MIX CHALLENGE - MC095 December 2023 - Winners announced

[PeterGomes]

Hello to everyone,

First i would like to congratulate @Christoph_K on this amazing production, ands thank him for letting us have a go at mixing it as well.

https://1drv.ms/u/s!AqOBOoU-WAHagsMYewH ... w?e=olqRHi

Here is a breath run down of what I used to mix this track:

Drums bus – ssl channel strip, magiceye, Saturn 2
SN – Distressor, revival.
Trash – pro gate, VMR distressor, London saturation, pro Q
BASS – SSL channel strip, pro mb
Gtr´s - ssll channel strip
Keys´s - ssl channel strip lol
LV – TUBETECH CL1B, SOOTHE
BGVS - TUBETECH CL1B, SOOTHE
MASTER BUS – BUS COMP, PUIG EQP1A, INVISIBLE LIMITER.
REVERBS – VSC, SEVETH HEVEN, PULSAR ECHO, SUPER MASSIVE

Good luck to everyone
Peter

[Mister Fox]

It is the 23rd December 2023, 00:30 UTC+1/CET - the first Mix Round has officially ended

Once more, a very warm welcome to all new participants, nice meeting you and I hope you'll enjoy your stay. Some of you might have found their way through Discord (old metapop users), some through Sonic State, and I think I even saw some returning old users... looks like the new Newsletter came through. A huge thank you to everyone that is spreading the word about the Mix Challenge.

Please also help get the Songwriting Competition as popular (SWC076 and the Sample Collection thread for SWC077 are still in full swing).


STATISTICS:

• If I didn't miscount, we have 59 submissions this month (59 prior to the deadline, plus 01 after the deadline, not counting re-submissions -- additionally: 45 entries prior to the original deadline, 14 more entries with the extended deadline)
• We have 1 submissions after the deadline (as of 23-DEC-2023 4:15 UTC+1/CET)
• We have 2 submissions that could not be downloaded by the time of this post and are therefore disqualified (re-checked 23-DEC-2023 4:15 UTC+1/CET and once more on 24-DEC-2023 8:45 UTC+1/CET)
• We have 0 submissions not submitted in public, but via PM (see Rule Book, post #6, Upload and Submission Guidelines)
• We have 0 submissions that have been withdrawn (entry counts as "submission within the deadline")
• Overview of Submissions - is your entry within given parameters? (PDF - updated: 24-DEC-2023 23:30 UTC+1/CET, full sheet)
• Overview of Submissions (disqualifications only) (PDF - updated: 24-DEC-2023 23:30 UTC+1/CET)

INFORMATION:
Statistic Sheets have been updated (on 24-DEC-2023 23:30 UTC+1/CET)
Statistic Sheets are not available yet, please wait for the official announcement post -- sheets will arrive by mid 25-DEC-2023 latest
.

⚠	Moderation Message from Mister Fox
	Important Update: As of MC081, the Song Providers can now decide from the start, or once the Statistics Sheet has been provided, which route to go in terms of providing feedback. You can read more about this in the Mix Challenge - changes to main game (October 2021) thread. Our Song Provider for this month, @Christoph_K , decided to go the "(Feedback for) Top 15" route. There might be additional feedback, but this is not a guarantee. We will keep you updated.

.


I now open the field for everyone to give each other feedback (highly encouraged). This will be independent to the client feedback however.


Please watch this spot for the statistics sheet, client feedback and Mix Round 2 participant announcement.

Good luck to all participants.





The Songwriting Competition 076 (SWC076) is still in full swing.
So far, there are 10 entries, 2 days left

The Sample Collection thread for SWC077 (sample collection thread) is also still running.
So far, there are 2 entries through the forum, and 2 entry through Discord, 2 days left

Please spread the word!

⚠	Moderation Message from Mister Fox
	Please note, the Song Pool is officially empty. Without new multi-tracks, there will be no more Mix(ing) Challenges in 2024. Only you can help. Please spread the word, or reach out yourself. Please read more through the following page: Mix Challenge - Song Pool Campaign

EDIT: 23-DEC-2023 0:35 UTC+1/CET - initial post
EDIT: 23-DEC-2023 19:30 UTC+1/CET - fixing faulty links
EDIT: 24-DEC-2023 23:30 UTC+1/CET - Statistic Sheets posted

[Mister Fox]

The "Overview of Submissions" PDFs have been uploaded.
You can check them through the upper post (post #082).



The Statistic Sheet is used to give an overview of all entries, and whether or not they are within given parameters (loudness, sampling rate, bitrate, proper filename). This is adding to the overall learning process of the "Mix(ing) Challenge". Please take note that creating this sheet is not a fully automated process. I am using Wavelab 10's "Batch Analysis" tool (EBU R-128 specs / equivalent to ITU-R BS.1770-4), but the overall layout and highlighting issues/mishaps, not to mention triple checking files and time stamps, is time consuming. If you do not find yourself on this list, please let me know.

Please keep in mind, your mix being "tagged disqualified", does not mean "you're out of the game" (exceptions do apply). For more information on the Statistic Sheet and the "Wild Card" Mechanic, please consult the following addendum thread:

Mix Challenge - Addendum: Statistic Sheet and Wild Card Mechanic



Statistics Addendum:

⚠	Moderation Message from Mister Fox
	We have a disqualification rate of 20,34% for December 2023 (59 entries, 12 disqualifications, 1 "Out of Competition" submission not counting). This is finally less than 1/4th of all participants. Many of these disqualifications are due to carelessness errors: wrong bitrate, loudness specs, not following the given file name template as mentioned in the provided "TL;DR Rules.txt" file, and files that were non-accessible. On average (29 months of tracking), we currently have a disqualification rate of 25,80% (compared to last game's 26,00% avg), the rate is slightly declining still. The disqualification rate over the course of the last 12 games (February 2022 to December 2023) is about 25,42% (previously 25,04%), and is on an slight increase. I strongly recommend all participants to pay more attention to details in future games. It is a shame to see entries being "tagged OUT" for the fact that they either can't be accessed, or there is no username associated to the entry.

A commentary on this month's entries:

Once more, a very warm welcome to all new participants who have found their way into our little community. And a welcome back to those participants that haven't been on the community for quire a while. For the former - I do hope you enjoy your stay, had fun, and could learn something from this experience. And for the latter - I will do my best in the future to send out more / better reminders. Especially now, that the dedicated Newsletter Engine is finally properly up and running.


The Statistic Sheets are available sooner than usual. This doesn't mean that this was an easy task.

The most glaring thing this month, were the two still recurring topics "filename template" and "file access". All of you are investing a not insignificant amount of time for mixing. Mistakes do happen. However, it is a shame to see these entries "drop out" of the game. This is mostly directed at @Cubic and @DavidB. In fact, I even tried to log into OneDrive (Microsoft account) to see if I can access the file by DavidB - I couldn't. Then there are those users that completely ignore the multiple-times-over pointed out filename template (even bundled with the Multi-Track Mix Pack in form of the "TL;DR Rules.txt" -- this is why it's there!). Filenames like "Home - Aro Kim Noah.wav", "MC095 heat2.wav", and "ArvoKimNoahFinalWK.wav" sadly won't do. If I can't associate your mix with your forum post - you're sadly out of the game. These happened to the users @jakeh83, @rijavia and... sadly also @wkanegis. I could have been more lenient with wkanegis' entry - but I have to be fair to every participant that actually uses the provided filename template. It really is that simple - copy, paste, replace the username after the double underscore. You don't have to wrap your head around anything else.

Speaking of double underscores... are there Operating Systems that omit that? If so, that is new to me and please provide me with further info to do some research on this (directed at @AltonJames, @jaywoolcott and @Waleed Morris).

The sad part is, that I've sent all of you, that either had filename template issues or where your files couldn't be accessed, a PM and allowed you to get things sorted out by the end of the deadline. Only 3 of you used that option... and that was early into the game. Granted, I've now deleted the PMs, since the deadline has long since passed (you should have still gotten an email from the Private Message reminder). However -- as of February 2024, I will not do this anymore. There are plenty of information and reminders given, there is the bundled "TL;DR Rules.txt". Don't copy the previous entry, please pay attention to detail. This is still (also) a competition.

The rest are the usual small mistakes that merely result in a "tagged disqualified". A lack of documentation (no, as simple "I didn't use anything special" or "if you got any questions, just ask" won't do), and of course things like wrong sampling rate, wrong bitrate, and signals overshooting.



There was one entry that really stood out this month however - and that was by @rijavia. This one actually deserves a separate paragraph. Because I only have so much room on the Statistic Sheets to explain things.

This is the second game in row where this user basically ignored the whole Rule Book, and nearly all lights went off. Sampling Rate, Loudness Specs, Filename Template. But this time, there was another thing... the song length was over 25 seconds shorter than the original mix.

This made me curious, and I loaded the entry up in Wavelab, just to rule out that the batch analysis didn't have a hiccup or something along those lines. I initially suspected a custom "fade out" at the end of the song. Turns out that the entry was actually not imported correctly. The multi-tracks were in 44,1kHz. Usually, if you import and convert them to 48kHz, the pitch and runtime of each file should not be adjusted. This is default behavior from most DAWs.

However, if there seems to have been an import error. The material material is being "pitched up" and therefore also shortened in the process. In my case as Cubase user, this sometimes happens if I run another audio editor in parallel, and there is a sampling rate mismatch. Then suddenly my engine barfs, and things get "re-pitched". I think, something similar happened here, and the participant didn't realize this.

You can clearly hear that the vocals are pitched higher, and the song has turned from an Alternative Pop track at 110bpm, to a somewhat Techno track at around 130 bpm. A quick listen to the original mix would have shown that there is something wrong. This is why we (the "client" / Song Provider and I) provide such extensive information per Mix Pack... it is not just for show.

I guess, this will definitely count to the learning experience with the Mix(ing) Challenge.



To close this out.

Both @Christoph_K and I are happy to see this amount of participation. However, as of 2024 -- and if we have enough content for the future -- there will be no more deadline extensions. We will go back to the usual 21 days. However, I have a sneaking suspicion that this was also related to the Newsletter, which was sent out through the forum PM engine for most of the second half of 2023. Barely anybody seemed to have read those PMs. Thankfully, this topic is finally sorted out.


A huge thank you to everyone that invested time with this month's game. I hope you had fun.

See you in the next one.
.




I now (re-)open the field for everyone to give each other feedback (highly encouraged). This will be independent to the client feedback however. Though please note - criticism on the rule set and angry posts will be deleted without further notice.


Please watch this spot for the client feedback and Mix Round 2 participant announcement.

This will ideally happen sometime within the next 14 days (starting tomorrow). Although, since this is the Winter Holiday Season, we will have a short break until 06th January 2024, and then we'll restart the timer for the evaluation process.

We (as in: the Song Provider and I) will keep you updated, and of course send out appropriate reminder newsletters!



EDIT: 25-DEC-2023 00:40 UTC+1/CET - initial post

[DavidB]

Hello @Mister Fox, it seems I have screwed my entry completely... I had been working on my desktop and shared from there via One Drive, then I have done my xmas tidy up of my PC (which I do not usually do that much:) and moved the folder with the entry out of the One Drive lol, when I realised that you guys will not be able to access it, I had moved it back to its original location on my desktop. I even tried to access the link and it was working, so I thought it was all fine. But I guess it was only because I was still logged into my One Drive. So the link work only for myself:) Anyways I wanted to thank you for taking your time to re-try, I also wish everyone good luck in this competetion. For me this was a good lesson learned, so next time I will not be so hasty with tidying up my shared files:) Merry xmas guys:)

[scottfitz]

Hey all. While the mixes are being reviewed if anyone wants any feedback on their mix, I'm very happy to take a listen and put a message here or privately.
Cheers

[kombainera]

@scottfitz Sure i will love to see even extra feedback.

[TrueFlowStudio]

@scottfitz thank you sir, feedback would be highly appreciated; after having listened a lot of mixes I know I still have a lot to learn, pointing me in the right direction would be priceless.

[scottfitz]

@scottfitz Sure i will love to see even extra feedback.

Hi kombainera,
I enjoyed listening to your mix, it sounds cool - there is genre of music becoming more popular now called phat bass and I think you'd be in that territory On listening, I find myself inside a club, we need to feel those bass frequencies pumping through our bodies. When the bass is so big it's hard to balance the remainder of the track. I tried to do just two EQ moves to change your mix into something more standard in terms of the pop genre. (Note I'm only listening from around 4:30 where everything kicks in.)

Those moves are on this screencap

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1l5CULj ... sp=sharing

it's a +5.6dB flat tilt @810Hz plus a +3dB wide bell @900Hz note that I have the auto gain engaged.

Now you'd be right in saying, ok but it sounds a bit wrong like like that. My point is that after those 2 moves you can now hear all the instruments and have some hope to balance them, whereas when the bass is quite high, I would think it was very hard. To be clear I'm not advocating that you use an EQ like this, it's just a demonstration. If you move the bass and kick down by some amount like 4->6dB you might get some of this change and then try to move some of the higher frequency sounds up. You won't necessarily need much EQ at all as the production has be very well put together, so it's mainly just putting the faders up and down.

Once that tilt EQ is applied I can hear that the guitars seem a bit high for the vocals, the balancing of the higher frequencies becomes so easy once you get all that low energy out.

You can use Izotope "Tonal Balance Control" or Sonible "trueBalance" to help you.

So in summary I think you might want to imagine mixing as more like balancing the frequencies precisely and setting up the right atmosphere etc. rather than trying to create the feeling of when you're inside the club - only the club can do that part

I hope that helps. The other part of all this is the monitoring. Our ears don't hear bass at all well at low volumes, so if you're sensibly working at a nice low volume then you will naturally get the bass all wrong and put it too high. You can do lots of the work at a low volume but with occasionally the chance to whack it right up and see what you think then, that's the only way to judge the bottom end. Others have suggested that you even work with an EQ curve on to simulate how our ears sensitivity changes at higher volumes. If you work with headphones that don't have enough low end then you'll also have an issue which will result in you wanting to put it real high. If you work with studio monitors in a room with standing wave nodes in the bass region around where your ears are then you will also be inclined to keep nudging up the bass because it feels lacking - whereas check that on good headphones and you'll realise it's all there.

Cheers

[scottfitz]

@scottfitz thank you sir, feedback would be highly appreciated; after having listened a lot of mixes I know I still have a lot to learn, pointing me in the right direction would be priceless.

Hi,
I enjoyed listening to your mix, you've taken it more towards a rock feel, using those distorted guitars to be a key element of the sound. I also like how the bass has got that active bass bite in the mid range. I think the more you try to move the song from the genre it was intended as, the harder it is, so well done for attempting this change.

I'm listening from around 4:30 again where the main action comes together and it's a little muddy. I'd try some subtractive EQ in the 200Hz-400Hz range on the Bass, Kick, Guitars, anything you can hear is in the conflict. Mainly from the bass I would guess, which is much more amenable to having chunks cut out of it and still sound OK. Maybe bass fader down something like 2 dB and cut out an EQ bell around 300Hz might do a lot of what's needed. The overall mix has a lot of 400Hz, that nasal sounding area. I also have a bit of an issue there on my mix. I think it's the 24 Guitar and 39 Piano Pluck that are the main culprits for jumping out there, so I think I'd try to put those two down a fair bit and see if they can play a more supportive role.

I think the high end is OK but for me lacking in vocal level in those lines "is this is the way back, is this is the way back, is this is the way back home?". I think the way you put the vocals is definitely an option, choosing the more 'ad lib' style lines to be forward in the mix and leave those other lines as a backing. For me though, I just want more vocals, maybe add more FX to them also.

I think the drums are not providing enough of the rhythm. It feels like it needs a lot more kick and snare punch. If you listen to the mix Christoph_K did, that's how much it can be. I don't think for your version that it should be as much as that, but I would try giving it a bit more. A good tool for drum punch is a transient shaper like Waves Smack Attack or the one I like, Softube Transient Shaper if you haven't got something like that you definitely need one!

Hope this is useful in some way, please note that I'm not an expert by any means but it's sometimes a lot easier for someone else to tell you about your mix.

[Christoph_K]

A late happy new year to all the contestants! I listened carefully to your mixes during the last days and will now give feedback to the 15 best submissions. For a better orientation I attached a screenshots of the song markers I used so you know what I am talking about:

https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/xjwh9zx9 ... u4vig&dl=0

So here we go (in no particular order):

@SimaGT
Vocals in part 1 are way too loud, too much fx also and the sibilance is piercing. I like the fx on the vocals in part 2 though. Only the last phrase and the BGV swell should be more "in the face". The guitars in Verse 1 and the first chorus could also be more on the dry side. The "way back home" part has also a bit too much reverb on it. Maybe too long also. The 909kick could be louder. The GTR solo is also drowned in fx a bit. Besides that you mix has a lot of character. It’s bold and more on the aggressive side. The usage of rooms and halls are bit messy and could be more consistent in general.

@MartialFromentin
Intro is very noisy, guitar is too bright and too loud. Accordion is nice, vocals are nicely blended with fx. Part 2 is great. The swell could be a bit louder though. Very good vocal treatment overall. The BGV hall has to much sizzle. In part 3 there is some bright reverb wich is smearing the top end too much (maybe the same as on the BGVs?). GTR solo is too lost. BGVs are too low. The cinematic percussion in part 3 is barely audible. Pay attention to your reverbs, they tend to get out of control

@rvalle
The vocals in part 1 sound a bit muddy and have too much reverb. Look at the 200-150hz area. In part 2 it’s much better with the reverb. The guitar sounds a bit muffled. After the BGV swell there is a strange echo effect which I find distracting. The 909kick is a smidge too bumpy, go for consistency with the acoustic kick in part 3. Drums there could be have more impact. The GTR solo sounds a bit weak.

@jw_
One of the best feelings in part 1 and 2 in your mix, nailed it! There is some noise in the intro though. Great transition to part 2. I dig the FX in part 2, very tasty, gives me goosebumps. The brass swell is to low and the cinematic percussion is not hitting hard enough (too muffled). The 909 kick is a bit loud, match it with the kick in part 3. It’s much better when the synthbass drops in. Maybe the some compresssor glues them together, because when the bass is alone it’s also too loud. The vocals in verse 2 sound scooped. In part 3 the acoustic snares fundamental at 200hz is poking out a bit. I’m not a fan of the creative panning of the vocals. The Solo is coming to strong, compression could help. BGV are too low. Part 3 in general has balance issues, it's all there, just not in the right pocket.

@EmClrk
I like the sparseness in Part 1. Great hall on the vocals in Part 2. The bouzouki accents in the first chorus and verse 2 could be louder. The farvox in part 3 should me more far away. There could be less sub lows (below 30 cycles) in the last part in the bass. Also there is some smearing in the top end, maybe a reverb on the Overheads or Hihats? GTR solo is good.

@Mork
The vocals in part 1 sound a bit too distorted. I would also high pass the guitars in part 1 to get rid of thumpy frequencies (116hz). Acoustic guitar in part 2 sounds very muffled. Did you reamp this? Verse 1 is great. A bit to weak 909kick and the very hard hitting percussions don’t meet very well. The bouzouki accents in verse 2 didn’t find their pocket yet. There is a distorted sound in the transition from part 2 to part 3, what is this? The synth bass? I can hear some saturation which makes it sound to quacky. It should sound more discrete. Drums in part 3 sound killer! Bass is a bit muddy though. Maybe there is some masking going on at around 90hz with the guitars. Try to blend bass and guitars for a clearer low end. Also the BGV („home, home“) need some love - whatever you make of this comment

@Ronson79
Pretty solid mix. I like the vocal sound, maybe it's a bit muddy in part 1 (look for the resonances at 150hz). Tasty FX and good balances in general. Leadvox has way too much deesser in verse 1ff. The 909kick could cut though better. In Part 3 there seems to be some masking between bass and guitars, I hear a buildup in the lower registers. The drums sound great! Guitars in part 3 could be sitting in the mix better.

@Dodgingrain
Part 1 is good, vocals are a bit sibilant though and the accordion could play a more important role to make it more interesting. Good transition to part 2. I’m not a big fan of the room the guitar sits in but I like the placement of the bouzouki. The leadvox in part 2 and 3 is too loud sometimes. The dynamics could be more controlled. 909kick could be a tiny bit more cutting though. The saturation on the synthbass makes it too obvious, it should sound more gentle. Revisit the balances in part 3, the tracks don’t sound connected and don't play tougher really well. GTR solo is too quiet. BGV have to much deessing and could be louder.

@WrightAudio
Part 1 is ok, maybe play a bit more with the fx tracks via automation. Not a fan of the creative panning of the leadvox. The hihats have a strange reverb echo. Verse 1 is spot on, just make the 909kick a bit louder (match it with the acoustic kick). The delays in the first chorus ("Is this the way back...) is distracting. Drums in part 3 sound a bit roomy. Again not a fan of the wandering farvox. It should sound interesting though, but more depth wise. Guitars are good. BGVs sound fine.

@Michael_K
Part 1 is spot on. The accordion sounds fantastic. The hihats in Verse 1 could come more forward. Leadvocals could have a little less reverb (Verse 2 ff). GTR Solo is great. Very good drumsound in part 3! The snare could be tucked in a bit more though.

@scottfitz
Part 1 is nearly perfect. Maybe the vocals are a bit loud here and there, try to control the dynamics and the sibilance. Accordion is great, very nice fx. Love the transition. FX on leadvox in part 2 is great. Farvox should be far, not left The BGV/Brass swell is too low. 909Kick is a bit bumpy and not cutting though. Delays on vocals in verse 1+2 are distracting. The piano is very nice! BGV should come up a lot in part 2 ("Home, Home"). FX in Leadvox in the transition to part 3 is too distracting. Again the BGVs are too low there. The Farvox is too dry and not connected with the rest of the track. Drums - kick especially - in part 3 could be more hard hitting. They sound good already in general, just make them louder (not the tambu and shaker). GTR solo is a bit weak. Piano is a bit loud in part 3 (sounds still great though). Love the fx trail in the outro!

@njm255
Mix in general lacks width. Pan the elements more and make use of effects. The different parts all sound a bit similar, try to bring out the differences to keep the track interesting. The vocals in verse 1ff sound a bit harsh (too compressed, too much midrange etc.). Balance overall is good though. 909kick sits perfect with the rest. The snare in part 3 could be tucked in more. BGVs sound fine.

@shoma
Vocals in part 1 are a bit muddy (recording has a lot of proximity effect, cut 150hz). Accordion sounds really great! Guitar in part 2 is to midrangey (sounds reamped). Vocal treatment is good! Do not pan the vocals, play with depth instead of width. BGV/Brass swell is way too low. Cinematic percussion are to muddy, need more presence. 909kick could be louder (the SynthBass as well). Vocal hall in verse 1 isn’t the best choice (to bright), try a deesser on the way in. In part 3 the reverb seems to be smearing the top end, maybe lowpass the effects. Drums sound a bit roomy and not hitting enough. GTR solo is a bit weak. BGVs are too low. Outro drums could be a bit quieter (sound is interesting though, fade cuts off to hard).

@ari5to5
Part 1 sounds nice in general. I’m not so sure if I dig the chorus effect on the guitars in part 1, the guitar should reflect the loneliness and the chorus gives it friends The balance between the two guitar tracks leans too much towards the compressed one. Accordion is good. Vocals in general sound great, nice width and depth. Could be a little brighter in part 1 though. The Brass-BGV Swell is too low. I really like the creative FX in Part 2. In the verses the reverbs on the leadvox are a bit too prominent. BGVs in the chorusses („Is this the way back…“) are too low. The Farvox is great! GTR Solo could be more prominent in the beginning. One of the best drumsound in part 3 of all the mixes!

@simola
Guitar in part 1 is too loud, watch out for a better balance with the accordion. Vocals are a bit muddy and sibilant. Way better in the rest of the song though. Nice fx on the farvox in part 2. The BGV/Brass swell is way too low (I mean waaayy too low). The cinematic percussion could be louder. 909kick could have a tiny bit more oumph. The pumping HiHat is too loud (also in part 3). Bouzouki accents are too low. Low end in general is a bit weak. GTR solo is too low. In part 3 maybe back off the overheads of the drum a bit and make the BGVs louder. Tambourine is also a bit too loud.

There were a lot of interesting approaches to the song. Especially when it comes to fx choices, there was a lot to play with. Not everyone got this right and each mix has its strong and weak elements. I encourage you guys to listen to the top 15 mixes, some of them are already really great! I hope my feedback guides you in the right direction and I am looking forward to round 2!