Mix Challenge - Gossip and Discussion
-
- KVRAF
- 14658 posts since 19 Oct, 2003 from Berlin, Germany
Less than 58 hours remaining on the voting process.
-
do_androids_dream do_androids_dream https://www.kvraudio.com/forum/memberlist.php?mode=viewprofile&u=164034 - KVRAF
- 2908 posts since 26 Oct, 2007 from Kent, UK
The more I read this thread and think about this 'competition' the more I think it's a flawed concept. Especially as everyone is using their own biased criteria for voting as highlighted by Compy a few posts back (regarding the use of reverb etc.). I'm deciding to bow out once again so please don't vote for me. It really is nothing personal against anyone or anything - I just think a 'competition' is a highly flawed way to learn anything.
-
- KVRAF
- 14658 posts since 19 Oct, 2003 from Berlin, Germany
Then what can we do to improve it?
-
do_androids_dream do_androids_dream https://www.kvraudio.com/forum/memberlist.php?mode=viewprofile&u=164034
- KVRAF
- 2908 posts since 26 Oct, 2007 from Kent, UK
I don't think it's a case of improving it - more a philosophical thing with me. Competitions, voting - all that stuff just doesn't sit right with me (I tried to like it honest!) but I really don't want to spoil anyone else's fun. If the others are having a good time taking part in this then that's all good.
-
- KVRAF
- Topic Starter
- 16317 posts since 22 Nov, 2000 from Southern California
Works for me. Anyway, please cast your votes even if you don't want to be voted upon. All the people who entered are doing it because we want to be voted upon. For example, the fact that my mix is doing so poorly tells me that maybe I should back down on the compression, add more reverb, and avoid LCR panning. That's very good feedback.
-
- KVRAF
- 14658 posts since 19 Oct, 2003 from Berlin, Germany
You bring up a valid point, android. That this "fun and games" thing turned into a serious competition to win stuff and being judged by others and their personal preferences.
Might this be the case why the voting doesn't work out? Half of the participants still haven't cast their vote. So either they're discouraged by not being voted for, or they just think "meh... don't want to win anyway".
Might this be the case why the voting doesn't work out? Half of the participants still haven't cast their vote. So either they're discouraged by not being voted for, or they just think "meh... don't want to win anyway".
-
- KVRAF
- 4585 posts since 2 Nov, 2006
I think the major problem here is that it's difficult to combine a competition (with prices) and at the same time preserve the educational aspect. I think that as things are now maybe people could be tempted to take part into the contest only with the aim to win something (or for the Glory 
) or in any case is not very prone to contribute at the educative aspect. Maybe there should be no prices and should be pointed out very very clearly that the aim of the contest is to share different experiences and learn something.
) or in any case is not very prone to contribute at the educative aspect. Maybe there should be no prices and should be pointed out very very clearly that the aim of the contest is to share different experiences and learn something.-
- KVRAF
- 14658 posts since 19 Oct, 2003 from Berlin, Germany
Then I propose a counter argument... would people even join if there are no prices involved?
The prices are currently bonus.
Part of the rules is to provide information about what you did. A lot of participants were really detailed on this, posted screenshots even (which add to the educational part).
So we have two scenarios for the future:
a) a rule where detailed documentation is absolutely mandatory. Meaning, not just 1-2 sentences, but actually posting a couple of screenshots, mention why you went that route, list what plugins you used. The settings is a part to find out yourself however
b) drop all that and keep it running like it currently is. But then the main focus is on "winning" rather than "learning".
My main question currently:
Did the participants learn ANYTHING other than listening to different interpretations of the same song? And maybe not to overdo it in terms of reverb.
What I could gather so far, was that some participants at least picked up the "work level" thing. Personally I picked up some nice ideas in terms of filter usage on synths, and I was being reminded again that sidechain compression can work as supportive rhythmic element rather than making space for other instruments.
Then again... these are my own opinions on this.
I don't know if this has any further effect on the entrants.
Should we change the "submission" thread into a "feedback" thread after the voting process started? Or should we use the voting thread for feedback, which in turn would maybe influence others? Should we use one vote instead of three? (currently, Uncle E wrote to me in a PM to use "one" vote only - especially if the participation is that low - but I still opt for three votes)
All good and valid questions.
This is a reboot of the original mix and mastering competition in the FX section. We can only improve on that and keep it up like the OSC and the SWC.
The prices are currently bonus.
Part of the rules is to provide information about what you did. A lot of participants were really detailed on this, posted screenshots even (which add to the educational part).
So we have two scenarios for the future:
a) a rule where detailed documentation is absolutely mandatory. Meaning, not just 1-2 sentences, but actually posting a couple of screenshots, mention why you went that route, list what plugins you used. The settings is a part to find out yourself however
b) drop all that and keep it running like it currently is. But then the main focus is on "winning" rather than "learning".
My main question currently:
Did the participants learn ANYTHING other than listening to different interpretations of the same song? And maybe not to overdo it in terms of reverb.
What I could gather so far, was that some participants at least picked up the "work level" thing. Personally I picked up some nice ideas in terms of filter usage on synths, and I was being reminded again that sidechain compression can work as supportive rhythmic element rather than making space for other instruments.
Then again... these are my own opinions on this.
I don't know if this has any further effect on the entrants.
Should we change the "submission" thread into a "feedback" thread after the voting process started? Or should we use the voting thread for feedback, which in turn would maybe influence others? Should we use one vote instead of three? (currently, Uncle E wrote to me in a PM to use "one" vote only - especially if the participation is that low - but I still opt for three votes)
All good and valid questions.
This is a reboot of the original mix and mastering competition in the FX section. We can only improve on that and keep it up like the OSC and the SWC.
-
- KVRAF
- 4585 posts since 2 Nov, 2006
The problem is that to provide informations, explanations and discuss things in order to teach something it's a hard "job", so I think that if people join because of the educational aspect they do not care too much about prices because their aim is not to win something. On the other hand if someone decide to partecipate just to give it a try because of prices the result is that they will miss to provide informations, they'll ignore the voting, etc.Compyfox wrote:Then I propose a counter argument... would people even join if there are no prices involved?
The prices are currently bonus.
Part of the rules is to provide information about what you did. A lot of participants were really detailed on this, posted screenshots even (which add to the educational part).
-
- KVRAF
- 14658 posts since 19 Oct, 2003 from Berlin, Germany
Valid reasons.
Please keep in coming, folks.
Please keep in coming, folks.
-
- KVRAF
- 1793 posts since 9 Apr, 2011
I believe the prizes are a huge factor in enticing people to enter. If we took them away, I feel we'd have very little participation; at the least it'd be inconsistent. Perhaps only the winners should have to post a detailed analysis like Compy described, to show how they got "the best" mix.
"musician."
http://soundcloud.com/nine-of-kings
http://soundcloud.com/nine-of-kings
-
- KVRAF
- 42529 posts since 21 Dec, 2005
I don't ever remember, in nearly 10 years, there ever being something that required so many rules.
I mean, a one synth challenge using ONLY ONE SYNTH is reasonable.
I'll be a going through some of these tonight, I'm really curious how the rules translated for people.
I mean, a one synth challenge using ONLY ONE SYNTH is reasonable.
I'll be a going through some of these tonight, I'm really curious how the rules translated for people.
-
- KVRAF
- Topic Starter
- 16317 posts since 22 Nov, 2000 from Southern California
How about you spend your time more productively by helping us distill them down into something less daunting?hibidy wrote:I don't ever remember, in nearly 10 years, there ever being something that required so many rules.
I mean, a one synth challenge using ONLY ONE SYNTH is reasonable.
I'll be a going through some of these tonight, I'm really curious how the rules translated for people.
-
- KVRAF
- 42529 posts since 21 Dec, 2005
ORLY?Uncle E wrote:How about you spend your time more productively by helping us distill them down into something less daunting?hibidy wrote:I don't ever remember, in nearly 10 years, there ever being something that required so many rules.
I mean, a one synth challenge using ONLY ONE SYNTH is reasonable.
I'll be a going through some of these tonight, I'm really curious how the rules translated for people.
Well, I'll leave you to it.
-
- KVRAF
- 14658 posts since 19 Oct, 2003 from Berlin, Germany
Actually... YA RLY!
Instead of constantly pulling the "pronoun game" on us, or throwing around cryptic messages that you "got pissed off by the rules", you could maybe finally answer and help us improve this thing?
I don't want to sound like an ass here, but in the 15+ years I'm in the music realm, I've seen worse and way more restrictive rules. Rules that even took away the rights of your song the moment you submit it.
In this particular example, we're absolutely harmless. Strict indeed, but harmless. I mean, the SWC and the OSC also has restrictions - and a long rule set as well (have you even read them?!). And look how popular these two are!
Then take a look at the current Mix Challenge. I remember that the original one in the Effects sub board actually only spawned like 8-10 entries and there was a constant struggle with questions, involving a "paid engineer", etc. The current one created 18 entries right from the start! With one user joining KVR just for that purpose. So the rules weren't that problematic to those users. Though granted the time frame was really on short notice.
While we're at it, the future time frame will be this:
- 2 weeks for mixing (15 days!)
- 3-4 days for preparing the voting process (and checking the files, find out who violated the rules)
- 1 week of voting (7 days)
Together: about 25-27 days - with a bit of "wiggle room" if things can't start as planned.
This is streamlined so that one MC per month can be handled. To some, this might be too short. To us (Eric and Me), this is ideal to create a near realistic environment, force the users to "focus" rather than toy around, and this offers more tracks/genres to mix over the course of the year.
Actually, the rules are darn simple if you focus on the specific section that applies to you.
We currently have four sections of rules, plus an information set of time limits (see above), etc:
- Rules for people that want to provide a song for the mix challenge (read: raw tracks)
- Rules for people that want to join the mix challenge in terms of mixing (read: the actual mixing challenge)
- Rules in terms of voting (general rules for both participants and bystanders)
- Rules in terms of winning stuff (general information for participants)
The only thing that should apply to you, is the second set of rules. And they basically boil down to:
- mix how you feel like (artistic freedom, read: you can use whatever tools you want) without rearranging the track or overdoing the sound design (using sound replacement tools will be restricted from MC02 forward)
- ideally work at a specific worklevel and not overshoot a certain loudness (this worked for 95% of the participants!!!)
- upload wherever you want with 48/24 maximum.
- at least provide an MP3 at 320kbit/s
- don't submit within the first 24 hours, take your time to listen to the track again a day later with fresh ears prior to submitting as resubmissions instantly disqualify you
- post at least some(!) bits of information what you did, for others to learn (around 70% if the participants did that, half of those even REALLY detailed)
If it's down to the voting and winning stuff:
- you shall not vote for your own track, but vote for others
- you should ideally use three votes (this is planned to be changed with MC02)
- in order to win something (if you want to win something - nobody is FORCING YOU) and if you joined the challenge with a mix, write "I voted" in the thread.
- but vote regardless
Where is that too restrictive?!
Are you maybe interpreting too much into it?
Did you accidentally mix the song provider rules with the actual mix rules, where I mention the restriction with "using a GEMA/RIAA listed track for those that provide raw tracks"?
I don't get it. I seriously don't.
We can't improve(!) on the challenge and make EVERYONE happy, if we do not know what to fix or improve!
Currently we're talking about the topic if we should add something to win or not (publically). Then where we want to discuss the song creations without influencing others (and when: my current idea is to do that in the submission thread, so it would turn from Submission -> Q&A and Feedback during the voting process). How much information should be posted in terms of "Documentation". We (Eric and I) even dropped the "Mastering Challenge" as of this moment, since we have access to so many songs with multi-tracks - and we plan to get in touch with both the OSC and SWC for further content!
The rule set won't fundamentally chance. But it will definitely be streamlined (what I will do today, then discuss with Eric, and finally post it tomorrow or Thuesday latest). And actually, we have 4 tracks(!) in the queue - so the Mix Challenge can at least run until MC05!
If you want to remain stubborn and say "funk it" - that's totally your thing. But don't blame it on us or even the rule set if you don't even tell us "what's wrong" and "how to improve it". Especially in the middle of your(!) mixing process. Because the only rule we added during MC01, was to NOT REARRANGE, but use the tracks as they are.
Instead of constantly pulling the "pronoun game" on us, or throwing around cryptic messages that you "got pissed off by the rules", you could maybe finally answer and help us improve this thing?
I don't want to sound like an ass here, but in the 15+ years I'm in the music realm, I've seen worse and way more restrictive rules. Rules that even took away the rights of your song the moment you submit it.
In this particular example, we're absolutely harmless. Strict indeed, but harmless. I mean, the SWC and the OSC also has restrictions - and a long rule set as well (have you even read them?!). And look how popular these two are!
Then take a look at the current Mix Challenge. I remember that the original one in the Effects sub board actually only spawned like 8-10 entries and there was a constant struggle with questions, involving a "paid engineer", etc. The current one created 18 entries right from the start! With one user joining KVR just for that purpose. So the rules weren't that problematic to those users. Though granted the time frame was really on short notice.
While we're at it, the future time frame will be this:
- 2 weeks for mixing (15 days!)
- 3-4 days for preparing the voting process (and checking the files, find out who violated the rules)
- 1 week of voting (7 days)
Together: about 25-27 days - with a bit of "wiggle room" if things can't start as planned.
This is streamlined so that one MC per month can be handled. To some, this might be too short. To us (Eric and Me), this is ideal to create a near realistic environment, force the users to "focus" rather than toy around, and this offers more tracks/genres to mix over the course of the year.
Actually, the rules are darn simple if you focus on the specific section that applies to you.
We currently have four sections of rules, plus an information set of time limits (see above), etc:
- Rules for people that want to provide a song for the mix challenge (read: raw tracks)
- Rules for people that want to join the mix challenge in terms of mixing (read: the actual mixing challenge)
- Rules in terms of voting (general rules for both participants and bystanders)
- Rules in terms of winning stuff (general information for participants)
The only thing that should apply to you, is the second set of rules. And they basically boil down to:
- mix how you feel like (artistic freedom, read: you can use whatever tools you want) without rearranging the track or overdoing the sound design (using sound replacement tools will be restricted from MC02 forward)
- ideally work at a specific worklevel and not overshoot a certain loudness (this worked for 95% of the participants!!!)
- upload wherever you want with 48/24 maximum.
- at least provide an MP3 at 320kbit/s
- don't submit within the first 24 hours, take your time to listen to the track again a day later with fresh ears prior to submitting as resubmissions instantly disqualify you
- post at least some(!) bits of information what you did, for others to learn (around 70% if the participants did that, half of those even REALLY detailed)
If it's down to the voting and winning stuff:
- you shall not vote for your own track, but vote for others
- you should ideally use three votes (this is planned to be changed with MC02)
- in order to win something (if you want to win something - nobody is FORCING YOU) and if you joined the challenge with a mix, write "I voted" in the thread.
- but vote regardless
Where is that too restrictive?!
Are you maybe interpreting too much into it?
Did you accidentally mix the song provider rules with the actual mix rules, where I mention the restriction with "using a GEMA/RIAA listed track for those that provide raw tracks"?
I don't get it. I seriously don't.
We can't improve(!) on the challenge and make EVERYONE happy, if we do not know what to fix or improve!
Currently we're talking about the topic if we should add something to win or not (publically). Then where we want to discuss the song creations without influencing others (and when: my current idea is to do that in the submission thread, so it would turn from Submission -> Q&A and Feedback during the voting process). How much information should be posted in terms of "Documentation". We (Eric and I) even dropped the "Mastering Challenge" as of this moment, since we have access to so many songs with multi-tracks - and we plan to get in touch with both the OSC and SWC for further content!
The rule set won't fundamentally chance. But it will definitely be streamlined (what I will do today, then discuss with Eric, and finally post it tomorrow or Thuesday latest). And actually, we have 4 tracks(!) in the queue - so the Mix Challenge can at least run until MC05!
If you want to remain stubborn and say "funk it" - that's totally your thing. But don't blame it on us or even the rule set if you don't even tell us "what's wrong" and "how to improve it". Especially in the middle of your(!) mixing process. Because the only rule we added during MC01, was to NOT REARRANGE, but use the tracks as they are.
