2020-DEC-01 Info: You can shape the upcoming "Community Scramble" - quite literally. Check out the sample collection thread for SWC041 / January 2021

Re: MIX CHALLENGE - MC40 February 2018 - Winners announced

Join the Mix Challenge - recurrence: February until December
Tbase2000
Posts: 119
Joined: Wed Aug 02, 2017 00:38 CEST

Re: MIX CHALLENGE - MC40 February 2018 - Mix Round 2 in evaluation

#101

Post by Tbase2000 »

@Herb Sonarworks on the phones is what I recently switched to. My DT 770 Studio phones sound horrible until they are flattened out by it. I have not tried the speakers....but I do mix in a horrible room...no treatment...so clearly things are going to get missed. I like to switch to phones for panning/automation and verb adjustments when my ears get tired. I rarely do an eq mod with a headphone but I switch between them often. I feel like, and I do this with about 5 pairs of different headphones and some pc speakers...other things...that if any of those commercial listening environments sound bad...there is a problem with your mix. If your extra bass phones sound to big to listen...then your to bassy. Your cheap pc powered speakers you plug into your laptop headphone jack...if they are freaking out...your to bassy. Confidence in your setup is so crucial to being confident with your work. Everyone is going to have a different setup and something is going to be missing because your not in a studio...but make it work. That's the beauty of little mixers vs big studios...sometimes we hit the same mark with very little resources.

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

Re: Re: MIX CHALLENGE - MC40 February 2018 - Mix Round 2 until 07-03-2018 11:59pm GMT+1/CET

#102

Post by Henrik Hjortnaes »

3ee wrote:
Wed Mar 07, 2018 23:55 CET
@ Henrik H.
"rigid", what would the density be for those?
I think it is approximately 90 kg/m3 which translates to 50 kPa.s/m2. I would have liked it a bit lower, but the advantage with higher density with this thickness (100 mm) is a better absorption coefficient at ~200 Hz and below. In fact, it starts performing better than say 10 kPa.s/m2 at around 180 Hz and below. I personally have my main issue (null) at 125 Hz at my current listening position.

Image
as a general rule, I remember that the thicker one makes a rockwool absorber, the less dense it needs to be and vice-versa
I agree.
, anyway, even after acoustic treatment, I really advise you to play with sine-wave sweeps at different speeds and ranges both ascending and descending to spot any perceivable peaks/dips.
Yes, I will use REW and do measurements. I've done measurements before and clearly saw that I needed to do something about the nulls I have.
In my experience, even after my acoustic treatment efforts, I still needed a corrective EQ system as even if I knew my room, I couldn't really compensate for what I can or can't hear!
For me, corrective EQ will come last (if ever). I'm not keen on the technology. I've used Sonarworks with my Sony MDR-7520 headphones for a while and hated it. It sounded absolutely horrific. Sure, when dialing back Sonarworks to 10% it starts to sound useful, but then again, it's almost doing nothing. I made a personal EQ profile (using AirEQ) which sound much better and more useful than the custom profile by Sonarworks. Maybe their speaker profiles are more useful, I don't know.
make sure you get your system within the +|- 3dB at the worst
That would be an insanely flat response. Maybe doable by using EQ correction, but not by pure room treatment and clever subwoofer inclusion. I'm okay if I can end up with + - 5 to 7 dB, not using EQ correction.

3ee
Backer
Posts: 71
Joined: Fri Sep 01, 2017 22:35 CEST

Re: MIX CHALLENGE - MC40 February 2018 - Mix Round 2 until 07-03-2018 11:59pm GMT+1/CET

#103

Post by 3ee »

Dodgingrain wrote:
Thu Mar 08, 2018 16:47 CET
I get the point of blurry images from reflections making it hard to gauge panning, the effects of short delays, etc. I guess where I struggle is on room modes.
not only blurry image... but you can have "holes" in the stereo field per frequencies (I guess that gets worse if not symmetrically placed in the room)

then, you will have a harder time figuring out if something's bone dry or needs very short and very subtle reverb/delays/ambiance.
Acoustic treatment + at least "decent enough" monitors will help you hear details better including judge even down to -|+ 0.5dB differences.. and also hear the some more 'esoteric' stuff more easily like converter quality and difference between mp3 and wav in some cases :D ... not to mention digital artifacts and sound/quality of 'lesser' plugins... so you can easily test/pick them for your tool box

there are only benefits as far as I see it, having even a little acoustic treatment. :) ... you can learn to work with referencing, analyzers and whatnot (I still do, especially analyzers.. and little to no reference songs I must admit :oops: ) ... they will all help, but having your acoustic system upgraded will only help in what you are already doing.

it really depends on what you are doing in the room and what results you are after..

3ee
Backer
Posts: 71
Joined: Fri Sep 01, 2017 22:35 CEST

Re: Re: MIX CHALLENGE - MC40 February 2018 - Mix Round 2 in evaluation

#104

Post by 3ee »

@HenrikH .. great! :tu: I was going to suggest that calculator, I also used the same one. The thing I would do differently when building HUGE corner super-traps is to use 40 Kg/m3 rockwool instead of the 30 which the calculator helped to suggest.. I always feel like they can easily do more! :D
That would be an insanely flat response. Maybe doable by using EQ correction, but not by pure room treatment and clever subwoofer inclusion. I'm okay if I can end up with + - 5 to 7 dB, not using EQ correction.
+|- 3 dB after IR-EQ correction for me... I also use REW, ... but I want even flatter!! haha :lol: :whiteflag: not sure how others work, I simply can't really keep in mind my room sound all the time to compensate with eq when working

User avatar
Dodgingrain
Posts: 89
Joined: Wed Sep 20, 2017 03:16 CEST
Location: United States
Contact:

Re: MIX CHALLENGE - MC40 February 2018 - Mix Round 2 in evaluation

#105

Post by Dodgingrain »

My room is treated so I'm not against it by any means. I just am always questioning what really matters and what is marketting nonsense that has become "common knowledge". Don't want to waste my life chasing falsehoods. At this point I am positive my limiting factor isn't the room or gear.
Mixing, Mastering, Remixing Services
Two Cat Audio Labs, llc
https://www.twocataudiolabs.com
https://www.instagram.com/twocataudiolabs/

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

Re: MIX CHALLENGE - MC40 February 2018 - Mix Round 2 until 07-03-2018 11:59pm GMT+1/CET

#106

Post by Henrik Hjortnaes »

Dodgingrain wrote:
Thu Mar 08, 2018 03:21 CET
I've been thinking on this. If I'm mixing the way I should on multiple monitors with multiple reference tracks and checking in multiple listening environments in rooms I know does a perfect mixing room matter that much?
A perfect room will surely speed up the mix and production process, which is a large factor for most pro facilities. This is why, I think, that perfect rooms are preferable. But I follow your thoughts completely and it's actually hard to not agree.
If I have room modes they will show in the references. If I'm mixing relatively I should still make reasonable decisions in the ranges where there are room modes.
Yes, reasonable decisions, but zooming in on the details, your reference songs are different from your song. I question that the reference songs will trigger your peaks and nulls in exactly the same way. That must mean something even though it may be subtle.

Say your song has a bass line with specific notes and a sound that triggers one of your room nulls. Lets say the reference tracks does not trigger it in the same way and much less / at all. You gain up those notes on your bass track to make it hearable in your mix compared to the perceived sound of your reference tracks. You actually gain it a lot, as it mysteriously seems to need it for you to hear it. Those bass notes are guaranteed to be way too loud when listening back in other rooms. I know you will catch this by using headphones or other playback systems/rooms, but you just wasted time and effort dialing in that bass.

I find mixing extremely complex and very demanding to my brain. The less complex I can make it, the better and more relaxed the whole process will be. I look forward to at some point be able to press play and not worry too much about room modes and sound cancellation.

User avatar
Dodgingrain
Posts: 89
Joined: Wed Sep 20, 2017 03:16 CEST
Location: United States
Contact:

Re: Re: MIX CHALLENGE - MC40 February 2018 - Mix Round 2 in evaluation

#107

Post by Dodgingrain »

I think you're right, it's just taken me a couple of days thinking through it. Probably has to do with any change I make to my mixing environment at this point not making much difference because I've worked through the big issues for the most part and the incremental improvements are now small or I need more time in the seat to raise my skill level so I notice the differences. 🤔
Mixing, Mastering, Remixing Services
Two Cat Audio Labs, llc
https://www.twocataudiolabs.com
https://www.instagram.com/twocataudiolabs/

Mork
Posts: 111
Joined: Fri Apr 14, 2017 21:55 CEST
Location: Hamburg

Re: MIX CHALLENGE - MC40 February 2018 - Mix Round 2 until 07-03-2018 11:59pm GMT+1/CET

#108

Post by Mork »

kevin gobin wrote:
Sat Mar 03, 2018 08:03 CET
Now what upsets me:

Someone broke a rule but won the first prize.
Podium guys n2, n3 (and n4) have been disadvantaged.

He kept the prize and his "punishment" was to not enter the next contest.
Would have been better to say "you will not have the next prize you will win", just my 2 cents.

Then he enters the next contest anyway, and he is virtually selected for Round 2, instead of podium guy n6.


To me that's a lot of people disadvantaged by just not caring enough about them.
Hey Kevin,

sorry for upsetting you! It was not my intention at all and you are absolutely right with what you are saying! :whiteflag:
But as I read it, 3ee never chose me as the "guy n6", he just wanted to let me know that he would have done so, if I had not to sit quietly in my corner (thanks for letting me know 3ee).

Regarding the rule violation please join the discussion in the mix challenge gossip thread. Would love to see how you guys and gals feel about it.

Good luck to all round 2 contestants! :tu:

Cheers
Mork

kevin gobin
Posts: 114
Joined: Sun Apr 09, 2017 16:53 CEST
Location: Indian Ocean

Re: MIX CHALLENGE - MC40 February 2018 - Mix Round 2 in evaluation

#109

Post by kevin gobin »

Hey Mork, we are good.

I knew that it was not your intention, obviously. Neither 3ee's, obviously.

I just felt it was necessary to tell a truth to friends, as real friends do.

I am glad we can talk about everything, as gentlemen. :tu:


Please leave the corner and have a seat next to me. :educate:

3ee
Backer
Posts: 71
Joined: Fri Sep 01, 2017 22:35 CEST

Re: Re: MIX CHALLENGE - MC40 February 2018 - Mix Round 2 in evaluation

#110

Post by 3ee »

no need to drag this any longer... but had a really tough time picking between 3rd and 4th place.. (4th place, contact me, maybe I can get you a symbolic/consolation prize )

#1 Henrik Hjortnaes

As much as I tried not to place him high on the podium (I knew he was very good from other online mixing contests and I knew there was a place on the podium for his 2nd round mix) , his mix is simply great! not only technically as far as I can tell but also fits the feel of the track! Look out guys, it's gonna be a tough competition here from now on! ;)

#2 Coiled Ear

Not the perfect mix (a tiny bit too accented on the 'fixed to grid' rhythm) but really like the sound/atmosphere of it, fits the song and the "era" where the song is suppose to be thought out from.

#3 Photonic

Had a tough time picking between it and DodgingRain's mix, ultimately went for Photonic's mix because the added part changes with automation, filtering and whatnot were tastefully added and the overall sound seems old and colored rather than "studio quality"
The kick is a bit too hip-hop/urban (and a bit too sub inclined, do you mix at lower level usually? ) and the sidechain is too noticeable but whatever...

.........
DodgingRain, your mix is very good also, was part of the podium most of the time but finally I decided to go with Photonic's mix, reasons described above, please send pm.. having 2nd thoughts for not picking your mix, you pretty much nailed the chorus ambiance :)

Post Reply