We now have the 30th March 2017, 0:49am GMT+1/CEST - Mix Round 2 has officially ended.
Please re-check your links, maybe add some documentation (for the learning factor), and please watch this spot.
And as usual, we're looking for new audio material to mix.
Please get in touch - http://www.mix-challenge.com
Also - please have an eye out for an upcoming announcement regarding the Mix Challenge.
Have a nice remaining week.
MIX CHALLENGE - MC30 March 2017 - Winners announced
-
- KVRAF
- Topic Starter
- 14658 posts since 19 Oct, 2003 from Berlin, Germany
-
- KVRAF
- 2063 posts since 14 Sep, 2004 from $HOME
Boy, this was really hard decision! Everybody took my feedback graciously and applied it to their mixes and they all got better.
I think the most difficult thing in the mix (at least for me) was to get the vocals and the snare right, so that the snare still has smack but does not dominate the vocals. It would be interesting to hear what you think the biggest problem was while mixing.
I made a little spreadsheet for rating the different parts of the song regarding to level balance (the most important factor for me, I noticed) and frequency distribution, in order to get a fair rating, but in the end there is no denying that personal taste played a big role, if faced with a decision in the end I let my gut decide, even if the other mix was maybe better from a technical standpoint.
So here's my results and my final nagging
1. MORK
I think frequency-wise there are still some problems (less 300Hz and more 80Hz maybe, just a tad), the kick could use more oohmpf and the chorus background vocals are panned too hard and practically collapse when switching the mix to mono. At first, I had this rated at place 3 or 4. So why did I change my mind in the end? First, the mix style fits my idea of the song, rather dry and in your face. Second, the overall level balance is just right, every track is there without being annoying and the vocal levels are spot on and sound just right, present but without being piercing or harsh.
In the end, after a day of listening I noticed that this is the mix I liked to listen to the most.
2. DaveMcIsaac
Overall maybe the most rocking mix, I even started dancing a little when listening to it for the first time. Not a beautiful sight, but I guess a good sign.
Only thing I still could bitch about is that the vocals in the final choruses fall a bit off in regard to the rest. A tight second place.
3. photonic
Good frequency balance, and generally tastefully done. The vocals got a a bit too loud in the second version and a bit harsh in the 8-9k area (that's where my annoying es-ses are usually). The drums are still too tame.
4. 3ee
I actually quite like this mix, except for one thing: the snare (and less so the rest of the drums) still dominates the mix, level and frequency wise. It kills the song for me, sorry, couldn't get used to it. Everything else is just fine.
5. VasDim
Much better frequency-wise! I think the 'funk' clean guitar is too loud and piercing. My main problem are the vocals, I think you overdid it with the EQ, they feel cold and rather distant to me. The instrumental part is totally OK.
6. thiagoam88
Here too, main criticism are the lead vocals, they sound too thin and harsh and are buried in the mix.
Thank you all for participating, it was great fun!
I think the most difficult thing in the mix (at least for me) was to get the vocals and the snare right, so that the snare still has smack but does not dominate the vocals. It would be interesting to hear what you think the biggest problem was while mixing.
I made a little spreadsheet for rating the different parts of the song regarding to level balance (the most important factor for me, I noticed) and frequency distribution, in order to get a fair rating, but in the end there is no denying that personal taste played a big role, if faced with a decision in the end I let my gut decide, even if the other mix was maybe better from a technical standpoint.
So here's my results and my final nagging
1. MORK
I think frequency-wise there are still some problems (less 300Hz and more 80Hz maybe, just a tad), the kick could use more oohmpf and the chorus background vocals are panned too hard and practically collapse when switching the mix to mono. At first, I had this rated at place 3 or 4. So why did I change my mind in the end? First, the mix style fits my idea of the song, rather dry and in your face. Second, the overall level balance is just right, every track is there without being annoying and the vocal levels are spot on and sound just right, present but without being piercing or harsh.
In the end, after a day of listening I noticed that this is the mix I liked to listen to the most.
2. DaveMcIsaac
Overall maybe the most rocking mix, I even started dancing a little when listening to it for the first time. Not a beautiful sight, but I guess a good sign.
Only thing I still could bitch about is that the vocals in the final choruses fall a bit off in regard to the rest. A tight second place.
3. photonic
Good frequency balance, and generally tastefully done. The vocals got a a bit too loud in the second version and a bit harsh in the 8-9k area (that's where my annoying es-ses are usually). The drums are still too tame.
4. 3ee
I actually quite like this mix, except for one thing: the snare (and less so the rest of the drums) still dominates the mix, level and frequency wise. It kills the song for me, sorry, couldn't get used to it. Everything else is just fine.
5. VasDim
Much better frequency-wise! I think the 'funk' clean guitar is too loud and piercing. My main problem are the vocals, I think you overdid it with the EQ, they feel cold and rather distant to me. The instrumental part is totally OK.
6. thiagoam88
Here too, main criticism are the lead vocals, they sound too thin and harsh and are buried in the mix.
Thank you all for participating, it was great fun!
-
- KVRAF
- Topic Starter
- 14658 posts since 19 Oct, 2003 from Berlin, Germany
Congratulations to all participants of Round 2 and congratulations to the winners. 
We perform with the usual, usual...
With that said, please take note of the official announcement:
Mix Challenge - we've moved... (and start with a clean slate)
Than you so, so much.
I hope we see you again on mix-challenge.com
We perform with the usual, usual...
- the top three winners can select a free license from the pool in order of the winners podium
- please announce your pick and get in touch with us (me: NyrvSystems and Two Notes / satyatunes: everything else)
- you're not forced to pick anything of course
With that said, please take note of the official announcement:
Mix Challenge - we've moved... (and start with a clean slate)
Than you so, so much.
I hope we see you again on mix-challenge.com
-
- KVRist
- 49 posts since 17 Jun, 2015 from Rio de Janeiro, Brazil
Congratz to all the winners!
Regarding your final feedback, I don't really feel like my vocals are burried or harsh (I actually took out some of the high end and compressed the sibilant frequencies pretty hard). I guess in the end it all comes down to taste and picking the right reference tracks.
Anyway, cool song to mix!
Regarding your final feedback, I don't really feel like my vocals are burried or harsh (I actually took out some of the high end and compressed the sibilant frequencies pretty hard). I guess in the end it all comes down to taste and picking the right reference tracks.
Anyway, cool song to mix!
-
- KVRAF
- 2063 posts since 14 Sep, 2004 from $HOME
Sorry, harsh was really the wrong word. The vocals just felt a bit thin and distant to me and that didn't feel right to me.thiagoam88 wrote: Regarding your final feedback, I don't really feel like my vocals are burried or harsh (I actually took out some of the high end and compressed the sibilant frequencies pretty hard). I guess in the end it all comes down to taste and picking the right reference tracks.
Anyway, cool song to mix!
And you're right, it was mostly a taste decision, I was really surprised how important the gut feeling was in the end, much more than e.g. the perfect frequency balance or other technical stuff. Weird. All mixes were totally valid in their own and maybe on another day I would've chosen a different ranking. Deciding isn't exactly my strong suit anyway...
Thanks for being a good sport!
-
- KVRian
- 628 posts since 5 Mar, 2011 from Austria
Congrats to MORK! 
And to all other winners of this round !
I see that I did a classical overcorrection with the vocal level. Well, that is something I learned in this round. So I am happy to reached 3 place.
No prize for me, thanx!
And to all other winners of this round !
I see that I did a classical overcorrection with the vocal level. Well, that is something I learned in this round. So I am happy to reached 3 place.
No prize for me, thanx!
soundcloud.com/photonic-1
-
- KVRist
- 61 posts since 10 Jul, 2010 from United States
fese wrote: 2. DaveMcIsaac
Overall maybe the most rocking mix, I even started dancing a little when listening to it for the first time. Not a beautiful sight, but I guess a good sign.
Only thing I still could bitch about is that the vocals in the final choruses fall a bit off in regard to the rest. A tight second place.
I'm glad it got you dancing.
Rather than simply sticking to the critique you gave in Round 1, I made all the suggested changes and THEN felt the "4 Part" harmonies were a bit overpowering at the end and brought them down. I should have left them where they were!
Congratulations to Mork. That's a great win!
Dave McIsaac
-
- KVRAF
- Topic Starter
- 14658 posts since 19 Oct, 2003 from Berlin, Germany
Just a small heads up:
I try to post a "Production Techniques" tip later tonight (and old one from KVR Audio), as well as a question in the new Q&A section. More to come...
- reached out to MORK just a minute ago to inform him of his 1st Place
- in case you folks didn't see it yet - the new forum over on http://www.mix-challenge.com is up and running (no, that was NOT an elaborate April Fools joke)
I try to post a "Production Techniques" tip later tonight (and old one from KVR Audio), as well as a question in the new Q&A section. More to come...
-
- KVRist
- 135 posts since 17 Apr, 2016 from Hamburg, Germany
Hey guys,
sorry for the delay!
First of all: Hooray!
Second: Fese, here's my line of defense
The 300 dilemma: I carved out a lot of low mids of the chorus guitar, there is very little energy left in that area. I think what's really still bothering you is the pad sound.
After round 1 I noticed that you suggested a lot of 300 cuts and add to that the superduper bright vocal recording (I cut something like 6db at 3k, broad)... maybe there's something going on in your listening environment/system (just a suggestion, no hate ). So I mixed a tad "colder" than I intended to, to compensate for that. Check against commercial mixes and you will find A LOT more low mid there.
On the other hand you like warmer mixes like Daves better (GREAT tone Dave! ), so hmmm...
The Background Vox: When I check here, they're still there when I fold down...in the background, hence the name
The kick: It's been a lot fatter during the process but it really "slowed it down" and conflicted with the bass. It's just more grooving this way. On top of that, a thick "808 style" kick doesn't fit the genre and much more important the feeling of this tune. I envisioned the song bright with a light groovy fundament. Almost like a pop rock song they do in tv shows for kids (which I obviously watch all day ). I hope that makes sense 
If you want to use this song, I'm happy to get dirty a third time and provide you a version that makes you happy 100%. Just let me know.
Third: My pick is the Metric Halo Character
Cheers
sorry for the delay!
First of all: Hooray!
Second: Fese, here's my line of defense
The 300 dilemma: I carved out a lot of low mids of the chorus guitar, there is very little energy left in that area. I think what's really still bothering you is the pad sound.
After round 1 I noticed that you suggested a lot of 300 cuts and add to that the superduper bright vocal recording (I cut something like 6db at 3k, broad)... maybe there's something going on in your listening environment/system (just a suggestion, no hate
). So I mixed a tad "colder" than I intended to, to compensate for that. Check against commercial mixes and you will find A LOT more low mid there.On the other hand you like warmer mixes like Daves better (GREAT tone Dave!
), so hmmm... The Background Vox: When I check here, they're still there when I fold down...in the background, hence the name
The kick: It's been a lot fatter during the process but it really "slowed it down" and conflicted with the bass. It's just more grooving this way. On top of that, a thick "808 style" kick doesn't fit the genre and much more important the feeling of this tune. I envisioned the song bright with a light groovy fundament. Almost like a pop rock song they do in tv shows for kids (which I obviously watch all day
). I hope that makes sense If you want to use this song, I'm happy to get dirty a third time and provide you a version that makes you happy 100%. Just let me know.
Third: My pick is the Metric Halo Character
Cheers
-
- KVRist
- 61 posts since 10 Jul, 2010 from United States
Once again - congratulations to M.O.R.K. (and thanks for the compliment)! Also congrats to Photonic. And it's good to see 3ee again! I think you all did a great job.
After much thought, I've decided to go with one last prize - the Metric Halo Channel Strip. I know the routine.
See you all on MC31!
After much thought, I've decided to go with one last prize - the Metric Halo Channel Strip. I know the routine.
See you all on MC31!
Dave McIsaac
-
- KVRAF
- Topic Starter
- 14658 posts since 19 Oct, 2003 from Berlin, Germany
Sorry Dave.
But MORK already picked Metric Halo
But MORK already picked Metric Halo
-
- KVRAF
- 2063 posts since 14 Sep, 2004 from $HOME
You know, I noticed that, too. And I know my listening environment is very much sub par because it's my living room and I don't have the space to set it up except where it is now (more or less in a corner). This is why I checked everything with my DT 880s, too. And I just never seem to like that 300Hz area :=). It is not much, I tested a 1-2dB cut at 300Hz and a 1dB low shelf at 80Hz and I found it opened up the mix a bit. Maybe just my taste.M.O.R.K. wrote: Second: Fese, here's my line of defense
The 300 dilemma: I carved out a lot of low mids of the chorus guitar, there is very little energy left in that area. I think what's really still bothering you is the pad sound.
After round 1 I noticed that you suggested a lot of 300 cuts and add to that the superduper bright vocal recording (I cut something like 6db at 3k, broad)... maybe there's something going on in your listening environment/system (just a suggestion, no hate
I found I couldn't practically hear them anymore when mono-ed, but that is not really important. I mostly would've preferred them not so panned as they are now. I get what you were aiming at, I think (opening up the chorus and make it wide), but my feeling is that they are very detached from the main vocals.M.O.R.K. wrote: The Background Vox: When I check here, they're still there when I fold down...in the background, hence the name
If you could try to make the bg vocals work less panned and maybe give the kick just a little bit more impact (maybe just a tiny bit louder?), that'd be great!The kick: It's been a lot fatter during the process but it really "slowed it down" and conflicted with the bass. It's just more grooving this way. On top of that, a thick "808 style" kick doesn't fit the genre and much more important the feeling of this tune.
...
If you want to use this song, I'm happy to get dirty a third time and provide you a version that makes you happy 100%. Just let me know.
Also, if you could tell a bit what you did to the tracks and how you made them work together, that'd be great (especially regarding EQ, especially vocals:).
And if I ever put that song with your mix up on Youtube or whatever, do you have something I could link to?
Grüße vom Rhein
-
- KVRAF
- 2063 posts since 14 Sep, 2004 from $HOME
And a final thank you to all who participated, you all did a great job, it was really interesting and educational for me. I hope I see you all again some day on the new mix challenge platform!
Actually, I'd really like to take part in the mix challenge myself to learn more and get better, but making music is such a time consuming hobby as it is with the recording and arranging
Actually, I'd really like to take part in the mix challenge myself to learn more and get better, but making music is such a time consuming hobby as it is with the recording and arranging
-
- KVRist
- 49 posts since 17 Jun, 2015 from Rio de Janeiro, Brazil
How do you like the DT880, @fese? Been thinking to get them myself. I've heard that it was a very high peak at around 9Khz (which might explain some of the harshness you perceive?). Do you think it is a "too bright" headphone overall?fese wrote: You know, I noticed that, too. And I know my listening environment is very much sub par because it's my living room and I don't have the space to set it up except where it is now (more or less in a corner). This is why I checked everything with my DT 880s, too.
Hope to see you around!
-
- KVRist
- 61 posts since 10 Jul, 2010 from United States
Sorry - in that case I'll pass this time around. No biggie - I just picked up the HoRNet ChannelStrip MK3. So far, I'm really liking it. Maybe next time...Compyfox wrote:Sorry Dave.
But MORK already picked Metric Halo
Dave McIsaac
