reaMIXed: The Reaper Mixing Contest - January 2021 **Now With Stars!**

[darjama]

REAPER CONTEST - January 2021
(ONLY REAPER PLUGINS ALLOWED)



OFFICIAL WEBSITE: reaMIXed.com


MIXING: 2-15 January
VOTING: 20-26 January
RESULTS: 28 January
FEEDBACK: 29-31 January

__________________________________________________

The reaMixed contest rings in the new year with a change in format.
Instead of voting for the top 3 mixes, we'll be asking you to give a rating out of five stars. This comes out of the result of survey from November, and I think the contest will be better for it.

This month's song was selected by TinyTortoise, last month's contest winner. The track is Much Too Much by Bill Ashton, performed by Selwyn Jazz. one of Cambridge University's longest established and most respected big bands. Please note that though there is a Reaper project file available for these tracks at the Cambridge Music Technology web site, I'd ask that you start fresh and not use that to get going.

You can download the multitrack from the website or clicking on this link.

Again, no prize this month, aside from the customary track-picking privileges for the next month's contest.


Happy mixing!
-Daryl

__________________________________________________
_________________________________


IMPORTANT

• Please use the reaMIXed.com website as the main resource for the contest.

[kavacs]

Hey guys, I'm new here and joining for the first time. I have been trying to mix for a few months now and I feel that this is an opportunity to learn as much as possible.

Looking forward to all your mixes

[PVinKC]

Hey Guys (and Gals?),

After the CRAP that I turned out in the last contest I decided to do a little research and so I downloaded the project files and of course (as you do) the first one I loaded up was Tiny Tortise's entry.

I just loaded it up, had a look around (without adjusting anything) and ran the track with an instance of YouLean on the Master Buss at the end of the effects chain. Here's a snippet so you can see what I'm seeing...

Capture.JPG

My question is...I always go for -1.0 True Peak and I know that this is the rules for the contest. So what exactly am I missing here?

Mind you...I'm not on about calling anyone out for cheating...rather wondering what is wrong with my Reaper set-up that I am seeing this, or what's wrong with the way I'm using YouLean?

I spend a MAJOR amount of time trying to get my Masters to hit AT or Below -14.0 LUFS AND hit at or below -1.0.

Is it ME? Is it YouLean? Is it the way I have Reaper set up? What do you all think is the issue here? I'm sure that the tracks came out all at or below the Targets, though admittedly I didn't check that on ANY of them but my own during the Mastering process.

Anyway...and and ALL thoughts, ideas, suggestions, etc would be WELL appreciated and go a long way towards nailing down my problems for the future. After the last contest, I honestly feel like a beginner again...and I'm not opposed to trying just about anything to get things better under wraps! So thanks in advance for any and all advice or responses!

[darjama]

Contest rules are peaks shouldn't exceed -1 dBFS. You don't need to worry about True Peak.

[PVinKC]

Originally Posted by darjama

Contest rules are peaks shouldn't exceed -1 dBFS. You don't need to worry about True Peak.

OMFG...okay I always assumed that it meant True Peak. Does it then mean that on the render dialogue the peaks don't past -1db then?

This will save me literally HOURS of fiddling around to hit what is sometimes an unobtainable (or seemingly so) goal!

I also discovered the differences in pan law settings and since I generally like to use SSL plugins and I have an SSL interface I have chosen to set the pan law to -4.5db for the center channel like an actual SSL console.

Immediately I notice a lot of difference in stereo separation, and I can hear the FX much better. Amazing the amount of difference in what is a seemingly small change.

I would add however that I wouldn't want to make this change mid project as it changes a lot of things.

[darjama]

Originally Posted by PVinKC

OMFG...okay I always assumed that it meant True Peak. Does it then mean that on the render dialogue the peaks don't past -1db then?

Yeah, that's right, keeps that part easy.

Originally Posted by PVinKC

I also discovered the differences in pan law settings and since I generally like to use SSL plugins and I have an SSL interface I have chosen to set the pan law to -4.5db for the center channel like an actual SSL console.

Immediately I notice a lot of difference in stereo separation, and I can hear the FX much better. Amazing the amount of difference in what is a seemingly small change.

Cool, I've played around with pan law a bit, but not for a while. I'll give that a try.

[ashcat_lt]

Originally Posted by PVinKC

Immediately I notice a lot of difference in stereo separation, and I can hear the FX much better. Amazing the amount of difference in what is a seemingly small change.

If you do this to an existing mix, it changes all of your balances. Anything panned away from center will be louder (in a relative sense), so yeah it’ll make a difference. If you do it before starting a mix, you’ll compensate naturally and without even noticing. It might help you get to the same spot more quickly, but it won’t suddenly make all of your new mixes come up that much wider.

[javiramallo]

The normalization functionality in the voting page is wonderful to be able to hear all the tracks at the same volume. It helps a lot to judge fairly.

Thanks for that Daryl.

[Funicello3]

Originally Posted by javiramallo

The normalization functionality in the voting page is wonderful to be able to hear all the tracks at the same volume. It helps a lot to judge fairly.

I agree!

[eq1]

Anyone have any suggestions about how one might go about rating these? It doesn't seem like an easy task...

Would/should you use an 'absolute' star value, where 5 stars basically means stellar mix in the world of mixes, 3 average, 1 pretty lousy, or should it be relative, where 5 stars means best of this bunch, 1 means worst of this bunch, etc.(of course in the ears of the listener)?

I was leaning toward the absolute scale - it'd be easier for me to do - but now I'm not sure...

[Dex]

Originally Posted by eq1

Anyone have any suggestions about how one might go about rating these? It doesn't seem like an easy task...

Would/should you use an 'absolute' star value, where 5 stars basically means stellar mix in the world of mixes, 3 average, 1 pretty lousy, or should it be relative, where 5 stars means best of this bunch, 1 means worst of this bunch, etc.(of course in the ears of the listener)?

I was leaning toward the absolute scale - it'd be easier for me to do - but now I'm not sure...

If you want to maximize the impact of your vote, do the latter.

[eq1]

^ I was just editing that post, but now I'll add that edit here. Yours is about the conclusion I came to. Thanks for the feedback.

"OK, I've given it some thought, and I think I see what would be best: You basically need to put the mixes into 5 classes, where 5 stars is the top class and 1 star is the bottom class. The star-weighting is relative, it's grading on the curve. The "absolute" scale would make little sense, as you could end up basically giving out zero stars for a bunch of crappy mixes, there would be no 'resolution' to the rating.

If it's done this way, I can see how it'd be better than an overall ranking system, as with ranking like it was done in the past you'd have to have as many 'classes' as there are entries. It's easier to just lump some of them into one class or another, among only 5 classes, i.e. 5 stars."

[darjama]

And the winner is ... Dex!



congrats, I'll be in touch shortly to pick the song for next month.

Comments and project file downloads are at https://reamixed.com/results/

[bFooz]

Hi, just a note about star system - if you think 10 values is better then why not make 10 full stars instead of 5*2 half-stars. But IMO just 5 full stars would be better, easier to make a mental model out of it.

[javiramallo]

Originally Posted by bFooz

Hi, just a note about star system - if you think 10 values is better then why not make 10 full stars instead of 5*2 half-stars. But IMO just 5 full stars would be better, easier to make a mental model out of it.

Sorry Daryl, but I was thinking the same of Bfooz since I took a look for first time the new system. Will fit better with 5 star (like was planning from the beginning). For me was a surprise to find suddenly ten levels of decision instead of 5.

Thanks for the effort in any case.

[darjama]

Originally Posted by javiramallo

Sorry Daryl, but I was thinking the same of Bfooz since I took a look for first time the new system. Will fit better with 5 star (like was planning from the beginning). For me was a surprise to find suddenly ten levels of decision instead of 5.

Thanks for the effort in any case.

If you don't want to use the half stars, you don't have to. I think it's good to have the option.

[garanimals]

Nice Job everyone and congratulations Dex!

Looking forward to next month!

I'm fine with the .5 increments in voting.
Just gives more granularity.

[javiramallo]

Originally Posted by darjama

And the winner is ... Dex!



congrats, I'll be in touch shortly to pick the song for next month.

Comments and project file downloads are at https://reamixed.com/results/

Congratulations to DEX, Garanimals and grundton. Excelentes mixes.


Cheers!