I would quickly like to address a couple of recurring questions, as there seems to be a lot of confusion/misunderstanding happening right now.
PianoPung wrote: ↑Tue Jul 04, 2023 14:27 CEST
Am I disqualified for writing wrong file name, carefully filled out by a rule that i was told to read carefully? And for omitting 1,5 seconds of silence?
So, there were some new rules about file naming I missed? Please remove the old rule I stupidly believed was the rule! This will most certainly happen again if not.
Correct, your entry was "tagged disqualified" due to not adhering to the given filename template from
page 001 and the bundled "TL;DR Rules.txt".
Using the provided filename template has been a topic even before the Mix Challenge audio community went independent. The template changed throughout the years, of course. The "double underline" variant has been in use since
at least MC081 / November 2021. I made the stricter rule book enforcement clear in
October 2022. Due to severe time constraints (this whole endeavor is run by one person), the Mix(ing) Challenge rule book has last been updated in
February 2023.
Please do not claim that there were some new rules / recent changes.
PianoPung wrote: ↑Tue Jul 04, 2023 14:27 CEST
I didn’t even see the don’t-cut-silence-rule, so I suppose that is my bad. I honestly thought that everything was OK as long as the entire song was in the file. I repeat; the entire song. The imaginary mastering dude can easily add silence, but I understand that the rules of this game can not be questioned.
Davias wrote: ↑Tue Jul 04, 2023 20:03 CEST
I wasn't aware of the silence cut rule....
Barry M wrote: ↑Mon Jun 26, 2023 16:28 CEST
I also got pulled up on the time of the track. Mine was a few seconds too short. Why is that a problem if it's silence?
There is no rule on "omitting silence" - as in
"silence at the beginning / end of a mix" -
yet. The
Mix Challenge - Addendum for the Statistic Sheet and Wild Card mechanic clearly states:
"currently for information purposes only".
It is merely an indication that your material might have been cut shorter than what the Song Provider intended. This is not good practice on various levels. As already mentioned by other users, this makes it impossible for a follow-up mastering process to set proper fade in/out. Other possible issues are way too soon cut off reverb trails, which can't be easily recreated at a later state. And finally, cutting things "too close" can result in transient smearing (during processing / rendering). Not every tool responds sample accurate. This is why (for example) multi-tracks should be provided with at least one bar extra in terms of silence in front and back of the track, to prevent these issues.
Please don't make up reasons for disqualifications. The information column on the Statistic Sheet tells you what went wrong.
Davias wrote: ↑Tue Jul 04, 2023 20:03 CEST
...
EDIT EDIT : I believe such "errors" wouldn't matter much in real life scenarios. If I was a customer, and someone sent me the wrong file format... if the mix sounded good I would just ask to have the right format, could be a matter of minutes with modern tools to fix the issue.
I mix in 44kHz and whatever bitdepth my daw is allowing, due to CPU constraints, no matter what are the the tracks formats I have to treat, I convert all files to wavpack or flac to spare space. so at the end it is just a conversion matter before sending the final file.
zed999 wrote: ↑Tue Jul 04, 2023 22:14 CEST
...
Converting from 48 to 41 and back is best avoided I believe. If I paid someone to mix my tune and they did that, whether I could hear the difference or not I would be suspicious that the quality had degraded. I also usually work at 41 for the same reason as you, but I enjoy the limitations. For this one I ran the project at 48 as the files were that quality, it buys some Nyquist filtering headroom with some VSTs, then messed up... because I wasn't paying attention.
No, it is not a simple "conversion matter".
With sample rate conversion and (worst case scenario) even bitrate truncation, you introduce a (possible) loss in quality of the provided material. In case of sample rate conversion, you will loose out on fidelity. In case of bitrate truncation, you will introduce noise and ripple effects. By converting into a "lossless format" to save HDD space, you inadvertently also add more strain to your CPU for "decoding". Unless the material is being "converted to WAV" prior to loading temporarily anyway. Then this is a moot argument in one way or the other. And depending on the behavior of the "decoder", you might still introduce possible conversion issues.
48kHz barely eats any extra CPU cycles. If anything, they are lower than with 44kHz, as 99% of ADC/DAC on the market these days run "internally" at 48Khz, or a multiple of that value. The only problem I see, is with a rare handful of analog consoles with built-in recording modules, that only work at a certain specific sampling rate (the Allen & Heath QU-series comes to mind). I had one former user send me some... strong words behind the scenes, stating
"I won't join anymore in the future", unless the material is
"only provided in the sampling rate the console works in".
I am sorry, but this will never be the case. We will always have access to either 44kHz or 48kHz material. In rare occasions, maybe even 96kHz. And your task will always be: same quality in, same quality out (bar minimum, 24bit). Another point of consideration on the topic of "mixing in 44.1kHz/24bit, even if 48kHz/24bit" -- with the recent mass introduction of "Mixing in Dolby Atmos", the source material
must be in either 48kHz or 96kHz now (the engine won't work otherwise!). Before you ask - "Mixing in Dolby Atmos" might only be a topic for a "Special Challenge" in the foreseeable future, not the regular games.
To give you a perspective however:
I still do mixes on an Intel Core i7 920 CPU from late 2008, overclocked, Windows based. As equivalent on the Apple side of things, is an Apple iMac 11.3 from 2010. My projects are played back from a 500GB SSD from late 2010s. I can still easily run more than 64 channels with 3-5 plugins per channel and 8 AUX tracks with reverb/delay/etc on them - in real time at 128 samples (RME hardware). And while I do understand that not everyone has access to a super-modern or beefy rig. Considering that everything "Mix Challenge" has been conducted on a 12+ year old rig (at this point) is an argument to maybe reconsider how you handle things on your setup.
PianoPung wrote: ↑Tue Jul 04, 2023 14:27 CEST
Probably my first and last entry…
While this is definitely your personal choice, let me please also point out that you joined our community this July 2023. By participating in any of the games, you also agreed to adhere to the given and well established Rules and Guidelines.
I am merely providing a platform and uphold the rules to keep the game is fair for everyone. You choose your own adventure.
On to the topic of Feature Requests:
Davias wrote: ↑Sat Jul 01, 2023 15:31 CEST
Is there a place where we can find all the links submitted for each contests ?
Not currently.
Collecting each link and then turn that into a dedicated post, is a lot of extra work. I do this for the Songwriting Competition (different concept), but not for the Mix(ing) Challenge. This might be addressed in the future, which in turn might also fix possible issues with non-accessible content.
Davias wrote: ↑Tue Jul 04, 2023 20:03 CEST
EDIT : Also, if I got it right, we only have 2 wild cards for life... so I wouldn't waste a wildcard so easily...
I'd prefer two wild cards per year I swear
As of this moment, the "Wild Card" mechanic is limited like this on purpose, to add to the learning factor.
If you would get a "Wild Card" reset every 12 months, you could just continue to make mistakes (in cases even on purpose), and any repercussions would be rendered meaningless.
zed999 wrote: ↑Sat Jul 01, 2023 10:25 CEST
Something that would interest me greatly, would be some kind of marker to say whether the participant was professional or amateur.
I found a possible forum engine add-on to introduce so called "flairs" for user accounts (additional to roles - this is how the "Wild Card", "Song Provider" or "Blacker" icons are handled). But I need to extensively test this (usability, visuals, etc).
If it works in a meaningful way, I might consider implementing it. But I won't make any promises for an immediate implementation.
zed999 wrote: ↑Sat Jul 01, 2023 19:09 CEST
The other thing this site misses IMO is an easy way to show your appreciation of posts like Christoph_k's above. A simple "like" button would do it.
I saw / experienced how detrimental upvote / downvote features were on other communities. This won't happen, sorry.
Quick update on the evaluation process:
Our Song Provider is still touring. He will keep us updated.
I would like to redirect the conversation back to "talking shop" (mix techniques) and giving feedback to each other. Anything else Rule Book related, please either post in the corresponding
General Gossip thread, or reach out in the #gossip-questions-answers section on
Discord.
So, there were some new rules about file naming I missed? Please remove the old rule I stupidly believed was the rule! This will most certainly happen again if not.
On to the topic of Feature Requests: