Mix Challenge

I wanted to break the ice while we wait to thank everyone for your feedback, I´m honestly surprised so many mentioned the mix positively, I´ve since then added some needed eq and compression but I guess the arrangement did most of the heavy lifting.
I had a lot of fun with this past month's challenge, hopefully, we get some more "client" based types of competitions in the future, maybe even adding some more restrictions to boost creativity.
I´ve wanted to get into gamejams as a composer so this helps a lot.
Anyways, thanks again!

FixInTheMix wrote: ↑

Sat Aug 10, 2024 21:57 CEST

I wanted to break the ice while we wait to thank everyone for your feedback, I´m honestly surprised so many mentioned the mix positively, I´ve since then added some needed eq and compression but I guess the arrangement did most of the heavy lifting.

My experience with mixing is that more instruments and layers of sounds, the harder is to mix them together. So yes, arrangement is important. I'm usually go too hard with layers and sound design to hide my lack of skills with arrangement and then I have hard time to balance it.

I owe all of you an update to the results of SWC083.


First and foremost, apologies for the massive delay. The statistic sheet is done, the points are counted and double checked. However, due to a variety of reasons, I have not yet been able to complete my final feedback and points. This is not okay, and only I am to blame for this.


The final feedback and results will arrive by Sunday evening, 18-AUG-2024.


Thank you for your patience.

Thank you mister Fox. Don't worry!!!
There's no rush, it's vacation time!!!

The following took me longer than planned. I apologize for the waiting time. I need to do better for future games.

Aside from that, the feedback will mostly focus on the technical side of things. It's a pity that many entries didn't see an edit / revision. However, I am aware that time management is a thing.

On to the feedback, shall we?



@Chasey24

After listening extensively to both versions, I must admit that I actually prefer the original variant more in terms of songwriting (especially the intro). Your final version definitely created some more room to breathe for instruments. However the acoustic guitars are still way too loud, and the drums also feel over-processed (as if somebody is constantly slapping a rubber shoe over a wood panel). Some of the guitar playing (power chords) and mixing definitely improved though, while the "helicopter chugging" is actually way too washed out now.

Overall - still interesting, but you may have taken the criticism on the topic "epicness" a bit too much to heart.



@Doc Jon

The changes are actually really subtle here. I think this was your general idea in this case - built upon the feedback, touch up what needs a touch up. The transitions to the drum sections are definitely better (especially the first one), although it still feels a tiny bit choppy. Posing as "the client" however, I'm not a fan of the overall drum loop "sound" with the flang-y "binaural" feel (it's also now a bit more washed out on headphones).

Then again, as mentioned before, this is down to personal preference. Overall - nice touch up.



@Elcubano

Glad you could still manage to adjust the occasional thing prior to the end of the deadline. The beat compared to the synths feel way more balanced now, even though the lead synth melody in the second half of the song is still just a touch loud. Yet looking at the "bigger picture", it works and is a way better listening experience on both speakers and headphones (although on headphones, the reverb feels a bit much in places).

Small adjustments, huge influence. Nicely done. Although your entry is the loudest this month.

Once more, welcome to the community. I hope we'll hear more from you in the future.



@Crosshatched

I can't really add much more to the feedback I've given during the submission time-frame, as this is unfortunately one of the entries that might not have seen an update. I still see a lot potential in this song, but it's also very sparse in terms of instrumentation.

Overall, you did great. You stepped out of your comfort zone, made music, took a risk with your entry. I really wish you would have done just a touch more, shown the "clients" that you can adapt, push things further. I would love to hear more from you in future games.



@EsteveCorbera

The melody lines are definitely improved and don't feel as "out of tune" anymore. However, your instrument balance is still off. The trumpets are too loud (small speakers, it's not as strong on headphones), and even with the dialed back reverb, they still stick out than "gel into" the rest of the arrangement (second trumpet).

If I were to mix this, I'd definitely pull the brass back by about -1,5dB to -2dB, and reduce the reverb so that it still has a room, but doesn't feel like being in an empty club. By adding reverb to the upright bass and the drums, you also inadvertedly created some sort of 1990s video game "feeling" -- this is a matter of taste of course. Yet I'd actually also dial back on the reverb just a bit.

Tricky situation - but I really recommend you to listen to your mixes not only on headphones (even though you use a correction tool), but also on multiple other listening environments (earbuds, small speakers, large speakers, etc -- this really is important!). This way you can really notice what is jumping out. I like the bold concept, you did adjust a lot. Great work. I think, it's really just down to final touches.



@FixInTheMix

This is the second entry that sadly couldn't get additional feedback and therefore a proper chance for touch-ups. I think the clients would have definitely said that you "understood the premise and created an interesting story through music". The instrumentation is simplistic, yet works surprisingly well. I'm not kidding if I say that this track was also on multiple repeats to hear all the fine details (headphones).

There could have been a touch "more" instrumentation wise, maybe even an additional minute of music with more added percussion elements (I miss the occasional snare). Mix wise, this translates surprisingly well both to small speakers, and headphones with way too much bass. Although I do miss the bass a bit - which in your case, mostly comes from the piano and strings. There is a bass in the later section of the song, but it's really subtle. The hi-hat section at the 1:21 minute mark is also a bit loud, the kick could have been a touch more dry. This would have been a topic for additional fine-tuning.

Overall - great entry. Would have loved to hear the "finished version" though.



@juhu

I'm undecided on the final version. You definitely adjusted the balance of certain instruments, the drums don't feel as choppy during transitions. However, overall... I don't know what to think of the key changes and the now even more repetitive feeling (as if there are bridge sections missing) - maybe this change went a bit too far (and clients would definitely pick up on that).

One thing of note here, is that the bass also pretty much vanishes on small speakers during the first "key change" section. I also still think that the crashes are a bit loud compared to how the rest of the drums are played. But this is also a stylistic choice. Once more, a night and day experience on small speakers vs low-end heavy headphones (where you "feel" the kick and the bass as the main grooving element - and the bass also doesn't vanish during the key changes).

Otherwise, you stayed true to your vision while still addressing small issues. And the the mix also translates (mostly) well to different playback mediums.



@KukoBass

Your final version is an improvement over the "General MIDI" sounding feeling. There are now more instruments (and drums!). However, it still feels like a 7-9 MIDI track production from one ROMpler (even though it isn't!), ran through a compressor that is biting down way too hard. Another thing to note, is that certain melody lines feel "sped up" in comparison to the rest of the arrangement (which feel sped down in places). And the mix feels a bit disjointed (instrument volumes). If this is due to AYAIC Mix Monolith, that is not really a good top seller argument for me. Maybe it's really helpful for initial ideas, but if this is the result, I wouldn't trust it in a mix. Additionally, I hear some sort of auto-gain happening throughout the song ever so often (turning down the drums).

Regarding your question how to separate the guitars and the central piano... two options really. EQ/Compression/Saturation (plus reverb for a different room placement) or different octaves to fill a different frequency spectrum.

This song has potential and could work in the context of the proposed video game. As mentioned several times, compeltely different listening experience on small speakers compared to studio headphones (I'm using 15+yo Beyerdynamic DT 990 PRO 250 Ohm ones myself). The stand-out topic is definitely mixing, and certain timing issues.



@Mellow Browne

Another track that sadly didn't see any further adjustments. I can't really add anything new to my initial feedback. I really hoped that you went back to address the loud drums and their room placement (especially for headphones) - maybe you just ran out of time.

It is still an interesting spin on the given premise. Some fine-tuning would have been nice to hear though.



@TrojakEW

Unfortunately, this entry didn't see fine-tuning either. It is still as impressive as the first couple of time's I've listened to it. Yet, it would have been great to hear a slightly updated mix with the things I've addressed. As in... the offset felt melody (2:02min mark), the balance with the percussion and foley work (so that it translates better on all playback mediums).

I also think that time management wasn't your best friend this month. That's day-to-day life, I'm afraid.




Closing things out...

Let me please make clear that you all did an amazing job. You stepped out of your comfort zone, created something, and showed it to the world. On that behalf, you all are winners. However, the July Songwriting Competition also simulated a "Commissional Work" scenario, on top of our regular game mechanics.

The "clients" decided on a selection of "modern" and "jazzy / funky" - even through they would also love to give everyone a chance, but a cut had to be done somewhere. Here is the "Top 5".


Following this post will be the "results" announcement.
Thank you for your patience.

Ladies and Gentlemen, here are the results of Songwriting Competition 081

The winners podium consists of:

1. @FixInTheMix (53 pts)
2. @Doc Jon (49 pts)
3. @TrojakEW (36 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 0 disqualifications (due to lack of feedback / a final vote)
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

• 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: 03-AUG-2024, 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 2021, 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 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). Breaking up a tie: There was no unbreakable tie that needed to be addressed. An explanation on the bonus points and penalty points: Due to exceeding the loudness specs, the following users could not acquire all 4pts bonus -- only @Elcubano exceeded the loudness limits this month (-14,0 LUFS ILk and -1,00 dBTP). I sadly had to withdraw 1pts bonus from @juhu (from 5pts max) for "Documentation", due to the fact that there was some equipment mentioned. But Logic Stock content is extensive, and I would have loved know know which instruments were used (e.g. EXS24, Studio Bass with the new "Session Player" mechanic, etc). I sadly had to withdraw 1pts bonus from @Elcubano and @Crosshatched for not using the filename template properly. Please check your white spaces and double-underscores in the future. You never know what issues this could cause on client servers. I sadly had to address -2pts penalty for @juhu and @FixInTheMix for not reflecting on themselves during the final feedback (as in: what did you learn, what would you do different in the next game, etc). As mentioned early on, the top 5 spots got 2x the points on the final score chart. You will also notice points for those participants that are not on the top 5 spots. I decided to award everyone at least 2pts for joining the game in the first place (also giving points to participants that didn't get any otherwise outside of the "bonus points" game mechanic). Places 6 to 8 also got 1pt additionally. This in turn also resulted in breaking ties in the lower middle field. Once more apologies for the waiting time. I hope this was an interesting and educational experience. I hope to see even more participants in the future. See you folks in the next game.

License selection:

We will now perform with the usual. Selecting of licenses is handled in public. In order of the winners podium, and only if you want to, please select one license/company out of the pool 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 of this post). Once one company has been selected, it's out of the pool for the next person on the podium.

!	Bonus Info
	As part of a new collaboration with Hornet Plugins, you are allowed to select either 2 plugins at a maximum value of 20 EUR MSRP for both, or one individual plugin of choice from the whole available plugin range (bundles are exempt). Due to time constraints, I could not make a bigger announcement about this yet. Apologies for the inconvenience.

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 084 (August 2024) is still in full swing. It is a "Picture Theme", the genre is free to select. So far there have been 3 entries, yet barely any interaction.

See you there as well.

Let's try something new...

The following topic has been brought up on Discord recently. Every participant on the Winners Podium has the option to pass on a license to the next person on the next lower step. For special games, I was considering offering lower positioned participants to maybe get the chance of a license selection, if the people on the podium passed on their selection.

We're all here to learn, grow from the experience, and spread positivity...

⚠	Moderation Message from Mister Fox
	INFORMATION: Starting with SWC083 - and depending on how many bonus licenses have been picked - I am now putting "passed on" license selections back into the pool and make a possible selection available for "low positioned participants". Mechanic Idea: This mechanic will be available with a 3-position (or higher) Winners Podium. Depending on the participation amount, this will either be the lowest 3 (up until / equal to 14 participants), to the lowest 5 positions (more than 15 participants). The participant names will be put into a tool like Wheel of Names (5 times), then the wheel will be spun 5 times each and the final random selection will get the option to pick a bonus license (from an offer that has been passed on). If there are multiple passed on licenses, this process will be repeated. Example: Two out of three winners passed on selecting a license. Therefore two "low positioned" participants can get a chance to pick up a bonus tool. since SWC083 had 10 participants, the lowest three participants will be put into a "Wheel of Names" (5x) the wheel will be spun 5 times, and the final name that the wheel lands on will get the option to pick up a bonus license (e.g. after 5 spins, Mr Moon was selected. Mr Moon now has the chance to pick up a bonus license from a company that is still available to select from the pool) the lowest spots can also pass on in terms of license selection. In this case, the user in question is being removed from the wheel and it is spun again this mechanic will be repeat for additional passed on licenses until there is nothing to select anymore participants can not receive multiple selections this mechanic is only available with a 3-position (or higher) Winners Podium

If this idea is well received, this might become a regular bonus mechanic for future games.

Let's see how this goes.

Mister Fox wrote: ↑

Tue Aug 20, 2024 05:52 CEST

Let's try something new...

Every participant on the Winners Podium has the option to pass on a license to the next person on the next lower step

What an excellent idea, I would very much support that

Many thanks to everyone for your helpful comments and votes, and thanks as always to @Mister Fox for continuing to run the competition for all of our benefit, I am sure it is a lot of work and it is much appreciated

I know I am not the first to pick a prize (congratulations @FixInTheMix for the win!) but as I would not be taking a license anyway I would like to embrace this new idea and pass on the chance to choose a license to someone else

Congrats to all, especially to @FixInTheMix and @Doc Jon. Both fantastic tracks where it was hard to choose which one to put at 1st place for me. Thanks to @Mister Fox for this round and for special addition and reviews for all of us.

I would like too support the new idea too and the same like Doc no license for me except what I (we) already get and that was more feedback.

Thank you for the positive words so far

Just as a heads up... do not feel peer-pressured to do this. These are bonus licenses, and if you earned a podium spot, nobody will be mad at you for "not" passing things on.

We are spreading positivity either way