2022-JUL-01 Info: Please read up on the Mix Challenge - Community Update Q2/2022, which talks about important updates to the community in the coming weeks.

MASTERING CHALLENGE - MastC003 April 2018 - Winners announced

recurrence: on occasion (if audio material is available, 2 times a year max)
Olli H
Backer
Backer
Posts: 161
Joined: Fri Dec 29, 2017 16:08 CET

Re: MASTERING CHALLENGE - MastC003 April 2018 - Winners announced

#41

Post by Olli H »

Sorry for my late response, I forgot to check this thread. (I don't receive any messages from this forum if it automatically sends any.)

I take the Acon Digital
Olli H
Backer
Backer
Posts: 161
Joined: Fri Dec 29, 2017 16:08 CET

Re: MASTERING CHALLENGE - MastC003 April 2018 - Winners announced

#42

Post by Olli H »

davemcisaac wrote:
Wed May 09, 2018 21:45 CEST
First of all - Congratulations to the winners! :hail: They were all great sounding masters.

@3ee - I'm certain it was a difficult contest to judge and you certainly have the right to choose according to your own standards. But I did notice that none of the winners hit the Maximum allowed digital peak: -1dBTP:
1. Olli-H: -0.90dbTP
.....
I also noticed that Olli-H submitted his .wav entry @ 24bit/4100Hz, which is not Redbook CD.
It seems to me that different meter's are giving different values. According to Reapers Loudness plugin that calculates directly from the file, the integrated value of my submission was -12.00 LUFS and true peak -1.0 dBTP. I checked mys submission afterwards with Tokyodawns Mastering Limiter that calculates from master buss while playing, and it gave integrated value as -12.3 LUFS and True Peak value as -1.3 dB FS. I have no idea if there's any software that officially gives the real and absolutely correct values. Furthermore, True Peak is probably a some sort of mathematical quess, that estimates where the true peak might end up in DA converters. But each DA converter is different, so it must be only an estimate.

I also noticed after I had sent my submission, that my wav version was 24-bit. So I sent the wrong file. Clear mistake, about which cd-pressing companies don't seem to care so much. But when evaluating any competition submissions, I suppose there are many many things to consider
- technical mistakess
- stylistic mistakes
- genre mistakes
- loudness mistakes
- bad taste mistakes
- age mistakes
- target audiance mistakes
- etc.

So, what mistake weighs more than other when it comes to artistic work? Luckily there's no correct answer, and each judge is hopefully free to choose his own evaluation principles and methods.
User avatar
Dodgingrain
Posts: 133
Joined: Wed Sep 20, 2017 03:16 CEST
Location: United States
Contact:

Re: MASTERING CHALLENGE - MastC003 April 2018 - Winners announced

#43

Post by Dodgingrain »

It seems to me that different meter's are giving different values.
Exactly. In theory they shouldn't but they do. I've noticed a difference in true peak between Cubase and Izotope both of which are respected professional tools. The difference there is about .1 or .2db so not a lot but still different and true peak should be easy. My only guess is one is doing intersample peaks and the other isn't?
Mixing, Mastering, Remixing Services
Two Cat Audio Labs, llc
https://www.twocataudiolabs.com
https://www.instagram.com/twocataudiolabs/
User avatar
Dodgingrain
Posts: 133
Joined: Wed Sep 20, 2017 03:16 CEST
Location: United States
Contact:

Re: MASTERING CHALLENGE - MastC003 April 2018 - Winners announced

#44

Post by Dodgingrain »

I will select Nugen's Visualizer
Mixing, Mastering, Remixing Services
Two Cat Audio Labs, llc
https://www.twocataudiolabs.com
https://www.instagram.com/twocataudiolabs/
davemcisaac
Posts: 83
Joined: Sat Apr 08, 2017 10:59 CEST
Location: Pocatello, Idaho USA
Contact:

Re: MASTERING CHALLENGE - MastC003 April 2018 - Winners announced

#45

Post by davemcisaac »

This conversation makes me think this could all be handled in two possible ways:

1. Strict adherence to a specific set of rules with no exceptions.

or...

2. Let the challenges be wide open for the contestants to mix and master (the only two challenges I have participated in) to the best of their ability with no restrictions (actual real-world scenario!) except specifics the song provider requests.

My personal preference is let the contestants do what they feel is appropriate (art does not fit in a box!) and let the song provider judge to their heart's content. KISS principle in action. :hihi: That would be the end of these issues! :tu:

I apologize for any hurt feelings - not my intent. :whiteflag: Also, when I do mastering I don't necessarily expect to hit or exceed the client's expectations on the first pass. That's why I send a DDP & player for them to audition the project prior to committing to the master. A "Round 2" in the Mastering Challenge shouldn't be out of the question, don't you think? (Just my opinion)
User avatar
Mister Fox
Site Admin
Site Admin
Posts: 2624
Joined: Fri Mar 31, 2017 16:15 CEST
Location: Berlin, Germany

Re: MASTERING CHALLENGE - MastC003 April 2018 - Winners announced

#46

Post by Mister Fox »

I have already gotten the license requests - but I didn't respond to those yet (in fact, I put them on hold for a moment). Sorry about that.

Dave McIsaac has a couple of points that I can (and will) definitely agree on - and I'd like to get into that topic in detail the next days. I'm just very busy right now.
Waleed Morris
Posts: 117
Joined: Wed Jul 19, 2017 15:42 CEST

Re: MASTERING CHALLENGE - MastC003 April 2018 - Winners announced

#47

Post by Waleed Morris »

I take MuTools !!
User avatar
vintage
Posts: 35
Joined: Sun Apr 01, 2018 20:57 CEST
Location: Brussels
Contact:

Re: MASTERING CHALLENGE - MastC003 April 2018 - Winners announced

#48

Post by vintage »

Hello,
I'm glad it's great for you, but apparently not enough for the podium ... For compression I always aim for the portability of the song on different listening systems and reserves a greater dynamic to the acoustic music in general...
Thanks for listening :wink:
Patrick
vintage
User avatar
Mange
Posts: 39
Joined: Thu Dec 07, 2017 07:21 CET
Location: Sweden

Re: MASTERING CHALLENGE - MastC003 April 2018 - Winners announced

#49

Post by Mange »

davemcisaac wrote:
Thu May 10, 2018 22:33 CEST
My personal preference is let the contestants do what they feel is appropriate (art does not fit in a box!) and let the song provider judge to their heart's content.
Agree with this apart from one minor thing... imho mastering is zero about art, it´s all translation.
User avatar
Dodgingrain
Posts: 133
Joined: Wed Sep 20, 2017 03:16 CEST
Location: United States
Contact:

Re: MASTERING CHALLENGE - MastC003 April 2018 - Winners announced

#50

Post by Dodgingrain »

I would suggest that it's 50 percent record keeping and standards compliance. Which is why we should have specific measurables and a specific output media target. The rest is how it sounds.
Mixing, Mastering, Remixing Services
Two Cat Audio Labs, llc
https://www.twocataudiolabs.com
https://www.instagram.com/twocataudiolabs/
Post Reply