Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Ged Leitch]

UnderTow wrote on Tue, 05 September 2006 01:03

I've always had this personal theory that some things are sonicly right and some things are sonicly wrong. Usualy when I talk to people about this they say that it is a question of taste but I don't really agree. I am convinced that sounds should have a base in or a link to physical reality. If you listen to live accoustic instruments, they might sound good or bad or whatever but they always sound real because that is exactly what they are: Real vibrating physical objects in space that cause sound waves in air. When you are recording, doing a mix or are mastering, that link to reality should remain. This isn't a question of taste. It is a question of objective reality. Everyone (with undamaged hearing) can hear this objective reality and is intimately familar with it because they have been hearing it all their lives. If you lose that link, it won't sound convincing. Now I have to explain what I mean by "link to reality": The sound doesn't have to be exactly true to the source. If you have good skills, hearing and a sense of sonic ojectivity, you can use your knowledge and memory of how things sound naturaly to manipulate the source sound to become something different while keeping that reality link. You can make it sound bigger or smaller or closer or further. You can completely mangle the sound. You can do many things to it as long as you are doing it in reference to that objective reality. If you don't, the listener has no reference, no context and can't understand the message you are trying to convey. They can't relate. This applies to all sounds! I make electronic music which in theory should have no bounds but in practise really does (if you want anyone to relate to what you are doing at least). A simple example of this is the electronic kick drum. Imagine if you are repeatedly hitting the trunk of a tree with a bamboo stick. The stick is quite light so it makes a light "tok" sound and you can hit it quite fast. These aspects go hand in hand because they come from the same physical attribute: The stick is light. If on the other hand, if you are hitting the tree with a big log, because of its weight and density, it will make a heavier "thud" sound and you can't hit that trunk as fast. Again the same physical properties of the object result in these two sonic characteristics. Now if you are creating your own electronic kick drum hit, consciously or unconsciously, you have to keep these physical attributes in mind. It doesn't mean you can't go and make a big heavy kick that thumps at an insane speed but to pull it off convincingly, you need to instinctively know the rules to be able to break them. This means that it has to fit in the context of the sonic world you are creating. If you are doing a mix, you can go from a small space to a big space or whatever but to engage the audience, you have to do it in such a way that it is "realistic". Back to the original subject. I think some people just have a better sonic memory of how things sound naturaly. This isn't just a question of hearing, it is a question of not projecting too much onto the material. Some people seem to get lost when they are in the sonic isolation of the studio. They lose track of how things sound naturaly. The longer they are in the studio, the further they drift from that universal base-line which we share: Physical reality. (This applies to many things besides just sound but thats another subject). Again, I am not advocating that everything should just sound like real life. I am saying that if somehow the sounds convey a cohesive and consistant physical world, real or imagined, the audience can be convinced to believe in that world. A bit like a good Sience Fiction book. All SF books are fiction by definition but some are believable and others just seem silly. The people that have this sonic memory and feeling of objectivity will make music/mixes/masters that tend to sound convincing to most people. The audience will relate easier and faster to the ideas. They will be sucked into the virtual sonic world. Then again I might just be rambling. I havn't slept in about 48 hours ....   Alistair

Wow,

Alastair you should NOT sleep more often, that was a damn cool post mate!
Very interesting.

[cerberus]

i'd like to frame this one and hang it on the wall.

UnderTow wrote on Mon, 04 September 2006 20:03

I've always had this personal theory that some things are sonicly right and some things are sonicly wrong. Usualy when I talk to people about this they say that it is a question of taste but I don't really agree. I am convinced that sounds should have a base in or a link to physical reality. If you listen to live accoustic instruments, they might sound good or bad or whatever but they always sound real because that is exactly what they are: Real vibrating physical objects in space that cause sound waves in air. When you are recording, doing a mix or are mastering, that link to reality should remain. This isn't a question of taste. It is a question of objective reality. Everyone (with undamaged hearing) can hear this objective reality and is intimately familar with it because they have been hearing it all their lives. If you lose that link, it won't sound convincing. Now I have to explain what I mean by "link to reality": The sound doesn't have to be exactly true to the source. If you have good skills, hearing and a sense of sonic ojectivity, you can use your knowledge and memory of how things sound naturaly to manipulate the source sound to become something different while keeping that reality link. You can make it sound bigger or smaller or closer or further. You can completely mangle the sound. You can do many things to it as long as you are doing it in reference to that objective reality. If you don't, the listener has no reference, no context and can't understand the message you are trying to convey. They can't relate. This applies to all sounds! I make electronic music which in theory should have no bounds but in practise really does (if you want anyone to relate to what you are doing at least). A simple example of this is the electronic kick drum. Imagine if you are repeatedly hitting the trunk of a tree with a bamboo stick. The stick is quite light so it makes a light "tok" sound and you can hit it quite fast. These aspects go hand in hand because they come from the same physical attribute: The stick is light. If on the other hand, if you are hitting the tree with a big log, because of its weight and density, it will make a heavier "thud" sound and you can't hit that trunk as fast. Again the same physical properties of the object result in these two sonic characteristics. Now if you are creating your own electronic kick drum hit, consciously or unconsciously, you have to keep these physical attributes in mind. It doesn't mean you can't go and make a big heavy kick that thumps at an insane speed but to pull it off convincingly, you need to instinctively know the rules to be able to break them. This means that it has to fit in the context of the sonic world you are creating. If you are doing a mix, you can go from a small space to a big space or whatever but to engage the audience, you have to do it in such a way that it is "realistic". Back to the original subject. I think some people just have a better sonic memory of how things sound naturaly. This isn't just a question of hearing, it is a question of not projecting too much onto the material. Some people seem to get lost when they are in the sonic isolation of the studio. They lose track of how things sound naturaly. The longer they are in the studio, the further they drift from that universal base-line which we share: Physical reality. (This applies to many things besides just sound but thats another subject). Again, I am not advocating that everything should just sound like real life. I am saying that if somehow the sounds convey a cohesive and consistant physical world, real or imagined, the audience can be convinced to believe in that world. A bit like a good Sience Fiction book. All SF books are fiction by definition but some are believable and others just seem silly. The people that have this sonic memory and feeling of objectivity will make music/mixes/masters that tend to sound convincing to most people. The audience will relate easier and faster to the ideas. They will be sucked into the virtual sonic world. Then again I might just be rambling. I havn't slept in about 48 hours ....   Alistair

[compasspnt]

Shall I quote it again?

[jackthebear]

Quote:

I havn't slept in about 48 hours ....

Well keep that up and there'll be only 4 or more sleeps to Christmas!

[cerberus]

compasspnt wrote on Mon, 04 September 2006 23:15

Shall I quote it again?

it's the same observation you made last week; but since my parents talked me out of becoming a car designer, i'm not really qualified to comment on that post, could take me years to understand it.

jeff dinces

[Jerry Tubb]

I suppose that to "hear things right" there are several elements to consider.

1. Born with normal or hopefully better hearing, no real defects or negative deviations from the bell curve to skew your perception.

2. A good room and monitoring system to "present" your ears with the proper sounds.

3. Conditioning, what you've learned over time by listening to music, how different styles and types of music generally sound.

4. Aural memory and imagery, the ability to compare how a mix currently sounds, with an more "ideal" sound, found in your minds' ear.

5. Ability to analyze sonic problems, and how to treat them in a way that is musically friendly to the material.

6. and most simply put, are you in general, a good listener? : - )

[mbruce333]

Jerry Tubb wrote on Wed, 06 September 2006 09:38

6. and most simply put, are you in general, a good listener? : - )

What...sorry, I drifted off on that last part...

MB

[Bernardo]

UnderTow wrote on Mon, 04 September 2006 20:03

it is a question of not projecting too much onto the material

That was a great post, but I think this bit was especially important.

[mcsnare]

This is a great thread. I think having the 'curve' in your head that you are unconscionsly comparing to, is especially important. When you do a variety of genres, as most ME's do, is when it gets tricky. I have to adjust that 'curve' in my head to deal with different mixes and desired results. If I get something wide bandwidth and pretty dynamic that doesn't need to be loud, I have an easier time hitting what I feel is the sweet spot. If I get something that's a compressed blob AND it needs to be loud, I have to put a totally different 'ideal' in my head. I think I'm just recently getting better at the second scenario. Then you have those extremes in the same day, or close to it. I have to just close my eyes and try to Feel The Force....
Dave

[compasspnt]

Dave, that reminds me of this:

http://recforums.prosoundweb.com/index.php/m/101599/6490/?sr ch=bass+difference#msg_101599

[mcsnare]

I remember reading that post, Terry. I had a very similar experience when I was setting up my room. I've also experienced just the opposite, where I eq'd old mix masters from my collection that had been mastered by a variety of great ME's. Most of the time when I eq'd without referencing to the previous master, I came up with a pretty simalar low end. On the times I didn't, I usually felt like the original master was better and I studied why I thought that choice had been made. Sometimes I'd come up with more bottom and I'd like it better, so I guess a lot of it is personal choice and/or whatever the ME was feeling on that day.
Dave

[Jerry Tubb]

mcsnare wrote on Fri, 08 September 2006 18:27

I have to just close my eyes and try to Feel The Force....

Hey Dave... I refer to that as getting in "The Zone".

You get in the sweet spot, mentally block out any distractions, listen carefully for a while, form an image in your minds ear, and when you know you're hearing it right, you reach for a knob.

It's a good feeling, kind of a zen experience, a moment when nothing else matters.

JT

[compasspnt]

Is that the Richard Simmons Method?

[Jerry Tubb]

compasspnt wrote on Sun, 10 September 2006 00:17

Is that the Richard Simmons Method?

Terry, I gave up diets, aerobics, & tight gym shorts years ago : - )

The Zone continued...

Then after you've turned a few a few EQ knobs, adjusted the compressor, tweaked a few other parameters, there comes that "Aha" moment, when you know you got it right, like a pilot on final approach... then you hit record and print.

[mcsnare]

JT you may have given up aerobics and tight gym shorts, but I'll wager you have some football-player-on-steroids sized muscles in your mouse hand.....
Dave