2020-MAY-09 Info: Please help spread the word about the Songwriting Competition and help it reach 15 participants per month on average

MIX CHALLENGE - MC049 November 2018 - Winners announced

Join the Mix Challenge - recurrence: February until December
User avatar
Mister Fox
Site Admin
Posts: 1649
Joined: Fri Mar 31, 2017 16:15 CEST
Location: Berlin, Germany

Re: MIX CHALLENGE - MC049 November 2018 - Mix Round 2 in evaluation

#121

Post by Mister Fox »

It's the 13th November 2018, 2:09am - the 2nd Mix Round has officially ended.

Sadly not all participants were able to send in their edits. (if I'm not mistaken, elad-naimi's entry is missing)
We have no submissions after the deadline.
Please check your upload links again, and have an eye on this thread for the final results.



I'm now opening up the room (again) for Q&A's and giving each other feedback (which is highly encouraged)
Both the Mix Challenge 50 and Songwriting Competition 16 are in full swing. We're also still looking for content for "SWC017 - Community Scramble"

See you on the flipside.

User avatar
Henrik Hjortnaes
Posts: 97
Joined: Mon Feb 05, 2018 22:03 CET
Location: Dynaudio City, Skanderborg

Re: MIX CHALLENGE - MC049 November 2018 - Mix Round 2 in evaluation

#122

Post by Henrik Hjortnaes »

I hope you don't mind, but I'm playing around with audio tools from this guy MasteringTheMix, and I loaded all our round2-mixes into his "EXPOSE" tool. Among other things, EXPOSE can export data to a text file by just one click and have this:

Code: Select all

DAXTHEANIMAL_R2

Integrated LUFS: -15.0 LUFS
Short Term LUFS: -12.3 LUFS
True Peak: -0.1 dBTP
Peak: -0.1 dB
Dynamic Range: 12.2 DR
Loudness Range: 2.7 LU


ELLROZZA_R2

Integrated LUFS: -13.2 LUFS
Short Term LUFS: -11.1 LUFS
True Peak: 0.8 dBTP
Peak: -0.0 dB
Dynamic Range: 11.1 DR
Loudness Range: 2.5 LU


GUIZGUI_R2

Integrated LUFS: -17.1 LUFS
Short Term LUFS: -15.8 LUFS
True Peak: -5.6 dBTP
Peak: -5.6 dB
Dynamic Range: 10.0 DR
Loudness Range: 1.8 LU


HENRIKHJORTNAES_R2

Integrated LUFS: -15.6 LUFS
Short Term LUFS: -14.2 LUFS
True Peak: -1.0 dBTP
Peak: -1.1 dB
Dynamic Range: 12.2 DR
Loudness Range: 2.1 LU


HERBFELHO - R2

Integrated LUFS: -13.0 LUFS
Short Term LUFS: -11.4 LUFS
True Peak: -0.7 dBTP
Peak: -0.8 dB
Dynamic Range: 10.6 DR
Loudness Range: 2.2 LU


JERZE R2

Integrated LUFS: -16.1 LUFS
Short Term LUFS: -14.4 LUFS
True Peak: -1.1 dBTP
Peak: -1.1 dB
Dynamic Range: 12.9 DR
Loudness Range: 2.0 LU


KEVIN GOBIN R2

Integrated LUFS: -9.9 LUFS
Short Term LUFS: -8.1 LUFS
True Peak: 0.6 dBTP
Peak: -0.1 dB
Dynamic Range: 8.0 DR
Loudness Range: 2.3 LU


OLLI-H

Integrated LUFS: -18.3 LUFS
Short Term LUFS: -16.5 LUFS
True Peak: -3.5 dBTP
Peak: -3.5 dB
Dynamic Range: 13.0 DR
Loudness Range: 1.9 LU


PHOTONIC_RD2

Integrated LUFS: -16.0 LUFS
Short Term LUFS: -14.0 LUFS
True Peak: -2.1 dBTP
Peak: -2.1 dB
Dynamic Range: 11.5 DR
Loudness Range: 2.6 LU


STILESPOD_R2

Integrated LUFS: -19.0 LUFS
Short Term LUFS: -16.9 LUFS
True Peak: -0.1 dBTP
Peak: -0.1 dB
Dynamic Range: 14.9 DR
Loudness Range: 2.4 LU


YORUHITP_R2

Integrated LUFS: -22.3 LUFS
Short Term LUFS: -20.0 LUFS
True Peak: -5.4 dBTP
Peak: -5.5 dB
Dynamic Range: 13.9 DR
Loudness Range: 2.3 LU


User avatar
Henrik Hjortnaes
Posts: 97
Joined: Mon Feb 05, 2018 22:03 CET
Location: Dynaudio City, Skanderborg

Re: MIX CHALLENGE - MC049 November 2018 - Mix Round 2 in evaluation

#124

Post by Henrik Hjortnaes »

kevin gobin wrote:
Fri Dec 14, 2018 10:13 CET
:smack:
:oops: Kevin, here are my round-1 data :face:

Integrated LUFS: -14.1 LUFS
Short Term LUFS: -12.5 LUFS
True Peak: -0.0 dBTP
Peak: -0.1 dB

Dynamic Range: 12.4 DR
Loudness Range: 1.9 LU

Franz
Posts: 65
Joined: Sat Jun 16, 2018 22:44 CEST

Re: MIX CHALLENGE - MC049 November 2018 - Mix Round 2 in evaluation

#125

Post by Franz »

Hi Henrik,
I do not understand very well what you are talking about in your last presentation: what software is it? Thank you in advance for your answer.
Cheers
Franz

User avatar
Henrik Hjortnaes
Posts: 97
Joined: Mon Feb 05, 2018 22:03 CET
Location: Dynaudio City, Skanderborg

Re: MIX CHALLENGE - MC049 November 2018 - Mix Round 2 in evaluation

#126

Post by Henrik Hjortnaes »

Franz wrote:
Fri Dec 14, 2018 12:52 CET
Hi Henrik,
I do not understand very well what you are talking about in your last presentation: what software is it? Thank you in advance for your answer.
Cheers
Franz
This one: https://www.masteringthemix.com/products/expose

His other tools are pretty good too. I use his Reference plug-in a lot when working with you guys here :smile:

HerbFelho
Posts: 57
Joined: Sat Apr 01, 2017 13:15 CEST
Location: Munich

Re: MIX CHALLENGE - MC049 November 2018 - Mix Round 2 in evaluation

#127

Post by HerbFelho »

uh oh, loudness again... :oops:
Seems I went a bit too far as well. The thing is, since the loudness war is pretty much over I very much enjoy mixing with no specific numbers in mind, compressing solely with whatever amount fits the style and sounds good, so whatever LUFS value results is ok for me.
For better comparability in mix challenges I could of course pay more attention to that.
On the other hand I´m sure erginozler knows how to level match and compare tracks, like all artists here should be able to, otherwise comparing 50+ submissions is hardly manageable.
Oh, btw. I like the your guitar sounds Henrik, did you use amp sims on them or just saturation/distortion?

User avatar
Henrik Hjortnaes
Posts: 97
Joined: Mon Feb 05, 2018 22:03 CET
Location: Dynaudio City, Skanderborg

Re: MIX CHALLENGE - MC049 November 2018 - Mix Round 2 in evaluation

#128

Post by Henrik Hjortnaes »

Herb, you're right and I agree; though I still keep an eye out for True Peak and Peak when exporting to compressed formats. I missed that for round-1, heh!

Thanks man, for guitars I used Amplitube Slash amp and cab followed by HOFA de-esser to tone it down a bit.

I really should sit down and document it, like Fox keeps telling me (and rightfully so). I'm trying to think of a type of documentation I would find useful. "I equalized the kick" isn't really useful or something that you learn from. Screenshots are useless too and also confusing when you're not using the same DAW.

HerbFelho
Posts: 57
Joined: Sat Apr 01, 2017 13:15 CEST
Location: Munich

Re: MIX CHALLENGE - MC049 November 2018 - Mix Round 2 in evaluation

#129

Post by HerbFelho »

Thanks Henrik, yeah, the IKM stuff sound really good. Interesting, I was afraid to go too far with "reamping" since the guitar track already contained amped signals I guess and no DIs, but of course there´s no rule.... reminds me again what sounds goo os good... :hmmm:

As far as documentation is concerned I´m not sure either what makes most sense here. Naming every detail of plugin settings with the numbers and dozens of screenshots is overkill I guess. No documentation at all on the other hand feels like one doesn't care at all and rightly leads to disqualification. Personally I think we should talk about the general vision and approach for the mix, try to specify on kind of special methods used, how problems have been solved, new plugins that we are excited about etc.
Gotta say though, since discussion after round 2 is still very sparse it seems like people are not really interested in what others did, otherwise they would ask more questions, so I also don´t want to put too much time in documentation and if someone would ask me personally about my mix I'm more than happy to give detailed information.
And that´s the other side of the coin when it comes to talk about giving feedback for each other. As much as I can understand how frustrating it is to get no feedback at all (which is inevitable when there are 60 or more mixes): If one really wants to learn and improve he has to spring into action and ask questions or at least listen to other mixes and read the respective critiques.
Nevertheless I personally would really vote for an additional rule that says every participant must write at last one mix critique/feedback as a prerequisite to participate, that would solve some problems here in my opinion.

User avatar
Henrik Hjortnaes
Posts: 97
Joined: Mon Feb 05, 2018 22:03 CET
Location: Dynaudio City, Skanderborg

Re: MIX CHALLENGE - MC049 November 2018 - Mix Round 2 in evaluation

#130

Post by Henrik Hjortnaes »

We clearly think alike on the subject of documentation. I have the same thoughts.
HerbFelho wrote:
Sat Dec 15, 2018 15:22 CET
Personally I think we should talk about the general vision and approach for the mix, try to specify on kind of special methods used, how problems have been solved, new plugins that we are excited about etc.
Very good, I agree. Documentation is perhaps two things: 1) A general guide on how I mixed the song and 2) To prove that you adhere to the mixing rules. That's two different documents, in my view.

If I should make a guide on how we mixed a song, it would probably be something like this and copying all of your ideas (just a rough):
  • Your general vision - after listening to the provided material.
  • Your focus - the elements or tone that should dominate. Maybe you want different elements to dominate at different parts. Describe it.
  • Did you mute or lower elements significantly to improve impact for others? Which ones, so we can listen and say "Yes, I hear it now and it works!
  • Special tricks you used to enhance your mix or change sounds to fit your vision.
  • Did you use sample replacement? Yes or no. On what?
  • Did you use sample augmentation? Yes or no. On what?
  • Describe each element that you found challenging (they would probably be challenging for all of us!)
  • How did you solve those challenges?
  • Did certain plug-ins work really well in solving the challenges? Which ones and how?
  • Compromises?
  • Were there elements you were not able to fix to your liking? Which ones?
  • Perhaps share a screencast with sound, to show us something or A-B something. Speak is not mandatory, we will understand, surely.
The reason I mention sample augmentation and replacement specifically, is because I often find multi-miked, live tracked drums the hardest element to mix - and if you produced a killer drum sound on your finished mix, using only the provided material, it would be good to know and learn from, how you managed to get that sound. Why? Because the best drum sound and feel (to me) is almost always the original recorded one, and if you can learn to make most of them, it's a sure win!
HerbFelho wrote:
Sat Dec 15, 2018 15:22 CET
Gotta say though, since discussion after round 2 is still very sparse it seems like people are not really interested in what others did, otherwise they would ask more questions, so I also don´t want to put too much time in documentation and if someone would ask me personally about my mix I'm more than happy to give detailed information.
Exactly. I don't know how we break this mentality. Maybe with a guide like above. Maybe we're above learning? Maybe some don't want to reveal mixing techniques, it's a mix challenge after all, lol I dunno :oops:
HerbFelho wrote:
Sat Dec 15, 2018 15:22 CET
Nevertheless I personally would really vote for an additional rule that says every participant has to write at last one mix critique/feedback as a prerequisite to participate, that would solve some problems here in my opinion.
Interesting idea. Hmm ... that would possibly remove the bad conscience I have, when critiquing one or two mixes and ignoring the rest. If it was in a rule, it would possibly be "accepted" to hand pick mixes you want to leave feedback for.

Post Reply