I think I should finally write a proper article on "loudness normalisation", which I offered between MC02 and MC06. This way (pre)Mastering during the Mix Challenge is absolutely obsolete, and judging for the song providers is more objective.
I just don't have the time for it currently.
Mix Challenge - Gossip and Discussion
-
- KVRAF
- 14738 posts since 19 Oct, 2003 from Berlin, Germany
-
- KVRAF
- 14738 posts since 19 Oct, 2003 from Berlin, Germany
PUBLIC SERVICE ANNOUNCEMENT We're now having a dedicated Twitter feed for the KVR Mix Challenge. Instead of a hashtag, you can now follow the Mix Challenge account you'll be updated in less than 140 letters what's going on with the challenge.
https://twitter.com/KVRMixChallenge
Furthermore, the KVR Mix Challenge 09 will be postponed by a couple of days. Reason are unforeseen circumstances and a lack of songs to mix. We really encourage you to get in touch with us with your creation, spread the work, ask your friends to join this little fun game. The more songs we have, the more variety in terms of mixing per month.
We're especially looking for acoustic type of songs, more productions with vocals (even Acapella and/or Beatbox type music), hiphop, orchestra, etc. Though if it's a pop song, a metal anthem or a dance hymn - it doesn't matter. Want it mixed by the excellent talents of the KVR Mix Challenge, please get in touch with us.
We'll inform you as soon as MC09 is starting. So please keep an eye on this sub-board section.
-
- KVRAF
- 14738 posts since 19 Oct, 2003 from Berlin, Germany
Just a short reminder.
We've outsourced all "short news" and announcements regarding the KVR Mix Challenge to an own twitter account. So if you want to stay in the loop outside of KVR Audio, or just spread the word, then please sign up to the official Twitter account:
https://twitter.com/KVRMixChallenge
Want to casually talk about the challenge, then please use the hastag:
#KVRMixChallenge
Thanks.
We've outsourced all "short news" and announcements regarding the KVR Mix Challenge to an own twitter account. So if you want to stay in the loop outside of KVR Audio, or just spread the word, then please sign up to the official Twitter account:
https://twitter.com/KVRMixChallenge
Want to casually talk about the challenge, then please use the hastag:
#KVRMixChallenge
Thanks.
-
- KVRAF
- 14738 posts since 19 Oct, 2003 from Berlin, Germany
A thread revive to discuss a very important aspect of the KVR Mix Challenge:
The lack of participation.
I am wondering this for the last couple of months at this point. We have hundreds of hits, we're getting retweeted and favored. Yet the participation is barely scratching 10 people, and we constantly have to extend the challenge deadline to even get there.
This spawns a couple of questions that I'd love to get cleared, so that we can maybe change the direction. Please keep in mind, the "Mix Challenge" has a focus on mixing still, not rearranging, remixing or mastering. Everything else would be a completely different game. But please answer as honestly as you can, and if you can, give us examples how to maybe improve things.
Here are the questions:
a) Why can't we keep the given deadline if other challenges on KVR are just as capable to do so?
The KVR Mix Challenge runs for 21 days, plus 5 days for Round 2.
The One Synth Challenge runs for 31days.
The Music Cafe Competition (aka Song Cafe Competition) runs for 25 days.
So there is enough time to join EVERY challenge each month. So what gives?
b) Is the challenge too hard?
With each challenge, we introduce a new twist. The MC15 for example requested to do "vocal comping", some challenges requested to do "reamping". A future challenge asks you to maybe change the percussion section. But is the challenge really that hard?
c) Is the challenge boring? If so, why?
We try to shuffle the genres. But... if we only get rock songs, or EDM songs, then we can only delve into that genre. "Rocktober" and the "Holiday Mix" will be an exception. But still - if we don't get new content to mix, the genre selection is limited. Which is why we started the "The KVR Mix Challenge needs your help" campaign. But the participation is sadly not as active as I'd like it to be.
Though we have a couple of tracks in the pool to at least continue for two more months. But it's a lot of work for us to try to hunt down new material, which puts the whole challenge at risk. No songs, no challenge.
d) Should we do a break? Is so, why? And for how long?
The current plan is to continue the challenge until end of November as usual. Then start the December/Holiday Challenge a couple of days late and run through until 6th January (Three Kings). After that, a break until February and then restart at full speed again.
If you think otherwise, please tell us why.
Thanks for giving feedback.
And as usual, we'd love to see you spread the word through social media:
https://twitter.com/KVRMixChallenge
The lack of participation.
I am wondering this for the last couple of months at this point. We have hundreds of hits, we're getting retweeted and favored. Yet the participation is barely scratching 10 people, and we constantly have to extend the challenge deadline to even get there.
This spawns a couple of questions that I'd love to get cleared, so that we can maybe change the direction. Please keep in mind, the "Mix Challenge" has a focus on mixing still, not rearranging, remixing or mastering. Everything else would be a completely different game. But please answer as honestly as you can, and if you can, give us examples how to maybe improve things.
Here are the questions:
a) Why can't we keep the given deadline if other challenges on KVR are just as capable to do so?
The KVR Mix Challenge runs for 21 days, plus 5 days for Round 2.
The One Synth Challenge runs for 31days.
The Music Cafe Competition (aka Song Cafe Competition) runs for 25 days.
So there is enough time to join EVERY challenge each month. So what gives?
b) Is the challenge too hard?
With each challenge, we introduce a new twist. The MC15 for example requested to do "vocal comping", some challenges requested to do "reamping". A future challenge asks you to maybe change the percussion section. But is the challenge really that hard?
c) Is the challenge boring? If so, why?
We try to shuffle the genres. But... if we only get rock songs, or EDM songs, then we can only delve into that genre. "Rocktober" and the "Holiday Mix" will be an exception. But still - if we don't get new content to mix, the genre selection is limited. Which is why we started the "The KVR Mix Challenge needs your help" campaign. But the participation is sadly not as active as I'd like it to be.
Though we have a couple of tracks in the pool to at least continue for two more months. But it's a lot of work for us to try to hunt down new material, which puts the whole challenge at risk. No songs, no challenge.
d) Should we do a break? Is so, why? And for how long?
The current plan is to continue the challenge until end of November as usual. Then start the December/Holiday Challenge a couple of days late and run through until 6th January (Three Kings). After that, a break until February and then restart at full speed again.
If you think otherwise, please tell us why.
Thanks for giving feedback.
And as usual, we'd love to see you spread the word through social media:
https://twitter.com/KVRMixChallenge
-
- KVRist
- 34 posts since 7 Sep, 2014 from Allen, TX
I really like the variety of material and the fact that the artist provides the feedback and ultimately judges the winners. I don't claim to know why the participation is so low when other competitions get 10s to 100s of entries. Here are some explanations that perhaps contribute (not sure how obvious or significant they are):
[*]The fact that the judging has been typically delayed and the deadlines are changed does not help encourage participation. I find this frustrating and a bit unfair to the people who submit on time. I know you are trying to fix this. I think most people tend to procrastinate and have a push at the end (perhaps choosing a deadline on Sunday makes sense?). Or perhaps they don't want other people to reference their mixes when they submit early.
[*]This competition has a lot of rules (loudness, tracking muting, etc.) that you need to read and understand. This could turn people off. Since moving to artist judging, I don't understand why this is necessary. In my view, the artist should provide guidance, and if a mixer takes some creative liberty, they also take on the risk. I don't prefer this for a popular vote, but with artist judging, I think it takes care of itself. And I like to learn from creativity.
[*]Some people may be discouraged from having to provide details about how they mix the song when submitting. I find this tedious and not really useful (too much or too little detail). Perhaps, it would be better to highlight the winner with an audio interview, video, screenshots, or article instead (not certain, just one possible idea).
[*]I believe that the artist participation and feedback is important. This has varied for the KVR challenges I have participated in.
[*]There doesn't seem to be a lot of co-participant feedback on the mixes. I know that I am constantly looking for feedback and greatly appreciate constructive, thoughtful feedback. Some other competitions seem to have a better community in this regard. Some have better website interfaces for facilitating this as well.
[*]The prizes never seem to change. I mix to learn and have fun, but others may be more motivated by other and/or more varied prizes.
Please take my comments as positive and constructive, as I want to see these challenges grow.
[*]The fact that the judging has been typically delayed and the deadlines are changed does not help encourage participation. I find this frustrating and a bit unfair to the people who submit on time. I know you are trying to fix this. I think most people tend to procrastinate and have a push at the end (perhaps choosing a deadline on Sunday makes sense?). Or perhaps they don't want other people to reference their mixes when they submit early.
[*]This competition has a lot of rules (loudness, tracking muting, etc.) that you need to read and understand. This could turn people off. Since moving to artist judging, I don't understand why this is necessary. In my view, the artist should provide guidance, and if a mixer takes some creative liberty, they also take on the risk. I don't prefer this for a popular vote, but with artist judging, I think it takes care of itself. And I like to learn from creativity.
[*]Some people may be discouraged from having to provide details about how they mix the song when submitting. I find this tedious and not really useful (too much or too little detail). Perhaps, it would be better to highlight the winner with an audio interview, video, screenshots, or article instead (not certain, just one possible idea).
[*]I believe that the artist participation and feedback is important. This has varied for the KVR challenges I have participated in.
[*]There doesn't seem to be a lot of co-participant feedback on the mixes. I know that I am constantly looking for feedback and greatly appreciate constructive, thoughtful feedback. Some other competitions seem to have a better community in this regard. Some have better website interfaces for facilitating this as well.
[*]The prizes never seem to change. I mix to learn and have fun, but others may be more motivated by other and/or more varied prizes.
Please take my comments as positive and constructive, as I want to see these challenges grow.
-
- KVRist
- 61 posts since 10 Jul, 2010 from United States
It is what it is -
1. The rules should be the rules.
2. The deadline should be the deadline
When I decide to enter a contest, I plan to follow the rules and do my best to meet the deadline. It gets a little uncomfortable (and seems a little less professional) if participants are able to "whine" their way into bending the rules and get extensions. Why hurry when you know you can get the host to extend the deadline?
Personally, I would stick to my guns and require all participants to follow the rules and meet the deadline. I don't think that has anything to do with lack of participation. I believe the lack of participation has more to do with the fact that this contest is not publicized and is a little hard to find. I am following the KVRMixChallenge on Twitter, but still do not receive any notifications (I am not blocking any notifications in my Twitter settings). I just check KVR each month to see if there is a contest - I found the MC13 simply because somebody mentioned it in another contest I was involve in. And I still had a hard time getting to the actual contest page.
So, no, it's not the deadlines, the rules, or the difficulty of the challenge that is keeping numbers down. Most mixers simply don't know the contest exists!
1. The rules should be the rules.
2. The deadline should be the deadline
When I decide to enter a contest, I plan to follow the rules and do my best to meet the deadline. It gets a little uncomfortable (and seems a little less professional) if participants are able to "whine" their way into bending the rules and get extensions. Why hurry when you know you can get the host to extend the deadline?
Personally, I would stick to my guns and require all participants to follow the rules and meet the deadline. I don't think that has anything to do with lack of participation. I believe the lack of participation has more to do with the fact that this contest is not publicized and is a little hard to find. I am following the KVRMixChallenge on Twitter, but still do not receive any notifications (I am not blocking any notifications in my Twitter settings). I just check KVR each month to see if there is a contest - I found the MC13 simply because somebody mentioned it in another contest I was involve in. And I still had a hard time getting to the actual contest page.
So, no, it's not the deadlines, the rules, or the difficulty of the challenge that is keeping numbers down. Most mixers simply don't know the contest exists!
Dave McIsaac
-
- KVRAF
- 14738 posts since 19 Oct, 2003 from Berlin, Germany
This is a re-post what was posted in MC15 in here. I will comment on various points in a follow up post.
Kolyev wrote:a) I don't know, I've always been on time so far and extending the deadline is generally a bit unfair to those participants how make sure to finish their mix within the original timeframeCompyfox wrote:Which spawns a couple of questions that I'd love to get answered:
a) why can't we keep the given deadline if other challenges on KVR are just as capable?
b) is the challenge too hard?
c) is the challenge boring? If so, why?
d) should we do a break? Is so, why?
b - d) no
erictracks wrote:a) In addition to work and family obligations, I'm a procrastinator. I would have been fine with the original deadline, but my mix would have gone up on Friday afternoon most likely. I've only done this for a few months, but that routine seems to be a pretty common occurrence.
c) Not boring, but I'd likely avoid mix challenges where the song is 5+ minutes long.
photonic wrote:I can fully agree to Kolyev's statement.
Compyfox mentioned the OSC, where the people have no problem with the given time. I am part of the OSC since more than 3 years. And I see always postings where someone wrote that he was not able to finish in time. But generally I think the OSC is a challenge where one can bring more personality, due to the sound design and composing part of the task. I think that most musicians/producers want to show themselfs as an artist, and they possibly see mixing more as a technique (although it is more than that). Maybe they also fear to work with material from other artists. Personally the OSC is still a bit more important for me than the MC. Fortunately I had enough time to participate the MC too so far.
mixedmind wrote:well. it is low priority. if I have time I do participate, no time I do not participate.
and mixing takes a lot of time specially if you are not a pro. So I do mix, listen to it for a few days. make changes, listen to it for a few days. and so on.
-
- KVRAF
- 14738 posts since 19 Oct, 2003 from Berlin, Germany
First and foremost, thank you for the participation and the feedback. This is definitely appreciated and essential to changing the course of the KVR Mix Challenge.
To those that are not into long posts here is a TL;DR:
TL;DR (from both thread participants and the hosts):
- some rules need to be overhauled (agreeing on that)
- the time frame and deadline should remain as it is
- Sponsors don't need to change (they are currently in rotation already)
- Promotion might need to shift a bit (we already do a lot on that end! But Facebook/Mailing List as well?!)
- we need more source material
The long version:
I get from the answers, that there is no problem with the Mix Challenge in itself. For example: the small twists on occasion (re-amping or vocal comping) are really taken well. Just a couple of minor things that need to be ironed out. So let's go a bit more in-depth on those topics:
1) Set Timeframes and Deadlines should not change, rather be more strict:
I definitely agree on that end. It has been an issue since day 1 of the KVR Mix Challenge, and I tried to keep this in check. It sometimes worked. But the sad fact was that people still missed the last day, and this resulted in a lack of participants. Most of the time even a severe lack (below 7 participants, which destroys the idea of doing a second mix round with client interaction).
In example for MC14 - the extension gave a couple of mixers still the chance to submit their tracks and therefore make the challenge more interesting. Else we would have been stuck with 8 mixes only. Also thanks for the information with the WYSIWYG Editor, davemcisaac. You lost your post for MC14 and the extension helped you. Then again - I still would have let you on board regardless.
Else, I don't know why there is a lack of participation. The threads are regularly bumped, there are Tweets about it. It can't be totally overlooked. I also do cut a lot of slack. So maybe this needs to stop and I think we should definitely be way more strict on this, with the side effect that we might only get 5 mixes since a lot of users sit on the fence (which would sadden me, as this would make a second mix round obsolete). On the other hand, I definitely understand the criticism from those that stick to the deadline, or that are early adopters (photonic comes to mind).
My main question in this case would be:
Are 21 + 5 days a suitable time frame?
Personally, I'd say yes - because we're still also trying to simulate a real-time scenario and do a second mix round. So if we do this for 28 days or even 31 days, and then do a second mix round on top of that, then we drag this out way too long (nearly 1,5 months, with another challenge running in parallel). Client interaction during the first submission period is sadly not that much possible - this would IMO destroy the concept of the challenge, as this would give certain participants (early adopters) and unfair advantage. Hence the rule to only submit "once" and wait for the client feedback. But I do agree that the client should give feedback to all(!) tracks, not just one. Only this way, people can improve. I insisted on that during the last challenges. The client should also be more active in terms of giving general feedback, answering questions, maybe help promote the challenge. It's his/her/their track after all.
Though general feedback on this is appreciated of course.
Sadly, positioning the deadline (last day of submission) on a "Sunday" always won't be possible. I blame the Gregorian calendar that our world is using. Though while we're at it... I'd love to change the Deadline's time zone from PDT to GMT due to two main reasons. First and foremost, I am sitting in Germany (Central Europe), and second of all - more fair time frames for our Australian participants (else they're always a day short).
2) The rules need an overhaul, some sections need to be simplified
This is a bit tough. But on one particular point, I definitely agree: the comments on Loudness Normalization. Since we switched over to the "client evaluation system", it's now the job of the client to do this and not ours (the hosts) anymore. A couple of articles about this can be found in my KVR Marks, and those are even linked to from the Guidelines Thread. So this rule can definitely be omitted. It did save us (the host) a lot of time after all.
We're also not uploading the results/winners to a global SoundCloud folder anymore (another time saver), with the sad side effect, that the winners and participants of former challenges can vanish in the depths of the internet with their submitted tracks (if they don't keep it online, especially since some folders are not "locked" and web-crawlers are all all over the place). There is no backup system - unless people want(!) that, then we have to think about a possible solution that is not time consuming.
But back to the rule set.
What needs to remain in my opinion however, is the whole topic on "reference levels", as this is the biggest learning factor - not only for the challenge but also for a general workflow.
In recent challenges, I still saw the occasional pre-mastered track (hence in every thread with the rules: "try to not pre-master the track"). I do understand the appeal to use EQ's, compressors, stereo wideners and limiters on the master bus - it can be used as additional sound shapers. But this should not(!) be the main focus. The idea of the challenge is to create a suitable mix that can then be forwarded to a mastering engineer to build upon. So that means: a healthy loudness level (or in other words, a suitable reference level) and a certain maximum peak headroom. If there is the occasional tape machine or summing bus simulation plugin - nobody is criticizing you. Especially if it's adding to the sound. But if it's a drastic sound shaping on top of the initial mix - then I think you (the participant) should maybe rethink your workflow and re-check your mix/individual channels.
I also agree that the information regarding providing source files for mixing need to be overhauled a bit. During the last 3 months of behind-the-scenes work, I answered the same questions over and over (which is not a negative thing - it's what I do as AE on a daily basis). So that also needs to be addressed in a slightly better way.
Where I can definitely agree on, is that we can maybe omit the need to post some sort of small documentary. Especially for those that are inexperienced. It is(!) time consuming, but it does help the outside world to understand what's going on, how to recreate a specific sound, etc. I think we should discuss how to simplify this. So rather than mentioning settings, maybe screenshots are suitable enough? It's not adding up to the general scoring (as we don't use such a system) if that piece of information is available, neither does it cut points if it's lacking.
It is a bonus information that does add to the idea of the KVR Mix Challenge's "learning experience". So even here, feedback is more than welcome - especially if it's intimidating for hobbyists and not-as-skilled participants.
3) Sponsorship
Regarding Sponsors, well - we're constantly working on that end. For example, with MC13, we got a new sponsor (that being Two Notes, which is a really generous deal as well), and we might see a couple of more sponsors in the near future (!!!, can't emphasize any more on exclamation marks).
The main question is - are these prices the main argument you join the challenge?
Or do you rather join for the fun of it?
As example: the sponsors for both the MCC (Music Cafe Competition) and OSC (One Synth Challenge) didn't change that much throughout the years, and I did not see any complaints. Though in our case, I clearly see what prices from which companies are picked up. So we might need to shift this a bit. Then again - we were offered these prices, and it hurts my soul that these developers are constantly ignored.
Internally we were discussing to maybe only offer a bundle for the ultimate winner, while the second and third prices pick from a smaller selection. But I'm personally against that thinking. KVR Audio is full with free content to chose from and I think it's better to have a small variety to chose from rather than a one-time full bundle. Then again, I am speaking from the position of the host, and I do have(!) a lot of great tools to boot with (read: I am pretty much covered). So I don't know how we could improve on that any further other than looking for great plugin developers (both well known ones and independent developers to provide a price to chose from).
But rest assured - the sponsorship section doesn't stand still.
4) Promotion and User Interaction
This saddens me a lot. I really don't know what is happening on your end, Dave (McIsaac). But we do push the promotion regarding the challenge really hard. The Twitter Account does tweets on a regular basis, the Tweets are getting re-tweeted by KVR Audio, BPB, Rekkerd, OneSynth (Challenge) and also some of our participants.
That they don't get through - I don't know, I have similar issues on Twitter with BPB. So my only solution was to create a separate list to monitor that account, but I always forget to take a dive into it. I think Twitter works on a "popularity" based engine. Something we users don't have an influence on. And this ultimately results in a lack of information for our participants.
We're also not on Facebook, neither do we have a Mailing List. Since the challenge management is currently running on a "one person basis" (we're usually three people, but life happens!) - this is a lot of work to pull off (for me!). But maybe we should do expand on the Social Media game? (meaning: Facebook and a Mailing List).
Would that make sense?
Would that give us more participants?
Which platform of information is even preferred?!
I don't want to triple the amount of work and rather have it streamlined to be honest.
I was also asked, if we do promotion on another page like GearSlutz. Actually, I did not dare to post on GearSlutz due to one simple fact: the name tag "KVR" Mix Challenge. We're doing this on the KVR Audio web board, hence the tag KVR, so this would be cross-board promotion and I don't know if this is taken well. I actually tried to promote the challenge on the Recording (de) board - but it was rather taken as "why should we go there instead if we can have similar challenges here?!". So does that tell me, that we should outsource the challenge like the OSC? To Google Pages but still host it on KVR? Or should we start an own web-board? I am lost on that to be honest. Not to mention, it would be extra work (I am not a web designer, and Satya is stuffed with graphic design work with his own company!). Which brings me back to the "streamlining the work" comment.
So regarding promotion, we can do nothing more than tweet, tweet, tweet and bump threads (which I do on a regular basis). We have hundreds of hits, actually I don't see the OSC (not that often at least) or MCC being Tweeted about through the official KVR Audio Twitter account. So this is a huge popularity boost for us (thank you to whoever is managing that account)! But that's about it. We can't do much more than being uber-aggressive in terms of talking about the challenge, having links in our signatures or even cross references on our social media accounts, and having one thread per challenge rather than several (this changed during the first challenges).
Actually - I did get in touch with Ben [KVR] and the KVR Mods several times to maybe finally give all challenges a DEDICATED board section like the "Developer Challenge". This way it would be easier to find, everything could be collected in one place (one sub-board per challenge) and we (the hosts) would have admin rights to join threads, pin them, close them, throw out possible trouble makers (we have none so far), etc. But this seems to have stepped on deaf ears so far (at least with Ben, not the mods who do help a lot in terms of pinning/unpinning threads). Maybe we should bring that up again?
Here was my original Feature Request from June 2014 in Site Stuff:
http://www.kvraudio.com/forum/viewtopic ... 2&t=413299
So please raise your voice - it is drawing a lot of attention to KVR Audio as well!
5) Lack of new source material:
This is really burning on my soul, and actually the most frustrating aspect as of late. In the last couple of months, I started a campaign called: "The KVR Mix Challenge needs your help!"
As you know, the challenge's existence depends on available material to mix. If we don't have any, the Mix Challenge is officially over / on hiatus. Which is the reason why I started this outcry a couple of months ago. We barely got a track for "Rocktober", which was a special case. Though I'd like to continue the idea to have "themed months" (like the "Holiday Mix") to change the pace once in a while. Then again, we do not(!) have a Holiday Mix so far (something is happening Behind the Scenes as wel, but I can't give any further details yet).
However - what's even worse... we barely have a filled up song pool. That means, not quite - it was worse a couple of weeks ago. As of this moment, we have 3 more tracks to chose from for future months. And that's it - if this pool is empty, it's game over. But the genre variety is limited. We will have a bit of variety in the future - both in the EDM and Rock realm; I can tell you as much. But it's not that far of a deviation from what we mixed recently.
I realize that people may be turned off if it's only Rock or Metal to mix, same for the EDM only genre. But the thing is... we don't have access to anything else! The campaign explicitly asks for more pop oriented stuff, vocal work, Hip Hop/Trip Hop, Drum and Bass, Acapella, etc. So far, barely anyone delivered. And we (the hosts) don't understand why.
This is a huge issue for us as hosts. We(!) spend a lot (actually, this is currently the biggest time eater on the Mix Challenge management) of time finding suitable tracks to mix. But in reality, it should be the other way around. We should be bombed with offerings!
To be honest, it is a win-win situation for everyone.
For the song provider: You get free exposure, free high quality mixes. You can show your songwriting talents, find possible collaboration partners (client to business). You basically do a free engineer shootout with the Mix Challenge.
For the mix participants: You get access to great tracks, have a learning experience and therefore free skill training, expand your horizon. Which in turn means free exposure - you can make a name for yourself, and therefore maybe get collaboration deals (read: paid jobs, or at least stepping stones towards that direction).
And for the sponsors: Your generosity is always taken well in audio communities, your tools are being talked about, admired, etc. It's basically free promotion. And it's working well so far (as hinted above, new sponsors are in the making!).
So why do we lack musical content?
I/we really don't know. It is beyond our imagination.
Which brings me back to point 4: we can only do so much in terms of promotion.
With that said, I want to end this lengthy post. A lot to sift through and think about. Food for thought.
I'd love to hear more comments on this, so please discuss this further.
To those that are not into long posts here is a TL;DR:
TL;DR (from both thread participants and the hosts):
- some rules need to be overhauled (agreeing on that)
- the time frame and deadline should remain as it is
- Sponsors don't need to change (they are currently in rotation already)
- Promotion might need to shift a bit (we already do a lot on that end! But Facebook/Mailing List as well?!)
- we need more source material
The long version:
I get from the answers, that there is no problem with the Mix Challenge in itself. For example: the small twists on occasion (re-amping or vocal comping) are really taken well. Just a couple of minor things that need to be ironed out. So let's go a bit more in-depth on those topics:
1) Set Timeframes and Deadlines should not change, rather be more strict:
I definitely agree on that end. It has been an issue since day 1 of the KVR Mix Challenge, and I tried to keep this in check. It sometimes worked. But the sad fact was that people still missed the last day, and this resulted in a lack of participants. Most of the time even a severe lack (below 7 participants, which destroys the idea of doing a second mix round with client interaction).
In example for MC14 - the extension gave a couple of mixers still the chance to submit their tracks and therefore make the challenge more interesting. Else we would have been stuck with 8 mixes only. Also thanks for the information with the WYSIWYG Editor, davemcisaac. You lost your post for MC14 and the extension helped you. Then again - I still would have let you on board regardless.
Else, I don't know why there is a lack of participation. The threads are regularly bumped, there are Tweets about it. It can't be totally overlooked. I also do cut a lot of slack. So maybe this needs to stop and I think we should definitely be way more strict on this, with the side effect that we might only get 5 mixes since a lot of users sit on the fence (which would sadden me, as this would make a second mix round obsolete). On the other hand, I definitely understand the criticism from those that stick to the deadline, or that are early adopters (photonic comes to mind).
My main question in this case would be:
Are 21 + 5 days a suitable time frame?
Personally, I'd say yes - because we're still also trying to simulate a real-time scenario and do a second mix round. So if we do this for 28 days or even 31 days, and then do a second mix round on top of that, then we drag this out way too long (nearly 1,5 months, with another challenge running in parallel). Client interaction during the first submission period is sadly not that much possible - this would IMO destroy the concept of the challenge, as this would give certain participants (early adopters) and unfair advantage. Hence the rule to only submit "once" and wait for the client feedback. But I do agree that the client should give feedback to all(!) tracks, not just one. Only this way, people can improve. I insisted on that during the last challenges. The client should also be more active in terms of giving general feedback, answering questions, maybe help promote the challenge. It's his/her/their track after all.
Though general feedback on this is appreciated of course.
Sadly, positioning the deadline (last day of submission) on a "Sunday" always won't be possible. I blame the Gregorian calendar that our world is using. Though while we're at it... I'd love to change the Deadline's time zone from PDT to GMT due to two main reasons. First and foremost, I am sitting in Germany (Central Europe), and second of all - more fair time frames for our Australian participants (else they're always a day short).
2) The rules need an overhaul, some sections need to be simplified
This is a bit tough. But on one particular point, I definitely agree: the comments on Loudness Normalization. Since we switched over to the "client evaluation system", it's now the job of the client to do this and not ours (the hosts) anymore. A couple of articles about this can be found in my KVR Marks, and those are even linked to from the Guidelines Thread. So this rule can definitely be omitted. It did save us (the host) a lot of time after all.
We're also not uploading the results/winners to a global SoundCloud folder anymore (another time saver), with the sad side effect, that the winners and participants of former challenges can vanish in the depths of the internet with their submitted tracks (if they don't keep it online, especially since some folders are not "locked" and web-crawlers are all all over the place). There is no backup system - unless people want(!) that, then we have to think about a possible solution that is not time consuming.
But back to the rule set.
What needs to remain in my opinion however, is the whole topic on "reference levels", as this is the biggest learning factor - not only for the challenge but also for a general workflow.
In recent challenges, I still saw the occasional pre-mastered track (hence in every thread with the rules: "try to not pre-master the track"). I do understand the appeal to use EQ's, compressors, stereo wideners and limiters on the master bus - it can be used as additional sound shapers. But this should not(!) be the main focus. The idea of the challenge is to create a suitable mix that can then be forwarded to a mastering engineer to build upon. So that means: a healthy loudness level (or in other words, a suitable reference level) and a certain maximum peak headroom. If there is the occasional tape machine or summing bus simulation plugin - nobody is criticizing you. Especially if it's adding to the sound. But if it's a drastic sound shaping on top of the initial mix - then I think you (the participant) should maybe rethink your workflow and re-check your mix/individual channels.
I also agree that the information regarding providing source files for mixing need to be overhauled a bit. During the last 3 months of behind-the-scenes work, I answered the same questions over and over (which is not a negative thing - it's what I do as AE on a daily basis). So that also needs to be addressed in a slightly better way.
Where I can definitely agree on, is that we can maybe omit the need to post some sort of small documentary. Especially for those that are inexperienced. It is(!) time consuming, but it does help the outside world to understand what's going on, how to recreate a specific sound, etc. I think we should discuss how to simplify this. So rather than mentioning settings, maybe screenshots are suitable enough? It's not adding up to the general scoring (as we don't use such a system) if that piece of information is available, neither does it cut points if it's lacking.
It is a bonus information that does add to the idea of the KVR Mix Challenge's "learning experience". So even here, feedback is more than welcome - especially if it's intimidating for hobbyists and not-as-skilled participants.
3) Sponsorship
Regarding Sponsors, well - we're constantly working on that end. For example, with MC13, we got a new sponsor (that being Two Notes, which is a really generous deal as well), and we might see a couple of more sponsors in the near future (!!!, can't emphasize any more on exclamation marks).
The main question is - are these prices the main argument you join the challenge?
Or do you rather join for the fun of it?
As example: the sponsors for both the MCC (Music Cafe Competition) and OSC (One Synth Challenge) didn't change that much throughout the years, and I did not see any complaints. Though in our case, I clearly see what prices from which companies are picked up. So we might need to shift this a bit. Then again - we were offered these prices, and it hurts my soul that these developers are constantly ignored.
Internally we were discussing to maybe only offer a bundle for the ultimate winner, while the second and third prices pick from a smaller selection. But I'm personally against that thinking. KVR Audio is full with free content to chose from and I think it's better to have a small variety to chose from rather than a one-time full bundle. Then again, I am speaking from the position of the host, and I do have(!) a lot of great tools to boot with (read: I am pretty much covered). So I don't know how we could improve on that any further other than looking for great plugin developers (both well known ones and independent developers to provide a price to chose from).
But rest assured - the sponsorship section doesn't stand still.
4) Promotion and User Interaction
This saddens me a lot. I really don't know what is happening on your end, Dave (McIsaac). But we do push the promotion regarding the challenge really hard. The Twitter Account does tweets on a regular basis, the Tweets are getting re-tweeted by KVR Audio, BPB, Rekkerd, OneSynth (Challenge) and also some of our participants.
That they don't get through - I don't know, I have similar issues on Twitter with BPB. So my only solution was to create a separate list to monitor that account, but I always forget to take a dive into it. I think Twitter works on a "popularity" based engine. Something we users don't have an influence on. And this ultimately results in a lack of information for our participants.
We're also not on Facebook, neither do we have a Mailing List. Since the challenge management is currently running on a "one person basis" (we're usually three people, but life happens!) - this is a lot of work to pull off (for me!). But maybe we should do expand on the Social Media game? (meaning: Facebook and a Mailing List).
Would that make sense?
Would that give us more participants?
Which platform of information is even preferred?!
I don't want to triple the amount of work and rather have it streamlined to be honest.
I was also asked, if we do promotion on another page like GearSlutz. Actually, I did not dare to post on GearSlutz due to one simple fact: the name tag "KVR" Mix Challenge. We're doing this on the KVR Audio web board, hence the tag KVR, so this would be cross-board promotion and I don't know if this is taken well. I actually tried to promote the challenge on the Recording (de) board - but it was rather taken as "why should we go there instead if we can have similar challenges here?!". So does that tell me, that we should outsource the challenge like the OSC? To Google Pages but still host it on KVR? Or should we start an own web-board? I am lost on that to be honest. Not to mention, it would be extra work (I am not a web designer, and Satya is stuffed with graphic design work with his own company!). Which brings me back to the "streamlining the work" comment.
So regarding promotion, we can do nothing more than tweet, tweet, tweet and bump threads (which I do on a regular basis). We have hundreds of hits, actually I don't see the OSC (not that often at least) or MCC being Tweeted about through the official KVR Audio Twitter account. So this is a huge popularity boost for us (thank you to whoever is managing that account)! But that's about it. We can't do much more than being uber-aggressive in terms of talking about the challenge, having links in our signatures or even cross references on our social media accounts, and having one thread per challenge rather than several (this changed during the first challenges).
Actually - I did get in touch with Ben [KVR] and the KVR Mods several times to maybe finally give all challenges a DEDICATED board section like the "Developer Challenge". This way it would be easier to find, everything could be collected in one place (one sub-board per challenge) and we (the hosts) would have admin rights to join threads, pin them, close them, throw out possible trouble makers (we have none so far), etc. But this seems to have stepped on deaf ears so far (at least with Ben, not the mods who do help a lot in terms of pinning/unpinning threads). Maybe we should bring that up again?
Here was my original Feature Request from June 2014 in Site Stuff:
http://www.kvraudio.com/forum/viewtopic ... 2&t=413299
So please raise your voice - it is drawing a lot of attention to KVR Audio as well!
5) Lack of new source material:
This is really burning on my soul, and actually the most frustrating aspect as of late. In the last couple of months, I started a campaign called: "The KVR Mix Challenge needs your help!"
As you know, the challenge's existence depends on available material to mix. If we don't have any, the Mix Challenge is officially over / on hiatus. Which is the reason why I started this outcry a couple of months ago. We barely got a track for "Rocktober", which was a special case. Though I'd like to continue the idea to have "themed months" (like the "Holiday Mix") to change the pace once in a while. Then again, we do not(!) have a Holiday Mix so far (something is happening Behind the Scenes as wel, but I can't give any further details yet).
However - what's even worse... we barely have a filled up song pool. That means, not quite - it was worse a couple of weeks ago. As of this moment, we have 3 more tracks to chose from for future months. And that's it - if this pool is empty, it's game over. But the genre variety is limited. We will have a bit of variety in the future - both in the EDM and Rock realm; I can tell you as much. But it's not that far of a deviation from what we mixed recently.
I realize that people may be turned off if it's only Rock or Metal to mix, same for the EDM only genre. But the thing is... we don't have access to anything else! The campaign explicitly asks for more pop oriented stuff, vocal work, Hip Hop/Trip Hop, Drum and Bass, Acapella, etc. So far, barely anyone delivered. And we (the hosts) don't understand why.
This is a huge issue for us as hosts. We(!) spend a lot (actually, this is currently the biggest time eater on the Mix Challenge management) of time finding suitable tracks to mix. But in reality, it should be the other way around. We should be bombed with offerings!
To be honest, it is a win-win situation for everyone.
For the song provider: You get free exposure, free high quality mixes. You can show your songwriting talents, find possible collaboration partners (client to business). You basically do a free engineer shootout with the Mix Challenge.
For the mix participants: You get access to great tracks, have a learning experience and therefore free skill training, expand your horizon. Which in turn means free exposure - you can make a name for yourself, and therefore maybe get collaboration deals (read: paid jobs, or at least stepping stones towards that direction).
And for the sponsors: Your generosity is always taken well in audio communities, your tools are being talked about, admired, etc. It's basically free promotion. And it's working well so far (as hinted above, new sponsors are in the making!).
So why do we lack musical content?
I/we really don't know. It is beyond our imagination.
Which brings me back to point 4: we can only do so much in terms of promotion.
With that said, I want to end this lengthy post. A lot to sift through and think about. Food for thought.
I'd love to hear more comments on this, so please discuss this further.
-
- KVRist
- 65 posts since 25 Aug, 2014
It's definetely not an easy situation. Generelly having more participants is better from several perspectives. It's better for the client, it's better from a competition point of view and it's better for the participants as you get more mixes that you can compare with (I usually download my favorite mixes from the other participants and put them in the DAW for comparison). On the other hand time management and making the deadline is part of the challenge and I have my problems with understanding why people are not able to finish within 21 days (which is long) but when you give them one or two days in addition they all of a sudden get their act together? Just a bit implausible for me.Compyfox wrote:Else, I don't know why there is a lack of participation. The threads are regularly bumped, there are Tweets about it. It can't be totally overlooked. I also do cut a lot of slack. So maybe this needs to stop and I think we should definitely be way more strict on this, with the side effect that we might only get 5 mixes since a lot of users sit on the fence (which would sadden me, as this would make a second mix round obsolete). On the other hand, I definitely understand the criticism from those that stick to the deadline, or that are early adopters (photonic comes to mind).
Finishing the challenge within 21 days is not that difficult if you schedule your tasks a little bit (and of course you can't be too much of a perfectionist and accept your mix as finished at a certain point (even though it never is of course)).
Here is what I do:
1. When the new challenge is up I typically download the files right away and import them into the DAW as soon as possible (I know the new challenge starts at the beginning of the month so check if it's up already). My first session consist of sorting out the project and routing the individual elements into groups. This task typically does not take more than 15 minutes.
2. Fader only mix
3. Working through the different elements with EQ, compression etc.
4. Finetuning and adding flavor
5. Final Automation
I try to finish every task within one session and a maximum of one hour for each. point 3 might take longer or maybe split into shorter sessions depending on how much time I have. But as there are three weeks for the challenge I can have several days pause between the different tasks and still finish on time. Bottom line is: if you have a game plan it shouldn't be a big deal to finish within three weeks.
I don't know what every one else is doing on their master track. I typically have a tiny bit of processing on it (like a bit of glue compression), but nothig that drastically changes the sound and nothing that I wouldn't do with my own tracks that I send to mastering engineer.Compyfox wrote:In recent challenges, I still saw the occasional pre-mastered track (hence in every thread with the rules: "try to not pre-master the track"). I do understand the appeal to use EQ's, compressors, stereo wideners and limiters on the master bus - it can be used as additional sound shapers. But this should not(!) be the main focus. The idea of the challenge is to create a suitable mix that can then be forwarded to a mastering engineer to build upon. So that means: a healthy loudness level (or in other words, a suitable reference level) and a certain maximum peak headroom. If there is the occasional tape machine or summing bus simulation plugin - nobody is criticizing you. Especially if it's adding to the sound. But if it's a drastic sound shaping on top of the initial mix - then I think you (the participant) should maybe rethink your workflow and re-check your mix/individual channels.
But in the first one or two challenges I took part in I struggled with the reference levels as this was totally new for me.
Mentioning the processing plugins used (as it is mostly done in the documentary) usually doesn't tell anything and can easily be omitted. A screenshot may be more interesting or some insight on certain techniques that were applied (and why they were applied). If you tell me you have used a compressor on the snare it can mean anything. If you tell me you have used a compressor on the snare to add punch or to bring out the body, then that gives me an idea of what was actually done. A complete write up on such aspects would be too time consuming though. But I would still love to read some information on key aspects of a mix (e.g. what photonic did to the bass in this months challenge to give it such a bite. I really like thatCompyfox wrote:So rather than mentioning settings, maybe screenshots are suitable enough? It's not adding up to the general scoring (as we don't use such a system) if that piece of information is available, neither does it cut points if it's lacking.
It is a bonus information that does add to the idea of the KVR Mix Challenge's "learning experience". So even here, feedback is more than welcome - especially if it's intimidating for hobbyists and not-as-skilled participants.
). The prices are a nice addition and if there is a price it enhances the aspect of a challenge. I think it's fine the way it is now with the three winners picking a plugin of their choice.Compyfox wrote:The main question is - are these prices the main argument you join the challenge?
Or do you rather join for the fun of it?
Regarding what prizes are picked, I can only speak for myself. First of all, I like the overall choice that the different companies offer and though I already have lots of plugins there is still interesting stuff in there. Obviously, my first choice is something that is really missing in my arsenal, as it was the case with acon digitals restoration suite or something that I wanted to buy anyway (such as IK's precision compressor) and I have used both plugins already in the mix challenge
. But I for one also find metric halo character quite interesting or sonivox vocalizer and if I should be among the top three again someday I might pick one of them. But first of all I'm here to practice and gain experience with a wide variety of material that is out of my comfort zone and I can easily tell that my own productions have already improved through this additional training. That's also why I keep coming back, although I'm regularly thinking "I will pause this month so I have more time for own productions". Once the new challenge is up, I'm usually like "ah screw that, I'll take a break next month"
Last edited by Kolyev on Fri Oct 23, 2015 1:03 pm, edited 1 time in total.
-
- KVRAF
- 14738 posts since 19 Oct, 2003 from Berlin, Germany
Thanks for the feedback, Kolyev.
What is your opinion on the need/no need of enhancing the promotion aspect?
What is your opinion on the need/no need of enhancing the promotion aspect?
-
- KVRist
- 65 posts since 25 Aug, 2014
I think enhancing the promotional activities might be a good idea but as I have just started to get my own productions out there the whole marketing/promotion aspect is something that I don't really have experience in yet.
-
- KVRAF
- 14738 posts since 19 Oct, 2003 from Berlin, Germany
I'd definitely love to get more feedback on this.
-
- KVRian
- 1091 posts since 8 Feb, 2012 from South - Africa
I have an idea on the promotion aspect. Use the sponsors as cross marketing. For them it is corporate sponsorship and trade promotion, i.e. a good thing. So maybe we can supply the sponsors with a click-through image/logo of the Mix Challenge (and accompanying xml/html script) , this should be made very painless and simple for the sponsors and remain optional.
Imagine somebody goes on a sponsor's website to download a demo, they see they can win something of the sponsor. They download the demo, love the product - but hey, thin on cash, 'screw-it' they say, and they enter the contest.
Just my 2cents.
Andrew
Imagine somebody goes on a sponsor's website to download a demo, they see they can win something of the sponsor. They download the demo, love the product - but hey, thin on cash, 'screw-it' they say, and they enter the contest.
Just my 2cents.
Andrew
-
- KVRAF
- 7576 posts since 17 Feb, 2005
There's too much work involved, on occasion, for only the chance of winning.
Things I don't like to do because they are time-consuming include:
Time alignments (for whatever reason)
Micro editing and cleaning up obviously bad takes
Re-amping, also because I don't want to play the Producer
Sorting through minutes of comp tracks, again to not play the Producer
It's ideal to work with tracks that are already fairly well produced, without their effects on. Then we just load them up and get to mixing.
Things I don't like to do because they are time-consuming include:
Time alignments (for whatever reason)
Micro editing and cleaning up obviously bad takes
Re-amping, also because I don't want to play the Producer
Sorting through minutes of comp tracks, again to not play the Producer
It's ideal to work with tracks that are already fairly well produced, without their effects on. Then we just load them up and get to mixing.
-
- KVRian
- 628 posts since 5 Mar, 2011 from Austria
Maybe I am lucky and have more time for the MC than others. But I like especially those parts of the job. They are time consuming thats right. I am quite new to mixing. I did it some years for my own music. I started to mix tracks from other artists only some months before I found the KVR-MC. I used material from Mike Seniors site. So I am mainly here in this contest to learn and to see/hear what other guys can achieve with the same material. And all those imperfections on the raw tracks like the need to clean them up, time correction, pitch correction and so on is good material to learn how to deal with such tracks. I am not planning to do mixing as a business, it is just for my own joy and to get better each month (hopefullycamsr wrote:There's too much work involved, on occasion, for only the chance of winning.
Things I don't like to do because they are time-consuming include:
Time alignments (for whatever reason)
Micro editing and cleaning up obviously bad takes
Re-amping, also because I don't want to play the Producer
Sorting through minutes of comp tracks, again to not play the Producer
It's ideal to work with tracks that are already fairly well produced, without their effects on. Then we just load them up and get to mixing.
) But I fully understand your agrument. If time is an issue, it is better to have better produced raw trakcs and keep focusing to the sound.
soundcloud.com/photonic-1