Mix Challenge

Thank you so much for your reply!

Hi Everyone,

Thanks for the feedback. I'll definitely watch for the things mentioned in upcoming mixes!

After the previous Challenge I posted an idea but it didn't get much of a response so I thought I'd bring it up again. It was the idea of some kind of rating system for the mixes so that people could get an idea of where they stood in the overall Challenge. I always try to take criticism onboard but it's hard to know if problem areas are minor, major or disastrous!

Anyway, my idea was to have some sort of ranking system, maybe like "A, B, C, D, E" where "A" goes through to the second round, "E" is a DNQ, and "B", "C", and "D" represent different grades i.e. "B", is almost good enough to get into the second round, whereas a "C" might need to work on a few areas first, and "D" has a way to go. I realise this is an extra burden for the song provider but it would be a big help for those of us who want to improve.

Anyone else think that this would be a good idea?

Cheers,

Chris

RonHalperin wrote: ↑

Thu Dec 24, 2020 01:42 CET

Hey,

I know im little late, but since i worked on the mix quite a bit, (and really enjoyed it)

I think it's one of the best mixes!
Musically very pleasing.
It has warmth in the mid-range, as far as I understood, it is what the client is preferring. Good electric guitars.
Vocals on the natural side as well, but a bit brighter than average, which I like.
I seem to hear no technical issues, and what you documented, basically completes the experiences I made (bass needs a lot of work, etc.)
I am wondering though, the solo git starts in the right speaker and after the run jumps into the center, and the cut seems not really in sync. In the second "grita" chorus, we have a sharp git jumping in from the left side, it might be a bit sticking out.
Have many listeners, and a good holiday season!!

@cpsmusic
I think it is a good idea, but it might also face difficulties,
eg. if there is less commenting than desired anyway, those marks would not rush in with too much of diligence and decency.
It might become neglected as well, but if not,
OTOH I have seen in some forums, that there is possibility that some form of "favoritism" arises, which makes things too personal, and can contradict its purpose of judging facts.
my 2 cents only..

but to be creative, and again it would be too much work very likely,
but in the advanced digital era, we could prepare a collaborative spread sheet,
and each contributor can use up a number of fields/rows with categories (a year ago a client had something similar), to comment on any of the mixes.
which would be relief from the task to find one's own structure of making a comment.
the spread sheet sorts itself on the name of the mixer (not the commenter) after every update.

I think a rating system is not reasonable. Because besides basic and technical aspects mixing is also an artistic step of a production and also a huge matter of taste. And the particular client isn't a teacher or a jury.

The 'big guys' in this business are almost always experts (e.g. for some specific musicgenres) and booked by artists and producers for their individual sound and feel they apply to the production. There's no more 'better' or 'worse', just 'different'.

So ... it can happen that you just missed the individual feel of a song and the taste of the client, but apart from that your mix is good.

Just my 2 cents.

m_tree wrote: ↑

Thu Dec 24, 2020 06:07 CET

...the particular client isn't a teacher or a jury.

With respect to the Challenge, I think that the song provider is the jury. And that the rating would not be absolute, but rather, relative to song and the wishes of the song provider. It would not be a "Good/Bad" thing, instead, how close the submission was to what was wanted.

Cheers!

And just to add, isn't the song provider already categorizing the submissions anyway, into Round 2/Not Round 2?

The "Overview of Submissions" PDFs have been uploaded.
You can check them through the upper post. (post #103)

Changes:
- added @RonHalperin's entry (I will not add further entries - this was an exception)
- fixed the labeling (MC072 December instead of MC071 November)
- removed one color code (we rarely run into this, so it's been omitted)


On that behalf:

@RonHalperin
Your entry was sadly a tad too hot loudness wise if we go by pure technical analysis.

While a drift of +-1 LU from a certain target value (example: -16LUFS for iTunes) is allowed for most distribution platforms and/or broadcasting, the Mix Challenge permits a range of -24,0 LUFS ILk (absolute minimum) to -16,0 LUFS ILk (absolute maximum). Something to look out for future participation. I've mentioned this before, but the main concept of this game is not to "limit" you in your creativity, but to slightly nudge you to give your material room to breathe / be more dynamic. Basically going away from "sausage mixes".

cpsmusic wrote: ↑

Thu Dec 24, 2020 04:57 CET

Anyone else think that this would be a good idea?

Can we please move this to the Gossip Thread as part of a proper conversation? Let's gather some more feedback on this, maybe even some basic concepts. Also, this would be a tad easier to find than in a regular challenge thread. Thank you @cpsmusic, @White Punk OD, @m_tree.

BTW one example for brickwalling was made by Tom Immon, now after top 10 have been chosen, I think it is fair to mention it.
To my knowledge, a mastering engineer would reject it, because anything he does would mess with the dynamics or balances in counterproductive ways, things are packed and boxed already. He would just turn it louder again until headroom exceeds limits.
Furthermore, probably this is also the reason that we have only 23 active bits.
That mix sounded good to me, but it would be for the band, not for production.

White Punk OD wrote: ↑

Thu Dec 24, 2020 07:06 CET

BTW one example for brickwalling was made by Tom Immon, now after top 10 have been chosen, I think it is fair to mention it.
To my knowledge, a mastering engineer would reject it, because anything he does would mess with the dynamics or balances in counterproductive ways, things are packed and boxed already. He would just turn it louder again until headroom exceeds limits.
Furthermore, probably this is also the reason that we have only 23 active bits.
That mix sounded good to me, but it would be for the band, not for production.

I raised a similar issue a while back. I guess it depends on whether the mix is viewed as a "final" thing or alternatively, as a step in the production process with more to follow ( i.e. mastering). I've been looking into this lately and it seems that if you want to have a loud master, then the mix has to be prepared a certain way. And that this means the "prepared" mix might not sound as good as something mixed to sound good without further processing.

Cheers!