One Synth Challenge #128: OB-Xd from discoDSP (mmGhost wins!)

[Tj Shredder]

I vote for keeping the system as it is.
Accuracy is not the point. I have difficulties with the five already. I try to give a 5 only to music which really touches me, which is rare. A 4 for music which at least inspires me. If it leaves me cold, its a 3, if it makes me run away and I can't stand it a 2 (might be caused by traumas in my youth and does not mean its really that bad...; - ). Except for my own entry I would not give a 1. No ones music deserves a 1, its a heroic act to participate already...
Within my own criteria there is no technical criteria like sound design (though it can make the difference between inspiring and leaving me cold.) or production quality (though too much compression could quickly want me to run away...).
But that is just me...
I am happy with that rough order, and the more voters the more "accurate" it will actually be. That teaches us a science called statistics...

[zarf]

Thanks for sharing your voting criteria Tj - that's really interesting. There are so many differrent approaches

For me, I'm not trying to suggest that the final scores would be more 'accurate' if we changed it - my brain gets boggled by that level of analysis! I can't even work out if people who tend to have low 'generosity' influence the result more or less than those with high 'generosity' - statistics is hard (for me).

Increased range would be great for me just becuause the way I like to rate things often leaves me feeling uncomfortable, having to give two tracks the same score, because I don't have enough 'bins' to show the difference in my voting.

It's even more so because I try to avoid using 2s as well - because some people think that 3=average, >3=good and <3=bad. Even though this is not true for my votes at all, I don't want people to think I'm saying it is 'bad' so I try to avoid using 2s even though the extra 'bin' would be helpful.

Are there enough people interested in this to bother with a poll to see how the opinions stack up? Even if we didn't change anything, it might be interesting to get a clearer view on how the community feels?

[ThePresent]

Personally, the five point system does a leveling job for me, meaning: it forces me to temper my personal music taste a bit....
....I know the voting is a very personal thing, and a 5 point system won’t change that, but this “slightly” leveling effect, to me, is an advantage.

Ok, I have reviewed your vote in the scoresheet (OSC128) and I have seen that you have not given anyone one (1) point. So as it seems, you are in the majority group of people who do not use the full 5-point scale.

In practice you are saying, which is respectable, that you like the 4-point scale. Because if we really wanted to apply a 5-point scale, we would have to raise it to 6 points (in the sense that more than 80 percent of the contestants month after month refuse to use one (1) point to vote, including yourself and me too. You just check the spreadsheets of the past few months to verify it).

What I have said in my first post is that it seems to me that 4 points is insufficient to value 30, 40 or 50 tracks and that leads to a very inaccurate results.

True, I only award someone a 1 if I get the feeling someone didn’t care for whatever they submitted, which should be quite rare. Maybe I awarded a 1 in my early days a few years ago, but not nowadays.
And yes, inaccuracy, it’s what I mean with leveling effect: a bit of a coarse way to judge tracks.

[schiing]

I'm happy with the current system. In sum, the different ways in which people weigh their votes seem to create pretty fair results to me. I give 3-5 points most of the time, so for me a three-point scale would probably be enough (it's not a suggestion )

I agree that with a larger scale, I would probably start weighing top scores more according to personal tastes, and I don't really want to do that. Now the 'bins' are massive, with large internal quality differences, yes, but overall I think my votes are more fair and objective this way - and I like that. All entries are in the bracket where they belong, taste notwithstanding! [tongue-firmly-in-cheek]

For lower scoring entries, with a 10-point scale I'm pretty sure I wouldn't go below a 5 anyway. For me (as a voter and a participant), going below average sends a signal that, in addition to displaying poor chops, you haven't really given it your best. And after two years, I can't think of more than a handful examples where I felt that this was the case.

Also, I can't deny that a simple system is a time saver. I know I've dropped out of contests because I didn't have the time to review the other entries properly (on the other hand I can easily make up my own "3-point scale" no matter what the range is, so it's no big deal)

Also: Congrats to the winners!

[L-EctroBit]

I am happy with that rough order, and the more voters the more "accurate" it will actually be. That teaches us a science called statistics...

What I meant about "inaccurate results" was not the final results of the contest really, but in this case the individual end voting. More in the sense said for zarf before:

Increased range would be great for me just becuause the way I like to rate things often leaves me feeling uncomfortable, having to give two tracks the same score, because I don't have enough 'bins' to show the difference in my voting.

[L-EctroBit]

It's even more so because I try to avoid using 2s as well - because some people think that 3=average, >3=good and <3=bad. Even though this is not true for my votes at all, I don't want people to think I'm saying it is 'bad' so I try to avoid using 2s even though the extra 'bin' would be helpful.

For lower scoring entries, with a 10-point scale I'm pretty sure I wouldn't go below a 5 anyway. For me (as a voter and a participant), going below average sends a signal that, in addition to displaying poor chops, you haven't really given it your best.

These two opinions from zarf and schiing bring to my attention one of the things that I think make voting in OSC not comfortable for some participants.
Is clear to me the concern that they feel about what the other contestants may think about the given votes, specially low scores. I have felt the same way many times.

That is why national voting in many countries is private. So that people can vote with complete freedom. I think the fact that the votes in OSC are made public in a scoresheet not allow to many contestants to vote with freedom and spread all 5 points according to their level of technical knowledge, musical tastes and conscience (there is always a small percentage of participants who do strategic votes).

Maybe if the results in OSC were changed from public to private, the contestants would find the freedom to use all five points to vote, without worrying about what is going to think the people when a low score is given to a track.

[TheNeverScene]

I think the 5 point system is good, but maybe a nulling of our own track would open it up to a full force 5 point system...so a zero point default or at least the option to give Jasinski 0's every month would be nice!

[jasinski]

I think the 5 point system is good, but maybe a nulling of our own track would open it up to a full force 5 point system...so a zero point default or at least the option to give Jasinski 0's every month would be nice!

We definitely need this

[Rellik]

Congrats everyone on a great round! I’ll take the second copy of Discovery please - most of my music output is OSC so I barely use commercial stuff, but I’ve wanted Discovery for about half my life

[doctorbob]

Thinking about it … just adding in a zero bin for our own track to allow 1-5 for everything else would be a good start.

dB

[IV!]

It's even more so because I try to avoid using 2s as well - because some people think that 3=average, >3=good and <3=bad. Even though this is not true for my votes at all, I don't want people to think I'm saying it is 'bad' so I try to avoid using 2s even though the extra 'bin' would be helpful.

I would like to clarify for myself the voting procedure and your attitude to it. I distribute 5 votes on five tracks. Doesn't that mean I give everyone else 0 votes? And if 1 is bad, then what do you (not only you, Zarf) think about the rest of the tracks?) In this case perhaps such a system would be suitable: one five, two fours, three threes (maybe a few twos just in case), and nothing else!

Maybe I misunderstood the voting system because I gave 5 votes to the five coolest tracks in the competition, and actually the cool tracks I wanted to give a vote to were about eight to nine. Therefore from the voting systems offered by you I like 1-10!

[doctorbob]

In the end we all vote how we feel! But, perhaps we need to get into the psyche of everyone that you are "scoring" using a range 1-5 and that 1 does not mean bad, but that 5 just means you liked this track more than a track given a 1. I try to be objective in the areas of composition, arranging, sound design, mixing and mastering. I have to be subjective when it comes to whether I like the track/music more then another. This will/has to be based on personal preferences (of course) and also, to some extent, my knowledge of the genres. Putting all this together I can arrive at a score - so in my eyes/ears you get "less good", "not so good", "good", "better", "best" or whatever you like to call the score bins. Being a child of the 1950's my exposure to musical genres is wide, but the subtle distinctions between the various "newer" genres sometimes escapes me, and then, how well they have been programmed/executed/performed is moot.

The great thing about OSC is that we have music composed and submitted from a wide range of genre, and that is SO refreshing to hear. After submitting entries once a month for over 5 years now, I have had high and low scoring tracks. Which of my tracks come high or low often surprises me. That is, I personally cannot tell whether MY track is one everyone will like or not like! My usual position is halfway, in other words, half of you like what I do, half of you don't … and that's fine.

For me OSC is an incentive to create a new music track once a month, along with the ability to discover a new VSTi, and use/struggle/learn along with a small but interesting and supportive community.

Hope that makes some sort of sense

dB

[Tj Shredder]

It's even more so because I try to avoid using 2s as well - because some people think that 3=average, >3=good and <3=bad. Even though this is not true for my votes at all, I don't want people to think I'm saying it is 'bad' so I try to avoid using 2s even though the extra 'bin' would be helpful.

Unfortunately more steps would not help at all that problem...

Sometimes even two is better than 5. I love that notion, that there are only two motivations for any decision. Either you decide out of love, or out of fear. If you reflect upon your own decisions and restrict yourself to those two you gain a lot and learn about yourself. If you‘d allow more you gain nothing anymore. It forces you to accept your fear as valid as love for example.
The same with this low number system, it forces you to find your personal criteria and leaves less space for things like, „I like her therefore I give 1 point more“... Its less prone to self corruption...
We must not forget, this voting is not science, where 7 or 10 might be better. Its just a game to have fun together and encourages us to make music and share it...

[zarf]

I would like to clarify for myself the voting procedure and your attitude to it. I distribute 5 votes on five tracks. Doesn't that mean I give everyone else 0 votes? And if 1 is bad, then what do you (not only you, Zarf) think about the rest of the tracks?) In this case perhaps such a system would be suitable: one five, two fours, three threes (maybe a few twos just in case), and nothing else!

Maybe I misunderstood the voting system because I gave 5 votes to the five coolest tracks in the competition, and actually the cool tracks I wanted to give a vote to were about eight to nine. Therefore from the voting systems offered by you I like 1-10!

Yes, I think you have misunderstood the system
You have to vote for everyone. You must give everyone a score, from 1-5.
It is entirely up to you how you do that.
Some people give a set number of 5s and 4s.
Some people give lots of 1 and 2 and only higher to a few tracks.
Some people regard 3 as 'average' and then give higher if they rate it better than average, and lower if they think it is worse than average.
Some (like myself) use the scores as a relative scale with no absolute meaning.
Some people try to be as 'objective' as possible, and seek to vote based on various criteria, not just what they like. Other people seem to vote only based on what they like. Some do a mixture of both.
Over time quite a few people have explained their way of voting, and there are many differences - but the one thing everyone must do is give a score to every track.

I think if you look at the score chart you will see that your votes were not included. From what you say, I suspect that was because you didn't give everybody a score?

Hope this helps

[zarf]

It's even more so because I try to avoid using 2s as well - because some people think that 3=average, >3=good and <3=bad. Even though this is not true for my votes at all, I don't want people to think I'm saying it is 'bad' so I try to avoid using 2s even though the extra 'bin' would be helpful.

Unfortunately more steps would not help at all that problem...

Well, maybe not for you, but it would certainly help me
Perhaps you don't follow my problem.
I would like (say) to split all the tracks into (say) 4 groups based on my rating.
But I know that some people seem to insist that a score below 3 means that there is a 'problem' with the track, or it is 'bad'.
Because I do not feel that there is a 'problem' or it is 'bad' - I am reluctant to use the '2' because I think that some people will mis-interpret that.
If I had 1-7, I could use 4,5,6,7: I would have 4 'grades' I could use, and I would not have to give anyone a 'bad' (in their perception - not mine) score.

Sometimes even two is better than 5. I love that notion, that there are only two motivations for any decision. Either you decide out of love, or out of fear. If you reflect upon your own decisions and restrict yourself to those two you gain a lot and learn about yourself. If you‘d allow more you gain nothing anymore. It forces you to accept your fear as valid as love for example.
The same with this low number system, it forces you to find your personal criteria and leaves less space for things like, „I like her therefore I give 1 point more“... Its less prone to self corruption...
We must not forget, this voting is not science, where 7 or 10 might be better. Its just a game to have fun together and encourages us to make music and share it...

That's interesting! I like your exploration.
I believe I tend to vote out of 'love' - if we use these terms In fact, that is why I don't want to give a score that somebody else will 'take the wrong way'. I must say I am a little confused by your idea that 2 motivations leads to a 2 point scale
Regarding "I like her therefore I give 1 point more" - I can say with some confidence that I don't think I ever do that. I give points based on the music, not the person At least, that's what I think I do with my current level of self awareness