Mix Challenge

Arelem wrote: ↑

Tue May 02, 2023 02:43 CEST

Maybe put some more distinction on the hook, is wasn’t initially sure if the song had a hook until I took a closer listen.

Where is the hook? (I apologize for being extremely brief, myself, in my comments. But I simply didn't have the energy this month. Still think I followed the rules.)

Arelem wrote: ↑

Tue May 02, 2023 02:43 CEST

The Exponent – I really like it. I do think it could benefit from more in the sub frequency range. The bass is really only in the low to mid-lows. Maybe layer in a pure sub layer with the bass to give it more low end.

Hey man, thanks for the valuable feedback, really appreciate it! The basses do have a pure sub layer (slightly distorted sine wave for harmonic content).

Which sub-frequency range are you talking about, sub 20 hz or sub 50 hz? I double checked SPAN and also several devices, I do hear and feel the sub to be there. I could be wrong though!

Which monitors/headphones are you using?

However, I do agree that the mix is on the flatter, maybe even the brighter side, I should've probably balanced it better. Thanks again for listening and the feedback

A Future in Noise wrote: ↑

Wed May 03, 2023 15:48 CEST

Arelem wrote: ↑

Tue May 02, 2023 02:43 CEST

Maybe put some more distinction on the hook, is wasn’t initially sure if the song had a hook until I took a closer listen.

Where is the hook? (I apologize for being extremely brief, myself, in my comments. But I simply didn't have the energy this month. Still think I followed the rules.)

By hook I mean the chorus. At least what I assume was the chorus. I'm at work but I can find the times when I get home if that doesn't clear things up for you.

The Exponent wrote: ↑

Wed May 03, 2023 20:49 CEST

Arelem wrote: ↑

Tue May 02, 2023 02:43 CEST

The Exponent – I really like it. I do think it could benefit from more in the sub frequency range. The bass is really only in the low to mid-lows. Maybe layer in a pure sub layer with the bass to give it more low end.

Hey man, thanks for the valuable feedback, really appreciate it! The basses do have a pure sub layer (slightly distorted sine wave for harmonic content).

Which sub-frequency range are you talking about, sub 20 hz or sub 50 hz? I double checked SPAN and also several devices, I do hear and feel the sub to be there. I could be wrong though!

Which monitors/headphones are you using?

However, I do agree that the mix is on the flatter, maybe even the brighter side, I should've probably balanced it better. Thanks again for listening and the feedback

I was listening on beyerdynamic dt990s. They are EQ'd to be flat though they can still under-accentuate the lows, but I wasn't really hearing anything below maybe 60-70hz. Could just be that the mix was tilted to the high end like you said so I wasn't picking up on it.

Arelem wrote: ↑

Wed May 03, 2023 22:57 CEST

By hook I mean the chorus. At least what I assume was the chorus. I'm at work but I can find the times when I get home if that doesn't clear things up for you.

To me "hook" means something happenening very quickly, within one or two bars. I like my chorus, but to me it's soothong, for some strange reason, despite the lyrics.

A Future in Noise wrote: ↑

Wed May 03, 2023 23:17 CEST

To me "hook" means something happenening very quickly, within one or two bars. I like my chorus, but to me it's soothong, for some strange reason, despite the lyrics.

You're right, I was using the term hook wrong. Sorry about that.

Ladies and Gentlemen, here are the results of Songwriting Competition 68

The winners podium consists of:

1. @The Exponent (43 pts)
2. @canese (32 pts)
3. @becsei_gyorgy (28 pts)

Apologies for the waiting time, this is not an automated process.

<4 participant rule is not in use (staff comments and votes, my vote would count as bonus)
We have 1 disqualification (due to lack of feedback)
We have 0 withdrawn entries (but counts as submission within the deadline, yet couldn't be voted for)
We have several users still in the game that tied

• The following tie happened due to the offsets with the bonus point mechanic
  • becsei_gyorgy acquired 17pts with the participation vote -- but lost out on -1pts because of not using the new filename template, resulting in 28pts (else 29pts)
• the following users all had 16pts with the participation vote, and 28pts with the bonus points mechanic. To break the tie, the mechanic falls back to "who has higher points"
  • Mellow Browne has 1x5pts, 1x4pts, 2x3pts (made it 4th position)
  • JeroenZuiderwijk has 1x5pts, 1x4pts, 1x3pts (made it 5th position)
  • Doc Jon has 1x5pts, 1x4pts, 0x3pts (made it 6th position)
• no (more) users that tied

"Sole (License) Winner" rule does not apply - 3-position Winners Podium (>= 9 participants prior to the deadline)


STATISTICS SHEET:
Overview of Submissions (PDF - updated: 06-MAY-2023, full sheet)

!

Bonus Info

Short info: I am using Wavelab 10 for batch analysis, then I manually port the CSV export to a Microsoft Excel/Open Office Calc sheet with custom layout (this is not an automated process). As pointed out in this post from SWC047 / July, Wavelab has different tolerances for dBTP max analysis compared to tools like iZotope RX, Youlean Loudness Meter, NUGEN Audio VisLM, etc. To find a common ground, I've implemented "allowed tolerances" (just like with the Mix Challenge). These are based upon allowed offsets mentioned in the white papers for EBU R128 and ITU-R BS.1770-4. Since no measurement tool is the same, to be on the save side, please export at -14,1 LUFS ILk max, and -1,1 dBTP max. As usual, I did list/analyze alternative releases (MP3s and FLAC). If you've submitted your entry in multiple file formats, the statistic sheet will focus on the uncompressed material first (WAV), then FLAC, then MP3. The higher the quality, the less possible loss on bonus points for "Loudness Specs" due to offsets introduced by a used CODEC. In this case, FLAC and MP3 are merely for information purposes.

Here are the results as chart in image form:



Thank you so much for your participation.

⚠	Moderation Message from Mister Fox
	INFORMATION: As of January 2023, I am now officially adapting the same voting mechanic as most other International Songwriting Competitions utilize. Nearly all of these games use(d) a 01 to 05 points system (top 5 entries) in some shape or form. The main difference to our game: these ones don't offer bonus points or penalty points, neither are they tiered (depending on the participant amount). I hope to get that properly sorted out in form of an extensive Rule Book update in the foreseeable future (serious apologies for the waiting time). An explanation on the bonus points and penalty points: @a Future in Noise could not score additional 2pts bonus, due to only giving feedback to 5 participants (the bare minimum) @Arelem sent in feedback within 24 hours after the deadline, which results in a -5pt deduction. Technically, the written feedback was also added hours after I closed out the game. Please try to be on time in the future. @bedlamward didn't provide any further commentary or feedback, so this entry is sadly out of the game a lot of users got -1pt withdrawn due to not paying attention to the slightly overhauled filename template. Not only that, please double check in the future, that your filename isn't filename.wav.wav I had to triple check this month once more, that I got the right and up-to-date entries. This is really causing extra work for me. Please, in future games - you can still post follow-ups and have an active conversation. But please do update your main post with all relevant info and the most recent version before the SWC deadline has been reached. Thank you. Overall, I am really happy with the interaction and personal reflection. We're also currently at 11,75 participants on average (compared to last year's 8,66 participants on avg). I really hope we can have a steady number of 15 to 20 entries by mid/late Summer. That would be amazing. I hope you all had fun. See you folks in the next game.

License selection:

We'll now perform with the usual. Selecting licenses is handled in public. Please select one license/company out of the pool (in order of the winners podium) and mention it in this thread, then (important) please get in touch with me (via PM) with your full name, email address and your license selection.

As usual - you're not forced to pick up anything. You can pass and therefore offer more to select for the next person in line (if there is a spot existing / not available for "sole winner" mechanic). Just let all participants/winners/the staff know in a timely manner (within 5 days). Once one company has been selected, it's out of the pool for the next person on the podium.



I re-open the field for talking some more about each others' productions. If things drift a bit too off-topic, please use the General Gossip thread, or Discord.



See you in in the next challenge!


Songwriting Competition 069 (May 2023) is still in full swing.
There is currently no entry, but a whole lot of bonus information in the "Cheat Sheet" post.

Mister Fox wrote: ↑

Sat May 06, 2023 07:43 CEST

becsei_gyorgy acquired 17pts with the participation vote -- but lost out on -1pts because of not using the new filename template, resulting in 28pts (else 29pts)

Maybe I missed something, but now I looked again and there is this line in the rules:

"Properly name/tag your WAV or MP3 file (SWC000_ArtistName_TrackName.wav/mp3 - while the ArtistName is your forum username) prior to uploading and posting on the forum."

(This is in the 3rd post in the official and very simple "Rules and Guidelines" (TL;DR version) - (TL;DR - PARTICIPATION))

viewtopic.php?p=712&sid=ae6f5e53efa9f65 ... dd21f6efc0

I have been using it for years. I need some help. What is the change in the new template? I don't see the change in the rules, but I'm probably looking in the wrong place. ...but where do I look if not in the rulebook? or am I missing something?

Yes, I am aware this has not been addressed in the rule book yet... I've been quite short on time for basically everything.
Severe apologies for that.

But please check in again with post #001 and the follow-up one as well. There I mentioned the new template to get in line with the Mix(ing) Challenge.

Mister Fox wrote: ↑

Sat May 06, 2023 10:47 CEST

Yes, I am aware this has not been addressed in the rule book yet... I've been quite short on time for basically everything.
Severe apologies for that.

But please check in again with post #001 and the follow-up one as well. There I mentioned the new template to get in like with the Mix(ing) Challenge.

My fault, too, because I don't read all the repetitive small-print rule information every month (but perhaps such a basic rule change would have deserved more emphasis .)
I'll be more careful next time , although I think the official rules are in the official rule book.

The funny thing is, I saw Exponent's post when I was listening to the songs (to make feedbacks) and I did not follow the link in the post, but rather looked at the rulebook immediately afterwards: but I didn't see the change and couldn't figure it out what is going on, as there was no change in the official rulebook for the contest. So I didn't bother and I didn't have time to ask any extra questions after that, I was glad I had managed to submit the feedback before the deadline.
(and of course I could not have changed the upload of my song even then)