The "Overview of Submissions" PDFs have been uploaded.
You can check them through the
upper post (post #082).
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 20,34% for December 2023 (59 entries, 12 disqualifications, 1 "Out of Competition" submission not counting).
This is finally less than 1/4th of all participants. Many of these disqualifications are due to carelessness errors: wrong bitrate, loudness specs, not following the given file name template as mentioned in the provided "TL;DR Rules.txt" file, and files that were non-accessible.
On average (29 months of tracking), we currently have a disqualification rate of 25,80% (compared to last game's 26,00% avg), the rate is slightly declining still. The disqualification rate over the course of the last 12 games (February 2022 to December 2023) is about 25,42% (previously 25,04%), and is on an slight increase.
I strongly recommend all participants to pay more attention to details in future games. It is a shame to see entries being "tagged OUT" for the fact that they either can't be accessed, or there is no username associated to the entry. |
A commentary on this month's entries:
Once more, a very warm welcome to all new participants who have found their way into our little community. And a welcome back to those participants that haven't been on the community for quire a while. For the former - I do hope you enjoy your stay, had fun, and could learn something from this experience. And for the latter - I will do my best in the future to send out more / better reminders. Especially now, that the dedicated Newsletter Engine is finally properly up and running.
The Statistic Sheets are available sooner than usual. This doesn't mean that this was an easy task.
The most glaring thing this month, were the two still recurring topics "filename template" and "file access". All of you are investing a not insignificant amount of time for mixing. Mistakes do happen. However, it is a shame to see these entries "drop out" of the game. This is mostly directed at
@Cubic and
@DavidB. In fact, I even tried to log into OneDrive (Microsoft account) to see if I can access the file by DavidB - I couldn't. Then there are those users that completely ignore the multiple-times-over pointed out filename template (even bundled with the Multi-Track Mix Pack in form of the "TL;DR Rules.txt" -- this is why it's there!). Filenames like "Home - Aro Kim Noah.wav", "MC095 heat2.wav", and "ArvoKimNoahFinalWK.wav" sadly won't do. If I can't associate your mix with your forum post - you're sadly out of the game. These happened to the users
@jakeh83,
@rijavia and... sadly also
@wkanegis. I could have been more lenient with wkanegis' entry - but I have to be fair to every participant that actually uses the provided filename template. It really is that simple - copy, paste, replace the username after the double underscore. You don't have to wrap your head around anything else.
Speaking of double underscores... are there Operating Systems that omit that? If so, that is new to me and please provide me with further info to do some research on this (directed at
@AltonJames,
@jaywoolcott and
@Waleed Morris).
The sad part is, that I've sent all of you, that either had filename template issues or where your files couldn't be accessed, a PM and allowed you to get things sorted out by the end of the deadline. Only 3 of you used that option... and that was early into the game. Granted, I've now deleted the PMs, since the deadline has long since passed (you should have still gotten an email from the Private Message reminder). However -- as of February 2024,
I will not do this anymore. There are plenty of information and reminders given, there is the bundled "TL;DR Rules.txt". Don't copy the previous entry,
please pay attention to detail. This is still (also) a competition.
The rest are the usual small mistakes that merely result in a "tagged disqualified". A lack of documentation (no, as simple "I didn't use anything special" or "if you got any questions, just ask" won't do), and of course things like wrong sampling rate, wrong bitrate, and signals overshooting.
There was one entry that really stood out this month however - and that was by
@rijavia. This one actually deserves a separate paragraph. Because I only have so much room on the Statistic Sheets to explain things.
This is the second game in row where this user basically ignored the whole
Rule Book, and nearly all lights went off. Sampling Rate, Loudness Specs, Filename Template. But this time, there was another thing... the song length was over 25 seconds shorter than the original mix.
This made me curious, and I loaded the entry up in Wavelab, just to rule out that the batch analysis didn't have a hiccup or something along those lines. I initially suspected a custom "fade out" at the end of the song. Turns out that the entry was actually not imported correctly. The multi-tracks were in 44,1kHz. Usually, if you import and convert them to 48kHz, the pitch and runtime of each file should not be adjusted. This is default behavior from most DAWs.
However, if there seems to have been an import error. The material material is being "pitched up" and therefore also shortened in the process. In my case as Cubase user, this sometimes happens if I run another audio editor in parallel, and there is a sampling rate mismatch. Then suddenly my engine barfs, and things get "re-pitched". I think, something similar happened here, and the participant didn't realize this.
You can clearly hear that the vocals are pitched higher, and the song has turned from an Alternative Pop track at 110bpm, to a somewhat Techno track at around 130 bpm. A quick listen to the original mix would have shown that there is something wrong. This is why we (the "client" / Song Provider and I) provide such extensive information per Mix Pack... it is not just for show.
I guess, this will definitely count to the learning experience with the Mix(ing) Challenge.
To close this out.
Both
@Christoph_K and I are happy to see this amount of participation. However, as of 2024 -- and
if we have enough content for the future -- there will be no more deadline extensions. We will go back to the usual 21 days. However, I have a sneaking suspicion that this was also related to the Newsletter, which was sent out through the forum PM engine for most of the second half of 2023. Barely anybody seemed to have read those PMs. Thankfully, this topic is finally sorted out.
A huge thank you to everyone that invested time with this month's game. I hope you had fun.
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). Although, since this is the Winter Holiday Season, we will have a short break until 06th January 2024, and then we'll restart the timer for the evaluation process.
We (as in: the Song Provider and I) will keep you updated, and of course send out appropriate reminder newsletters!
EDIT: 25-DEC-2023 00:40 UTC+1/CET - initial post
Our Song Provider for this month, 
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.
On listening, I find myself inside a club, we need to feel those bass frequencies pumping through our bodies. When the bass is so big it's hard to balance the remainder of the track. I tried to do just two EQ moves to change your mix into something more standard in terms of the pop genre. (Note I'm only listening from around 4:30 where everything kicks in.)
