MASTERING CHALLENGE - MastC004 October 2018 - Winners announced (no winners)

[Mister Fox]

Your concerns are heard - I just reached out to Kevin via PM again.
We will keep you updated.

[jeffssoloband]

did you think your client will be more happy (in real life of course) if you gave him bad master but perfect tag !!

I think the client would be mad if he asked for something, and the ME ignored the request. Some people didn't include an MP3 reference at all. Just my 2 cents, of course.

[jeffssoloband]

Dear fellows, do you want me to strictly apply the rules and disqualify everyone but you because of the mp3 tagging?

Personally, I am a stickler for rules. However, I am of the opinion that it is up to you, the client, to decide how much the rules play a part in your decision. No hard feeling whatever way you choose to go.

Thanks,
Jeffrey

[Mange]

Oh my! To me it really doesnt matter if the mp3 got properly tagged. To me the mp3 is only for the convenient of the client. It wont get sent anywhere, thats what the wav is for.

If we get totally anal about these rules. How many is still left? I know somebody didn´t name file right, some posted 24bit files, some omitted sending a mp3 at all, somebody missed the LUFS target. To me... I´d rather have a conversation about the audio.

[Olli H]

There are rules also in football, but you don’t get a red card of every offense. If secretary or assistant forgets to write the tags, it’s a place for a punishment, but I don’t consider red card as suitable. How about some minus points?

[Olli H]

Luckily I don’t have to be a judge, but during my coffee break I started to think about this evaluation process. Without too much thinking I came up with this system

10 points max

Target specs: 1 points
Correct loudness (+-0.5 LUFS): 2 points
Risk of clipping (>-0.5 dBTP): 1 points
MP3 tagged correctly: 1 points
Audio quality: 5 points

Nuber of points is based on how easy it's to fix the problem.

Of course each client choses his/her own evaluation system, but with conversation we could find some sort of starting point or guidelines for evaluation.

So, feel free to bash these ideas. I stole them from previous comments and added my quick view of relevance of each point.

[davemcisaac]

I now decide, in order to move on and concentrate on the reviews, to eliminate no one because of their mp3 tagging or absence of submission UNLESS SOMEONE ASKS ME TO.

Dave McIsaac, you totally understood and respected the rules, so you have the right to claim disqualification for all the contestants who did not.

Do you really want me to?

Hey Kevin,

I'm not asking you to - I'm just expressing my opinion. In a real-world scenario, If I don't provide what is asked for, I don't get paid. Pretty simple! Also in a real-world scenario, I would generally be asked to submit a "corrected" version of the project if something was inadvertently missing from what the client had requested. That's why it might not be a bad idea to consider a second round in the Mastering Challenge just the way it's done in the Mix Challenge. But, once again, that's just my opinion.

Whatever you choose to do is entirely up to you (and Mr. Fox).

[Mister Fox]

We've already been discussing this via PM. I think an definite decision will happen the next days.

[kevin gobin]

Dear fellows.

Mister Fox explained very clearly why he chose his rules.
Since we have accepted to play his games, we have accepted to follow his rules, not ours.

If I change the rules after the game start I will be disrespectful to those who followed the rules, and to Mister Fox too.

For you information, I should myself be disqualified from previous Mastering Challenges (still in evaluation, which explains my avatar) and I am fine with that, even for "just my mp3 ID Tag" rules misunderstanding.


So here is what I choose to do:


I will review all the masterings, then pick up my 3 winners with no consideration about their qualification or not.

Then we will proceed to disqualifications, and if no one wins let it be.


I think that is the best way to be fair, as well as providing a return based solely on the quality of the masterings.


See you soon,
Kevin.

[jeffssoloband]

I think that is the best way to be fair, as well as providing a return based solely on the quality of the masterings.

Fair enough, Kevin. The update is appreciated.