Post by: Pingu on June 19, 2006, 02:25:59 PM
What if the next time we master the tune for wump we upload all of our submissions.
A non participant downloads them all and gives them a number.
Then we can all download them but we don't know who's is who's.
Then when we listen and evaluate we all commit to not listening in a daw or with any other instruments other than our ears so that we cant distinguish our own master.
Listen to the entries in media player or what ever and manually adjust gain to taste.
Then the comments start and we all discuss and try to narrow down the best master.
Maybe even vote.
When we are in agreement the numbers are revealed.
What do you think?
Post by: mbruce333 on June 19, 2006, 02:32:14 PM
Maybe we could do a sign-up list, and someone not participatng (Brad?) could assign the numbers. I know Ged has been kinda running this, but I'm sure he would want to give it a go, so someone else would have to keep track of/assign the numbers.
Any other thoughts???
Mike Bruce
Post by: Pingu on June 19, 2006, 02:48:27 PM
If we cant find anyone to be the number man ill do it.
I wont submit a master but i will still work on the tune for my own learning.
Post by: bblackwood on June 19, 2006, 02:52:18 PM
I do think it should be approached as a better way to listen to the masters unencumbered by listener bias, not as a 'competition'. All of the various W*MPs that happen here are for learning, not for some silly trophy from a steak-swinging contest...
Post by: Pingu on June 19, 2006, 02:55:29 PM
But that would be great Brad, thanks.
Im starting to realise that a lot of the time there is no better.
Its like whats better red or blue.
Post by: Pingu on June 19, 2006, 03:14:29 PM
| bblackwood wrote on Tue, 20 June 2006 02:52 |
I'll number them. I do think it should be approached as a better way to listen to the masters unencumbered by listener bias, not as a 'competition'. All of the various W*MPs that happen here are for learning, not for some silly trophy from a steak-swinging contest... |
Can you see anything wrong with how we are approaching this Brad?
What are some things you think we should be doing to make this a better learning experience?
Cheers
Post by: bblackwood on June 19, 2006, 03:23:00 PM
| Pingu wrote on Mon, 19 June 2006 14:14 |
Can you see anything wrong with how we are approaching this Brad? What are some things you think we should be doing to make this a better learning experience? |
I think it's fine so far. I just suspect that if it becomes a competition you'll scare folks off and AFAIC the more = the merrier...
Post by: Pingu on June 19, 2006, 03:53:11 PM
Had another idea.
What about when all the masters are done and numbered, instead of everyone just writing a mere sentence or two about other submissions, we make each entry or number available to discussion on a thread for a day or two or three before we move on to the next submission.
Really critique it.
Hopefully we can really narrow down the good and the bad on each submission and not just receive a comment like too much bass or whatever but really discuss each version.
It will be easier to be objective when you have no idea who's submission is being evaluated.
Maybe even only allow that file available for download during that period also so that each of us are listening to it during similar intervals and not getting confused with 20 different submissions.
Post by: OTR-jkl on June 19, 2006, 04:12:10 PM
Come to think of it - doing it this way will make it just about on par with the WoMP events though... (
Brad)
Post by: Patrik T on June 19, 2006, 04:35:12 PM
Do some people really need to listen blindfolded to spot a masters possible weaknesses or golden edges? Seems odd to me, honestly.
It surely feels like extra work and calls out for EXTREME caution for the numbering-man. I have never been fond of changing any data of any printed 16 bit audio file. Not even the name of it.
But if this is the only way to open up some ears and damp possible nervous biasing from knowing who does what, then go ahead.
It all seems like some kind of problem with not being able to be responsible for what people let out. Like in the former case with the revision-thing. I think people would grow as persons if they could feel more confidence with what they let out. That is more realistic and more attached to the real world.
That is surely more "learning experience" to me.
The voting for "best master" is also rooted in some kind of nervousity and odd thinking that does not make WUMP any better than it is. This is no competition. No price, glory, dancing women or bears.
Not even a bottle of Budweiser to race for. Just the feedback. Regardless who you are.
I have absolutely no problems to hand over my work and rather like to have my name attached to it when it hits the listener, but if I need to be "12" instead of "patrik" in a WUMP, I guess I just have to follow along that path.
Best Regards
Patrik
EDIT: The last suggestion, the one file at a time, calls out for everyone, or as many as possible to be very active surfing the forum. I doubt everyone has got that amount of spare time to focus on the subject.
Post by: UnderTow on June 19, 2006, 05:35:12 PM
I'm fine with the way it is going now (Only took part in the last two) but if you guys want to change it, also fine by me.
Just a small note, as the files are on a FTP server, no need to download and re-upload them. Just change the names through an FTP client.
Oh and if we are really worried about how people judge their own version compared to others, there are always ways to recognise them Nothing can stop someone that really wants to know ...
Alistair
Post by: cerberus on June 19, 2006, 06:58:21 PM
imo, it's a worthy idea for a competition because it helps to eliminate prejudice in judgement. but i think it would make wump more of a competition and not a better learning experience.
i feel that camaraderie is much more important here; so that we can help each other directly; not treat each other like we're standing in line together at the post office,
numbering the entries would remind me more of how a competition is conducted. i think it would stifle our understanding of each other and make the learning experience more convoluted. wump is more like a symposium, so imo, we are better off presenting our work to each other face to face, this is how most educational experiences are conducted.
womp felt more public to me than wump. the anonymity seemed appropriate to prevent prejudice, or worse: someone using an evaluation to attack someone (or to hype their work). that has not happened in wump, so i don't think we need the extra layer of protection (and complexity).
a separate thought: numbers have little pneumonic value, was it number 14 that was overly bright but had me snapping my fingers? or number 16? ugh! not a relaxing exercise for me.
to sum up my thoughts on this: i don't wish to play h
Post by: Pingu on June 19, 2006, 08:10:19 PM
I think it would be nice to spend more time discussing the entries.
If one song at a time was the topic for discussion, the feedback may be a lot more useful and accurate than the current method WRT to the MEs submission in question.
I for one would be able to be more honest against a number and not one of you guys.
I would give honest feed back good and bad as i see it.
At the moment im sticking more to good feed back.
Post by: Patrik T on June 20, 2006, 05:43:16 AM
| Pingu wrote on Tue, 20 June 2006 01:10 |
I for one would be able to be more honest against a number and not one of you guys. I would give honest feed back good and bad as i see it. At the moment im sticking more to good feed back. |
Pingu -
WUMP is a really good place to nit-pick things. Even though most of the masters are very good and each and individual can be considered a master, there might always be room for very tiny moves of improvement in each and every one.
Everything on an almost nerdy nit-pick level. But hey - these are special circumstances that we are not meeting too often.
Good circumstances. Should embrace them.
So it's good with good feedback because people might feel good about giving and receiving such, but the BEST THING is when people also nit-pick. I really think so. I embrace every little questioning or improvement-suggestion of my own work.
Everybody does.
That is unvaluable and very unique to WUMP. I just hope people can honestly just forward their thoughts about every master, whoever made it, good or bad feedback, because honesty is the only key to improvement.
The important thing to me is not if I make something good. The important thing to me is to know what could be improved. If anything can be improved.
I hope noone feels any pressure to just speak up and say what they like and what bugs them. We don't have to be overly polite when it comes to the comments, we just have to be honest.
For example; in WUMP 4 I happened to like Ed's master very much. If that was your master and Ed's master was yours I would like your master very much and nit-pick Ed's. Names, skills, reputation and such things are not relevant to me. Only the outcome is.
Best Regards
Patrik
Post by: ATOR on June 20, 2006, 06:06:06 AM
Post by: OTR-jkl on June 20, 2006, 10:42:14 AM
WoMP is reviewed anonymously then the submissions are identified after discussions are completed...
Post by: Pingu on June 20, 2006, 01:05:36 PM
ha!
What ever you guys want im easy.
Post by: Pingu on June 20, 2006, 04:20:26 PM
Or are we going to continue as we are?
Post by: bblackwood on June 20, 2006, 04:25:19 PM
Eliminating bias is a sure-fire way to get honest answers.
Post by: Pingu on June 20, 2006, 05:02:34 PM
Some guys brought up some good points against this, but i think this will be better for everyone.
Post by: Patrik T on June 20, 2006, 05:43:47 PM
The man behind a master, how shall he handle the commenting of his own submission in order to not reveal that it is his submission?
Best Regards
Patrik
Post by: UnderTow on June 20, 2006, 05:51:09 PM
I'll have a hard time not trying to recognise my own version. Not because I have any issues with any comments or anything like that but just because it is an extra little challenge.
Alistair
Post by: Patrik T on June 20, 2006, 05:56:49 PM
Jokin'
BR
Patrik
Post by: Pingu on June 20, 2006, 06:08:21 PM
Then i think that we should only download one at a time and then make that entry the topic of discussion over a period of time and then so on.
This might be better than getting bomb barded with heaps of masters.
I think we we should commit to not using DAWS or anything of that nature that will aid us in recognizing our own master.
It would be good if we could all forget our own entry.
I will make sure i don't deliberately identify my own, and i would like to not recognize it also.
Post by: Patrik T on June 20, 2006, 06:35:32 PM
| Pingu wrote on Tue, 20 June 2006 23:08 |
It would be good if we could all forget our own entry. |
Hasn't this always been the case with WxMP?
Post by: cerberus on June 20, 2006, 07:47:31 PM
| bblackwood wrote on Tue, 20 June 2006 16:25 |
We're going to rename/renumber them. Eliminating bias is a sure-fire way to get honest answers. |
did i miss when we put this issue to a vote?
number thirteen
Post by: MT Groove on June 20, 2006, 07:50:06 PM
Post by: bblackwood on June 20, 2006, 08:09:18 PM
| cerberus wrote on Tue, 20 June 2006 18:47 | ||
did i miss when we put this issue to a vote? number thirteen |
I don't think you missed it.
Call it a benevolent dictatorship.
Post by: cerberus on June 20, 2006, 08:54:54 PM
jeff dinces
Post by: bblackwood on June 20, 2006, 09:18:14 PM
| cerberus wrote on Tue, 20 June 2006 19:54 |
considering all the traffic wump has brought to your forum over the past 2 months, i would expect more accountability. imo, you were already getting a fair piece of our action. |
I've never been one to pander for numbers, Jeff. It's not like I benefit from doing this.
Fact is, anonymous is the best way to do this. I know, as I've been doing these exact things since about 2002. I imagine you can get past your dislike the anonymous aspect of this and will realize that it is actually better.
But no, my forum is not a democracy. Never has been, never will be. I hope that my policies make people feel at home and help them expand their abilities, but will always do what I think is best for the benefit of the forum as an avenue for teaching and learning, never in some crass attempt at 'numbers'. I know this is the complete opposite of most forums who do whatever it takes for numbers in order to sell ad-space, but it has worked for me for six years now.
I hope you continue to enjoy the forum.
Post by: Ged Leitch on June 20, 2006, 09:25:33 PM
| bblackwood wrote on Wed, 21 June 2006 02:18 | ||
I've never been one to pander for numbers, Jeff. It's not like I benefit from doing this. Fact is, anonymous is the best way to do this. I know, as I've been doing these exact things since about 2002. I imagine you can get past your dislike the anonymous aspect of this and will realize that it is actually better. But no, my forum is not a democracy. Never has been, never will be. I hope that my policies make people feel at home and help them expand their abilities, but will always do what I think is best for the benefit of the forum as an avenue for teaching and learning, never in some crass attempt at 'numbers'. I know this is the complete opposite of most forums who do whatever it takes for numbers in order to sell ad-space, but it has worked for me for six years now. I hope you continue to enjoy the forum. |
Personally i think the Anon way is best for various reasons.
Mainly, yes...the bias, but!...
I also think it makes listening to them MUCH more interesting.
Dunno exactly why, but it adds a kind of Mystique to it.
And I for one think there will be a few *Surprises* if we do it this way...
IMO blah blah blah...etc
Post by: cerberus on June 20, 2006, 10:14:48 PM
jeff dinces
Post by: Pingu on June 21, 2006, 03:12:55 AM
Post by: Patrik T on June 21, 2006, 04:56:25 AM
1. Create a sign-up thread where people just post "I'm in". And decide a deadline for signing up.
2. When the sign-up deadline has passed, Brad could just PM a dedicated number (which has no connection to which order we sign up) to each signed-up person. "You will be #10 in WUMP 5".
3. Participant uploads a file entitled "10.wav" when he's completed with the master.
In this case there is no need for renaming things and such.
BR
Patrik
Post by: Patrik T on June 21, 2006, 05:32:25 AM
| Pingu wrote on Wed, 21 June 2006 08:12 |
I like the idea that i wont have to expect to be dissapointed when i compare mine next to you guys until after. |
If you always expect to be dissapointed at your own work I think you automatically narrow your own confidence in what you do extremely much.
Post by: Pingu on June 21, 2006, 05:47:45 AM
| Patrik T wrote on Wed, 21 June 2006 16:56 |
Since the number thing happens; isn't it better to just: 1. Create a sign-up thread where people just post "I'm in". And decide a deadline for signing up. 2. When the sign-up deadline has passed, Brad could just PM a dedicated number (which has no connection to which order we sign up) to each signed-up person. "You will be #10 in WUMP 5". 3. Participant uploads a file entitled "10.wav" when he's completed with the master. In this case there is no need for renaming things and such. BR Patrik |
Doesn't this mean that each knows their own number and submission.
Post by: Patrik T on June 21, 2006, 06:02:42 AM
| Pingu wrote on Wed, 21 June 2006 10:47 |
Doesn't this mean that each knows their own number and submission. |
Yes it does.
Isn't the main engine in WUMP to feedback other entries rather than your own? I thought that was the very core and reason for WUMP.
Post by: Pingu on June 21, 2006, 06:04:51 AM
Post by: Patrik T on June 21, 2006, 07:08:52 AM
This is turning into something that will cause any sane person to drop out sooner than later.
Replacing names with numbers - fine, no problems, but extending things further into a unrealistic dreamworld with randomization and week-lasting debates about every submission (wow, that would take a half year for each wump) where everyone has to be online for 24 hours a day to participate in a effective manner is just a big cyanide capsule.
Post by: Pingu on June 21, 2006, 07:28:01 AM
| Patrik T wrote on Wed, 21 June 2006 19:08 |
Who would not be aware of his own submission? This is turning into something that will cause any sane person to drop out sooner than later. Replacing names with numbers - fine, no problems, but extending things further into a unrealistic dreamworld with randomization and week-lasting debates about every submission (wow, that would take a half year for each wump) where everyone has to be online for 24 hours a day to participate in a effective manner is just a big cyanide capsule. |
Cmon man.
Thats a bit far fetched.
Im making suggestions, as a new method has been introduced and were deciding how its going to be done.
Maybe someone should step in and tell us how its done if we cant decide.
Its not going to be the last one so if the methodology of the next one does not turn out to be ideal then we will alter it again.
I think as much feedback on each submsission is very helpful.
Post by: bblackwood on June 21, 2006, 07:37:12 AM
| Patrik T wrote on Wed, 21 June 2006 06:08 |
Replacing names with numbers - fine, no problems, but extending things further into a unrealistic dreamworld with randomization and week-lasting debates about every submission (wow, that would take a half year for each wump) where everyone has to be online for 24 hours a day to participate in a effective manner is just a big cyanide capsule. |
Agreed, I'm not into the idea of a thread/submission or one-at-a-time. The rapid fire method you guys have been using works, but it's even better if you aren't encumbered by bias...
Post by: Pingu on June 21, 2006, 07:43:44 AM
Post by: Pingu on June 21, 2006, 08:17:05 AM
Do you think after a weeks break from the song that you will be able to recognize your own master using only your ears amongst the other entries.
And not by lining them up in a daw and soloing between them but by playing it in media player from start to end, adjusting the volume to taste.
Post by: Patrik T on June 21, 2006, 09:11:41 AM
| Pingu wrote on Wed, 21 June 2006 13:17 |
Do you think after a weeks break from the song that you will be able to recognize your own master using only your ears amongst the other entries. |
I do not want to participate in psychoacoustical mojo regarding my own submission. I want to have feedback and be able to send feedback regarding improvements or problems in my own or others submissions.
If the term mastering here shall include brain surgery, I'm off in two seconds.
Just number the god damn thing and the name-biasing is gone. Let it stay at that human and musical level and do not force this into complete analytical darkness.
Post by: Pingu on June 21, 2006, 10:11:34 AM
So whats the deal?
Same as normal but the submissions have numbers and thats it?
Post by: bblackwood on June 21, 2006, 10:22:14 AM
| Pingu wrote on Wed, 21 June 2006 09:11 |
So whats the deal? Same as normal but the submissions have numbers and thats it? |
Exactly. No need to over-think it.
Post by: Pingu on June 21, 2006, 10:26:09 AM
Thats my biggest problem i over think everything.
Post by: OTR-jkl on June 21, 2006, 11:36:19 AM
| Pingu wrote on Wed, 21 June 2006 09:26 |
Cool. Thats my biggest problem i over think everything. |
But at the same time, it never hurts to plan ahead...
Post by: cerberus on June 21, 2006, 11:37:22 PM
your recording being nearly perfectly time aligned meant that we could get so many perspectives from one mix. imo, it compromised the realism of the stereo image, a hole in the center for me...but that is something we could fix, so it needed mastering; seems like it was planned that way.
smearing and overcompression and such are much harder to fix ,but there was none of that here! most live recordings i've seen in fact need some kind of restoration. this is the best live recording i've ever worked on. i didn't want to change the eq at all...only to correct for damage that would otherwise come from making it as loud as i possibly could. i'll be missing your precision the next time i work on a live recording.
jeff dinces
Post by: OTR-jkl on June 22, 2006, 12:55:08 AM
BTW, you might find this to be of some interest.
Post by: cerberus on June 22, 2006, 07:23:43 AM
jeff dinces