Mix Challenge

The "Overview of Submissions" PDFs have been uploaded.
You can check them through the upper post (post #58).

Apologies for the waiting time.


As mentioned in July 2020, this data sheet is used for giving an overview of all entries, and whether or not they are within given parameters (loudness, sampling rate, bitrate). As of 2021, I'm continuing this endeavor as this is adding to the learning process. Please take note that creating this is not a fully automated process. I am using Wavelab 10's "Batch Analysis" tool, but the overall layout and highlighting the issues, is time consuming. If you do not find yourself on this list, please let me know.


We have a disqualification rate of 25,64% for March 2021 (39 entries, 10 disqualifications, not counting the 1 submission after the deadline).

In comparison to previous months:
February 2021 (35,05%, 77 entried, 27 disqualifications), December 2020 (22,67%, 75 entries, 17 disqualifications), November 2020 (31,15%, 61 entries, 19 disqualifications), October 2020 (33,70%, 92 entries, 31 disqualifications), September 2020 (32,60%, 46 entries, 15 disqualifications), August 2020 (28,57%, 35 entries, 10 disqualifications) and July 2020 (40,37%, 109 entries, 44 disqualifications).

On average, we currently have a disqualification rate of 31,22% (compared to last month's 32,02% avg).




A commentary on this month's entries:

As with every mixing challenge in recent history, the thing that is standing out the most are often "rookie mistakes". Like wrong sampling rate or bitrate, in certain cases even both. Another often recurring topic is not checking the file is even downloadable, or properly named. Documentation is also a slight issue, although I did not(!) disqualify one particular user for merely posting screenshots of ones Mix Console, even though the rules clearly state "please post more than that".


I am currently observing a certain trend in terms of participation numbers. I didn't understand at first as to why we suddenly had a huge drop in attendance again. Might it have been due to the ongoing back-and-forth with the global pandemic, or actually something else? While taking a closer look at the "Mix Challenge Participation Statistics", that I've been doing since the very first Mix(ing) Challenge in 2014, I noticed a certain relation towards certain genres.

Turns out, if we have access to more "rock based" multi-tracks, the participation is usually on the higher side (in two cases, we even exceeded 100 participants). While if we have access to anything that is even close to "Electronic related", suddenly there is no interest anymore. And I can even see that with the click numbers of the forum due to the direct link from the landing site (mentioning the genre for the current game).

Of course it is your prerogative to join a particular game or not, or you decide to do a certain job in the real world. However - I try to offer as much diversity for the community as possible. And considering the PM's I often get behind the scenes with all the positive encouragement on "outstanding platform, please continue what you do", then seeing low participation like this month, actually saddens me a bit.

There are usually downloads in numbers up to three times the participation. In case of MC072/December 2020 -- 75 participants, 190 downloads (2,53x). In case of MC073/February 2021 -- 77 participants, 180 downloads (2,34x). In case of MC074/March 2021 -- 39 participants, 112 downloads (2,87x). I can't speak for the Song Provider, but here is your chance to get access to (rare) multi-track material for free, for training/experimental purposes. Yet you miss your opportunity by simply ignoring a production, because it is "not rock".

It is, funny enough, currently the complete opposite for the Songwriting Competition Participation Statistics. Here a trend towards more electronic based material is noticeable.
.




I (re-)open the field for everyone to give each other feedback (highly encouraged). This will be independent to the client feedback however.


Please watch this spot for the client feedback and Mix Round 2 participant announcement.
This will happen sometime within the next 14 days (starting today).

In the meantime, please check out the Songwriting Competition 043 (March 2021). The Deadline is 24-MAR-2021 23:59 UTC+1/CET.

Also please don't forget the two currently running mini-polls. Please leave some feedback, and help shape the future of the community.

Does anybody know more about the bit rate dropdown to less than 24 bits? I couldn't find any further info anywhere on the internet. I used some compression (with soft clipping + oversampling) on the mix bus and then turned it down by around 6 dB so that the integrated loudness level is within the rules. ..peaks around -7. On the statistics I saw that my mix is at 23 bit.

Mr. Fox,

While I'm in the rock side I really like the opportunitie to work on different genres. The idea here is to learn and get better in mixing. You don't get that without some diversity. I'd say keep it up !

Regs,
dadomachado

What? I've changed the arrangement? Where? Please explain.

DimitrisPalantzas wrote: ↑

Tue Mar 23, 2021 14:19 CET

Does anybody know more about the bit rate dropdown to less than 24 bits? I couldn't find any further info anywhere on the internet. I used some compression (with soft clipping + oversampling) on the mix bus and then turned it down by around 6 dB so that the integrated loudness level is within the rules. ..peaks around -7. On the statistics I saw that my mix is at 23 bit.

From my understanding throughout the years in the audio realm, the "drop off" happens mostly due to two main factors:
1) low signal strength (also low in signal peaks - this his highly program material dependent)
2) mix density and therefore overall "dynamic range"

The bitrate not filling up full 24bits IMHO is not a problem at all. It just shows "there is still headroom". If it would have read 25bits, then you pushed the signal too much and also went into clipping. So this is just something to "look out for", nothing more.

Toxic Shot Dot wrote: ↑

Tue Mar 23, 2021 17:23 CET

What? I've changed the arrangement? Where? Please explain.

This is where our documentation could explain your sound design work. It seems to me, that you've used a lot of time-based and modulation effects to create a certain soundscape, but since your documentation is scarce on that end (only stating what you did "in general"), one can only assume.

The thing that triggered my senses though, was this comment:

Toxic Shot Dot wrote: ↑

Fri Mar 19, 2021 19:37 CET

Such a track can't end like this, so I've decided to add some noisy broken Warp-Engine at the end.

I've just triple checked with the source material. Unless you did some effect magic on the low bass, turning this into a riser (again - documentation) - you did add something that wasn't there. And in fairness to all other participants, the Rules and Guidelines clearly state:

Rules for participants of the Mix Challenge wrote:

• The participants are limited to the provided source material
• the provided arrangement must remain the same. Do not change the song key, do not add an additional beat or instruments (e.g. replay a guitar), move parts around and therefore change the arrangement. Unless otherwise stated (i.e. radio mix, loops being allowed for reordering, creative audio effects like glitching, etc). The audio demo can be a guide, but be advised that it might be a different revision from the material that has been given to you.

The concept of documentation of your work is not to "steal your knowledge", it's for others to learn from it. This would have been a great learning example for creative sound design with just send/aux effects. I mean... if you really only used aux effects, then I might have a rough idea (reverb, bode filter, etc). But you sadly didn't explain more before the deadline ended.

Mister Fox wrote: ↑

Tue Mar 23, 2021 19:58 CET

DimitrisPalantzas wrote: ↑

Tue Mar 23, 2021 14:19 CET

Does anybody know more about the bit rate dropdown to less than 24 bits? I couldn't find any further info anywhere on the internet. I used some compression (with soft clipping + oversampling) on the mix bus and then turned it down by around 6 dB so that the integrated loudness level is within the rules. ..peaks around -7. On the statistics I saw that my mix is at 23 bit.

From my understanding throughout the years in the audio realm, the "drop off" happens mostly due to two main factors:
1) low signal strength (also low in signal peaks - this his highly program material dependent)
2) mix density and therefore overall "dynamic range"

The bitrate not filling up full 24bits IMHO is not a problem at all. It just shows "there is still headroom". If it would have read 25bits, then you pushed the signal too much and also went into clipping. So this is just something to "look out for", nothing more.

Toxic Shot Dot wrote: ↑

Tue Mar 23, 2021 17:23 CET

What? I've changed the arrangement? Where? Please explain.

This is where our documentation could explain your sound design work. It seems to me, that you've used a lot of time-based and modulation effects to create a certain soundscape, but since your documentation is scarce on that end (only stating what you did "in general"), one can only assume.

The thing that triggered my senses though, was this comment:

Toxic Shot Dot wrote: ↑

Fri Mar 19, 2021 19:37 CET

Such a track can't end like this, so I've decided to add some noisy broken Warp-Engine at the end.

I've just triple checked with the source material. Unless you did some effect magic on the low bass, turning this into a riser (again - documentation) - you did add something that wasn't there. And in fairness to all other participants, the Rules and Guidelines clearly state:

Rules for participants of the Mix Challenge wrote:

• The participants are limited to the provided source material
• the provided arrangement must remain the same. Do not change the song key, do not add an additional beat or instruments (e.g. replay a guitar), move parts around and therefore change the arrangement. Unless otherwise stated (i.e. radio mix, loops being allowed for reordering, creative audio effects like glitching, etc). The audio demo can be a guide, but be advised that it might be a different revision from the material that has been given to you.

The concept of documentation of your work is not to "steal your knowledge", it's for others to learn from it. This would have been a great learning example for creative sound design with just send/aux effects. I mean... if you really only used aux effects, then I might have a rough idea (reverb, bode filter, etc). But you sadly didn't explain more before the deadline ended.

Thank you very much for your convincing answer.

Mister Fox wrote: ↑

Tue Mar 23, 2021 19:58 CET

Toxic Shot Dot wrote: ↑

Tue Mar 23, 2021 17:23 CET

What? I've changed the arrangement? Where? Please explain.

This is where our documentation could explain your sound design work. It seems to me, that you've used a lot of time-based and modulation effects to create a certain soundscape, but since your documentation is scarce on that end (only stating what you did "in general"), one can only assume.

The thing that triggered my senses though, was this comment:

Toxic Shot Dot wrote: ↑

Fri Mar 19, 2021 19:37 CET

Such a track can't end like this, so I've decided to add some noisy broken Warp-Engine at the end.

I've just triple checked with the source material. Unless you did some effect magic on the low bass, turning this into a riser (again - documentation) - you did add something that wasn't there. And in fairness to all other participants, the Rules and Guidelines clearly state:

Rules for participants of the Mix Challenge wrote:

• The participants are limited to the provided source material
• the provided arrangement must remain the same. Do not change the song key, do not add an additional beat or instruments (e.g. replay a guitar), move parts around and therefore change the arrangement. Unless otherwise stated (i.e. radio mix, loops being allowed for reordering, creative audio effects like glitching, etc). The audio demo can be a guide, but be advised that it might be a different revision from the material that has been given to you.

The concept of documentation of your work is not to "steal your knowledge", it's for others to learn from it. This would have been a great learning example for creative sound design with just send/aux effects. I mean... if you really only used aux effects, then I might have a rough idea (reverb, bode filter, etc). But you sadly didn't explain more before the deadline ended.

Indeed, I've used a lot of effects and modulation of these effects to create a lot of micromovements - some barely noticeable; nobody is going to read a long text in which I explain all these movements.
Normally a mix uses 15% of my maschine but this mix uses 50-60%.
Of course I've only used VST-effects und not a single VSTi; and I definitely put not another wav-file in the project.
There are some VST-effects that bring a sound of their own into the project like tape-hiss or vinyl pops and clicks and I would not consider this as a rearrangement.

With my comment "add some noise broken Warp-Engine at the end" I've tried to be funny (apparently without success) - I do not literally mic'd up my broken Warp-engine in my garage and put the resulting file in the project; this little gag at the end was the result of a self-oscillating filter, pitchmodulation, distortion, sounddegradation-effects, vinyl-effect, reverb (quite a lot of effects for such a little gag).

I can imagine a client saying "nah, I don't like this idea, take it away" or "yeah, I like it, leave it there", but I can't imagine a client saying "I can't except your mix as a whole because you've changed the arrangement with that little gag at the end."

Here a quote from post #2 - encouraging to produce ear candy with effects
"Given that this is a remix adding a little bit of ear candy with effects to keep the listeners interest in a few spots in the track might be nice [...]"

I'm very irritated about your statement that you "might have a rough idea" about how I produced these effects within the rules but I "sadly didn't explain more before the deadline ended".
So you've said that you can imagine that these effects could have been done within the rules but you've decided to disqualify my mix because I have to explain how I've done it.
Your statement implies that there is a rule that if you only have a rough idea how something has been done a mixer has to explain how he has done it.
I can't find such a rule.
Imagine such a rule exists, in keeping with such a rule I have to guess whether you have a rough idea about some mixing element or whether you have a detailed idea about some mixing element ...

A disqualification of my mix doesn't make any sense and is a misuse of the rules of this mix challenge.

I have no problem being disqualified, but we could really use a TL:DR rules section. I actually DID read it, multiple times. It's just a lot to process at once. I'll read it once, then reference it later, but a more to the point reference version would be great. I though limiting was OK since it's often a mix decision (and I figured they would be level matched). Also thought documentation was mandatory, for the people who placed. All my mistakes, but just saying.

Toxic Shot Dot wrote: ↑

Wed Mar 24, 2021 01:21 CET

Indeed, I've used a lot of effects and modulation of these effects to create a lot of micromovements - some barely noticeable; nobody is going to read a long text in which I explain all these movements.

It is clear part of the rules to properly document your edits. You don't need to focus on every minute detail (some of the participants do), but at least focus on one particular sound you're proud of. In this case, you created something new out of thin air, but failed to comment on it. Now you state it as "who cares... it's a mix, the client will like it or not".

If it wouldn't have been me as host/admin to call you out on that, it might have been our client later down the road.

Toxic Shot Dot wrote: ↑

Wed Mar 24, 2021 01:21 CET

So you've said that you can imagine that these effects could have been done within the rules but you've decided to disqualify my mix because I have to explain how I've done it.

Correct!

Because I have a certain background for mixing and sound design. The client or other participants on the other hand, might not.

You stated "i added something to finish out the production", which was not in the source material. Once more, you did not tell "how" by the time the deadline has been reached. So the assumption was/still is, that you changed the arrangement. That is the reason for the disqualification.

Toxic Shot Dot wrote: ↑

Wed Mar 24, 2021 01:21 CET

Your statement implies that there is a rule that if you only have a rough idea how something has been done a mixer has to explain how he has done it.
I can't find such a rule.

As per the Rules and Guidelines - Rules for participants of the Mix Challenge - Mixing and Editing Guidelines, point 10

And I quote

Rules for participants of the Mix Challenge wrote:

• It is mandatory to document your mix/edit by the end of the deadline (21st of the month, 23:59 UTC+1/CET or 23:59 UTC+2/CEST). At bar minimum, focus on one particular "sound" you have enjoyed creating, and how you got there including mentioning your used tools / setup. You can go as detailed as you like, you can additionally provide screenshots if you want. Do not merely post once sentence and/or just screenshots of just your mix console (insert view). This is not to steal your knowledge, but to to learn good "session recall" tactics, engage in further conversation, plus offer participants to learn from each other and help gain experience in the process.

You seemed to have enjoyed creating additional sound FX through modulation (like the additional "Warp Drive" effect), yet sadly didn't go into detail.

Toxic Shot Dot wrote: ↑

Wed Mar 24, 2021 01:21 CET

A disqualification of my mix doesn't make any sense and is a misuse of the rules of this mix challenge.

As admin of this place - your argument has been noted. But you agreed to adhere to given rules prior to sending in your mix. You made a certain statement, I merely took a closer look at your mix and found out "wasn't there in the original - wasn't explained how this was done".

Endresult: possible rule violation.


Apologies that you feel this way. I am merely trying to offer a fair and equal playground for everyone. However, I will not get into another argument on rules and "interpretation". See statement from 24-FEB-2021 here: viewtopic.php?p=9916#p9916

Hiwatter wrote: ↑

Wed Mar 24, 2021 02:59 CET

I have no problem being disqualified, but we could really use a TL:DR rules section. I actually DID read it, multiple times. It's just a lot to process at once. I'll read it once, then reference it later, but a more to the point reference version would be great. I though limiting was OK since it's often a mix decision (and I figured they would be level matched). Also thought documentation was mandatory, for the people who placed. All my mistakes, but just saying.

You are correct, an additional overhauled "one-stop TL;DR" in the "Rule Book" might be mandatory at this point. I'll see if I can get to that by 01st April 2021.


As a sidenote: Summing bus processing is allowed (creative use, and if you have no other choice, also "safety clipping/limiting" to keep rogue peaks in check).

Your entry mainly fell out of the loop because of you exceeding the -1,00 dBTP limit (your entry scored +0,08 dBTP - it clipped even). The LUFS value was still within allowed tolerances (something to look out for in the future).

This is not a try to start an argument, this is my last statement to this topic:

It is clear that you "will not get into another argument on rules and "interpretation"" because you've lost the argument, you loose the argument and you will loose the argument.

It is clear that you not only uses the soft part of the rules by totally absurd interpretation to justify whatever you like, you make up new rules if someone can destroy your argumentation.

Tbh it starts to get funny to be disqualified by "possible rule violation".

----------------------------------------

I ask kindly the Song Provider Dodgingrain (and everybody who wants to) to listen to my disqualified mix and write here if you think this little gag at the end is a change of the arrangement that justify a disqualification by "possible rule violation" or not - in consideration of the encouragement to create ear candy in post #2.

I am not going to dicuss your opinion, I just want to hear it loud and clear.

https://www.dropbox.com/s/8gchnn6y9u1gl ... t.wav?dl=0