One-Synth-Challenge: General discussion thread

VST, AU, AAX, CLAP, etc. Plugin Virtual Instruments Discussion
Post Reply New Topic
RELATED
PRODUCTS

Post

el-bo (formerly ebow) wrote:
rghvdberg wrote: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? :shrug:
It's so scary when we agree on something. LOL.

Post

The satisfaction of making a song with just one synth plugin!

EDIT: forgot to mention, I'm not against changing the voting system but I don't think that it is as broken as people suggest here.

Anyway, the important word here is think; i.e. I'm not sure.
We need data.

What would be a simple way to test a new voting system?
(I'm not gonna ask bjporter to set up a whole new voting page to test it out)

I was thinking a google spreadsheet, but how do we know that someone is not altering (by accident of course) someone else’s score.

If anyone got a good idea, let us know.
Gotta be simple and fast.

Post

rghvdberg wrote:The satisfaction of making a song with just one synth plugin!

EDIT: forgot to mention, I'm not against changing the voting system but I don't think that it is as broken as people suggest here.

Anyway, the important word here is think; i.e. I'm not sure.
We need data.

What would be a simple way to test a new voting system?
(I'm not gonna ask bjporter to set up a whole new voting page to test it out)

I was thinking a google spreadsheet, but how do we know that someone is not altering (by accident of course) someone else’s score.

If anyone got a good idea, let us know.
Gotta be simple and fast.
The simplest way is to just do it. One month, a side by side comparison. Have people vote on a 5 point AND 10 point scale. Then total up the points for each separately, post two different standings and look at the difference between the two.

There WILL be a difference. Mathematically, there has to be. And with twice the voting values to choose from, the difference could be massive.

Trust me. I was a math major in college until I hit Calculus III and said screw this shit.

The voting system we have now is so terribly flawed it's almost criminal to base results on it.

Post

But HOW?
Where do we fill in the numbers?

Post

rghvdberg wrote:But HOW?
Where do we fill in the numbers?
The voting page will have to be redesigned.

Post

wagtunes wrote:
rghvdberg wrote:But HOW?
Where do we fill in the numbers?
The voting page will have to be redesigned.
Well.. I suspect that's not an easy job.

Could a Google form be used?
Surely Google can merge all the scores in some way.

So we keep the page for the time being until we're sure we like the new voting.
In the mean time run a second voting via some form.

Just brainstorming here.

Post

rghvdberg wrote:
wagtunes wrote:
rghvdberg wrote:But HOW?
Where do we fill in the numbers?
The voting page will have to be redesigned.
Well.. I suspect that's not an easy job.

Could a Google form be used?
Surely Google can merge all the scores in some way.

So we keep the page for the time being until we're sure we like the new voting.
In the mean time run a second voting via some form.

Just brainstorming here.
Depends on the edit protection of the form. I don't think you can make it so that you can only change your own scores. That's the problem. So then everybody would need to be given their own individual spreadsheet to submit. That's a bigger logistical nightmare than just changing the voting form for one month. And you don't have to change the existing form. Copy it. Use the copy to modify it. If the variance in the results isn't significant enough (I assure you it will be), delete the copy and keep the original.

There's going to be work involved in doing this. There is no way around that. So we have two choices. We do the work or we keep a broken system.

I know what I'd do. And yes, if BJ teaches me how to edit the existing form, I'll do it myself. I'll do the work. It's important enough to me to put in the time.

Post

rghvdberg wrote: Well.. I suspect that's not an easy job.
It might be quite straightforward - was it bj who made it or someone else? (I've not been here that long :) )

BUT - it is certainly some effort and I think the bigger question is how much interest is there, really? I wouldn't want to push for it it be done without it feeling worthwhile to more than a few participants! (Because even though I would be really into it myself, I agree with you Rob that it's working well enough now too, and it's just a preference for me to have a broader range of scores to give)

Would it be a good time to have a poll to see what kind of interest there is, and if there are not many people who want it, just leave it, but if there is some broader desire to experiment with the system - then return to the conversation about how to test it out with minimum effort/disruption?

If it was wanted - I too would be willing to help with the coding or what-have-you. I know my way around simple web apps.
rghvdberg wrote:Just brainstorming here.
Me too :)

Post

Same bullshit every time: wags ends up in the bottom 5 and it's always someone else's fault. It's because everyone hates him, or a bad voting system, ...
Do you really think you will do much better with another voting system? Just accept the fact that you're simply not good enough.

Post

Reefius wrote:Same bullshit every time: wags ends up in the bottom 5 and it's always someone else's fault. It's because everyone hates him, or a bad voting system, ...
Do you really think you will do much better with another voting system? Just accept the fact that you're simply not good enough.
As I said, if you actually bothered to read my initial post, this won't affect the bottom tier much except for how things shake up down there. It WILL affect who actually makes the top 5 a lot, especially as close as these things are between places 5 and 10 most months. That's where you'll see the differences.

And thanks, but I didn't need YOU to point out my deficiency in the area of talent.

Post

Reefius wrote:Same bullshit every time: wags ends up in the bottom 5 and it's always someone else's fault. It's because everyone hates him, or a bad voting system, ...
Do you really think you will do much better with another voting system? Just accept the fact that you're simply not good enough.
As Wags explained and others too btw, it's more about a better voting system than Wags trying to climb higher in the voting.

We are all speculating the outcome of a different system. Let's just test

If I can find an easy way to convert a spreadsheet to a Google form I think we are good to go.

Post

Sorry to start another stream of discussion: Listening to https://soundcloud.com/moviemovies1/mov ... -sanctuary who has not used any FX for his track for OSC #99, I feel that the real spirit of OSC would be not only a restriction to One Synth but also a restriction in FX usage.
What do you think about it? Would it be an Option to have a future round where...
a.) ...there's a limited set of FX given (predetermined by one of the admins) and ...
b.) ...you can only use n FX instances overall, which means you have to decide for instance to use more reverbs or more EQs...
What do you think?

Regards
] Peter:H [

Post

Oh cool! A totally general discussion thread!
I think I’ll post some synthesis stuff! :party:

(basically all win32, as expected)
Image
As far as taking OSC seriously, that’s a bit broad. You can take yourself seriously, your work seriously, etc. It’s recommended to draw the line at taking ego seriously and subjective opinion, which is exactly what comes into focus when people emotionally react to the vote or call the system into question.
Image
Let it be officially stated that, from a sociological perspective, the subject of voting has come up historically oh a couple of times. Therefore, it also has been discussed and analyzed in a couple ways. 8)
(dual wavedraw oscillators, very flexible, fun and great to use. unstable)
Image
However, random people posting in this thread are probably much more qualified to reform the system rather than someone who just looks up case studies and weighs the pros and cons of each voting system as it would apply to implementation here. :hihi:
(excellent synth1 alternative – less focus on fx and more focus on the synthesis matrix)
Image
The word “trolling” is being thrown around like pillows in a sexy college girl dorm room pillow fight.
Image
What we are talking about is disrespect of the people here at OSC, because it is not your intentions that matter, but rather the interpretations of your actions. You could always politely explain yourself ahead of time, to save everyone the grief.
Image
Of the countless life virtues and morals that can be learned from this, one of the most valuable is the one about picking your battles when you can expose a flawed system because some things are of much higher priority when it comes to creative development of a person, which is the true reason we are here.
(dual drawable waveforms and additive synthesis, all you can eat buffet - with a linear release)
Image
https://soundcloud.com/574x/574x-black- ... t-get-free
(7 Black presets,
1x Outdoorverb by oh who was it again? xoxos, remind me.
Mix: 1x Molot for sidechaining.
Master: 1x ReaEq, 1x JS: Zero Crossing Maximizer
For highest quality, rendered at 96kbps mp3 :tu: (a harmless, amusing demonstration related to the recent downsampling/bit depth ruckus).
Image
Are some synthesis juices flowing, yet? :hyper: :wheee:

Post

<TROLLING>
I rather discuss voting systems and limitations on fx use than doing actual music making with synths.
</TROLLING>

btw I didn't find an easy way to set up an alternative voting, all methods I found require massive editing or scripting.

Oh wait, now I actually did discuss voting systems.

Damn, I should work on my track.

Post

Voting System:

tl;dr: Please leave it as it is and just accept "Troll" voting. End of discussion


Expecteds Goal: Total Order of Tx1 > Tx2 > Tx3 > ... > Txn where x1,...,xn is any permutation of 1,...,n, n the number of entries, Txi is the voting result of Track xi. This means also, we have n voters.
Individual Vote, n times: a * 5 + b *4 + c * 3 + d * 2 + e * 1, a+b+c+d+e = n

First Finding: If all voters vote THE SAME then we have "a" winners. This said...hoefully we don't all stick to the standards of the few wise guying community members...

Second Finding: if n >> number of bins, i.e. in our case number of bins is 5 then I will end up with collisions starting with the 5 + 1 track, i.e. I have to decide whether Track A is better than Track B. Possible Outcomes:
1.) Track A "is the same" than B - All cool, they stay in the same bin
2.) Track A "is better" than B - Cool, I just promote A to the next level in order to get a collision in the next level.
3.) Track B "is better" than A - Cool, but the same as 2.
That means that even when you increase the number of bins, you'll get collisions and end up doing "better then" comparsions.

Third Finding: Upwards (or Downwards) collisions cannot be handled in bin 1 (or 5)

How to come up with the predicates "is the same as". My requirement to a voting system that calls voters "Trolls" would be to be reliable and robust, documented and comprehensible. Robust would for instance mean: Whenever I do the voting, I will end with the same result, even over all users. BTW documented?
I could start gather functionaly computable metrics of each track, M: Track --> Value: M1, M2, M3,..., Mx like for instance "DR", "Similarity to fletcher-munson", "Frequency Compactness",... and weight them with W1, W2,..., Wx to come up with a comprehensible Vector in x dimensional Voting-Merics-Space (M1*W1, M2*W2,...,Mx*Wx)...
Now I could go and analyse the top ten of the past twenty something years and get the vectors of those songs and get their vectors that form sort of a hypercube cut out of the complete x -dimensional metrics space...
How would I now get to a number between 1 and 4 in order to get my votes then? I could invent a "distance metric", that computes the distance of a submission to the x dimensional hypercube cut out. I think I go and get me 16 Ms... I would normalize them to be in [0, 1] then I would go for the analysis of the top ten songs and then compute the same Ms for each submitted track...then I could try something like cosine similarity and compare the tope tens vectors and the vector of the submission and measure distance and voila I have at most SQRT( 1² + 1² + ... + 1² ) distance because all dimensions are just normalized to (value - mean(value)) / stddev(value) then I can compute 5 - distance to end with a voting value...

But the thing is, this is just hilarious mocking...and you all know that this voting system is purely subjective and lacks all requirements that would make it robust and comprehensible, but nevertheless there's a "generosity index" that controls voting behaviour - where is it documented and where is the ratinal behind...when all comes to the subjectiveness and the law of big numbers?

I'm sure *you* can proof that a single Troll-voting that assigns: 1*5 + 1*3 * 1*2 + (n-3) * 1 (n the number of submisions) will counter the goal of getting a total order in the end? Please feel free...This system is just consequently applying "same as" and "better as" rules until it hits the floor of bin 1...
Last edited by ] Peter:H [ on Mon May 29, 2017 6:09 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Post Reply

Return to “Instruments”