Mix Challenge

Posted: **Sun Apr 27, 2025 16:46 CEST**

juhu wrote: ↑
Fri Apr 25, 2025 23:52 CEST

juhu wrote: ↑
Fri Apr 25, 2025 18:54 CEST

Pentatonicdave wrote: ↑
Fri Apr 25, 2025 12:20 CEST
I use mid side eq based on can opener curve + custonm eq curve based on harman curve. it works wonders. in addition I use realphones.
Reading your comment made me curious about Harman curves, so I tried to educate myself by googling a bit and then tried matching my MDR-7506 phones to a few variations of the Harman curve using https://autoeq.app/ - and I'm quite impressed about the results I got listening to the reference snippets they have provided there! I let it fit to a parametric EQ with 1x low shelf + 4x peaking bands + 1x high shelf and set a few constraints on a few peaking bands manually in order to get the best match. Now I need to also educate myself on the crossfeed / Can-Opener technique. I'll definitely try this combo approach on my next mix once I figure out the crossfeed as well, so thanks for the tip!
So to complete my investigation regarding crossfeed, I've found this Youtube clip that explains what CanOpener is really doing behind the scenes and even shows a plot of the mid-side EQ curve involved:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ktKD8SYGUiI&t=283s
Naturally, I then also replicated this CanOpener mid-side curve on top of the Harman-matching curve for my MDR-7506 (described in my previous post quoted above) and now mixes on phones (with matching curves enabled) do sound astonishingly close to how they sound on my HS80M's (with matching curves disabled)! I wasn't expecting to ever get this close tbh! Nice.

One additional note regarding the Harman compensation curve fitted using https://autoeq.app/ though: the Q-values provided by the curve fitter do not directly match to Logic's Channel EQ's understanding of Q-values (regardless the state of the Q-Couple toggle button) so I had to manually adjust the Q's in Logic visually to get the plotted curve as close as I could.

I'm glad you found it helpful, I hope it will make a difference. This is still thing that have to be used with caution and referenced agains other monitoring situations.

Posted: **Mon Apr 28, 2025 06:29 CEST**

The "Overview of Submissions" PDFs have been uploaded.
You can check them through post #096.

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" (a bold "X" on the Statistic Sheet), 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 29,33% for MC103 / April 2025 (75 entries, 22 disqualifications, 01 "Out of Competition" submission not counting). Compared to last month, MC102 / February 2025 was at 19,30%. As usual, many of these disqualifications are due to not paying attention to detail (careless mistakes), e.g.: wrong sampling rate, loudness specs, lack of documentation, not properly using the provided filename template, or file access issues. There is another entry with an unfortunate render error. On average (37 months of tracking), we currently have a disqualification rate of 25,89% (compared to last game's 25,80% avg), the rate is on a slight increase again. The disqualification rate over the course of the last 12 games (June 2023 to April 2025) is about 26,16% (previously 25,89%) and is also increasing again.

A commentary on this month's entries:

As stated in previous Mix(ing) Challenges, 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.

Please consult the Mix Challenge - Addendum: Statistic Sheet and Wild Card Mechanic page on how to interpret the provided PDFs.

A REMINDER:
Please pay attention to detail. A lot of the pointed out issues/mistakes could have been prevented. Please also provide more documentation, not just things like "this mix uses a lot of parallel compression" or a generic plugin listing and nothing more. We're all here to learn - and I would love to read more "this is how I created sound ABC" type posts in the future. This is part of the game mechanic after all.

Once more 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 - (harsh / misplaced) 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: 28-APR-2025 06:28 UTC+1/CET - initial post

Posted: **Mon Apr 28, 2025 09:04 CEST**

Mister Fox wrote: ↑
Mon Apr 28, 2025 06:29 CEST
Please also provide more documentation, not just things like "this mix uses a lot of parallel compression" or a generic plugin listing and nothing more. We're all here to learn - and I would love to read more "this is how I created sound ABC" type posts in the future. This is part of the game mechanic after all.

I agree, but I didn't respect this point, sorry.
I find it difficult to explain things after the fact.
That said, if I have time this afternoon, I could try to reopen the session and explain my choices if anyone is interested...

Posted: **Mon Apr 28, 2025 20:15 CEST**

Awesome work everybody. In the spirit of the forum and learning from one another I've got two ideas:

1. Leave a critique or review of my mix and I'll do the same for you. viewtopic.php?p=19304#p19304

2. I'm thinking about doing a video walkthrough of my workflow, mix layout, and what a hybrid digital / analog mixing rig looks like for me. The pros and cons, etc. Let me know if that's something that might interest you and I'll get it out this week.

Posted: **Mon Apr 28, 2025 20:49 CEST**

I picked a totally random page and click on the first mix to listen to. @Stfh Well done! I know you didn't ask for it but here is my feedback, take it for what it's worth (not much!).

Like the verb on the whistle at the beginning

Drum kit is well balanced. Nice job drawing the attack out of the kick and balancing the hi-hat. Great snare sound!

Good treatment of the vocals, nice and smooth, present. I’m not sure about the large decay on the reverb but it’s a bold choice and as always, the truth lies with the client. I usually pick decay times in some relation to the tempo of the song.

The mix moves along nicely into the bridge and I like the movement you gave the heavier guitar parts.

As for what I think could improve (this is all subjective, we all have belly buttons and opinions).

The rhythm guitar in the verse is over compressed for my taste. It squashes what energy it can lend to the track by losing the attack.

There is a strange ring modulation type artifact on the Rhodes keys and BGVS. It's very present on quieter parts. I’m not sure if that’s something that happened during a render or a plugin but it’s a little harsh.

And lastly, at least on my monitoring setup the bass isn’t coming through in balance with the kit. I could use more of it or maybe even just more upper mids to help the bass line become a little more clear.

Overall nicely done and good luck!

Posted: **Tue Apr 29, 2025 00:54 CEST**

Strange wrote: ↑
Fri Apr 11, 2025 17:14 CEST

mbernbrich wrote: ↑
Thu Apr 10, 2025 00:00 CEST
Hello Mix-Community

Living between Cologne and Frankfurt I was happy to see a german song here. Thank you Strange to let us work on your song.
So, here is my mix - download: https://bernbrich.de/MC103/MC103__Stran ... nbrich.wav

phpBB [media]

. . .
Hello @mbernbrich,

thank you for sharing and mixing my song! First I'm very impressed how you present your mix,particularly how you embedded it in the post: one click to hear your mix, one click to download. How did you do this?

Thank you very much.
Inline Player: There is the black play icon in the second row of the editor. It basically just adds the empty media tags. Then I added the url to the wave file manually.
Download Link: In the first row of the editor I used the earth/chain icon.
Alternatively, you can add the tags manually. In the editor it looks like so:

Code: Select all

 [url]https://bernbrich.de/MC103/MC103__Strange__WegZuDir__mbernbrich.wav[/url]
 [media]https://bernbrich.de/MC103/MC103__Strange__WegZuDir__mbernbrich.wav[/media]

Cheers - Martin

Posted: **Tue Apr 29, 2025 10:00 CEST**

I'm so sorry that I was disqualified of the contest.
I understand is because I used a wrong sample rate, I must to pay attention the next time but I don't understand why my account wasn't associated to my submission.

Can someone explain this?

Thanks all and good luck to all the "survivor"

Posted: **Tue Apr 29, 2025 11:30 CEST**

red86549 wrote: ↑
Tue Apr 29, 2025 10:00 CEST
I'm so sorry that I was disqualified of the contest.
I understand is because I used a wrong sample rate, I must to pay attention the next time but I don't understand why my account wasn't associated to my submission.

Can someone explain this?

Thanks all and good luck to all the "survivor"

There was filename template we had to adhere to. And at the end of it was place for your forum nickname. Since your file doesn't use correct template and there is no forum nickname in right place, the entry is tagged "no username association". That's what i'm thinking.

Posted: **Tue Apr 29, 2025 12:04 CEST**

red86549 wrote: ↑
Tue Apr 29, 2025 10:00 CEST
Can someone explain this?

Please see post #122 (above), 2nd paragraph, made more visual with the

icon.

Mix Challenge - Addendum: Statistic Sheet and Wild Card Mechanic

Everything is explained in minute detail multiple times over. Including the mix pack bundled "TL;DR Rules.txt".

Posted: **Tue Apr 29, 2025 12:40 CEST**

Mix Challenge

MIX CHALLENGE - MC103 April 2025 - Mix Round 1 in evaluation

Re: MIX CHALLENGE - MC103 April 2025 - Mix Round 1 in evaluation

MIX CHALLENGE - MC103 April 2025 - Mix Round 1 in evaluation

Re: MIX CHALLENGE - MC103 April 2025 - Mix Round 1 in evaluation

Re: MIX CHALLENGE - MC103 April 2025 - Mix Round 1 in evaluation

Re: MIX CHALLENGE - MC103 April 2025 - Mix Round 1 in evaluation

Re: MIX CHALLENGE - MC103 April 2025 - Submissions until 21-APR-2025 23:59 UTC+2/CEST

Re: MIX CHALLENGE - MC103 April 2025 - Mix Round 1 in evaluation

Re: MIX CHALLENGE - MC103 April 2025 - Mix Round 1 in evaluation

MIX CHALLENGE - MC103 April 2025 - Mix Round 1 in evaluation

Re: MIX CHALLENGE - MC103 April 2025 - Mix Round 1 in evaluation