mattplaysguitar
Max Output Level: -55.5 dBFS
- Total Posts : 1992
- Joined: 2006/01/02 00:27:42
- Location: Gold Coast, Australia
- Status: offline
Re:Song-Producing Pearls ...
2009/09/17 21:41:12
(permalink)
drewfx1
bitflipper
Resolve to never utter either of these phrases ever again:
"If it sounds good, it is good"
- and -
"There are no rules"
And to never use the word "warmth" in any context not related to sunshine, thermostats or beverages.
Never use any of the following words in describing the difference between audio systems/devices/analog vs. digital/EQ's/etc.:
"air"
"imaging"
"depth"
"smoothness"
"harshness"
"grating"
"coldness"
"ear fatigue"
"alive"
"boxy"
"flabby"
None of them have any real meaning in the context of audio, and are only useful in marketing and in describing differences that don't actually exist. If you hear distortion, frequency response or phase problems, or whatever, just say so (and include the frequency range where you hear it).
If you are talking about differences that don't actually exist, just shut up.
drewfx
I disagree. You don't have to be technically perfect to convey an idea. If I say something sounds harsh, you know it's that high frequency problem. That opinion isn't going to differ with different people. Problem is, you can't always explain the sound of something in exact technical terms. The harmonic content, frequency balance, phase and distortion may all be saying one thing about the sound, but your ears say another thing. You can't explain what your ears are hearing with the technically measured variables, so you use descriptive words like the ones above to do so. Maybe in the future we will have meters which can measure everything, but currently we don't. Not every type of sound can be explained in these terms. Sometimes it just sounds like it does, because it does, so you address it according to how it sounds. But I do agree that they can be vague and in some instances really mean nothing - like in ads to describe a new mic, "this rich, warm mic brings air to all recordings". That obviously means nothing, but that's an ad. Not sure where I'm going with this, so I'll leave it there for now...
|
drewfx1
Max Output Level: -9.5 dBFS
- Total Posts : 6585
- Joined: 2008/08/04 16:19:11
- Status: offline
Re:Song-Producing Pearls ...
2009/09/17 22:27:12
(permalink)
mattplaysguitar
I disagree. You don't have to be technically perfect to convey an idea. If I say something sounds harsh, you know it's that high frequency problem. That opinion isn't going to differ with different people. Problem is, you can't always explain the sound of something in exact technical terms. The harmonic content, frequency balance, phase and distortion may all be saying one thing about the sound, but your ears say another thing. You can't explain what your ears are hearing with the technically measured variables, so you use descriptive words like the ones above to do so. Maybe in the future we will have meters which can measure everything, but currently we don't. Not every type of sound can be explained in these terms. Sometimes it just sounds like it does, because it does, so you address it according to how it sounds.
But I do agree that they can be vague and in some instances really mean nothing - like in ads to describe a new mic, "this rich, warm mic brings air to all recordings". That obviously means nothing, but that's an ad. Not sure where I'm going with this, so I'll leave it there for now...
Yes, as I have said, I was mainly complaining about marketing BS/reviews/etc. But I also think maybe you're cheating a little, in that you seem to want it both ways. You both say "If I say something sounds harsh, you know it's that high frequency problem. That opinion isn't going to differ with different people." and "You can't explain what your ears are hearing with the technically measured variables, so you use descriptive words like the ones above to do so." Either the words have specific, well-defined meanings that aren't "going to differ with different people", or they don't. One of my points is those words are a bit vague in definition, and, in the context of audio engineering, you need to be able to "explain what your ears are hearing with the technically measured variables", if you're going to be able to take corrective action. I really didn't mean to get everyone so upset though. You guys really do love your adjectives.  drewfx
|
mattplaysguitar
Max Output Level: -55.5 dBFS
- Total Posts : 1992
- Joined: 2006/01/02 00:27:42
- Location: Gold Coast, Australia
- Status: offline
Re:Song-Producing Pearls ...
2009/09/18 02:36:36
(permalink)
Yeah fair enough. I think you argued that rather well. I do agree that they can be very vague. Harsh sounds can be due to a lot of problems, the word doesn't describe exactly what's wrong, whereas "too much high frequency content compared to the rest of the spectrum resulted in a harsh sound" is more useful. "Or the use of a cheap condenser microphone gave high frequency distortion that resulted in a harsh sound." Two different problems, both have harsh described to it.
Still the words do still have some merit, especially if you don't know what the problem is from lack of knowledge. I think they are a good word to get you started, but then a bit more description is needed to further define the problem at hand.
|
drewfx1
Max Output Level: -9.5 dBFS
- Total Posts : 6585
- Joined: 2008/08/04 16:19:11
- Status: offline
Re:Song-Producing Pearls ...
2009/09/18 11:00:11
(permalink)
mattplaysguitar
Still the words do still have some merit, especially if you don't know what the problem is from lack of knowledge. I think they are a good word to get you started, but then a bit more description is needed to further define the problem at hand.
Yeah, that makes sense. My point was only if you already know precisely what's going on, why not use the precise words? drewfx
|
mattplaysguitar
Max Output Level: -55.5 dBFS
- Total Posts : 1992
- Joined: 2006/01/02 00:27:42
- Location: Gold Coast, Australia
- Status: offline
Re:Song-Producing Pearls ...
2009/09/18 19:53:05
(permalink)
drewfx1
mattplaysguitar
Still the words do still have some merit, especially if you don't know what the problem is from lack of knowledge. I think they are a good word to get you started, but then a bit more description is needed to further define the problem at hand.
Yeah, that makes sense. My point was only if you already know precisely what's going on, why not use the precise words?
drewfx
As long as you're talking to people who know what you're talking about, for sure.
|