Mix Challenge - Gossip and Discussion

How to do this, that and the other. Share, learn, teach. How did X do that? How can I sound like Y?
User avatar
KVRer
24 posts since 15 Aug, 2014 from Steubenville, Ohio

Post Sat Sep 13, 2014 3:03 pm

Looks like I'll be tied up for a while learning new material for my new band. Cool tune up for 04.Don't think I'll have time to participate in the mix but will vote.

Hope this is the right thread for ideas. I have a song I've been messing with for a bit. 24 tracks 70 BPM. All tracks are final except the vocal track which is from older version when I had less than entry level gear. I could do it over if I had too, it would be awesome if Uncle E could get Michelle to sing it? .....:)

I guess it would have to be classified as world music. TAL demo

Would love to hear other audio engineers take on it.

KVRAF
7088 posts since 17 Feb, 2005

Post Thu Sep 18, 2014 9:33 pm

Grant S wrote:Looks like I'll be tied up for a while learning new material for my new band. Cool tune up for 04.Don't think I'll have time to participate in the mix but will vote.

Hope this is the right thread for ideas. I have a song I've been messing with for a bit. 24 tracks 70 BPM. All tracks are final except the vocal track which is from older version when I had less than entry level gear. I could do it over if I had too, it would be awesome if Uncle E could get Michelle to sing it? .....:)

I guess it would have to be classified as world music. TAL demo

Would love to hear other audio engineers take on it.
Interesting use of texture as a rhymic element.

KVRAF
14476 posts since 19 Oct, 2003 from Berlin, Germany

Post Tue Sep 30, 2014 12:14 pm

:!: :!: :!: PUBLIC SERVICE ANNOUNCEMENT :!: :!: :!:
The "Guidelines" got a major update.
http://www.kvraudio.com/forum/viewtopic ... 2&t=415154

We now sport a new rule set in terms of the voting process. As of MC05 (and after our announcement in the MC03 thread on 15th September, not to mention after consultation with song provider No_Use, also already in MC04), we implement the following:
  • new time frames - laid out for the Mix Challenge, and possible future Remix and Mastering challenges
  • new voting process (most important): from now on, only the song provider declares the winners podium
We advise everyone to read and understand the new rule set. Some stuff was simplified, other content enhanced for understanding purposes (especially the reference level section, and info's on Loudness Normalization).

MC05 will start on 1st October (read: in a couple of hours, PDT), and the new rules will be taken into full effect.
[ Studio Page / Twitter ] | [ KVRmarks (see: metering tools) ] | [ Mix Challenge ]

KVRAF
14476 posts since 19 Oct, 2003 from Berlin, Germany

Post Sun Oct 05, 2014 6:28 am

Let's start a new discussion. This time on the "statistics sheet".


With MC04, we decided to not post a statistics sheet parallel to the SoundCloud folder as the feedback and criticism towards this PDF was pretty much devastating. Now it's turning out, that the statistics sheet is still of desired in some form.


I'd love to know, if we make the extra efforts, why you'd get access to that sheet?
What information do you get out of it?
What would you love to see in that sheet?
And most important of all - shall we continue providing that?

Or are you against it?
If so, then please tell us where we could improve on things. Or maybe give us suitable reasons why we should drop that concept altogether.


Feedback is more than welcome.
[ Studio Page / Twitter ] | [ KVRmarks (see: metering tools) ] | [ Mix Challenge ]

KVRist
87 posts since 28 Nov, 2012

Post Sun Oct 05, 2014 2:21 pm

Compyfox wrote:Let's start a new discussion. This time on the "statistics sheet".


With MC04, we decided to not post a statistics sheet parallel to the SoundCloud folder as the feedback and criticism towards this PDF was pretty much devastating. Now it's turning out, that the statistics sheet is still of desired in some form.


I'd love to know, if we make the extra efforts, why you'd get access to that sheet?
What information do you get out of it?
What would you love to see in that sheet?
And most important of all - shall we continue providing that?

Or are you against it?
If so, then please tell us where we could improve on things. Or maybe give us suitable reasons why we should drop that concept altogether.


Feedback is more than welcome.
I liked such statistics, I could learn a lot from it. It was nice to see how the DR of the mixes are, and who has complied with the recommendation of the signal strength. Also, further general information such as "new arrangement", "sound replaced", or "very heavy compressed sound" etc. I found very helpful. When voting, it has helped me with difficult decisions. I would appreciate it if you would continue to offer it.

User avatar
KVRAF

Topic Starter

12344 posts since 22 Nov, 2000 from Southern California

Post Mon Oct 06, 2014 11:36 am

mwaudioprod wrote:Also, further general information such as "new arrangement", "sound replaced", or "very heavy compressed sound" etc. I found very helpful.
This is the part I would recommend leaving out because it's subjective. If there is a statistics sheet, I'd like it to be objective and without anyone's subjective opinion or bias.

My main reason for voting against the statistics sheet, though, is that Compyfox has to do some of it manually and I don't consider it to be a good use of his time.

KVRAF
14476 posts since 19 Oct, 2003 from Berlin, Germany

Post Mon Oct 06, 2014 1:08 pm

Sadly, Wavelab's "Batch Analysis" doesn't drop RMS values. I have to analyze each file individually and port that value manually. This is definitely taking some time.


Else, it's plain numeric values - and objective listing. What you make out of it, is a subjective thing.

And here start the problems. For example:
- what is the ideal avg RMS level (what reference level shall be used)?
- what is the ideal LRA or DR value (which is highly program material dependent)?


I tried to be as objective as possible with the current sheet (that is resting on my HDD). I only marked possible issues (warnings) and mentioned if there is not enough preroll for a mastering process (sometimes needed by certain plugins), clipping present or clicks in the file.

For this, this listing is great. To see "wait a minute, something went wrong during mixing/while rendering". And I think it's important to know that. Everything else is subjective, and some people might still take it down the wrong pipe.


But all in all, it took me about 1h - 1,5h to prepare that sheet with the 28 tracks we had with MC04.
And I do have templates for that by now.
[ Studio Page / Twitter ] | [ KVRmarks (see: metering tools) ] | [ Mix Challenge ]

User avatar
KVRAF

Topic Starter

12344 posts since 22 Nov, 2000 from Southern California

Post Mon Oct 06, 2014 1:15 pm

Compyfox wrote:Else, it's plain numeric values - and objective listing.
Sounds good to me.
What you make out of it, is a subjective thing.
Yes, but this way you leave it up to the reader to make that judgment. You don't make it for them.

KVRAF
14476 posts since 19 Oct, 2003 from Berlin, Germany

Post Mon Oct 06, 2014 1:22 pm

This is why I did not do massive in-depth listen this time around and posted "personal" comments.

I focused on the main things this time around:
- does it clip?
- does it have noise on playback
- are clicks at present or other errors

Everything else is a numeric comparison, with the one or another highlight where things might be too much.
[ Studio Page / Twitter ] | [ KVRmarks (see: metering tools) ] | [ Mix Challenge ]

3ee
KVRAF
3816 posts since 8 Mar, 2006

Post Mon Oct 06, 2014 1:33 pm

It seems that it's too much complication for making the statistics sheet.... so I won't mind if it won't be provided.
IMO, wasn't too important/needed either... it was more like having something nice/interesting to glare at. :D

KVRAF
14476 posts since 19 Oct, 2003 from Berlin, Germany

Post Tue Oct 07, 2014 2:41 am

But you did request it in the MC04 thread, no?
[ Studio Page / Twitter ] | [ KVRmarks (see: metering tools) ] | [ Mix Challenge ]

KVRist
485 posts since 19 Feb, 2011

Post Tue Oct 07, 2014 1:30 pm

Thanks for the PM with the stats, I do find it useful to check my own work as far as metering and loudness is concerned, actually turns out that after 3 MC contests I think I've now got it about right!

It was also previously useful for the voting process but now that this has changed I agree that it is less important than before. If you are going to compile the stats every month anyway then I'll always take a look, if you decide not to then no problem :)
Jon
Image

KVRist
47 posts since 15 Sep, 2014

Post Wed Oct 08, 2014 5:27 am

can I have the stats sheet for MC04 too?

thank you!

KVRAF
14476 posts since 19 Oct, 2003 from Berlin, Germany

Post Wed Oct 08, 2014 12:28 pm

Check the MC04 thread again, please.
[ Studio Page / Twitter ] | [ KVRmarks (see: metering tools) ] | [ Mix Challenge ]

KVRAF
1888 posts since 13 Aug, 2011 from Berlin

Post Sat Oct 25, 2014 12:52 pm

I guess it's cool to leave the submission thread uncluttered from replies to this so I took this posting over from there:

Thanx Photonic for your feedback!

I understand that your decision is totally subjective and that's absolutely cool. :-)
A mix for a client has to first and foremost make the client happy.
To be able to make this happen the mixer needs as much as possible info
about what makes the client happy regarding that mix.
In the real client - mixer situation it's possible to talk to the client about what she/he likes.
While I enjoy these competitions for the sheer mixing of diverse material
I miss the direct contact to the client to find out what she/he really wants.
So getting disqualified after working on the mix with the sparse start info
and then getting different decision criteria after having finished the mix
is frustrating for the "I want to win" component of a competition. ;-)
There are various ways to solve this prob for such a competition situation. Please discuss!

Return to “Production Techniques”