ADR3-N's audio Reviews on Newgrounds

[HeaD BoP]

Looks like this may have been brick wall limited. That kick at 13 is massively loud. I feel like it's going to squash everything in its path.

By 0:41 I'm noticing pretty hardcore side-chain pumping, and your instruments are starting to sound muddy. The compression here is a bit beyond what your instrumental can sustain.

Drop at 1:22 is not as clean sounding as 1:13, but it is catchy. I'd bring that kick down about 1-2 dB, possibly space out your keys a little bit. They sound very centered, which makes the track as a whole sound more quaint and narrow than it really is.

2:18 section was a good choice stylistically. I would have probably been ear fatigued by now had you not moved to a slow triplet feel. Can't tell if you've actually changed meter or not, but the effect is the same.

Chord progression is good. Bass, compelling. I find myself wanting a little more of your snares and claps. Solid structure and the piece seems to know where it's going for the most part melodically.

Nice work for a three day cram piece. Thanks for coming out to NGUAC!

[Crusher]

I like this intro -- also glad to hear that you'll revisit it once you're able.

0:13 section has a nice swing to it. Little sibilant in the ears though. Watch those high frequencies.

Mixing on this is otherwise very clean sounding. Absolutely slamming drop, which again is cleanly mixed. Could probably use a little more bass -- maybe an underlying sine wave. Of course you'd need to compensate for this by dropping the growls down a bit.

I can't really comment on much else, since the piece is short and unfinished. Were the rest of the track of this quality, it'd be a solid 9/10.

Thanks for coming out to NGUAC!

[On Edge]

Opening almost reminds me of ME1 music. I would take a bit more care with your lower intervals. Octaves and 5ths sound clean in lower ranges than major 3rds, 4ths, and other intervals, which are better separated from your bass instruments. Recommend studying this concept, as it will massively improve your soundscaping ability.

In short, a lot of your interval clashes can be solved by either choosing to omit doubled thirds or fifths of a chord (most people will not double 5ths anyway because they're so strong) or use chord inversions. If you don't know a lot of these terms, I recommend you study music theory. There are plenty of YouTube tutorials for this, and it's fairly easy to understand and implement right away in your music if you're willing to just take a few minutes a day, write notes, and go back to practice some concepts. Seriously, it makes all the difference; take time to learn all the rules so you can later break them.

This piece actually does not sound as bad as you probably think it does. Other than really muddy low end occasionally pumping out, mid range counter melody sticking out a bit over the top of other instruments, and chunky low-mids, this piece is actually atmospherically sound. 3:17 it does start to overdrive and get into distortion territory. Watch your levels and try not to just rely on compressors and brick wall limiting to keep your headroom under control. Definitely recommend mixing and mastering tutorial study there.

Thanks for coming out to NGUAC!

Andethy responds:

Thanks for the feedback. I just didn’t have time to learn these things well, but at least I tried. I tried a lot to limit the distortion levels at that point but it kept making the mix worse :( Thanks again

[Hunter&Prey]

Opening chord sounds good. Could use less reverb/delay, as it doesn't quite sound clean.

Cello modulation needs to be a little bit quicker to emulate a finger sliding up a string. That synth could also use less low mid and more 12k-20k.

This piece has potential, but it sounds very unfinished. In fact, it's not so much the repetition that gets me but the sudden cutoff at the end. I was very much expecting this song to go places. You might appreciate some song structuring tutorials, etc., or perhaps listening to other songs in your chosen genre to give you an idea of where else to go with your piece. As is, you've just got a minor i chord. Have a listen to some synthwave and take the time to learn a little bit of the music theory/structure of the works. It will immensely expedite your writing process. I say this because what you've got here sounds like the intro to a potential 6 minute banger.

Overall, regret I can't justify giving a better score. There's just not enough here to form an opinion. Thanks for coming out to NGUAC!

tansuma1 responds:

Thanks for your honesty ADR3-N. If anything being in the NGUAC has shown me just how under prepared I was and how much more development I need to go through in order to make the cut. Whenever I have free time I shall continue to develop as a musician. This will be that 6 minute banger one day, I promise!

[Synapse]

Opening synth sounds like it has a lot of overtone hanging over in that reverb, kinda tin-canny. Needs a shorter release and a little more cut on it.

0:25, that 808 hit is soooo sweet, but it's run over by your leads, the low pads, and hihats, the latter of which I would recommend maybe panning. A fun thing to do with those is to have two different hats and pan them 40% L/R respectively.

Structure of this song is pretty solid without being overtly predictable.

I would stray away from such thick, parallel motion low-mid chords. Lower interval limits make for a useful study.

Definitely pull those pads, leads, and possibly clacks down a bit. Your 808, kick, and snare need to be the loudest elements of your track, and they need a relatively clean sound space to play in. Most of the space in a track comes from roomy percussion, not your leads -- I can hear the reverb tails on your leads clear over the bass, which is not a good thing. Turn down that reverb wet and cut it some more!

Other than that, decent track. I would definitely recommend a study of chord progressions, lead writing, and harmony. You've got structure down. Mixing would be my next concern, but you're getting there, and other than the relative clutter, nothing sounds horrible, peaky, or otherwise nasty. If your instruments were arranged a little more cleanly note-wise, a lot of that muddiness would clear up.

Overall, enjoyed the piece. Thanks for coming out to NGUAC!

StaticLF responds:

Thanks for both of your reviews ADR3-N. The feedback has been very insightful and informative. Never thought that I would get this much criticism back from doing this competition. Making these tracks has been a fun experience.

[Tears Ft. Lowpry]

Nice wobbly intro. Really does sound like a weedling record player. I'm liking the atmosphere of this piece.

By 0:50, the low sine bass is blowing the crisp highs off this piece. Turn it down some and/or swap to a grittier synth.

I don't quite like that crackly sample you're using on the offbeats of your choruses. Sounds like stirring a pot of sticky mac or popping that weird foam ball stuff in your hands that girls used to dig some years ago.

Beyond that, some stellar olskool. I'd like to hear a little more hard hitting perc, just to give the track some punch, maybe more low mid, a little more sibilance, etc, but that could just be my personal taste talking. Track works functionally and aesthetically well.

Thanks for coming out to NGUAC!

Ruko29 responds:

Thank you uwu

[Keep Me Awake]

Very clean opening sound -- perhaps a bit too much send on that reverb/delay for my tastes, and a little sibilant/tinny on your hats, as well as distorted vocals.

I would have liked the synths at 0:01 to stay at roughly the same level throughout. The muddier they get, the less they support the other elements of your track. Could also use more volume on your kick and snare. I can barely hear them.

0:15 is a nice atmosphere. Second listen I turned it down and everything sounds better. Turned up, it's just sooo sibilant!

1:00 synth is a bit mid heavy. Hurting my ears a bit. Bring it down some.

Jazz bass sounds great. I find myself wanting it already at 1:30.

2:07, drums are a bit too quiet relative to the rest of the soundscape.

2:40 is extremely tinny, getting tinnier and tinnier. I had to turn it down despite this being your outro. You may want to consider a hearing test if you're having trouble hearing these frequencies -- they're some of those frequently lost by audio engineers, concert goers, etc. 3:08, they are absolutely ear piercingly loud to me, and I'm sure I have some hearing loss.

Other than that, sweet song. Thanks for coming out to NGUAC!

[I]

That reversed piano sounds so familiar! May be because I'm used to hearing keys in G maj, haha. Very smooth intro, although that low register chord is really chunky sounding to my ears. I try not to play major thirds that low down.

I could also do without the vinyl scratching. It's bugging me in the left ear. It sounds like it's looping.

Chord progression around 1:10 is also a little chunky sounding in the low register. Recommend Adam Neely's Q&A #52 on lower interval limits.

I'm not really sure where this piece is going. Find myself losing attention occasionally if I don't make the effort to keep focused on the sound scape. A lot of your melodic content is covered up with reverb and boxy low-mids throughout.

I initially never would have guessed this was synthwave were it not for 3:05, and the transition into this section was a bit clumsy. 2:53, for reference. Not only is there not a lot of dynamic contrast there, there's no indication this section here is not in fact the final chorus, so when we do hear it, we don't know what's going on.

Additionally, across all of your choruses, the pads and bass cover up both your percussion and leads, sucking the energy out of the track. The two-chord progression you use for your drop I would expect for a bridge. I really don't feel any resolution. So, while the contrast between sections is great, I'm not really able to feel a sense of climax at the points you most want to convey it.

Still, good piece. Enjoyed it. Thanks for coming out to NGUAC!

Red65 responds:

hey man, appreciate your feedback. I'll reupload an improved version of the track once the judging phase has passed because looking back, it doesn't really deliver as much as I thought it would.

//red