(http://img353.imageshack.us/img353/5166/driftingos9.jpg)
Time passed dramatically fast i can tell you, few months are like few days for me.
So much work and so little time to enjoy life... ermmm anyway, recently finished the 1.1 vocal mash-up version, enjoy:
http://psi.lp1.nl/music/Signal_Chain_-_Drifting_1.1_vocal_mashup_version.mp3 (http://psi.lp1.nl/music/Signal_Chain_-_Drifting_1.1_vocal_mashup_version.mp3)
drifting:
i was expecting something relaxing. well, this is true for a big part of the tune, but the drums are too aggressive imo. but the melodies are top-notch.
mirror added
Notes as i'm listening:
Excellent intro for Trance. Good transition at :55. Love the aural sounds at about 1:50 as the melody begins, but i'm finding the same problem here pulling out elements from the mix. You've used the same stereo effect for everything, so all the sounds are mixed in a soup and nothing has a place. It's not horrible nor amateurish, just sounds "over-produced". Take the stereo effect out of only some of the sounds you're using, and instead pan it to a certain aural location. You can still find good use for the delay effect and bounce that around, but ground some sounds (esp. the hard ones like anything staccato or percussive) at their own spots in space (the drum element here is fine). Then apply Reverb to put them "out there". If you do use stereo bring it down just enough to keep it from being empty and mono (unless that can produce an effect on its own), and use Reverb and Delay to create the effect of an ensemble of sound (coming from one source). I wouldn't change the mix levels, melodic layout, or the chordal and rhythmic progressions -- only the engineering needs any work here. BTW, as a connossieur of Trance, this is an excellent example of this genre! I'm keeping this one in the rotation, and will have my eye out if you come up with a new-and-improved production! (But i must say, if you don't change anything, the richness kind of grows on you, so feel free to ignore my wisdom! :D)
And concerning the artwork: that is sublime and inspiring. (Thanks for keeping it decent; since i'm a prude i'm easily offended! 8) )
Very very constructive and helpful critic Harbinger (for every of my recent songs or WIP pieces). I'll listen to them and will improve my weak points. I never wanted to ignore you (or anyone) at all :D, everybody can have a very good point from a different type of view, that i can't see maybe all the time. You can expect an improved piece, but i need to figure out some technical stuff first.
After i posted i realized i had broken one of my unspoken cardinal rules: don't compose someone else's creation! You obviously know what you're doing, and prob'ly know better than me how to do it thru MPT, and definitely know better than me the sound you're going for. So i do apologize for the over-critique...but if you're not offended, then it's all good. I do my best to describe what i hear, and try to avoid describing what i would do instead. But it is excellent work, and you'll make any improvements you deem fit. It's all cool 8)
Harbringer You did pinpoint the things that sounded strange to your ears and tried to help how would they sound more appealing. That is what the critics are about, i'm very much glad for these comments and i'll never be offended. :) I'm always looking forward to hear what is on people's mind, so don't hold back on me.
Also i've received other point of views from other friends as well, and had enough time to thing about them. Now, the improved piece is online.
changelist:
- changed main kickdrum
- dynamic fixup
- added fixed stereo panning to some sounds
- added variable moving stereo panning to some sounds
- added some extra variations and extra instruments here and there
- worked a bit on the final EQ to suit my ears/speakers better, but this can be very variable and personal
time: 5:01.75 - I love the breakthrough and the tune that starts here. It gives me the shiver, but (IMO) the saw synthetizer have a lil bit too big loudness/cutoff hops in here. 5:06-5:08: here the LFO (or just note repeatng) is in it's peak level.
Whole track seems to me as a great piece of epic ambiental trance :)
Fantastic tunes, psishock! :D
Maybe I'am listening to some old version of 'Drifting' (downloading failed when i tried today - 404 n.f.)
Excellent update. This one stays in my rotation! :wink:
hm, just listened to the first one, then replaced it by the latest version.
And I must say, that I miss a bit of the raw daring excitement of the first one.
(I guess drifring is a typo).
I just got the newest version. I hear some more dynamics compression and EQ treatment. As for me: it got better. IMO compression and EQ fits here.
Quote from: "Unfa"time: 5:01.75 - I love the breakthrough and the tune that starts here. It gives me the shiver
Lol, that part gave me the same shivers 2 when i've heard it on the first few times ^^, it's a nice subconscious sign that it's good what i'm doing. I'm really glad that you've enjoyed it 2.
Quote from: "Unfa", but (IMO) the saw synthetizer have a lil bit too big loudness/cutoff hops in here. 5:06-5:08: here the LFO (or just note repeatng) is in it's peak level.
Gocha, it's intentional, i think it will stay, but anything can change over time 'till the "real" release.
Quote from: "Sam_Zen"hm, just listened to the first one, then replaced it by the latest version. And I must say, that I miss a bit of the raw daring excitement of the first one.
Hmm, i'm aiming as you can see for more dynamic and stronger sounding, but both versions have they good and down sides. The first one is a lot more "weaker" or raw as you've stated. But for general ears (imo), the second version is the more appealing one, and i'm trying to go on that way.
Quote from: "Sam_Zen"(I guess drifring is a typo).
Yes, please don't mind it.
Quote from: "Harbinger"Excellent update. This one stays in my rotation! ;)
You're welcome. ^^
Still work in progress, but it's still a big update that is worthwhile to show. :D
this is great - the piano ending and vocals superb!!
wow! :shock:
Notes as i'm listening
I was starting to like it, but was unnerved by the vocals. I think i got too used to the original version, and the updated version just didn't seem as good. It seemed like we were missing some of the channels of the song -- alot of the layers were gone. The piano addition was okay, but would have sounded better mixed in with the layer from the original.
For myself, i think trance is better with only one or two vocals, because they tend to be distracting from the instrumentals. But that's my taste.
Yjana, however, loved the new version better than the original. She said she would have liked the vocals to be repeated and the song lengthened. Neither of us though like the disappearing of the beat at the end of the song.
So as for me, i'll keep the original in my rotation. I have a feeling Yjana will keep this newer version. I am glad to know this is still a WIP (i just saw the previous post). :wink:
uncloned: i'm glad that it gave you this nice impression! ^^
Harbinger: i believe deeply in the "power of instruments" too, this is the main reason why all of my pieces are off vocals. Note the first post, there are two versions coming, with 2 different development. I cant add aggressive melody or synth lines to the vocal parts, because it will ruin it's beauty, i will leave that to the instrumental version (will possibly do different scene timing structure on it too). The reason for the vocal version, because as you know, i like to experiment with *everything* (--> learning, gathering good experience from them), and this was a nice opportunity to do it with vocal work. :)
The layers are not gone just the structure is reworked, example you can hear the drifting 1.0 strings hit on ~4:15+, the ambient intro part from 1.0 when the beats take off on ~3:21, ect ect. Actually many new layers are added too, check the percussion work and the bass. And what did you heard in this WIP are mostly only the new ideas, i haven't imported the stuffs that i liked from the old version yet, so many more can still be expected, like the FM melody, sine line and similar.
I'm sure that everything will add up in the end, to have a nice and fully enjoyable piece. Tho' there is always a chance that you will still like the old version better, :D and that's why i'm posting them as a different version (the changes are so big, you can take them as a full remixes), rather than just updating the original song.
I'd like to stick this in a DJ mix I'm working on and release on my blog if that's ok?
I loved this track. Engineering needs a little work. Low end just about blew my woofer up. Probably wanna cut the low end out at about 35 or 40hz.
I love that string bending melody about 1/2 way threw. Spiritual stuff.
Quote from: "Zaphoid"I'd like to stick this in a DJ mix I'm working on and release on my blog if that's ok?
That is ok, you're free to use it in your mix, for your blog Zaphoid, happy mixing. ;)
It's still very much in WIP phase, there are stuff that needs to be fixed on it, and of course the second half to finish. I'm not sure when will that all actually happen'.
Quote from: "Zaphoid"I loved this track. Engineering needs a little work. Low end just about blew my woofer up. Probably wanna cut the low end out at about 35 or 40hz.
If low ends are bothering you, that should be easy to cut even while mixing with other songs. It may be trouble to fit these freqs for woofers, 'coz i don't have one, only monitoring speakers and headphones.
Quote from: "Zaphoid"I love that string bending melody about 1/2 way threw. Spiritual stuff.
Working hard to add that extra "soul" to the sounds, that makes people smile while listening. ^^
If your planning on releasing on vinyl you might wanna think about putting your bass freq in mono or you will shake the needle right off the record.
Yes it will be easy to cut the bass down in the mix but I thought it would be good to point out. trying to helpful.
Do you have a good pair of flat freq response headphones for mixing purposes?
Quote
If your planning on releasing on vinyl you might wanna think about putting your bass freq in mono
Not only for vinyl. The human ear can't really differ where a very low freq sound comes from, so it's better to save the stereo spectrum for all instruments with higher frequencies. So it's a good idea to use a plugin like Otium Basslane to convert anything below e.g. 150 hz to mono.
good suggestion man. I didn't know about that program
Quote from: "Zaphoid"If your planning on releasing on vinyl you might wanna think about putting your bass freq in mono or you will shake the needle right off the record.
wow i didn't even brained about that, thanks for pointing that fact out. I'm not sure about vinyl release, but it's always ok to look ahead of the problems.
Quote from: "Zaphoid"Yes it will be easy to cut the bass down in the mix but I thought it would be good to point out. trying to helpful.
I know, it's always very appreciated, and i am trying my best all the time to solve the technical comments. But the very low freqs can give me trouble, maybe will rent a studio for short, and set these levels before the album release.
Quote from: "Zaphoid"Do you have a good pair of flat freq response headphones for mixing purposes?
Well i do have some nice pair of studio headphones, high frequencies are alright, i can divide them up even around 20khz, but while the low ones below 40hz are audible, not very responsive, so even + - 10db don't have much impact. I can set example the ~40-120+hz bass freqs pretty accurately. It depends however, how tired my ears are too.
Quote from: "Jojo"So it's a good idea to use a plugin like Otium Basslane to convert anything below e.g. 150 hz to mono.
That plugin sounds intresting, i'll definitely give it a try. Thanks Jojo.
Quote from: "Jojo"The human ear can't really differ where a very low freq sound comes from
That may be true, when i was a kid and my father yelled at me all from a sudden, i have almost jumped off my chair, because it seemed as the sounds were coming from everywhere. :D
QuoteThe human ear can't really differ where a very low freq sound comes from
Occasionally this has been meant in earlier threads before and I still strongly disagree with this.
It has not been proven by any physical, scientific tests, and it's not proved by the reality at home.
This misconception has been promoted by Dolby when the 5.1 construction was launched.
To sell you two miserable milkpacks as speakers for Left and Right, and a big wooden box as bassbin,
to hide somewhere behind the sofa.
Of course the human ears can make a difference whether the thunder is coming from one side or another.
But this myth is made, because things were turned around :
Because all producers mix the bass-guitar and the kick-drum in the middle of the panning,
it is then sufficient, to have one bass speaker in the middle.
(The same reverse reasoning happened with the silly addition of a 'center speaker'.
Enhancing the sounds which are normally panned in the middle too, like talking heads or singers.)
Anyway, check the starting sounds of "Jetsex" by 'Tonto's Expanding Head band' :
http://www.louigiverona.com/webarchive/samzen/download/eiland/ZT_02.ogg
*
this is for 'educational purposes' so I don't mind. :)
Heh, you know Sam that i was only kidding with my silly example, of course you can differ any audible frequencies. If you have multiple speakers (i have quadrophonic ones), or even stereo, you can easily point out the source of the deep vibrations. If it gives problematic technical difficulties however, like Zaphoid pointed out, i don't really mind downmixing to mono the very low ones. Still, i believe, that the best solution should be keeping them balanced around the center (panned to center never means mono in my dictionary, these two are different terms), rather downmixig, because im having stereo and multiple basslines is most cases (yes, very fast and different volume changes on left and right speakers). It's true, that i am keeping them around center too in most cases, because it's more comfortable for the ear to have the driving low sounds in the middle in my opinion too, but occasionally panning them around here and there, with effects, to give interesting moments to the listener (on some transitions example). It seemed however, that a good, center balanced stereo is giving me a richer experience, rather than a downmixed mono.
Your example is a very good "proof of the concept" by the way.
here is my short example of a simple stereo saw bass sound, we have two oscillators, one is hard panned to left, other is to right, the default frequency is slightly modified on one. I went from ridiculously low to show what you "hear" in the higher regions:
http://psishock.lpchip.com/music/simplesawtest.mp3
absolutely stereo, as it's bouncing from left and right with very fast saw volume changes, but still very balanced and pleasant impression on normal bass frequencies.
Well, not my kind of music but I really enjoyed the vocals and the piano ending.
I may be wrong but the vocals reminds me of a song that was delivered with a demo version of Fruity Loops Studio...
However, great work psishock.
thanks for liking it TheEagle. I'm sure that the vocals can remind you a whole lot of other songs, i don't know the FL studio demo ones (to be exact, i don't remember them right, and i'm not downloading it now), but this practical one is a theme from a video game, called Mirror's Edge, singed by Lisa Miskovsky, songname Still Alive.
Here is their original one:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SzmUde_EK5Y
and the acoustic guitar mix, that i liked much much better, it captured me on first listen :D:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xVcwFUVRrUg
Quote from: "psishock"...and the acoustic guitar mix, that i liked much much better, it captured me on first listen :D:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xVcwFUVRrUg
Yes, indeed. A beautiful woman with a beautiful voice... :)
2 Psi : nice example too.
As you say, mixing not at 50% but slightly out of the middle is not mono, and works fine.
So you have quadrofonic speakers as well. Horizontal or vertical ?
They are standing vertically not lying horizontally (if that is what you mean), the bass speaker on each box is on the bottom, most nearest to the ground, the middle on middle, and the lil one for the high frequencies are in the upper area. I don't have a dedicated studio, and i don't really think, that my living/working room has a good acoustical preferences to start with, so it shouldn't matter much...
And the truth is, that i end up most of the time using them in "double stereo" mode, because i'm using stereo headphones too and releasing the stuffs also in stereo, just like buying, downloading stereo stuff (mp3/cd).
Nice tune! And I really recommend mirror's edge for those who haven't played it yet.
About directional bass frequencies, I present to you my own example without too many harmonic frequencies: http://www.easy-share.com/1907481832/stereobass.ogg
1st part is a bass frequency played panned hard left and hard right but inverted on one channel. This is to demonstrate why it's not a good idea to pan bass because people might listen in mono. Also, the sound here will be very effected by the distance between left and right speaker and the listener. Please also compare listening with headphones to listening with speakers (both 2.0 and 2.1 setupd if possible).
2nd part has a single bass sound panned from left to right a couple of times.
3rd and 4th part are the same but one octave higher. This is just so you can compare to the first two, and see that frequency does matter.
Finally, no matter whether you believe bass is directional or not, there are many practical reasons always to treat it like mono.
Apologies for DC offset and some clicks. Try to disregard the clicks.
With the risk of further hijacking here : I understand the various reasons to handle bass freqs like that,
but I resist to take it for granted as a common assumption.
As a composer or producer I like to have the freedom to put a bass guitar only at the left channel.
And of course high freqs keep their original source position longer, due to physical law.
I personally take a clue from George Martin and the Beatles. In the 60's stereo was actually used to present an image. Not so true anymore.
It was common for George to isolate an instrument or voice in a channel.
Well, I obviously am stuck in the sixties, because I still like to produce stereo as an image.
Even with moving sound-objects. Which were banned by the purists first, because it was not realistic..
George indeed used isolated sources in a channel, but this was also due to the restrictions of working with a 4 channel taperecorder. 'Rubber Soul' is a good example of this technique.
I don't have the album anymore but I found an original of "Nowhere man" at Tudou :
http://www.tudou.com/programs/view/R2_JE2T6VAs/
Roughly spoken it could have gone like :
- record 4 channels.
- mix 3 and 4 with 1 and 2, to have room for another 3 and 4 recording while 1 and 2 are playing.
- mix again, until the last recording on 3 and 4 (in this case obviously the vocals)
- to get the final stereo, mix 1 and 2 into Left, and 3 and 4 into Right.
Check out the mix with Titanium and Drifting in the mix. I put 2 of my own in there as well. The rest are from TIS.
http://zaphoid-music.blogspot.com/2009/08/tismodplug-mix.html
Quote from: "Sam_Zen"And of course high freqs keep their original source position longer, due to physical law.
I don't quite understand "keep their original source position"?
Quote from: "uncloned"I personally take a clue from George Martin and the Beatles. In the 60's stereo was actually used to present an image. Not so true anymore.
Besides what Sam said, stereo was a new thing and new things (in music) are almost always over-used.
Quote from: "Sam_Zen"As a composer or producer I like to have the freedom to put a bass guitar only at the left channel.
You are right about that, and nobody forbids you to do that. However, you cannot deny that some common practices _do_ make sense. If you want to do "olskool mixing" with the bass guitar only on the left, that's still ok, as it's not as severe as if you put a bass sample on the left, another on the left and then one in the middle. You have bass every where, and that's what makes a mix muddy in many cases.
Quote1st part is a bass frequency played panned hard left and hard right but inverted on one channel.
You can achive that with the S91 command in IT files for example, it's called fake surround. And please
never, ever use it on bass or drums - for echos, yes, but not for the main drums or bass. It just... hurts.
Quote from: "Jojo"You can achive that with the S91 command in IT files for example, it's called fake surround. And please never, ever use it on bass or drums - for echos, yes, but not for the main drums or bass. It just... hurts.
Actually that's how the surround channel in prologic is encoded, so it's only "fake" if you listen to it on a normal stereo system. The whole point of the example is however that panning bass can easily cause unpredictable effects, i.e. you can't predict how it will sound on other systems. And phase errors are more pronounced the lower the frequency, trying to correct it with panning will only solve it on your current setup. Anyway, I'm really sorry for digressing, perhaps a mod can move this discussion to a new thread?
QuoteActually that's how the surround channel in prologic is encoded, so it's only "fake" if you listen to it on a normal stereo system
Yes I know, but I assume that most of us here listen to this on stereo equipment, so it will of course not result in real surround sound.
Quote from: "Jojo"QuoteActually that's how the surround channel in prologic is encoded, so it's only "fake" if you listen to it on a normal stereo system
Yes I know, but I assume that most of us here listen to this on stereo equipment, so it will of course not result in real surround sound.
Naturally, just trying to give some background.
Quote from: "g"
Quote from: "uncloned"I personally take a clue from George Martin and the Beatles. In the 60's stereo was actually used to present an image. Not so true anymore.
Besides what Sam said, stereo was a new thing and new things (in music) are almost always over-used.
are you saying mono is better?
Quote from: "uncloned"are you saying mono is better?
Hehe, no. I'm saying stereo was overdone in the 60's with instruments panned hard in imbalanced ways, resulting in a (tom) very artificial and unnatural sound.
An example of what I consider to be good use of stereo is the Radiohead song Nude (produced by Nigel Godrich). Much more pleasant to listen to in stereo than something like Lucy in the sky with diamonds (which is an AWESOME song... in mono!).
you know though....
if you see a real band in like a club or bar venue
Instruments ARE panned hard left and right. And in between.
Now for that disembodied tom - that is different.
Psy - is this off topic series of posts ok with you?
Quote from: "uncloned"you know though....
if you see a real band in like a club or bar venue
Instruments ARE panned hard left and right. And in between.
I would say exclusively in between, unless in the actual band playing. If the band is using a PA then they have sound guys checking the sound, something you rarely get with a recording.
Quote from: "g"Quote from: "uncloned"you know though....
if you see a real band in like a club or bar venue
Instruments ARE panned hard left and right. And in between.
I would say exclusively in between, unless in the actual band playing. If the band is using a PA then they have sound guys checking the sound, something you rarely get with a recording.
That has not been my experience. To run through a PA that is that loud to "cover' a band one is at a fairly big venue. And.... PA's do come in stereo too.
sure sure, just talk out the stuffs, what i really care is the information, and we did talked about many valuable here, i don't mind the topic itself, so go ahead, switch to technical details makes me actually happy.
I just don't have even the time to read it all at the moment, neither to comment them. :) Perhaps later, afternoon.
Quote from: "g"Much more pleasant to listen to in stereo than something like Lucy in the sky with diamonds (which is an AWESOME song... in mono!).
I wonder if the difference is listening with headphones as opposed to speakers. Headphones will of course be much more opinionated.
One the the things I remember fondly was Black Sabbath's album Paranoid in Quadraphonic - each player had a speaker (in essence) and it worked wonderfully. Shame I never owned a real quad stereo - cost more than I could afford then. The surround sound stereos now-a-days are just not the same.
Thanks for the go ahead Psy!!
Quote from: "uncloned"I wonder if the difference is listening with headphones as opposed to speakers. Headphones will of course be much more opinionated.
Well yes, headphones make it even worse :) Other than that I suppose it's a matter of taste, so if anyone feels like making me nauseated with their music please go ahead; pan bass to the far right and drums to the far right and put John Lennon in the middle. :P
Quote from: "uncloned"One the the things I remember fondly was Black Sabbath's album Paranoid in Quadraphonic - each player had a speaker (in essence) and it worked wonderfully.
It's available on DVDA, but apparently it's a really poor transfer...
Quote from: "uncloned"Thanks for the go ahead Psy!!
+1
The "problem" is that you always have some kind of reverb when listening to live music, however this does not exist if you first record e.g. a bass line in mono and then put it on the hard left channel. It's not the same.
I think good spatial engineering can place emphasis and aid in clarity of the mix.
Somewhere in the late 60's early 70's it became routine to
1. do drums in stereo (almost never happened with the Beatles)
2. put the bass in the same space as the bass drum - usually dead center.
3. vocals were usually dead center as well.
----------
However, now the typical is putting everything in the center with "stereo" effects. It is effectively a "wide monaural" or perhaps better said as "wide bi-aural" system.
---------------
One thing I should mention - much of the early Beatles was not meant to be in stereo. George Martin sent the masters to the states and Capital remixed them into stereo. Considering George was working with a 4 track recorder mastering to monaural makes some sense. But.... Sgt Peppers did not have this 4-track limitation - the stereo image was on purpose.
Quote from: "uncloned"I think good spatial engineering can place emphasis and aid in clarity of the mix.
I agree with that 100%! "Bad" spatial engineering can also completely ruin a mix.
New stereo (and mono) remasters of all Beatles albums will be released on CD in just two weeks... Perhaps they'll be better, tho I doubt it if they haven't been remixed. Of course they still charge full price (or 240€ for a 16 CD + 1 DVD box).
Thanks,
Psi ..
2
ClonesA quadrophonic Paranoid.. Interesting.. Is this a such a quad LP needing a special quad pickup-element ?
There were special systems then, by Sony and e.g. Panasonic, to decode the four channels.
By the way, a distinct quad system isn't that expensive. Just one more stereo-amp and two speakers..
Quote from: "g"... high freqs keep their original source position longer, due to physical law...
I don't quite understand "keep their original source position"?
Good question. High frequencies from a certain distance are less diffused, scattered, by the air particles,
so get more straight to your ear, so you can spot the bird on a tree up there quite exactly.
Low freqs are more depending on distance to still get the right direction, because they will be diffused sooner ('floating') in the air.
And
Jojo is right. In a live performance a sound will never be strictly mono, due to acoustics.
A headphone listening of the track maybe, but I don't like headphones as a reference.
Things should be played with speakers in a room, so there you'll have the specific reverbs again.
Quote from: "Clones"..putting everything in the center with "stereo" effects. It is effectively a "wide monaural" ...
Technically it's not possible to make a 'wide' stereo out of a mono signal.
There has to be some difference first between L and R. By filtering or phase shifting or whatever.
Any difference can be amplified, but 2 times zero is the same as 8 times zero.
Quote from: "Sam_Zen"
Good question. High frequencies from a certain distance are less diffused, scattered, by the air particles,
so get more straight to your ear, so you can spot the bird on a tree up there quite exactly.
Low freqs are more depending on distance to still get the right direction, because they will be diffused sooner ('floating') in the air.
Interesting theory.
My search revealed the quad release was vinyl 1974. I didn't own it. Only heard it once.
Zaphoid:
nice work on mixing, it was a good practice session im sure of it, and i can see that we have nice trance producers on other forums as well.
Uncloned, G, Sam, Jojo:
Valuable input, good stuff to brain about. As for me, i'm using stereo somewhat naturally, if it feels alright and not "unnaturally" panned on either direction it should be ok. If everything is on the center, with lot of mono layers, the output could get muddy indeed, it depends mostly how close are the layered frequencies together. If you have a low bass, some middle ranged melodies and some hihats, they are usually not "breaking" each other. If the signal is stereo, even more of them panned on dead "center", we could get a clear output, depends of course, how is the stereo structure of the sound designed. You can see these stereo samples as "pre panned" ones, ready to be layered, usually without further assistance.
Drifting 1.1 (vocal mash-up version) is finished after some longer hibernated form on my HDD. :)
1st page updated.
An excellent mash-up, Psi !