Mix Challenge

White Punk OD wrote: ↑

Sun Jan 12, 2020 22:21 CET

Wizzo, yeah, apparently with correcting the reverb and giving the trombone its deserved focus, things fall in place, and my overall impression of it is now very good. I would have liked if snare and hihat sound a little bit softer and less in the foreground (= more live sounding than studio), as my headphones are very bright in the air band.

Thank you for your feedback ... I absolutely agree with you, as I remember there is no hihat track only leakage from the snare and oh! I decided to put the drums in front a little bit from R1! I tried many different scenarios b4 submit and always ended with unnatural sound to me! I really appreciated your review... see you next challenge!

Mister Fox wrote: ↑

Mon Jan 13, 2020 15:23 CET

I won't be disrespectful and go super in-depth. But considering the workload I have behind the scenes in places, it is sometimes not easy to set up a game and keep it running. Let's just say this - there are sometimes a lot(!) of emails involved.

What I wanted to say. Stating dislikes in review 2 but not in review 1 is no result if English is not your native language.

I already thanked you for your great work and your enthusiasm for this platform. I appreciate that.

Mister Fox wrote: ↑

Mon Jan 13, 2020 15:23 CET

I fully understand your point.

In summary, you brought up valid criticism that something was addressed as "not being handled in Mix Round 2", which wasn't brought up during the first round of feedback (first evaluation period). This in turn put you in an arguably perceived unfair disadvantage compared to other entries. I also agree that this could have been handled better.

I will definitely take this as feedback for myself as well and add to the already long list of things to cover during the Integrity Check for the Mix Challenge games (as in: make things even more crystal clear upfront). Especially for non-native English speakers, or those where English is really hard as second language. As song providers know, I'm there through every step of the game and answer questions / address doubts as much as I can. But I also have certain limits.

All I can say is, I am sorry that things turned a bit for the negative for you. I hope the experience will be better with the next Mix(ing) Challenge in February.

Yes, that is my point.
In my first comment to review 2 I wrote

Very funny.

. I am not taking the results that serious. It is a game. I learn a lot here. Most of song providers reviews are very solid, I mostly agree with there dislikes.

Hey, cool!

Thank you for you work, i know it's a lot of work to listen to all this.

I would take the T-RackS One if available. Congrats also to all the others.


J

Congrats to Wizzo and JonasLasse, great work guys!

I'll take Metric Halo's HaloVerb, please!

Hello,

Congrats to the winners.

Thank you Franz (White Punk OD as well) for listening, reviewing and commenting.
I'm happy with the result (never mixed a bigband before).

Of course I discover this site 2 weeks after one of these - ha! I would have loved to been able to mix a big band. Really cool concept though, I'm excited to sink my teeth into my first mixing challenge, whenever that happens!

Hyperchicken wrote: ↑

Wed Jan 15, 2020 23:02 CET

Of course I discover this site 2 weeks after one of these - ha! I would have loved to been able to mix a big band. Really cool concept though, I'm excited to sink my teeth into my first mixing challenge, whenever that happens!

Hello and welcome to the forum.

The next Mix(ing) Challenge will happen in February. Please take note of the Global Countdown on the following page:
Global Countdown (dedicated page)

Or alternatively on the main homepage. If you check your forum user account, you can also enable the newsletter function. Newsletters are usually sent out on the 1st and the 15th of the month. Sometimes more often.

If songwriting is also your forte, then take a look at the monthly recurring Songwriting Competition

In reality, we are dealing with art, which is imperfect by nature, and supposed to have emotional impact, but we may have different emotions every day.
So I believe it is legit, when the artist, or producer on behalf of artists, would change mind, or mind something that had been forgotten before.
The actual issue would be contract and relationship, because sometimes it can trigger the need for a remix or some extra work with some instruments, and from beyond a certain graceful amount, there will be exta time to be paid. This is practically routine, but can cause a problem for beginners or less experienced partners.
In architecture, it can happen, too.
See you soon!

White Punk OD wrote: ↑

Thu Jan 16, 2020 07:23 CET

In reality, we are dealing with art, which is imperfect by nature, and supposed to have emotional impact, but we may have different emotions every day.
So I believe it is legit, when the artist, or producer on behalf of artists, would change mind, or mind something that had been forgotten before.
The actual issue would be contract and relationship, because sometimes it can trigger the need for a remix or some extra work with some instruments, and from beyond a certain graceful amount, there will be exta time to be paid.

In General, yes. But not in context of this challenge. Why? Because there is only a second round, and not a third, a forth round and so on, like in a production context. This means a disadvantage for entries the provider changes his opinion and an advantage for entries he does not.
Therefore I wrote, that for round 2 should only count, how good the advises of review 1 are transformed in mix 2.
And keep in mind. Projects need a dead line, if no, you start to change, hear and change and hear and change, endless loop.

White Punk OD wrote: ↑

Thu Jan 16, 2020 07:23 CET

This is practically routine, but can cause a problem for beginners or less experienced partners.

This is no problem for anybody. It is like in the real life.

Well, if we were Hogwarts, then Dumbledore might owe you 20 extra points, that you can use up next time.
I agree that the necessity of a deadline affects the client as well as the service. Both have to watch out.
In reality, it is a free ride, with good luck to one, and bad luck to the other, sponsored by the clients who lend us tracks, some software sponsors, and Mr.Fox of the house who does his best, but there will always something happen beyond control. Because strict control will require budget, and the facility would not be free, or not feasible.
In reality, the studio cannot control the client, and will really think twice before going to court (which the big cats sometimes have to do, for typical reasons of a huge business they are in, but none of us here is huge..).
I am referring to Warren Huart (whom I listened to intensely), who said, if we are not yet an established studio with a stock of clients, relationships, and reputation, it will probably lead to nowhere, when we complain about a client who is on some search on his own, or makes mistakes, or whatever, and it is part of the ride, to accept some failures and losses, and those who can overcome that with elegance and without loud quarrels, and think forward, will prevail. If some relationship does not work out, it is smart to peacefully pass on the gig to some comrade who can cope with it, different taste, style of work and communication etc..
So, if a "game client" fails with a couple among 50 or more mix contributors, it would be still a good job, because it is very unusual work to do. In business, you would have one, or perhaps 2 or 3 different engineers to test, given you have the budget. Or you risk your own precious time, working with voluntaries and newbies. Which is a very noble thing to do, if possible.
I think, we should not focus on the contraditions, but just for the record, and for educational purpose, we point out irregularities that have happened. In a game, it is not a fault or guilt, just fate. The house will enforce rules as much as possible anyway. But in a free game, there is no way to punish imperfection, or effects of "grey zone". It is possible to ban a nasty contributor, or to override a failing client, or to leave for good, but that would be unhappy, so everyone avoids that as much as possible.
Thanks to Franz, and thanks to bluesation, and I think this should not contradict.