MIX CHALLENGE - MC092 June 2023 - Winners announced

[Pitta]

Hello good people!

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1yxRPkQ ... drive_link

Here’s my take! Mixed on stacked Auratones, Genelec 8040A with two SVS SB1000 subwoofers and Beyerdynamic DT700M. A fairly treated living room and sonarworks reference4. Used too many plugins, mostly Reaper stock, Waves and Soundtoys. Hope you like it.

Pedro

[Pitta]

oh well. I think I made confusion converting time zones. it was fun to mix anyway. Good luck!

[Clueless]

https://we.tl/t-GKskzVYrTL
Consolelite 8 buss & channel
Acceleration, one clip corner, dc assassin, Qrange, Purest gain , Youlean, Spiral2, ReaEq,, Capacitor 2, MV , Disrance, Pafnuty2, infinity2, TesslaSEmk2, Air2, Varimu Huge, clipsoftly, TDRnova, peakeater, buttercup subsonic, point, sampledelay
Separated instruments, panned for placement & used fades instead of compression
I used fade on Vocals
Inverted the phase on drums except kick

[Clueless]

Oh dear, messed up “sad face “

[Mister Fox]

The "Overview of Submissions" PDFs have been uploaded.
You can check them through the upper post (post #90).



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, 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 32,00% for June 2023 (75 entries, 24 disqualifications, 2 "Out of Competition" submissions). This is almost about 1/3rd of all participants, and an increase of ca 22,37% compared to MC091 / April 2023. Many of these disqualifications are due to carelessness errors: lack of accessibility of submissions, not allowed re-uploads, and not following the given file name template as mentioned in the provided "TL;DR Rules.txt" file. On average (26 months of tracking), we currently have a disqualification rate of 26,00% (compared to last game's 25,76% avg), the rate is still increasing. The disqualification rate over the course of the last 12 games (October 2021 to June 2023) is about 24,31% (previously 23,64%), and is also on an increase. I strongly recommend all participants to pay more attention to details in future games.

A commentary on this month's entries:

Once again, I would like to extend a warm welcome to all the new participants who have found their way into our little community. If you found us through formerly metapop, or through the news entries at Sonic State and Rekkerd, glad to see you here. I hope you enjoy your stay, had fun, and could learn something from this experience. I'm also happy to see old regulars back in the game.


Unfortunately, I feel a little let down after working through and setting up the Statistic Sheets.

While the majority of participants actually used the provided filename template, I still had many entries that either used the old form, or ignored the template altogether. I really do not understand this, as you've even been given a "TL;DR Rules.txt" file that clearly mentions this for you to just copy and paste. And with 60+ entries, it's getting really hard after a while to set up the sheets. I've talked about this ad nauseam. And as per the given rules, I had to tag six (number: 6) entries as "tagged disqualified".

Please, don't put your entry at risk of being "tagged disqualified" or even "tagged OUT", use the provided filename template!


Another recurring topic is the accessibility of your files. Three (number: 3) of the 75 entries resulted in a "can't be accessed" error on Google Drive, since the file wasn't made "pubic". In fact, one (number: 1) of the entries after the deadline was also inaccessible to me. Those mixes are by users @Dirtymcduff, @jetwolf, @Nbwltn2, and also the late entry by @Pitta.

All of these entries are "tagged OUT". I am sorry, but you forfeit your chance to be heard, and advance into the next round.

Bonus: one (number: 1) entry technically couldn't be associated with a user on the forum, and would also count to "tagged OUT" (@TSTstudio used TSTmix instead of the forum user name). However, there is another layer to this particular entry (see below). Oh and @Clueless - submissions through WeTransfer are only available for 7 days post release.


Speaking of "tagged OUT" (aka: fully disqualified)...

I unfortunately caught three (number: 3) users re-uploading their entry during Mix Round 1. This is a clear rule violation (see Rules and Guidelines post #006 - Upload and Submission Guidelines) - your entry is final.

I usually download material as it "comes in" (so to speak). The only exceptions are, if I am not around (due to a myriad of reasons, including time management and/or technical issues). I also triple check time stamps of your uploaded files on Google Drive, Dropbox, etc. Yes, all this is extra work. However, I want to make "the challenge" fair for every participant, especially those that adhere to given tasks. I do try to offer a balance between "difficult task, yet fun and rewarding" with every Mix(ing) Challenge. If your entry has been made available hours, if not days after your initial forum post, i start to take a closer closer look. If I see your post being deleted, and then you post again within short succession with a new link even, I consider this a "re-submission" as well.

I sadly caught @TSTstudio re-uploading the entry two days after the initial one. After seeing this, I thought "maybe this is to correct the loudness issues, and use a proper filename". However, the second release was actually louder, suddenly in a different sampling rate, and still ignored the filename template. @alavault re-uploaded the entry four days after the initial one. The file length changed, and so did the signal peak values. @Punchipum edited the post within an hour of the original forum post. I thought this was to fix a broken link. Turns out both time-stamps of the re-upload coincide with the time-stamp of the forum post edit. If only I wouldn't have looked closer...

In fairness to all other participants - these entries also forfeit their chance to advance into the next round.

There are two more users listed under the "Re-submissions (within Mix Round 1)" section on the Statistic Sheet(s). However, I can not proof if these are actually re-uploads. The entry by @Alex Van mixland shows a second time-stamp that is 11 hours after the forum post. The entry by @jax shows a second time-stamp that is around 30minutes after the forum post. Due to various technical reasons, I can't proof a re-upload for these files (as I didn't catch possible original releases), but will give a stern warning for the future. Unfortunately, the entry by @jax is still "tagged disqualified", since it's in the wrong sampling rate and exceeds the loudness specs.


The rest of the entries that have been "tagged disqualified" unfortunately suffer from the usual-usual: wrong sampling rate, wrong bitrate, loudness specs, no documentation. And please... I know that some of you are not great with this. However, please do write more than just one sentence, or "mixed in DAW ABC, stock plugins". Focus on at least one sound you enjoyed sculpting. This is to add to the learning factor of the community. And it also teaches you how to document your own edits in case you might need to revisit a mix at a later state. Yes, this is still important to this day.


To close this out, I am actually also surprised to read so many comments regarding "phase aligning" the already phase aligned multi-tracks. The material was checked/adjusted with Sound Radix Auto-Align 2, and this was even mentioned in the "Words by the Song Provider". I understand that microphone distance (e.g. drums) are still a thing. But I've read things like "flipping the phase on the drums compared to the cajon close mics". I actually asked the Song Provider to take another look during the integrity check - and he fixed this before you all got access to the material.

I am not the Song Provider, I do not have a final word on which mixes will be selected for Mix Round 2. But to those that will go into Mix Round 2, and for future Mix(ing) Challenges... please pay attention to detail. Don't just load up the multi-tracks and work as you seem fit. The TXT files not only tell you your tasks, but often also point out things where you might have to take a closer look.


Other than that... I hoped to see more than 100 participants this month (the Mix Challenge got mentioned on more news outlets, 9th Anniversary and all). However, i am still happy to see 75 entries, which is 2 more than last month, and 32 more than June 2022. If we can keep this up for the end of the year, this makes me really happy. If we get access to more material beyond August/September 2023, that is.

Also thank you on the positive words regarding the multi-tracks and getting access a song in a genre, you usually do not have access to.
I am glad you all enjoyed this month's game. 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).

However, due to the song provider's busy schedule (touring), the next round of mixing may be delayed until calendar week 28 (10-JUL-2023 - 16-JUL-2023). We will keep you updated and of course send out appropriate newsletters!

[Clueless]

The "Overview of Submissions" PDFs have been uploaded.
You can check them through the upper post (post #90).



Bonus: one (number: 1) entry technically couldn't be associated with a user on the forum, and would also count to "tagged OUT" (@TSTstudio used TSTmix instead of the forum user name). However, there is another layer to this particular entry (see below). Oh and @Clueless - submissions through WeTransfer are only available for 7 days post release.

Thanks, I’ll know for next time, lucky for me I missed the deadline

[Punchipum]

Twice that I participated and twice that I was disqualified. Well, I hope I don't make any mistakes in the third

[zed999]

Thought I'd try and chat about this one.
I'm clearly out of order because nobody else is interested, so to save looking like an idiot out on a limb I've deleted it.
Strange site in that regard. Oh well.

[LCM!]

Thought I'd try and chat about this one.
I'm clearly out of order because nobody else is interested, so to save looking like an idiot out on a limb I've deleted it.
Strange site in that regard. Oh well.

Funny, cause I saw your post yesterday afternoon, and thought your mix was pretty nice. And today I find you deleted it.
And I agree you: strange place where we can practice our skills and learn many things about mixing, and ego as well.
Greetings!

[zed999]

Thought I'd try and chat about this one.
I'm clearly out of order because nobody else is interested, so to save looking like an idiot out on a limb I've deleted it.
Strange site in that regard. Oh well.

Funny, cause I saw your post yesterday afternoon, and thought your mix was pretty nice. And today I find you deleted it.
And I agree you: strange place where we can practice our skills and learn many things about mixing, and ego as well.
Greetings!

Hi LCM!
I'm always happy to chat but not inclined to talk to myself out loud in public. I got the feeling from the lack of replies than I must have embarrassed myself somehow. For anyone reading, for clarity I deleted a post, not my mix link... even though I'd need a wild card to carry on if picked it's just as illuminating every time I don't (100% fail record here) so I'll wait and see.

I wasn't seeking comments on my mix but thanks. I'm still interested in how others decided to approach it in very general terms. Basically - control it or let it do it's thing? Make it sound raw or produced? General AIMS. How we did that is a different question but again maybe answerable in very general terms so I'm interested in that to a degree.

Mix talk :
When I first balanced the sounds in mono then spread them out, so no processing other than pan and faders, it already sounded good to me. As many folk have said - well recorded. But more than that well produced and arranged. It builds up on it's own if you let it breath. That's why I started again after bad results trying to control it with processing so that I could "mix" it first time around. That's good experience, next time I wouldn't try to separate elements only to glue them back together. Doh!

Just thoughts, other more experienced opinions are available.... or... it might be helpful if they were.