Mix Challenge

The "Overview of Submissions" PDFs have been uploaded.
You can check them through the upper post (post #110).



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, 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 36,84% for February 2023 (95 entries, 35 disqualifications, 1 "Out of Competition" submissions). This is mostly due to two factors - an influx of new users, and finally fully enforcing a rule adjustment that has been announced in October 2022. Future games will probably balance this value out again. On average (24 months of tracking), we currently have a disqualification rate of 25,75% (compared to last month's 25,27% avg), the rate is on a slight increase. The disqualification rate over the course of the last 12 games (August 2021 to February 2023) is about 23,18% (previously 21,80%), and is on an increase.

A commentary on this month's entries:

I would like to reimburse my warm welcome to all new participants that found their way on to our small community. I hope you enjoy your stay, had fun, and could learn something from this experience. Considering that this was quite the influx this month, I'm more than curious how you found the Mix Challenge - for statistic purposes. If you'd like to comment on that, please do so in either the General Gossip thread, or say "Hi" on Discord. It makes me just as happy, to see regulars returning as well.


However, I can not avoid talking about this month's overall statistics.

As announced in October 2022, and clarified several times since -- not adhering to the given filename template now results in the status "tagged disqualified". This is the main factor for the "higher than usual" disqualification rate this February. The template has been mentioned in post #001 and once more in post #002, I even repeat myself in post #006.

It is really hard for me to understand at this point, how this is such a complicated task to copy, paste, replace "ForumUsername" with your actual forum username, and then upload/link to your file on the forum. Even long-time users don't seem to want to pay attention still, which really saddens me. I unfortunately also had to declare two users as "tagged OUT" this month (@cmopro, @kombainera), because their entry couldn't be associated with their forum user account.

All this in turn, results in me having extra work with checking whether or not I have all entries, and re-adjusting things for setting up the Statistics Sheet. I really can not close an eye on this anymore. However, to still push the learning aspect of the game, I am considering an exception for the "Wild Card mechanic" this February, to offer up to 7 slots for advancing through the help of a Wild Card, instead of the usual 3. We, as in the Song Provider/Client and I, will let you know the details with the announcement of Mix Round 2 in March.


Else, we have the usual-usual. Unfortunately, three entries that couldn't be accessed / downloaded (@1ktone, @final_mix_3.wav, @GpByPass) and have been "tagged OUT" (these entries can unfortunately not advance anymore). There were four mixes that were in the wrong sampling rate or bitrate, one of them even in 192kHz/32bit (@FallenAngel). Additionally, there are 12 entries that were not within the allowed "Loudness specs". At least 5 users that decided to just post a link to their entry, and then move on. I also pointed out to four participants this month, that "documentation of entries could be better" (mentioned as "warning"). I've been really generous with this in recent past - I might not be in the future.

And finally, there are two entries that actually changed the arrangement through either "double-timing" certain drum parts (copy/paste? @PauPeu) or adding a delay on the ride to "double it up" (@RobertWalter). While this could be seen as "creative sound design", this is technically against the rule set (see Rule Book post #006 and FAQ Q/A #07). I will bring this up with the Song Provider as he has the final word, while I merely enforce the "ground rules". Despite all that, if you do manage to get into Mix Round 2, chances are you might need to revert this particular change/effect again. Also in fairness to all other participants that adhered to the given arrangement.


All in all, having 95 entries again for the first time since 2020, is quite the feat. I would love to see this happening for pretty much all games on the platform (including the Songwriting Competition). Yet, as it currently stands, future Mix(ing) Challenges are sadly in jeopardy. So please, do reach out.

I hope you all enjoyed this month's game. 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).

Let me get it clear, I'm disqualified for putting a delay on the hi-hat?

Edit: Ok now I see the text, I hope it does not mean a problem for the song provider, the "rhythm change" is quiiite subtle

Apologies for the waiting time, @PauPeu.


Actually, your entry was "tagged disqualified" for not adhering to the filename template. This is in accordance with the stricter rule enforcement as announced in October 2022.


I also listened to your entry several times, did compare it with the released version and the clean hi-hat and "shuffled snare" patterns (chorus).

I am sorry to disappoint you, but I wouldn't call this a "subtle" rhythm change. Subtle would be, if you (for example) added a delayed reverb to as additional groove element to a snare (a common technique for electronic music), which is then merely "blended in". But your effect usage is quite present, and does alter the groove of the production.

I brought this up to our kind Song Provider as this is a bit of a tricky situation. On one hand, I have to be fair towards every participant (as host enforcing the rules). On the other hand, we are always after a "new sound" with this challenge, bolder in certain cases even.

We might know more once Mix Round 2 starts.

Hi @Mister Fox
My entry has been tagged disqualified for not adhering to the filename template however the naming convention is adhering to the format provided
I've named the file as "MC090_CristianCondrea_Big_Eyes_Avneesh.wav" which in the provided format "MC000_ArtistName_TrackName_ContestantName.wav"

If there is an error on my part please let me know as it would also be helpful in future entries
Thankyou

This will be a recurring question - a side effect with enforcing stricter rules. Let me please clarify one more time.

Thank you for understanding.

⚠	Moderation Message from Mister Fox
	The filename template as shown in post #001 and post #002 always declare what must be used for the game in question. The "Rule Book" is the super detailed fine print, and things can get overlooked. Apologies for this inconvenience -- due to massive time constraints, I did not manage to properly update the Rule Book until mid February. I am but one person behind the scenes after all. Nevertheless, this particular "format" (with double __) has been in use since at least MC073 / February 2021, with a definite and unmistakable "use this setup only" since MC079 / August 2021. I finally tightened the thumbscrews in October 2022, and also clarified this once more in the Newsletter from CW05 / February 2023. In fact, I even posted yet another reminder on page 1 of MC090 / February 2023 with post #006.

Your entry has not been declared "OUT". Should you be selected for Mix Round 2, you still get the chance to advance with the help of a Wild Card. Of course, you not only have to address requested adjustments, but also fix your minor mistakes. This mechanic extends the learning factor of the game / community.

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

Avneesh wrote: ↑

Wed Mar 01, 2023 09:25 CET

Hi @Mister Fox
My entry has been tagged disqualified for not adhering to the filename template however the naming convention is adhering to the format provided
I've named the file as "MC090_CristianCondrea_Big_Eyes_Avneesh.wav" which in the provided format "MC000_ArtistName_TrackName_ContestantName.wav"

If there is an error on my part please let me know as it would also be helpful in future entries
Thankyou

I think you did the same mistake as I did. There's supposed to be double underscores between MC090 and the artist and between artist and track name and track name and Username. And single underscores between words. I copied MC090_CristianCondrea_ from the name of the unpacked zip folder and then wrote in the rest. Oddly enough this file doesn't follow the naming convention and makes it somewhat illogical (to me). But I'll own up to it and admit I did it wrong and didn't read the fine print. Come to think of it, why not just include a naming convention text file in the zip? Doesn't excuse doing it wrong though.

I also understand if this is for cataloging and sorting reasons especially now when there are so many contestants. Otherwise I guess username would've sufficed.

Made the same mistake here, can't blame anyone else but myself although the double underscores are a bit unconventional I think.
I'll second Mastemoth in both recommendation and in zero excuses in doing it wrong.....

I enjoyed the hell out this competition, up to the next one.....

Hey thanks for clearing this @Mister Fox , For some reason I had missed the double underscores never noticed them,
@Mastemoth Yes I did the same by copying it from the zip folder

Davri wrote: ↑

Mon Feb 13, 2023 20:08 CET

The filename template is:
MC090__Cristian_Condrea__Big_Eyes__Davri.wav
Hi, this is my second mix and is mixed in headphones.

Hi Davri

If you by "second mix" mean that you have mixed two songs in total, you had a good start. Nice work so far.

We are encouraged to give critics to the mixes, so we can get different views on our work and probably learn from them. I have been listen to your mix and here are my comments based on my taste and my preferences, other may differ. It's perfectly fine to disagree.

1. Your mix is generally thin. If you look at your freq spectrum, you are a bit high from eg 1.5 kHz and upwards and a bit low from that freq and down to eg 200 Hz. Balancing the mid range and higs better will make your mix fuller, softer and more pleasant to listen to.

It's probably your experience(two mixes) that makes it thin, but it's also a danger for hearing loss as a cause if a mix become thin. If you don't know, check it out.

2. The bass is anonymous. Give it more gain and character(try some gentle distortion).

3. The vocal is thin and need more substance. A males voice have fullness around 120 Hz. If you HPF above this freq you'll lose substance and the voice become thin and strange. It could also be more upfront, especially in the louder parts of the song. Try a leveler and a compressor.

4. The guitar solo is harsh and need to be soften.

5. There seems to be some phasing issues, but I can't point you in the correct direction.

Keep up the good work.

Steinar :-)

Dodgingrain wrote: ↑

Sun Feb 19, 2023 19:34 CET

Fun song, I really enjoyed mixing it. I tried going for a warm mix on this one and let the acoustic guitar and vocals drive the track. My submission is here: https://1drv.ms/u/s!AqpB-RLndYJrlKdWey1 ... g?e=8SY2u9

We are encouraged to give critics to the mixes, so we can get different views on our work and probably learn from them. I have been listen to your mix and here are my comments based on my taste and my preferences, others may differ. It's perfectly fine to disagree.

Drums:
I intentionally left the kick in the background. I would have probably done some sample enhancement if it was allowed but unfortunately it is not. I did add some distortion and a gate to the kick and then used it as a side chain source on the bass. The rest of the drums mainly have levels set and some eq but not much else.

1. Yes, but where are your kick? I can hear it, but it's nearly audible. I can't hear the nice double hit at ca 1:07:15

Bass: Cut the far low end to make some space for the kick. The kick triggers a ducking compressor on the bass. Other than that the bass has some eq and a little bit of distortion and compression.

2. To my view, it's counter productive to duck the bass when the kick hits, IF the drummer and bass player are exactly in sync. If you'll get the attack from the kick and bass at the same time they work together and elevate the attack and make it more pronounced. If they are not perfectly in sync, then it's better to duck the bass to make the foundation precise(or at leased not unprecise)

Gutars: This is where most of the work was. The direct and amp signals were blended in each instrument. I did warm up the guitars a little bit with a neve preamp on a few of them. I also used some basic panning and delays. The bass also triggers a dynamic eq to drop off the acoustic guitar when the bass is playing. There is judicous use of soothe to keep the spikeyness of the guitars in check.

Keys: Again used neve preamps to warm up the tones. The rhodes has a rotary applied to help it sit easier in the background with a little bit of added saturation.

Vocals: Standard de-essing, compression and eq. Most of the vocals also go to a parallel compression bus to help even out the vocals and add some weight. Added some delay on the lead vocals.

3. The vocalist lisp, so you have to adjust you de-esser.

Keep up the good work.

Steinar :-)
Edit: corrected clock in comment 1