One-Synth-Challenge: General discussion thread

[TrojakEW]

It's obvious that there are a lot of people here who hate me. Guess what? I hate them too so we're even.

I dont think there are lot of people who hate you - thats what I think. It is for sure your opinion based on voting (or sumthing like that). Actually I dont really want you to leave the OSC.

I think you can get better score (if this is your goal) when you make next track in your usual style. It is clear that EDM is not your way so it is a waste of time making track to sound like that. Forget about what users here prefer just make something you usually do and I think people will appreciate more then your attempt to make their style. From what I hear from you so far in OSC its looks like you are really trying to make sound like they want and not like YOU want.

[wagtunes]

It's obvious that there are a lot of people here who hate me. Guess what? I hate them too so we're even.

I dont think there are lot of people who hate you - thats what I think. It is for sure your opinion based on voting (or sumthing like that). Actually I dont really want you to leave the OSC.

I think you can get better score (if this is your goal) when you make next track in your usual style. It is clear that EDM is not your way so it is a waste of time making track to sound like that. Forget about what users here prefer just make something you usually do and I think people will appreciate more then your attempt to make their style. From what I hear from you so far in OSC its looks like you are really trying to make sound like they want and not like YOU want.

The last track I did was all me. It was 70s pop and it still finished close to the bottom. Style has nothing to do with it.

[TrojakEW]

I was thinking that way because in #98 I made sumthing (I mean style) I dont listen/do and I do hate this track (it think it is junk ). Interesting is that I get mostly 3 and 4 for it. While on the other hand my OXBD OSC track get lowest score from all my OSC rounds and I think it was my best track.

But for me it doesnt matter because I dont do this for points but to learn and relax. And I really learn a lot and Im really happy that I decide to join regardless of the outcome.

[wagtunes]

I was thinking that way because in #98 I made sumthing (I mean style) I dont listen/do and I do hate this track (it think it is junk ). Interesting is that I get mostly 3 and 4 for it. While on the other hand my OXBD OSC track get lowest score from all my OSC rounds and I think it was my best track.

But for me it doesnt matter because I dont do this for points but to learn and relax. And I really learn a lot and Im really happy that I decide to join regardless of the outcome.

Well you know what? After a while, you get tired of being told your music sucks.

[bluerobot]

edit: What's the thing about making it downloadable? Is this something that happens by default under the current system with google/soundcloud, or would there be an extra step involved?

I believe it's done to enable people to listen/vote offline. On soundcloud it's an extra step: Permissions -> Enable Downloads.

My voting suggestion, if we just wanted to try a "small" change, is that our own tracks get 0 points, rather than 1. The reason being that I think people (or at least I) would be more comfortable using the full five-point scale (1-5) if they didn't feel that their own track was part of the comparison.

At the end of the day the scale is just about drawing distinctions. I personally like to use the wider scale because I really want the fives that I give to stand out. I suspect some might read too much into a lower score on that scale, and that's a shame. I don't really have a good solution for it, however... it is a competition, after all.

[rghvdberg]

All songs are archived on archive.org, therefore songs must be downloadable.

Voting system is fine. I truly believe any voting system would lead to the same top 5.

[wagtunes]

All songs are archived on archive.org, therefore songs must be downloadable.

Voting system is fine. I truly believe any voting system would lead to the same top 5.

Actually Rob, look at some of the recent contests where 5th and 10th place were separated by less than 10 points. With a 10 point system, where a lot of these tracks had people wavering between voting a 4 or 5, now with a 10 point system, those tracks are probably going to be wavering between 8 and 10. The extra point in the spread, given how many voters there are, could mean the difference between that 6th or 7th place coming in 5th or even 4th.

This is not to say the suddenly somebody who is consistently at the bottom is suddenly going to rise to the top. Of course not. But the extra variance, where people now have more choices, mathematically make it so that there is more chance for the top 10 or so entrants to get shuffled around a lot more.

If nothing else, I'd love to be able to prove this by one month having two votes given. One on a 5 point scale and one on a 10 point scale just to show that there can be variance.

[Full Bucket]

Actually Rob, look at some of the recent contests where 5th and 10th place were separated by less than 10 points. With a 10 point system, where a lot of these tracks had people wavering between voting a 4 or 5, now with a 10 point system, those tracks are probably going to be wavering between 8 and 10. The extra point in the spread, given how many voters there are, could mean the difference between that 6th or 7th place coming in 5th or even 4th.

This is not to say the suddenly somebody who is consistently at the bottom is suddenly going to rise to the top. Of course not. But the extra variance, where people now have more choices, mathematically make it so that there is more chance for the top 10 or so entrants to get shuffled around a lot more.

If nothing else, I'd love to be able to prove this by one month having two votes given. One on a 5 point scale and one on a 10 point scale just to show that there can be variance.

I agree with Steven. But then, to simplify voting, point weights should be derived from a "log scale", for example 1, 2, 5, 8, 10...
Alas, those maths...

Cheers Björn

[rghvdberg]

The ranking isn't only the points you get but also the number of 5s,4s etc.

Voting now is nice and simple. Suits me fine.
I'm not against changing the system per se.

[wagtunes]

The ranking isn't only the points you get but also the number of 5s,4s etc.

Voting now is nice and simple. Suits me fine.
I'm not against changing the system per se.

Rob, of course it's simple. That's my problem with it.

Typical hair pulling example.

Listen to track A

"Wow that was great. Gotta be a 5."

Listen to track B

"OMG, now THAT is really great. Okay, I guess track A is really a 4."

Listen to track C

"Very good track but definitely not a 5. Gotta give it a 4. But wait, the track I moved down to a 4 is so much better. How do I give them both a 4?"

Compound this by 40, 50 tracks and it makes me not want to bother voting at all.

With a 10 point system, that "better than a 4" but "not as good as a 5" get a 9 and everybody is happy. Well, at least happier. I've bumped too many 4s down to 3s or up to 5s because there's no place to put the tracks slightly better or worse than these without lumping them in with tracks that are clearly better or worse.

So what happens is this. It gets to the point where I have...

5s - Must be pro Deadmau5 quality

4s - Anything not 5s

3s Anything that's just okay.

With this system I end up having almost no 5s, everything good in the 4s slot, no matter how much deviation there is between tracks and everything else that's at least average in the 3s slot. 2s and 1s end up reserved for one chord drones and stuff that is so distorted audibly (too loud) that is blows my ear drums out.

It's no way to score a contest. With a ten point system, a lot of those 3s get distributed between 7 and 4 with the 3s, 2s and 1s clearly the worst of the worst.

Hell, I would pay BJ to institute a 10 point system. Just have him PM me his PayPal account. I'm dead serious. This system doesn't work. It never has. Not really. Too much stuff gets put where it simply doesn't belong.

[el-bo (formerly ebow)]

The ranking isn't only the points you get but also the number of 5s,4s etc.

Voting now is nice and simple. Suits me fine.
I'm not against changing the system per se.

Rob, of course it's simple. That's my problem with it.

Typical hair pulling example.

Listen to track A

"Wow that was great. Gotta be a 5."

Listen to track B

"OMG, now THAT is really great. Okay, I guess track A is really a 4."

Listen to track C

"Very good track but definitely not a 5. Gotta give it a 4. But wait, the track I moved down to a 4 is so much better. How do I give them both a 4?"

Compound this by 40, 50 tracks and it makes me not want to bother voting at all.

With a 10 point system, that "better than a 4" but "not as good as a 5" get a 9 and everybody is happy. Well, at least happier. I've bumped too many 4s down to 3s or up to 5s because there's no place to put the tracks slightly better or worse than these without lumping them in with tracks that are clearly better or worse.

So what happens is this. It gets to the point where I have...

5s - Must be pro Deadmau5 quality

4s - Anything not 5s

3s Anything that's just okay.

With this system I end up having almost no 5s, everything good in the 4s slot, no matter how much deviation there is between tracks and everything else that's at least average in the 3s slot. 2s and 1s end up reserved for one chord drones and stuff that is so distorted audibly (too loud) that is blows my ear drums out.

It's no way to score a contest. With a ten point system, a lot of those 3s get distributed between 7 and 4 with the 3s, 2s and 1s clearly the worst of the worst.

Hell, I would pay BJ to institute a 10 point system. Just have him PM me his PayPal account. I'm dead serious. This system doesn't work. It never has. Not really. Too much stuff gets put where it simply doesn't belong.

Well, you know what they say about a broken clock. Perfect explanation!

[rghvdberg]

Let's not forget the possibility that some people take the osc way to seriously.

[wagtunes]

Let's not forget the possibility that some people take the osc way to seriously.

Judging by the amount of work that people put into their tracks, I'd say quite a few take the OSC very seriously.

[zarf]

...With this system I end up having almost no 5s, everything good in the 4s slot, no matter how much deviation there is between tracks and everything else that's at least average in the 3s slot. 2s and 1s end up reserved for one chord drones and stuff that is so distorted audibly (too loud) that is blows my ear drums out.

It's no way to score a contest. With a ten point system, a lot of those 3s get distributed between 7 and 4 with the 3s, 2s and 1s clearly the worst of the worst.

I have the exact same issue with voting. Frustrating to not be able to give tracks more credit than others with so few 'buckets' to put them into. I would love to see a 10 point scale. I also thought at some point that had been agreed we would try it, too! (Not sure though...) I often really want to say 'This is better than that' ... but there is no-where to go between 4 and 5...

It would be just as easy to use, and would give more scope for making the votes reflect how you really evaluate the tracks. And the beauty is for people for whom the current 5 point system is cool - then they can just do 10,8,6,4,2 and carry on as normal, or something like that

[el-bo (formerly ebow)]

Let's not forget the possibility that some people take the osc way to seriously.

And so they should! Many people put a lot of effort into their submissions. Furthermore, there are a lot of very generous developers offering great prizes to be won. If the whole thing is to be thrown away by an unworkable voting system, then what's the effing point?