Mix Challenge

cpsmusic wrote: ↑

Sun Aug 27, 2023 02:57 CEST

rvalle wrote: ↑

Sat Aug 26, 2023 16:40 CEST

scottfitz wrote: ↑

Sat Aug 26, 2023 01:05 CEST

Anyway the point of all this is that throughout the mixing process I was wondering how can we do a thing like set a global vocal compression setting and similarly on other elements when this is such a blunt and almost disrespectful way to treat the music? Perhaps the constraints of time simply don't allow us to do more, but I did consider splitting the music into separate sections which each had their own compression settings, sadly I had nowhere near enough time to attempt it. Did anyone else start to think like that or have a different way to understand what needs to be done?

I did it in Gaz's voice. I divided it into three channels, vox soft, vox strong and vox fxs. For the first two channels, I used the same compressor with slight differences in the settings. I could also have kept a single channel and automated some parameters, but I find it much easier to create new channels for respective processing.

That's referred to as "multing" and it's used a lot.

In regards to the dynamics discussion earlier, I came across a quote from Jacquire King a while back where he said that for "bigger" sections he likes to add something that adds "the appearance of loudness" i.e. it sounds like the instrument is being played louder, or it's become louder using some distortion or whatever. In terms of absolute level it might not actually be louder though. It's "smoke and mirrors"!

Cheers!

Thanks for the clarification! I'm gonna check for more about this technic.

trackerjack wrote: ↑

Sun Aug 27, 2023 20:49 CEST

Deadlines only apply to mix engineers lol.

The "Overview of Submissions" PDFs have been uploaded.
You can check them through the upper post (post #136).



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 28,05% for August 2023 (81 entries, 23 disqualifications, 1 "Out of Competition" submission). This is ranging between 1/4th and 1/3rd of all participants. Many of these disqualifications are due to carelessness errors: lack of accessibility of submissions, not allowed re-uploads, and not following the given file name template as mentioned in the provided "TL;DR Rules.txt" file. Not to mention changes after(!) the the extended deadline. On average (27 months of tracking), we currently have a disqualification rate of 26,08% (compared to last game's 26,00% avg), the rate is still increasing. The disqualification rate over the course of the last 12 games (November 2021 to August 2023) is about 25,32% (previously 24,31%), and is also on an increase. I strongly recommend all participants to pay more attention to details in future games.

A commentary on this month's entries:

I would once again like to extend a warm welcome to all new participants who have found their way into our little community. Most of you seem to have chimed in from Sonic State. I hope you enjoy your stay, had fun, and could learn something from this experience.


Creating the Statistic Sheets took a bit longer than expected, because I had to quite literally triple check various entries for time stamps. Plus getting one entry sorted out, that has been withdrawn (I am now informed as to why, this was on purpose... which is a shame, because the only "rule mistake" was being in the wrong sampling rate).

The thing that is standing out to me, is that even though there are multiple(!) clear pointed out links to the well established Rules and Guidelines, and there being a bundled "TL;DR Rules.txt" with each Mix Pack (for several games now) - the biggest issue still seems to be accessing the file, and using the correct filename template (through a simple copy/paste/edit job!).

Some users even straight up told me "I didn't read the rules", others just... copy/pasted from a previous entry and didn't adjust anything (resulting in a wrong username association), and others were just like "meh... this is enough", went with things like "born taurus man.wav" or "Contest Mix 1.wav", then moved on.

I honestly grew a bit tired of this while collecting entries early on (I always do this!). And since that issue started that soon in the game yet again... I actually went out of my way this month and started to send direct private messages. I even allowed users to "fix this important detail" until the deadline of the game has been reached. Something I usually do not do (because: by joining, every participant agrees to adhere to the given rules). I posted reminders multiple times, I also wrote about that fact in the newsletter. Then the deadline got extended, giving you even more time to address this.

Many of you used this opportunity to not be disqualified (fix the file access and filenames). Unfortunately, some of you even did this after the multiple given deadlines have ended. I am sorry, but I have to draw a line in the sand at some point. And that point was in the morning on 25-AUG-2023 at 03:00 UTC+2/CEST.

As with every month, there were still entries that weren't accessible (e.g. @Jo Sanas), or where no username has been associated (those being: @IMM, @Goranotti, @TheodorChatzopoulos). I can't be any more clear with writing in the rules "Please check that everything is in proper order prior to uploading and posting on the forum" and "Double check for accessibility after the upload.". A simple thing, but with huge impact.

I unfortunately also had to bench some participants due to re-uploading of their entries. I've reached out to both @i.shadrin and @Ntsakosoul to "please fix your download links". The former user opted to just sign up for a new account, and kept re-uploading the entry 3 more times. The latter sadly got a bit impatient, didn't wait for a response from me via PM (there was still plenty of time left - I can't be on the community 24/7), went ahead and posted the entry again - through WeTransfer even - resulting in a "re-upload" that wasn't necessary. This actually hurt, because these entries were within specs. On that behalf, I also caught @PauPeu re-uploading his entry. This one would have resulted in a mere "tagged disqualified" due to the entry slightly exceeding the loudness limit. Now it is fully out of the game.

Such a pity - those of you that were "tagged OUT", forfeit your chance to be heard, and advance into the next round.
And all of this actually also results in the biggest amount for disqualifications this month!


Speaking of WeTransfer... I went back and forth so many times on @servandisco's entry. It was available up until today, but it will time out within the next 24 hours. I am very lenient this month and will merely state a warning here... Again, please consult the "rules" in it's various available forms again. Other than that, this particular entry is "tagged disqualified", because of not using the filename template, and exceeding the maximum allowed loudness and dBTP values.

I also give a warning for @Ozgen Sabuncu -- your entry uses a time stamp over 1,5 hours older than your post on the forum. This was prior to me reaching out to users regarding wrong filenames. I can not proof if this was a re-upload... so I'll let this "slide" this month.


The rest of the entries that have been "tagged disqualified" unfortunately suffer from the usual-usual: wrong sampling rate, wrong bitrate, loudness specs, no documentation. Funny enough, I only have two users, that didn't provide any documentation to their mix.

To everyone else, especially those that went into super-detail with documentation: this definitely adds to the learning factor of the community. It will also help you for possible re-edits later down the line (especially if you used often fluctuating equipment setups). Something that is still important to this day.


One final thing -- the topic of "Song Length".

I understand that some of you "cut as close as possible" without leaving room for follow-up edits (fade in/out). Something I do not recommend (it is also a topic in the Rule Book).

However, please explain to me why some you cut away content that is essential to the narrative? I am explicitly talking about the intro/outro synth and radio noises in this production. There are multiple users that cut away about 5 seconds from the original run-time, which is already a lot! One user in particular removed about about 15 seconds even (@DOUGLAS COSTA).

You have been provided material with a certain length, a certain narrative. Cutting away parts that are essential to this, considering it to be "useless noise that nobody will listen to anyway", is not okay. This would count as "changing the arrangement". And should you get into Mix Round 2, you need to reinstate that part of the narrative.

While "song length" is not yet a criteria for disqualification, this topic is something I need to bring up this month. This is why the runtime of your mix is also listed on the Statistic Sheet. To see if your entry is at the same as the original mix (+-1 second tolerance).



To close this out.

I am happy to see that amount of participation. Without the time extension, we would have reached about 50 participants. 81 entries is far from being bad. I hope we can keep up the momentum for MC094 in October. And if we acquire more source material (our Song Pool is empty!), then even for the coming months!

And finally, a thank you to everyone on sending positive words regarding the multi-tracks and getting access to a song in a genre, you usually do not have access to. I am glad 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).

We (as in: the Song Provider and I) will keep you updated, and of course send out appropriate reminder newsletters!

@Mister Fox I reuploaded the file because of problems with google drive (I was not even conscious) . The file is exactly the same as the first, and I think you can check it out. Also I told you by private message the issue with the 0.3db loudness exceed, how can I upload a new file (hiding some mistake) if the loudness specs are still wrong? I repeat by 0.3 db.

Here is a screen shot of the only problem I saw in the file as I text you by private message. You can see the date on top.

https://ibb.co/b1VSqq2

And here is a screen shot of the file info, it's in spanish but the date of creation and modification and still readable, you can check it out also,
the date of "creacion" and "modificacion" is the same date I uploaded the file, nothing have changed.

https://ibb.co/5YWMRgp

I beg you please reconsider you position.

PauPeu wrote: ↑

Tue Aug 29, 2023 11:55 CEST

I beg you please reconsider you position.

I've pulled the conversation into PM with explaining (in way more detail) why I can't give a free pass on this one.

The file was properly named, and I could download it on 06-AUG-2023. I usually download entries as they come in, do random checks multiple times throughout the game, and double check for accessibility and time-stamp changes at the end of each game (yes, I am very thorough - which is why the Statistic Sheets take so long). Google Drive doesn't change loudness by itself. I have never seen that happening in the years I've been downloading / analyzing entries for Statistic Sheets.


I apologize for the obvious disappointment this is currently causing.
But I have to be fair to every participant of MC093.

I just have spoken with @Mister Fox via private message.

At the end the fault was mine, Google drive kept uploading the file while I wasn't aware, (in my desktop version is still the original). My bad.

I just wanted to apologize also publicly, it really wasn't my intention to "trick" the competition.

Best luck to all! Cheers

First off, congratulations to all those who overcame all the hurdles and made it to the second round! Well deserved
Now, my confession: yes, I missed Mister Fox's PM and made corrections to the file name couple of hours AFTER the deadline. No reposting, no file reloading, just file name correction according to the Rules. But dura Lex, sed Lex, we all must obey, hence I'm going overboard.
Frankly: I do not quite understand what difference in terms of mix qualities 'wrong' file name makes. It doesn't make one's mix 3 dB louder nor improves low end muddiness. Anyways, just thinking out loud.
Next time instead of starting from gain staging will start my mix from scrutinising Guidelines and Rules.
Once again, congrats to 2-nd rounders!

Necaster wrote: ↑

Tue Aug 29, 2023 19:16 CEST

First off, congratulations to all those who overcame all the hurdles and made it to the second round! Well deserved
Now, my confession: yes, I missed Mister Fox's PM and made corrections to the file name couple of hours AFTER the deadline. No reposting, no file reloading, just file name correction according to the Rules. But dura Lex, sed Lex, we all must obey, hence I'm going overboard.
Frankly: I do not quite understand what difference in terms of mix qualities 'wrong' file name makes. It doesn't make one's mix 3 dB louder nor improves low end muddiness. Anyways, just thinking out loud.
Next time instead of starting from gain staging will start my mix from scrutinising Guidelines and Rules.
Once again, congrats to 2-nd rounders!

Hi,
it's tricky to run a competition which has new people arrive all the time. The easiest situation is that entrants would simply read through the rules and abide by them. We are lucky to have Mister Fox run this at all and if he suddenly couldn't do it anymore then I don't hold out much hope for someone anywhere near as good taking over (unless they were paid and then the whole nature of the place changes and probably for the worse).

That said, it's great to see new people and please stick around, it's an incredible learning experience. The rules are a little mystifying at first, but in time you will understand or just be enjoying the challenge too much to worry about it.
Cheers all