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
Any opinions on this would be appreciated. I'm well aware that the second channel might sound odd or unfaithful in some ways, but I'm pretty satisfied with it.
_______________________
Soon that person will revive it...
So life isn't cruel...
And so that's why you continue your life...
With someone who cares...
And so you shall live in Happiness...
For pulse 2, I think 25% duty cycle is a better fit than 50% duty cycle.
I also think it's weird to use arps as well - when a lot of the charm of the song is from groovy diads (or whatever you call those two note melodic chords)
And I'd double check if the wandering bass (triangle in this cover) is correct everywhere.
Also, even though the original song doesn't use them, it feels like the kind of song that would sound nice slathered in pitch bends.
You are right Patashu. Also, arps have always bugged me, and I hate them since the first time I heard them. They must be really well implemented for me to like them.
Good work though, Vectorman. Keep improving your skills.
[quote=Mr_Master]You are right Patashu. Also, arps have always bugged me, and I hate them since the first time I heard them. They must be really well implemented for me to like them.[/quote]
Arps are not bad - bad use of arps is bad. When arps are used in a way that screams 'I really wish a piano was playing chords right now but all I have are these shitty arps ' then they suck. When they sweep and re-trigger and maintain good volume modulation and surprise you and duty cycle change they're sick as hell.
All I can say is to have the noise channel support the snares, and to have it play cymbals like danooct1's cover.
Yeah, that's all I got. Great job, by the way.
_______________________
"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." -omgdonut
Thanks for all of the feedback guys. I've been thinking that I should replace the arps in the second half with the accompanying melody or whatever it's called, but I think that for the first half and for the stop time parts, they're okay. Also, I'll see what I can do about the noise and snare. Again, thanks.
You should put some volume control on your arps. This can be done on a new instrument, which defines that the first note should be the loudest, the second a little quieter, and the third a bit quieter. This way they will sound smoothier, since as I said, arps bug me a lot when they are at high volumes. Consider changing their duties to make them sound better.
I'm looking forward to see an update of this FTM, so good luck on it.
[quote=Mr_Master]You should put some volume control on your arps. This can be done on a new instrument, which defines that the first note should be the loudest, the second a little quieter, and the third a bit quieter.[/quote]
Do you mean 'first set of notes' 'second set of notes' etc?
Okay, so I've ended up with two different versions of the song. The first one is the one that was the original with arps with some modifications to make it sound better, but compared to the second one I made, I really don't like this one much anymore. The second one was made using the suggestion that I use the (I looked it up, it is either a diad like you said or an interval) diads that the original song used, and I like this one a lot more. Ver. 2 will likely be the one I choose to be my final, after I make a few finishing touches. Again, thanks for all of the helpful feedback. [quote=]Also, even though the original song doesn't use them, it feels like the kind of song that would sound nice slathered in pitch bends.[/quote] Oh yes it does.
casino_night_ver._2.ftm is a lot more accurate but has some issues.
First issue: You have phasing issues on pulse 1 and pulse 2. When you play the same note on two channels, their waveforms are 'stuck' at the same speed at each other - and stacking pulse waves can destructively interfere or constructively interfere based on random chance (what their phases were relative to each other when you started), and so you get an unpredictable result that depends on random starting conditions.
To fix this, put P81 on pulse 2. Why this fixes it is, pulse 2 will now be a tiny tiny bit lower frequency than pulse 1 - and so whenever they play the same note, pulse 2 will drift out of sync with pulse 1, and you don't get a stuck waveform.
However, you should avoid playing the same note on two channels at once to begin with - unless they are different timbres (pulse + tri), or you are making a phasing effect on purpose (having two C-1s on pulse and having one offset by a single pitch unit can be the start to an interesting bass effect). If it's short and intermittent it's fine, but if it's deliberate you should consider using a diad instead, either a simple one like octave or perfect fifth/fourth, or a major/minor third lower than the lead note.
(Another solution is to have note volume fade out such that notes on the same pitch overlap less so that the phasing issue is less noticable.)
Secondly: The use of diads to follow the melody definitely feels more accurate and full, but I kind of miss the backing diads (/ chords? not sure) now. In 2a03, it's an interesting challenge to solve a problem like this. Example solutions include:
1) Putting triangle or bass guitar samples on DPCM, thus giving yourself another voice.
2) Pre-generating and sampling all chords you need and playing them as DPCM.
3) Arpeggiating chords/diads on one or more pulses. (You can try it on tri also, but it sounds bad unless it's slow. Also, you can do more complex arpeggios as instrument macros - such as slowed down ones, sweeping ones that span 2 or even 3 octaves and so on.)
4) Giving yourself more rows to work with, then putting down many, many notes in the channels such that you can get the melodies/implied harmonies of even more instruments multiplexed together. (This is kind of hard to explain, but basically the more you do the more you can imply - it's kind of the root maxim of arpeggios for example.)
Thirdly: This is just my personal opinion, but I think this would sound really fancy if you pitch bent into some of the notes - like, pretend you're playing guitar and sliding over the frets every now and again.
The chords in this are triads. In case you didn't know, Vectorman, you can make diads with 0x0. For a fifth, for example, 070.
_______________________
"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." -omgdonut
[quote=poodlecock]The chords in this are triads. In case you didn't know, Vectorman, you can make diads with 0x0. For a fifth, for example, 070.[/quote] Yes, yes, I know. I've done it before.
@Patashu Wow, that was an incredibly quick, incredibly detailed response. Thanks. I'll see what I can do to eliminate the wave confliction, and about that, do you mean to switch the second pulse to P81 right from the beginning, or just to switch it to that whenever the same notes are playing? I'll also check the original song again to see if they're all even the correct note, if that was the problem. I'm pretty sure that it's correct right before the last stop time part though. And I think I know what you mean about issue 2. The DPCM is a good idea, the problem I have with that personally is that I will probably lose the Sonic 2 snare (It's practically inaudible, but still). About the other suggestion...
So what you're basically saying is that I sort of put three parts in two pulse channels, right? I think I've seen it done before, alternating parts between channels and slipping in the third parts notes in between one of the others. It's nothing I've experienced before, nothing I've tried even, so I don't know about that one.
[quote=Vectorman]
@Patashu Wow, that was an incredibly quick, incredibly detailed response. Thanks. I'll see what I can do to eliminate the wave confliction, and about that, do you mean to switch the second pulse to P81 right from the beginning, or just to switch it to that whenever the same notes are playing?[/quote]
It's safe to do P81 and P7F whenever the pitches are not very high (usually octave 5+), because how pitch works in 2a03 is that higher pitches have fewer values between them (octave 7 notes are only a single value apart!) and so a single point is not audible at octave 4- but approaches quarter tones at octave 5+.
[quote=Vectorman]
I'll also check the original song again to see if they're all even the correct note, if that was the problem. I'm pretty sure that it's correct right before the last stop time part though.[/quote]
Keep in mind that the Genesis version can get away with having two instruments play the same pitch, because Genesis instruments are frequency modulated and two at the same pitch are quite different and overlap nicely.
[quote=Vectorman]The DPCM is a good idea, the problem I have with that personally is that I will probably lose the Sonic 2 snare (It's practically inaudible, but still).[/quote]
You could use the sonic 2 snare in the beginning then swap to a noise snare that crudely approximates it, if you go that path.
[quote=Vectorman] About the other suggestion...
So what you're basically saying is that I sort of put three parts in two pulse channels, right? I think I've seen it done before, alternating parts between channels and slipping in the third parts notes in between one of the others. It's nothing I've experienced before, nothing I've tried even, so I don't know about that one.[/quote]
Multiplexing the idea of three or more instruments into two channels is a vital technique for doing anything cool in 2a03, and definitely worth practicing. For example, if you're playing a diad on two pulses, the non leading note (usually the lower note, but for example you can take out the note that's in tri if the tri is audible enough to cover for it, or a note that's in an arp, or...) can be cut off to play a complex secondary melody instead of sustaining it all of the time. Shatterhand uses this a lot as an example, swapping between playing diads and lead over backing melody.
' then they suck. When they sweep and re-trigger and maintain good volume modulation and surprise you and duty cycle change they're sick as hell..png)
