The "Overview of Submissions" PDFs have been uploaded.
You can check them through the
upper post (post #114).
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 37,80% for August 2024 (82 entries, 31 disqualifications, 0 "Out of Competition" submission not counting).
As usual, many of these disqualifications are due to not paying attention to detail (careless mistakes), e.g.: wrong sampling rate or bitrate, loudness specs, lack of documentation, and not properly using the provided filename template (also see the provided "TL;DR Rules.txt" file, etc).
On average (33 months of tracking), we currently have a disqualification rate of 26,26% (compared to last game's 25,90% avg), the rate is still increasing. The disqualification rate over the course of the last 12 games (October 2022 to August 2024) is about 28,05% (previously 26,99%), and is a drastic increase. This jump is mostly due to various entries being "tagged disqualified" because of non-allowed arrangement changes.
I strongly recommend all participants to pay more attention to details in future games. |
A commentary on this month's entries:
I would like to once more welcome all new participants who have found their way into our little community. I hope this Mix(ing) Challenge was once more interesting and you enjoy your stay. Let's hope for many more games to come during "
Year 11"
I stated in previous Mix(ing) Challenges, that future detailed "follow-up posts" will be a rare occurrence. These posts take up a lot of time, and I can only get so much done in the day. However, I decided to write a more in-depth commentary for MC099, because of the sudden jump of entries being "tagged disqualified".
The Statistic Sheets are also delayed due to the fact, that I did spot listening checks with every entry, to confirm what was written with each entries documentation. Usually, I do not do this. However, this month was a bit of a Wild West in terms of interpreting the
Rule Book. I understand that there might have been a misunderstanding due to one comment by the Song Provider on the topic of "creative mixing" with the vocals. Although I will also take the blame for not getting back in touch with the client on this specific paragraph, to refine things more so that there are no misunderstandings (I will make sure of that for future games).
Then again, your task was, and will always be "mixing".
The topic
was not "add harmony lines" (no matter the means - like copy/paste/pitch adjust, Melodyne or similar, AUX effect with "pitched up/pitched down" vocals, in one case even similar chord progressions based upon the song key). Unless the client and I (as host) allow you to do that and it is an essential part of a current running game. Which is actually far form being an easy task - even if MIDI chords or similar would be provided. This is also akin to the topic of "Drum Shell Sample Replacement Tools" -- it boils down to accessibility (these tools are not cheap, only a handful of users can afford them), and the expertise of a participant. Some might have no issue with that at all and basically child's play. For others, it might be impossible to pull off since they neither have the tools they need, nor do they know what they're doing. Hence why this was not a "special task" in any game so far. I want the Mix(ing) Challenge to be accessible to everyone!
To bring this full circle:
By copying/moving sections of the arrangement, muting parts, or adding content that wasn't originally at this particular place in the arrangement,
you actively take on the role of a "songwriter". And this is simply not your task for the Mix(ing) Challenge.
The MC099 Statistic Sheets have an additional column this time around, labeling entries that had additional Harmony Lines ("HARMONY" or "HARM" in short form), muted sections (MUTES), or shifted sections (SHIFT). After checking all entries multiple times, sadly 12 participants got this label - which resulted in a jump from an otherwise 23,17% disqualification rate (19 disqualified entries) to 37,80% (31 disqualified entries). This definitely counts to "lesson learned" - for me as host as well. I will definitely pay more attention with setups for future Mix(ing) Challenges.
There are still talks behind the scenes how we will handle this situation with Mix Round 2, so that the outcome will be a fair to all participants of MC099. The Song Provider and I will definitely keep you updated.
Other than that - I had to declare two entries as "tagged OUT" (no chance to advance), due to the fact, that I caught these uses re-uploading their entries during the submission period - and also shortly after (this entry would have been "tagged OUT" one way or the other, because of a missing attached username). Two more users are "tagged OUT" due to the fact, that the entries weren't accessible by the end of the deadline. One of them still isn't.
Everything else are the usual-usual "small (careless) mistakes" with not using the filename template (as provided with the TL;DR Rules.txt, and
post #003), the wrong Sampling Rate, or the signal exceeding the loudness specs. Interestingly enough, there is no entry with a mismatched bitrate this month (as in: 16 bit export).
Some more oddities that I ran into:
One WAV file resulted in a loading error - something I still don't know why this is happening. Another entry actually had a render mishap, where the music is "pitched down" compared to the vocals. And the mixing techniques for yet another entry might have resulted in weird flanging / comb filter effects (please check your latency compensation for your extensive parallel processing!).
To close this out.
I am definitely happy with the participation amount. However, I am not so happy with the disqualification rate. As mentioned above, this will also be a learning process for me.
Regardless of that - once more a thank you to everyone that invested time with this month's game. And an additional thank you to everyone that keeps spreading the word about the Mix Challenge. I hope you could learn something, and had fun in the process.
See you in the next challenge.
.
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).
We (as in: the Song Provider and I) will keep you updated, and of course send out appropriate reminder newsletters!
EDIT: 27-AUG-2024 10:50 UTC+2/CEST - initial post
EDIT: 30-AUG-2024 16:05 UTC+2/CEST - Update due to change in Disqualification Rate
EDIT 26-AUG-2024:
It's my second submission... we need these every month!
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.