that used up two sound channels for the specific crunchy sound I went for).
Perfectly valid observation though - I noticed that the others seem to note on that, feeling that the channels added little to the song. But I am a perfectionist, and the background textures and sounds added were very much fulfilling, albeit in a different way than the main parts. To put it another way, if you turn off the "extra" channels, you'll notice the song feels much emptier, even incomplete. Every part plays its role, and having 8 channels makes sure that every detail can be fulfilled in the manner I feel is best. After all, it's better to have the option to use them rather than arbitrarily limit myself to 5 channels.
[quote=Necrophageon]
Additionally, I can't help but ask why you've decided to change the [url=http://www.famitracker.com/wiki/index.php?title=Tempo]tempo to 148 in a piece that makes heavy use of unusual/varied timing. Changing the tempo generally results in FamiTracker making somewhat arbitrary ([url=http://www.famitracker.com/forum/posts.php?id=3928]algorithmic) decisions as to how many frames are in each row, and you'll wind up with uncontrollable... 'artifacts'... for lack of a better word that aren't really worth the difference of 2 BPM.
That said, I appreciate the subtle complexity of this track, and hope to see you continue your efforts. [/quote]
In regards to your first sentiment, I am interested to see what you mean by artifacts. Do you refer to small variations or irregularities in the sound? I couldn't help but feel that something was slightly off throughout the song (at inconsistent intervals - many times the same section would render a bit differently). Perhaps that is what you were referring to?
Because the second part of my answer is my insane attention to detail in a song. 148 seemed just right, 150 was a *tiny* bit fast. However, if it affects the quality of the song then I shall have to bear in mind that issue in the future - thanks for pointing that out.
I'm glad you liked the song and noticed all the little details put into it. I hope to use what I've learned here to craft a better song in the future.
[quote=BynaryFission]I tend to obsess over small and minor details in the song - the other channels, if not contributing additional texture effects, either contain subtle bass arpeggios running at about half the volume of the main song, or were used for additional sound effects (the "dun-dun-dun" is such an example - that used up two sound channels for the specific crunchy sound I went for).[/quote]I was trying to say this is totally valid, and I accept your usage. :P ..but at the same time I was also saying the same thing Pie and Cloud had said; other avenues are there for the taking... it's just good to be aware of them.
[quote=BynaryFission](at inconsistent intervals - many times the same section would render a bit differently).[/quote]Yes, this is exactly what I was referring to.
[quote=BynaryFission]148 seemed just right, 150 was a *tiny* bit fast. However, if it affects the quality of the song then I shall have to bear in mind that issue in the future - thanks for pointing that out.[/quote]I just meant that at a 60hz refresh rate (that is, 60 updates to the audio engine per-second), you're sort of locked into a grid of reasonably available tempi. Some folks use the ol' [url=http://www.famitracker.com/wiki/index.php?title=Fxx]Fxx switcheroo to attain tempi between those immediately available using only the Speed setting. If you've ever seen an FTM with a long string of Fxx commands... that's what they're doing. It's more-or-less the same thing FamiTracker does internally, but since you're setting the frames-per-row manually, you can work around the shorter rows since you'll be able to see where they are. (Example included)
Point being - working within said grid means that sometimes you'll have to make some compromises. Not that there's anything wrong with what you're doing, but some of us can hear the difference (including yourself :P).
I sure hope this doesn't come off as assholish... I only mention it because you seem like the kind of guy who's capable of grasping it. Just trying to help.
On a side note - after looking more closely, it might be useful to mention that G00 is the equivalent of telling FamiTracker, "delay this note by 0 frames," or, "don't do anything special at all."
[quote=Necrophageon]I just meant that at a 60hz refresh rate (that is, 60 updates to the audio engine per-second), you're sort of locked into a grid of reasonably available tempi. Some folks use the ol' [url=http://www.famitracker.com/wiki/index.php?title=Fxx]Fxx switcheroo to attain tempi between those immediately available using only the Speed setting. If you've ever seen an FTM with a long string of Fxx commands... that's what they're doing. It's more-or-less the same thing FamiTracker does internally, but since you're setting the frames-per-row manually, you can work around the shorter rows since you'll be able to see where they are. (Example included)
Point being - working within said grid means that sometimes you'll have to make some compromises. Not that there's anything wrong with what you're doing, but some of us can hear the difference (including yourself :P).
I sure hope this doesn't come off as assholish... I only mention it because you seem like the kind of guy who's capable of grasping it. Just trying to help.
On a side note - after looking more closely, it might be useful to mention that G00 is the equivalent of telling FamiTracker, "delay this note by 0 frames," or, "don't do anything special at all."
...will produce the exact same results. There's no real need to repeat the same Fxx command every row if no change is made.
...also F07, F06 x7 =/= 2(F04, F03 x7). It'd be closer if you changed every other F04 to F03. I'm inebriated and lazy. ..and I'll shut up now. :P[/quote]
Hey now, you don't come off as being an asshole at all - if anything I found what you said to very helpful. The thing is, instead of having to mess around with Fxx and Gxx, why not just increase the refresh rate overall? I'm sure that may introduce some issues with certain users, but if I'm exporting as a .wav (and converting to .mp3 in Audacity) maybe not.
Still, I get what you are saying - even if having to constantly switch F04 and F03 is a pain in the ass if offers some semblance of a workaround then I can try that...or maybe just stick to a bpm that works better with a 60 hz refresh rate. :P Thanks for those pointers - it's why I posted this song here, to get the advice that I wouldn't receive anywhere else.
[quote=BynaryFission]instead of having to mess around with Fxx and Gxx, why not just increase the refresh rate overall?[/quote]That's just the trouble, though (even with all those words, I could have been more specific). :\ I think many of us have had this thought, but FamiTracker seems to stick to the BPM = 6(Tempo) / Speed formula regardless of engine speed.
This is the sort of thing someone like jsr, rainwarrior, or jrlepage (not to exclude many others that come to mind... B00daW... Dwedit... blah-blah-blah) would be better equipped to answer.
I've played with it a few times, and from what I can tell, increasing the engine speed adds to the frames (updates) per row by some formulaic/algorithmic amount my brain doesn't want to think about, but the tempo from row-to-row will remain the way it would have been if you just left it at the standard 60hz.
The discussion in [url=http://www.famitracker.com/forum/posts.php?id=3928]this thread is probably relatable somehow, but overclocking is one of those things I've never really looked much into. Just know it won't be much help in squeezing out precise tempi as-is.
*Secretly hoping someone answers this more directly because I kind of want to know how/why it works this way, myself* :P
_______________________
The only things certain in life are death and uncertainty.
It is true that the BPM = 6(Tempo) / Speed formula remains, but that shouldn't cause any problems if I understood your question right. What you should do is to adjust the tempo setting to a value more suitable for the custom refresh rate. The fact that 150 BPM results in consistent speeds is only true for 60 Hz, but both values are proportional to each other. For example, if you increase the refresh rate to 90 Hz, then you can use 90/60 = 1.5, multiply 150 with 1.5 and you get 225. So if you're using tempo 225 at 90 Hz then all speed-values will be consistent again. Or do the calculation backwards to find a suitable refresh rate for a selected tempo.
