Mix Challenge - General Gossip Thread

[Mister Fox]

Welcome to the General Gossip thread for the Mix Challenge.


Want to talk about things that came up during the game that are a bit off-topic, neither are they really fitting for Production Techniques?
Got a question beforehand that is not covered in the Rules or FAQ?

Then this thread is for you. Please type away.

⚠	Moderation Message from Mister Fox
	By joining the Mix(ing) Challenge, you agree to adhere to the given Rules and Guidelines (see post #6). This thread is only for general feedback and constructive criticism, talk "overall game" topics (slight off-topic), ask questions if anything is unclear / not explained in each game thread already, and/or not covered in the FAQ, etc. Any form of (ongoing) complaints / destructive criticism / harassment (e.g. "staff lecturing") will result in an instant delete of your post without any further warning. If you continue to push the matter, then only one formal warning will be addressed, after that your account will be banned. Please keep things civil. This thread will be reset on a regular basis. (currently: every August)

Status: 2021-JAN-03 - thread reset

[_StillBorn]

maximum allowed loudness values (see Rule Book - post #6).

It is highly recommended to work with a certain reference level

So no rules about loudness only recommendations?

EDIT nevermind, there was more regarding loudness further down the big ass manual you guys have created for submitting a mix.

the final mixdown / export must not undershoot -24 LUFS ILk (Integrated), neither exceed -16 LUFS ILk (Integrated), while the maximum digital signal strength must not exceed -1.0 dBTP (True Peak). Recommended measurement specifications are ITU-R BS.1770-2+ (ideally ITU-R BS.1770-4) or EBU R-128. Tolerances are taken into consideration (see Addendum: Statistics Sheet and Wild Card Mechanic)

Thats a crazy amount of rules. There must have been tons of situations with disqualified tracks (and frustrated mixers spending x amount of hours on a mix no one will listen to) due to this.

I would suggest making a more condensed set of rules (currently over 5500 words / over 25000 characters) - use it if you can.

[Jorgeelalto]

I think it'd be cool to build a small web app to check the loudness of a WAV file directly on mix-challenge.com, that way we can all play by the same rules for sure -- even if the meter is not the most accurate in the world. I've been thinking about this for a while, shouldn't be THAT complicated... Might be a cool summer project

Edit: There has been problems with loudness rules in these games for as long as I remember, and I'm with you that sometimes they are a bit obtuse. This could be an easy way to level the playing field.

[Mister Fox]

A quick update on this topic

So no rules about loudness only recommendations?

As you're probably aware at this point, there have been updates to the Rule Books for further clarification.

For the Mix(ing) Challenge:
The "recommendation" is in regards to work-levels while mixing (e.g. -20 dBFS = 0 VU, or -18dBFS = 0 VU)
The actual "upper limit" for finished mix entries have been set to -16,0 LUFS ILk max, and -1,00 dBTP max (status: 2019)

Thats a crazy amount of rules. There must have been tons of situations with disqualified tracks (and frustrated mixers spending x amount of hours on a mix no one will listen to) due to this.

I am sorry to read this. However, every competition out there has an extensive set of rules and guidelines, to cover all possible scenarios and eventualities. This is mandatory to prevent Interpretation and (in certain cases even endless / unnecessary) arguments. This way, everyone is on the same level regarding game mechanics.

I would suggest making a more condensed set of rules (currently over 5500 words / over 25000 characters) - use it if you can.

Due to time constraints, it was impossible to me to to release a "TL;DR Rules - sub 500 words edition" prior to MC087 / August 2022. Even then, the TL;DR Rules will still direct you to the more extensive set of Rules and Guidelines.

As announced in the newsletter (CW32 / August 2022), I hope to have this handled by the end of the week. This will also be part of a bigger update regarding game thread optimizations.

[Mister Fox]

I think it'd be cool to build a small web app to check the loudness of a WAV file directly on mix-challenge.com, that way we can all play by the same rules for sure -- even if the meter is not the most accurate in the world. I've been thinking about this for a while, shouldn't be THAT complicated... Might be a cool summer project

I appreciate the effort.
But I can already tell you, that I do not know how to properly implement this, neither how to maintain this app / widget.


I try to update the old "How to: Loudness Normalization (Manually and Automated)" thread in Production Techniques and / or ideally turn it into a "Mix Challenge - Addendum" thread. However, time is always a thing. I can only do so much with x-amount of hours throughout the day.



I do know of (currently) four online analysis tools regarding LUFS checks.

However, one of them is not as helpful as one might expect, and I can therefore not recommend it. Two are behind a User Account (one feels pay-walled even?). There is really only one free variant for the time being. But I can't tell you for how long, and it's a bit limited.


The four options are:

• Youlean Software - File Loudness Meter -- this is the only variant without a needed login. It uses the ITU-R BS.1770-4 standard, but only shows LUFS (with an offset of up to +-0,2LU, it is a "Beta" after all)
• pureMix - LUFS Analyzer -- locked behind a user account. With the available presets, I assume it is also based upon ITU-R BS.1770-4 or EBU R-128 (S2). The "TRUEDYN-I" value actually seems to be "PLR" (Peak-to-Loudness range) according to their Youtube quick overview
• Finalizer (by TC Electronic) - Online Analyzer -- locked behind a user account, this has been around since 2019, but it flew under the radar (hah!). If the online analyzer works the same as the app, it's ITU-R BS.1770-4 Loudness compliant
• MeterPlugs - Loudness Penalty -- the least usable offering, as this only shows "Offsets" to certain streaming platforms. And really only to those that "loudness normalize" on playback. I can really not recommend this if you want to know the actual values of your mix

I need some time for further testing these online tools.

I definitely trust TC Electronic, since their Radar Meter was one of the first and most accurate Loudness Analysis tools on the market - not sure what to think of their "mandatory login" though. I have similar positive words for Youlean Software - among the "youngest project", but the attention to detail while keeping an eye on affordability is just an unbeatable combo. Also, the online analysis tool is fast, without any frills.


There are software options with drag and drop features. But I do need to do additional testing. And as of this moment, there are really only two low-budget plugins I can trust. One is free (HOFA 4U Meter) and one is commercial (Youlean Loudness Meter Pro). There might be more options that currently escape my mind. But again, this needs testing, documenting and then updating threads. All of which need time.

[Ronson79]

@Mister Fox

Are there 2 underlines? Is that what you mean? Like __ instead of _ ??
If so it´s the first time this got mentioned as a problem. The last upload (MC087) was the same and wasn´t a problem.
Anyway, I will change that after your clarification. thx

[Mister Fox]

I've moved the previous post from MC088, as this is a technical / rule related question.

Are there 2 underlines? Is that what you mean? Like __ instead of _ ??
If so it´s the first time this got mentioned as a problem. The last upload (MC087) was the same and wasn´t a problem.

Please consult my commentary from MC087. The provided filename template has been a thing for over 15 games at this point, including double underlines (like __ ). You just didn't seem to have copy/pasted this template, if I look at your entries for the last Mix(ing) Challenges.

The template has been created for various reasons. Including, but not limited to, finding accidentally misplaced files (which can happen, browsers often forget file paths), proper loading on international OS/file handing engines, correct file sorting, and to run scripted automation for creating the monthly statistic sheet (which saves me a lot of time for setting up). The handling just gets increasingly frustrating for me.

I will properly talk about this in an official news post in the coming days. This is also part of a game thread overhaul for readability and easier understanding of given rules and parameters (see overhauled introduction post). Something I didn't get to yet, due to time constraints.

Your entry/file naming is fine for the time being. However, the handling of this topic will change with MC089 / December.

[Franz]

Yes, I kinda expected this type of result (I was a songprovider myself, I know what I'm talking about).

Tastes and colors are not discussed, we can still issue an opinion (always encouraged by Mister Fox).
The winning trio does not convince me at all.
If we take @benassi's mix for example, we can see that it is very close to the original mix. One explaining the other.
The mix is ​​very clean (apart from that horrible veil over the singer's voice) but it has no flavor or excitement whatsoever. Banal ....
There were other much more interesting mixes....
But it's the song provider who decides and I respect his opinion.

To the attention of Mister Fox: I wonder if these incessant changes in the rules are not bringing the competitions
to a bizarre situation: who keeps in mind that it has now been almost two and a half months since the competition was launched ?
(luckily there are emails from Mister Fox to remind us).
50% increase the number of winners selected in the first round to finish with a third round...
This brings a certain lack of interest. We will do with...

[Mister Fox]

I've moved the previous post from MC088, as this is a technical / rule related question.

To the attention of Mister Fox: I wonder if these incessant changes in the rules are not bringing the competitions
...

Okay, I am putting a stop to these types of conversations once and for all. I do not have the time for this, nor the mental capacity anymore. In fact, I am once more at a point, where I'm dreading opening my PM / Email inbox. I don't need this in my life right now.



You, Franz, are a recurring source of drama on the community. You are always finding issues with the provided source material, constantly commenting how non-innovative and boring the results of the games are, how the Song Providers work (or should work). You keep on questioning the existence and validity of the rule set, you openly (and privately) asked for overhauls (some of which I successfully implemented within a short time span even), you keep on wanting features for the community that are technically impossible to pull off. And this constant disagreement happens especially after you've made it into the next round, yet "didn't make it" on the Winners podium.

I have made very clear in this post (MC087 / post #150), that I am tired of reading this every single mixing game.


There is no "bizarre situation". The Rule Set is not changing constantly. A "third mixing round" was always possible in theory. However I tried to keep things confined to two rounds maximum. The official introduction and a more clear refined time-frame happened late Summer 2021, after some Song Providers went a bit ahead on their own way -- I managed to make things work, while still being accommodating. The rest of the rules have actually been simplified and made more engaging. Not to mention finally properly enforced, so that everyone is treated fair. They (the rules) were not "constantly rewritten" or even "stocked up". Other than that, I have zero control over the time management of Song Providers.

Private life is a thing, I can nothing but reach out, try to keep people engaged. If that doesn't work out - due to "reasons" - what is easier than pointing fingers and blaming, I wonder?




Here is a wild idea -- if you want to see a smoother Mix(ing) Challenge, why not step up as Song Provider again?

Since you were last doing that (MC061 / December 2019), a lot of things have been improved / changed / simplified. You can now choose to either give feedback to everyone, or to 15 participants only for Mix Round 2. You can chose beforehand to have way less workload, while still getting high-tier "behind the scenes" handling of your source material, and/or handling of the submitted entries (file collecting, statistic sheets, loudness normalization if required), plus an n-th amount of outstanding mixes.

All of that, for free, mind you.
Your only investment... is spare time.




With that said -- this is where I stop the conversation and issue a final official warning:

You have several options now, Franz. Become a Song Provider again - judge material based upon submitted creativity. If that isn't happening, then take a step back and accept how the community works. Or if you can not accept that, then please PM me or send me an email with an account deletion request.

I legit do not want to read anything else from you on that behalf anymore. No forum posts, no mails, no PMs. I am at my limit. If you keep pressing the issue, and to keep the community clean of recurring drama, I will delete these posts and proceed to remove your account. So please, do tread with caution.




Thank you for your time, everyone. And apologies for the inconvenience.

[Davias]

Hi,

I have one question concerning files format : why is it we are using WAV for the mix challenge ? I would prefer to use lossless compressed formats as to not loose too much space on online storages ^^ with wavpack (up to 32 bits with or without floating points) being my favorite, but there's also FLAC, APE and some few others

Thanks for any explanation