2020-SEP-01 Info: Please check out Songwriting Competition 037 (Mental Health Awareness Month) and create some soothing "Lo-fi Hip Hop"

Mix Challenge - General Gossip Thread

Ask us a question, give feedback, join surveys, make suggestions
SergioITASCO
Banned (Permanent)
Posts: 11
Joined: Sun May 14, 2017 03:09 CEST

Re: Mix Challenge - General Gossip Thread

#201

Post by SergioITASCO »

Mister Fox wrote:
Thu Jul 23, 2020 01:58 CEST
SergioITASCO wrote:
Thu Jul 23, 2020 00:58 CEST
No, you don't.

Your rules are more than 100, written in vague language.

You are not making yourself clear and that why so many people don't understand what you are talking about.
The language is not even close to what you consider "vague".

The Rules and Guidelines are clearly laid out and written in easy to understand English. It is only "now" after the recent announcement, that they are problematic. In fact, they are always problematic if I somebody has to step in and enforce something. I wonder why... :thinking: (yes, that was sarcasm)



SergioITASCO wrote:
Thu Jul 23, 2020 00:58 CEST
Make yourself clear, first cutting your rules into 10 max from 100.
I will not be arguing about this.

If I cut down on rules/explanations, then people will once more start to do whatever they want. Which previously even resulted in straight up remixes and arrangement changes. Then the Song Provider might like this edit, pick it even, which then results in even more debates from other participants as "unfair treatment".

Do you understand that we have to have a common ground for everyone? If not, then I am terribly sorry. If you are not willing to look beyond the rim of your own teacup, then I can not help you. In this case, and not written in a roundabout way: maybe the Mix Challenge audio community is just not the right place for you.



SergioITASCO wrote:
Thu Jul 23, 2020 00:58 CEST
The only rule that is clear is you don't like criticism, that is clear.

Keep posting rules, add rules, so from 100 rules you'll maybe reach 1.000. You'll win the first price for number of rules.
You are currently taking out your frustration on me, because of a simple careless mistake of submitting your mix in 16bit, rather than adhering to the given rule "submit in the same sampling rate and bitrate as the source material was provided in". Also because you said "in reality - it doesn't matter" (if in reality - it actually does).

Now you blame it on the "way too complicated rules" (which they aren't - considering that the majority of new users managed to submit within specs!), you insulted another forum user that tried to defuse the situation, while demanding a response from the (and I quote) "guy that run this shit" (so your second insult - which I've since removed), and you continue this behavior in stating that I "don't like criticism".

Okay then. So much for "learning from this experience".


Are you really of the assumption that the rules are just "made up", not "based on any merit"/are "nonsensical" or were improved without any feedback by former participants? Let us also ignore that I've been running the "Mix Challenge" as a whole since it's existence for nearly 7 years, and always reached out for feedback during that time. Like the last poll about the dedicated Rule Book section for example (which you didn't participate in, by the way), or responded to feature requests to implement post numbering and/or username tagging.

But It is always easy to scream from the other side of the fence "this is unfair, your concept is crap" and especially "YOU DON'T UNDERSTAND - and you will NEVER understand" (bonus: if you don't change ABC).



Even now, I still try to explain things and give you a different viewpoint to the whole situation instead of putting my foot down and stop communicating altogether. In hindsight, maybe this is a mistake on my part and I should just stop doing that, be even more strict, etc.

So I ask you once more...

Please take a step back, take a deep breath, reflect on what happened in the last couple of hours. Then we can hopefully start the conversation again. If you continue to be pushy (and this counts for everyone), I'm handing out a 2 week suspension.

No further warnings. :!:
Yeah yeah buddy, great! :grin: :grin: Are you coming to beat me up??? :grin: :grin:

A-I don't understand English
B-I don't understand how audio works and what are the common formats
c-This place is not for me
D-I'm a frustrated person
E-I blame other people for my personal mistakes
F-You know what is good and what not, not like me.
G-If I don't accept that I'll get "punished" :nutter: :nutter:

You can cancel this message, you can suspend me, you can ban me from this small space but you'll need some sort of mental support. Believe me buddy, take care and ask for some help.

Phusy? What is pushy?

Are you sure you are ok?! :nutter: :nutter:

:hihi: :hihi:

User avatar
Mister Fox
Site Admin
Posts: 1819
Joined: Fri Mar 31, 2017 16:15 CEST
Location: Berlin, Germany

Re: Mix Challenge - General Gossip Thread

#202

Post by Mister Fox »

Okay - that's it... SergioITASCO

I can ignore a lot of things. But where I instantly draw the line, is if somebody calls me (or others) "mentally unstable/ill" and then jokingly says "you should seek some serious help".

Respect goes both ways. I've been respectful to you. I responded to your feedback and your frustration. I asked you to tone it down a notch, take a deep breath and then restart again (three times!). You on the other hand decided to not take a step back. Instead you doubled down on things and went so far over the line, that this now results in a permanent ban for you.


Thank you for your interest in the Mix Challenge audio community. But we do not need this kind of behavior in here.
At the soonest, you can re-appeal your status through the official contact form in July 2021.

User avatar
imrepap
Posts: 2
Joined: Tue Jul 07, 2020 15:16 CEST
Location: Hungary
Contact:

Re: Mix Challenge - General Gossip Thread

#203

Post by imrepap »

Hi all, Mr. Fox,

I've found this mix-challenge few week ago. The rules are clear and set a common ground to play.
Thanks for running the show and for giving artists and mixers the opportunity to share songs and practice.

Take care everyone,
Imre

User avatar
bluesation
Posts: 35
Joined: Thu Jul 12, 2018 09:38 CEST

Re: Mix Challenge - General Gossip Thread

#204

Post by bluesation »

A Challenge is a challenge, so rules are needed. Every challenge has it. Who is not able or wants not fit the rules should play another game. The rules are a few and understandable. Who missed something has the chance to do it better next challenge.

The problems of our time is, that people often ignore the rules. And the person that points to the rules is the bad guy. But thats not right.

Mister Fox is working here with a great personal engagement in his free time. Thumbs up therefore. :tu:
If I were him, I would not discuss that much. Nobody is forced to participate, if you do, take it as it is. Point.

Mork
Posts: 110
Joined: Fri Apr 14, 2017 21:55 CEST
Location: Hamburg

Re: Mix Challenge - General Gossip Thread

#205

Post by Mork »

First and foremost: Let’s keep this a happy place and have a conversation instead of bashing others! And don’t take a place like this for granted, insulting the person who „runs this shit“. The same person could simply say „screw you ladies and gents“ and flip the off switch. There is no „right for a mix challenge“, it’s all the effort of one person, so Fox, thank you a million times for running this shit FOR FREE!

I know from experience how frustrating it is to get disqualified because of levels (look one or two pages back). It’s especially frustrating if you thought you’re in spec like Lewsha Music. I still think conforming to a strict loudness target in music is more of a mastering job, and every slammed pancake would get pulled down and lose big time, due to flatness and harshness. That in itself is a viable lesson and you have to go through the „I limit everything to oblivion“ phase to get it out of your system and learn what they are actually good for. But hey, the „client“ asks you for a mix at -16, how hard can it be? Contrary to what I posted before I think this is a very reasonable level which leaves you with a great amount of headroom. Fox wouldn’t have introduced that rule if he didn’t feel that it’s necessary (it wasn’t always like this)!

Now the big but: Since I got my hardware meter I looked a bit into true peak meters. There are design variances, I think especially in the reconstruction filters, which deliver vastly different results. My mix this month reads -3dBTP on my meter but was analyzed somewhat around half a dB lower (see big table). Now if it was the other way around and I would have shot for -1dBTP and then got disqualified, because the analysis would read -.5dBTP... you get my point :)
Which is right, which is wrong? I certainly trust my hardware meter, which correlates almost perfectly with RME DigiCheck, over any plugin, but that doesn’t make it „more right“. You would have to measure the actual voltage on the DACs output to see which meter is closer to the true value. Someone put it in good words: „True peak meters take more or less an educated guess.“
It seems like there are some variances in LUFS meters too. My meter showed a higher reading again.

I know there is some leeway in the ruleset to accommodate for this, but as long as not everyone is using the same meter I think there could be a potential for „false dq“. Lewsha Music might be one of those cases, maybe the meters used where indeed in the green. Anecdote: I even saw a .1dB peak on Spotify. Impossible according to specs :)

I found this the other day. Different loudness targets, mix challenge is somehow missing :hihi:
https://www.rtw.com/en/blog/worldwide-l ... dards.html

White Punk OD
Posts: 163
Joined: Tue Aug 14, 2018 23:58 CEST

Re: Mix Challenge - General Gossip Thread

#206

Post by White Punk OD »

Thanks Mork, good compilation, so we have to look at whom we are working for, under what umbrella, as there is no one-fits-all standard.
At least all those "Eurovision" countries seem to agree on -23 integrated, when the content is meant to be used on TV.

(To me, it looks like there is a cultural factor also, e.g. when we look into the Japanese remarks, they do not restrict short term loudness, except the dbTP headroom, and perhaps this comes from art forms like Butoh, and certain forms of local Opera, that have extreme bursts of loudness here and there, for the sake of dramaturgy and impact.)

I think we should not look at audio rules as a "moral" thing at all, else we might stumble into those "cultural wars" as well.
I see it as an organisational requirement, to get things done in a way that keeps the chaos out, at least sufficiently to do some coherent work.

E.C.Miraldo
Posts: 9
Joined: Sun Jul 05, 2020 16:26 CEST

Re: Mix Challenge - General Gossip Thread

#207

Post by E.C.Miraldo »

Mr.Fox

Ok I understood the "unsure if reupload" part now.
I did edit the post becasue i came to check if the link was still alive and it wasn't so you guys wouldn't be able to get my file, so I just went to google drive and put the link there again.

Anyway i thank you for the second chance this time as it was my first participation in the games maybe i missed the rule where we shouldn't edit the post, next time i'll be sure to post it closer to the deadline so we don't need to go through this again.

Can I still abuse your good will one last bit?
The comment where "User was struggling with LUFS" left me wondering quite a bit, I think i have a lot to improve on that regard.

Well.. Thank you so much for all the organization i'm pretty sure it must be very tiresome. You're going god's work here !

User avatar
Mister Fox
Site Admin
Posts: 1819
Joined: Fri Mar 31, 2017 16:15 CEST
Location: Berlin, Germany

Re: Mix Challenge - General Gossip Thread

#208

Post by Mister Fox »

E.C.Miraldo wrote:
Thu Jul 23, 2020 18:47 CEST
Can I still abuse your good will one last bit?
The comment where "User was struggling with LUFS" left me wondering quite a bit, I think i have a lot to improve on that regard.
You're not doing anything negive here - you have a valid concern. I seem to remember that you've struggled with a safety limiter (or am I misinterpreting that with a recent Songwriting Competition). However, looking at your stats, you're definitely fine loudness wise. You did create some strong peaking transients in your production though - so you should keep an eye on that in the future.




Mork wrote:
Thu Jul 23, 2020 13:21 CEST
Which is right, which is wrong? I certainly trust my hardware meter, which correlates almost perfectly with RME DigiCheck, over any plugin, but that doesn’t make it „more right“. You would have to measure the actual voltage on the DACs output to see which meter is closer to the true value. Someone put it in good words: „True peak meters take more or less an educated guess.“
It seems like there are some variances in LUFS meters too. My meter showed a higher reading again.
I don't know which hardware meter you're using. But I assume it's based around traditional "PPM".


"True Peak" is an "over sampled" and then "estimated" value - and this is where one of the big issues reside, indeed. True Peak is the only "meter" from modern standards, that has the biggest drift during tests. Since everyone does this different.

We could remedy the situation for the Mix Challenge by lowering the allowed maximum signal strength (dBTP max) and then adjusting the "tolerance" to a way bigger value. If people would then work with a reference level (-18dBFS = 0VU), and they stay around 0VU on avg (+-2VU), then we still have a dynamic range of over 15dB!

This is why I'm so pedantic about this. I want people to learn (again) how to retain the transients of a production. I really have to think about the whole topic for future games.


LUFS on the other hand has been standardized, and anything drifting more than 0,2LU either uses measurements where gating is not implemented, or is offset in some shape or form. Allowed offsets according to the official specs are actually +-0,1LU.


Mork wrote:
Thu Jul 23, 2020 13:21 CEST
I know there is some leeway in the ruleset to accommodate for this, but as long as not everyone is using the same meter I think there could be a potential for „false dq“. Lewsha Music might be one of those cases, maybe the meters used where indeed in the green.
You bring up a valid point here. However, let me repost the analysis of various measurement tools that I've used while checking your MC064 / April 2020 entry.

Code: Select all

Wavelab 10 Batch Analysis	=	-14,7 LUFS ILk (EBU R-128 specs)
Orban Loudness Meter		=	-14,4 LUFS ILk (ITU-R BS.1770-1)
Youlean Loudness Meter 2 Pro	=	-14,7 LKFS ILk (ITU-R BS.1770-4)
Nugen Audio VisLM2		=	-14,6 LUFS ILk (ITU-R BS.1770-4 specs)
Nugen Audio VisLM2		=	-14,6 LUFS ILk (EBU R-128 specs)
Klanghelm VUMT2			=	-13dB RMS avg / -8,3dB RMS max (+3dB AES-17, z-weighted)

Maximum signal strength		=	-2,7dBTP
Notice the biggest offset with Orban Loudness Meter. It doesn't use any gating mechanic, which was introduced with ITU-R BS.1770-2+. However the analysis more (strangely enough) seems to be using ITU-R BS.1770-1 (which has no gating), which can result in bigger offsets. Hence me saying "a +-0,3LU tolerance is okay". Keep in mind, we're not using the allowed +-1LU for broadcast stream - but the problem is also - if we change the tolerances, then we're back to the good old "If it's possible, I will use the absolute allowed maximum" (the same that also happened with the K-System v1)


To be honest - this topic has been bugging me for a couple of months now. And I need to take another deep-dive at currently available tools.

I mostly use Wavelab 10 for "offline" and batch analysis (which uses EBU R-128 - but you can't set EBU R-128s1, which is only for "short commercials"). For realtime usage, I usually access Nugen Audio VisLM (one of the most accurate and up-to-date tools on the market) or Youlean Loudness Meter 2 Pro (affordable alternative, but not as configurable and not as "up-to-date").

Maybe there is a "usable-for-everyone" (as in: free or highly affordable) solution which utilizes more recent setting (EBU R-128 didn't change much, ITU-R BS.1770-4 on the verge of getting v5). Something that can work as "one-stop-solution" for the Mix Challenge. Pity that Orban Loudness Meter at is kind of on a stand-still. The tool was originally made/released for educational purposes.

Or... I could ask a couple of befriended programmers in the audio realm, if they could create an offline tool just for the Mix Challenge audio community. However, getting a developer involved can only work, if we have suitable enough content for at least the next 12 months to come. As of this moment, we're covered until end of September 2020.

I'll keep you folks updated about that.




Mork wrote:
Thu Jul 23, 2020 13:21 CEST
I found this the other day. Different loudness targets, mix challenge is somehow missing :hihi:
https://www.rtw.com/en/blog/worldwide-l ... dards.html
Now that is actually quite the nice find! Thank you very much!

I'm honestly quite surprised at EBU R128/France and EBU R128/Austria. My last status was, that they dropped to -24LUFS. I might start a separate thread over the weekend, after I caught up on reading, checking most recent white-papers and also consulting fellow engineers in this field. This is a very, very interesting piece of information indeed.

Mork
Posts: 110
Joined: Fri Apr 14, 2017 21:55 CEST
Location: Hamburg

Re: Mix Challenge - General Gossip Thread

#209

Post by Mork »

Mister Fox wrote:
Fri Jul 24, 2020 04:31 CEST
I don't know which hardware meter you're using. But I assume it's based around traditional "PPM".


"True Peak" is an "over sampled" and then "estimated" value - and this is where one of the big issues reside, indeed. True Peak is the only "meter" from modern standards, that has the biggest drift during tests. Since everyone does this different.
I use a tc electronic Clarity M which of course measures True Peak. Come oon, I'm not THAT stupid! :hihi: (joking, I am that stupid)
Again, as you said yourself, True Peak meters can vary a lot due to different designs especially of the reconstruction filters (from what I gathered). The fact that the Clarity is almost perfectly in sync with the RME meter gives me a lot of confidence in its readings, as both are companies I have a lot of respect for (even though tc was bought by "the ear"). I think tc was on the forefront in regards to true peak metering, there is supposed to be a somewhat infamous white paper from the earlier 2000s (I didn't read it).
By the way, the only CD I could find so far that doesn't produce overs on my meters is the latest Deichkind album. :shrug:

I think for our situation there is no simple solution. If someone obviously tried to stay in spec and there is an occasional high true peak reading, so be it.
As for loudness I would say take the tolerances out of the rulebook and simply say "aim for -16", and don't publish any numbers after round 1(too much effort, not worth it imo). Even if someone is at -15.5, they obviously aimed for -16, same goes for -16.4. At something like -14.7 (who would do that?) the case is clear. For evaluation the loudness has to be aligned anyway (at least for the top10 or so), even 0.1 LU makes a huge difference. There is no way around that.

On the other hand, if you wanted to pinpoint me on numbers I would suggest -2dBTP +1dB; -16 dB LUFS +/- 0.5 LU.
This challenge is still open for beginners, allow them to not hit the target exactly.
Mister Fox wrote:
Fri Jul 24, 2020 04:31 CEST
I'm honestly quite surprised at EBU R128/France and EBU R128/Austria. My last status was, that they dropped to -24LUFS. I might start a separate thread over the weekend, after I caught up on reading, checking most recent white-papers and also consulting fellow engineers in this field. This is a very, very interesting piece of information indeed.
Keep in mind that they say themselves they may not be 100% up to date all the time. Mix Challenge is still missing! :hihi:

E.C.Miraldo
Posts: 9
Joined: Sun Jul 05, 2020 16:26 CEST

Re: Mix Challenge - General Gossip Thread

#210

Post by E.C.Miraldo »

I think you're mistaking me for someone else, it's my first time participating in any games. :lol: :lol:
That's absolutely fine tho, don't worry about it


But yeah i'll look into the transients!! Thank you so much Mr.Fox

Post Reply