Guitar Tone Competition 2

Is it like the last voting system *IIRC* where people judge the tone within the mix THEN get to hear the winning guitar tone solo'd? *Per round*

The voting will be mix based. When the winner is known everyone is free to request information and files regarding any submission. This means I will upload the solo'ed guitars if requested, and I will also post the signal chain etc. if asked.

The reason I say if asked is because it is a LOT of work to upload all the submitted files. 55 people participating, at least 3 files per person, over 1gig in .wav files so you get the idea.
 
Is it going to go round-by-round again, too?

Btw, check your PMs mark.

Checked and replied. You're safe I got the files on time.

Not sure it would be fair to post winner files round by round. They might get an unfair advantage in consecutive rounds due to information carryover.

Will be several rounds though. Probably a new round every 5 days with 8 clips
 
The submission period is over

I will go over them tomorrow and the voting will begin shortly. So many submissions! Thanks to you all for participating. I hope you will learn something from the experience.

fuck. XD

Gonna submit it, but I understand if mine is rejected. Damn! :loco:
Over here it's still nov. 30. :erk:
 
Just to let you know, there was editing done to only 4 clips. I put the tracks on top of the original backing tracks and did the following:

- One was accidentally bounced as 44.1khz but really was 48khz so it was kinda sluggish, so I resampled it and it sounded normal.
- One was bounced too quiet overall, so I raised the guitars +6dB to match the average volume of the other tracks
- One participant was clearly illiterate and bounced his submission with some sort of master compression :mad: The guitars were -9dBRMS and peaks at -0.2 dBFS (the average was somewhere near -22dBRMS...), so you can guess what happened when you add the original backing tracks on top of the guitars. :Smug: I dropped the guitars so that it didn't clip anymore (which meant -5dB) instead of turning it down the 10dB to match other submissions, because the participant clearly wanted the guitars LOUD AS FUCK!
- One had some weird glitch sound at the beginning of the clip which I removed and put a small fade in there

There were also 18 tracks that was suspected to have some sort of processing on the backingtracks but I only processed 7 in the end, so the guitars were just bounced with the original backingtracks, no other processing done. I was right in atleast two of the cases as they thinned out quite a bit. You naughty boys for not reading the rules :saint:





And someone asked for feedback from all the tracks on the original thread (sorry, can't be bothered to read the original thread to see who it was, too many pages), but here are my general first opinion on all of the tracks:

In general there were clearly two point of views on the guitar tones. A) does this GUITARTONE sound good B) does this MIX sound good. If you ever watched the Sound on Sound Andy Sneap extreme metal production masterclass videos, I think this clearly proves what he was talking about (see the part 3 from 2:15 forward)



Eventho the contest is clearly labeled "Guitar Tone Competition 2", in my opinion too many people didn't see at the big picture when honing their tone. Even if your guitar tone is like the best tone in the world, but if you can't hear the drums or the bass, or in general anything else except the fokken guitars, does it really serve it's purpose?

There was about 10% really pro sounding tones that I really liked, pretty much record-quality material that I would've gladly heard on any record. But when we reduce those that leaves us with 90% majority, right? That is a quite many people who were, how should I say it... Not quite there yet.

Most likely bad monitoring or lack of experience can be easily blamed on many of the cases. There was a lot of phasing, weird tone balances and other weird stuff going on, but especially the low end was really big challenge for many.

The thing with the backing tracks was that they were not bad. They were arranged by a very skilled composer and the bass was played by a pretty skilled bass player and the drums were programmed and then ran thru Steven Slate Drums, but the low end was just mixed a bit thin, but that doesn't mean it wasn't there. But in the end it's just another approach to mixing. If we would've also added the vocals, it would've given us yet another challenge, because you really can't just bury the vocals under the guitars.

I think because the backing tracks were not so low end heavy, many tried to compensate with the low end on the guitar. As some of you might know, the low end on guitars in general is really resonant and a bit on the "wild" side compared to a bass guitar so it needs a really lot of taming, so if you also make the mistake and distort it, it usually just turns in to a big pile of muddy crap that just masks everything in the low.

Just my .02€, hope it helped that special someone.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
One participant was clearly illiterate and bounced his submission with some sort of master compression :mad: The guitars were -9dBRMS and peaks at -0.2 dBFS


Hey Anssi/Mark, could this be my file we are talking?

I submitted a guitar track which was -9,59/-9,75 dBRMS (L/R) average, peaking at -0,2dBFS.

No master bus compression on the guitar track. Also, no master bus compression or any kind of editing with the backing track or mixdown.

I submitted a mixdown where I dropped guitars -5dB, so that the mix won’t clip. I did this way as to make sure the guitar tone itself is heard clearly, not because I wanted them sonically “loud as fuck” in the mix.

Now, I really really liked the “leveling” idea which was written by you on the original thread and felt a bit sorry it was not included in the final rules:

“One more important thing...
- the loudness of the mixdown must be at -18dB RMS to repel the "louder usually always seems better" we had in the first round of the previous competition, as this competition is about the guitar tone, not mixing and loudness.
- The loudness will be double checked and if not met, the submission will either must be disqualified* or edited** to the required loudness level.”

Now, as we have noticed, you’ve done some editing by raising one participants “guitars +6dB to match the average volume of the other tracks

The key thing here is: when you considered the guitar volume was too low, you raised it and matched it to average volume of the other participants. But when you considered the guitars were loud (whoever submissed them) you dropped them only -5dB as to avoid clipping “instead of turning it down the 10dB to match other submissions, because the participant clearly wanted the guitars LOUD AS FUCK

Uh-huh, I just think that if any levelling is needed for the guitars, up or down, it should logically be done to match other submissions. Definitely more pleasant to the voters too.

Btw, did you ask the guy about that “loud as fuck thing” and he said yes? IMO, only moron would wanna that and be embarrassed later how his submission popping up that way!

So Anssi, (especially if this is my file), just use a common soundmen sense and drop that guitar volume slider enough to match the level of other submissions.

Of course, if this volume dropping is not considered a fair thing by other participants, think I’ll consider passing the contest. In any case – no harm done.

Greets, Mikko
 
Lol, I forgot this:

There were also 18 tracks that was suspected to have some sort of processing on the backingtracks but I only processed 7 in the end, so the guitars were just bounced with the original backingtracks, no other processing done. I was right in atleast two of the cases as they thinned out quite a bit. You naughty boys for not reading the rules :saint:

How hard did you investigated those bad eggs? :heh: Say, did you have a kinda "audio file comparer" which subracts the raw guitar file from the mixdown and thus resulting only the backing track which obviously must be same as the original backing track...
 
So Anssi, (especially if this is my file), just use a common soundmen sense and drop that guitar volume slider enough to match the level of other submissions.

I did; I tried to make it sound as close as the mixdown you submitted as possible, see the picture below. If I would've dropped the level drastically, it would've sounded a lot different. The other one that I raised was dropped from the master fader, so the drums were a lot quieter too. Your submission just in general had the guitar really fucking loud.

edit.jpg


How hard did you investigated those bad eggs? :heh: Say, did you have a kinda "audio file comparer" which subracts the raw guitar file from the mixdown and thus resulting only the backing track which obviously must be same as the original backing track...

I used ears (and had the subwoofer quite loud) for the rough picks, and then compared the guitar track agains the original backingtracks. Some guitar tracks just had so huge amount of low end that that was what caused the massive low end boost.
 
I did; I tried to make it sound as close as the mixdown you submitted as possible, see the picture below. If I would've dropped the level drastically, it would've sounded a lot different.

Oh, but for the aesthetics sake, please take that guitar file which I posted and put it down -10dB and paste on the backing track and then I can sleep my nights and live on! :cool:

I used ears (and had the subwoofer quite loud) for the rough picks, and then compared the guitar track agains the original backingtracks. Some guitar tracks just had so huge amount of low end that that was what caused the massive low end boost.

That's good. On the other hand, tweaking backing tracks should be completely untolerated, at least verified well at the winner position (which definitely won't be me.)