Philip
Max Output Level: -34.5 dBFS
- Total Posts : 4062
- Joined: 2007/03/21 13:09:13
- Status: offline
Song-Producing Pearls ...
Please consider to share some of your 'key' pearls of late: recording, mixing, singing, performing, arranging, or such.
Preferably preach something that has burdened you ... that you feel may truly make us better songwriters (preferably without getting too commercialistic or pop-ish). (Many of us have differing on art ...)
I'll share a few breakthrough pearls that seem to have helped me (I may be wrong):
*Anyone who breaths may opt to be a musician, writer, producer, etc. ... period.
*Strive to learn basic piano, guitar, drums, and vox
*Alternate instruments and write from the heart or conscience (not the smart nor science).
*(Re-)Read Mark Baxter's The Rock-N-Roll Singer's Survival Guide
*(Re-)Read Roey Izhaki's Mixing Audio: Concepts, Practices and Tools
*Submit songs for critiques carefully ... only after patiently working it through.
*If love hurts so much, re-write the hooks so that children can remember them.
*Publicly sing, play, perform somewhere (other than on the computer).
*Collab with others (I'm oft available)
*Work on 3-4 songs during different phases.
*Never let a *friend* or *pro* master or mix for you or I ... unless he/she is willing to share ALL the data and techniques. You are the song-writer ... you deserve to not be whored-out by selfish producers.
*Strive for unique and popular artistic expression and vibe ... be willing to quickly trash the quirky aesthetic experiments ... which everyone hates.
*Don't just sift, trim, and tweak turds; do crops, overhauls, and robust changes.
*Change/Vary the rhythms oft.
*Though guilty, I try to avoid mundane repeated loops.
*Make the bass-line thick and solid. Err on excess bottom-end.
*Tambourine in 90% of songs ... they are truly "up-lifting".
*Voxengo Voxformer ... I'd be lost without it.
*Never let the mix suffer ultra-compression ... you'll be on every fellow-artist's black-list (always have wide macro-dynamics and wide micro-dynamics)
Time would fail for me to find words about:
*avoiding 640 Hz (Q=1) congestion in, yeah, 50% of instruments
*repeatedly reducing 3.5kHz (Q=1) ear-piercings with vocs and instruments, in busy mixes
*music theory books,
*oft using just one desert mic for everything (AKG 414) ... with a decent pre-Amp (like the RME firefaces)
*Patiently learning ... then later building up the gear
*Mixing with a mouse ... not a fader.
*Owning a robotic Les-Paul (self-tuner) for sanity's sake.
*Competing on Ourstage.com
*Never quit
*....
... Oops, I'll shad-up and ponder on your worthy pearls and comments.
|
SongCraft
Max Output Level: -36 dBFS
- Total Posts : 3902
- Joined: 2007/09/19 17:54:46
- Status: offline
Re:Song-Producing Pearls ...
2009/09/11 01:00:38
(permalink)
Hey Phillip
How you doing? hope life is treating you well :-)
Hmmm the primary issue with me is my own voice, for example; in regards to music style I like to rock out but my voice prefers to sing Zippy De Doo Dahs!! *it's embarrasing*
So I try to write around my voice, try alternative sounds, and I always try to get my own sound and not sound like someone else. I suppose I'm taking my weakness and trying to turn it into something stronger in relation to the whole production, the end result.
What I have also done is experiment with layering different textures of my voice, sing normally on one track and on another sing another character then blend together. Not an easy task because performances have to be really 'tight'. Vocal doubling is a technique that's been used for decades. For 'live? two singers can sing the same line.
As for other things? I could mention getting warmer sounds from digital samples 'at the source' before later processing (mixdown). For my example I'll use SampleTank as an experiment....
. Load up piano patch
. play full fisted chords left/right handed and also add single notes L/R too
. In PRV Copy/Paste performances one measure apart.
. Set velocity on the original take to over 90%
. Set velocity on the copied take to under 50%
. Set up vol envelopes to even out both so one does not appear louder than the other.
Now listen back, the lower velocity (less than 50%) sounds much smoother, fuller, warmer, no harshness at all. Then again, depending on the song those higher velocities can work well too, or both.
Getting the sound 'source' right in the begining saves time, systems resources and headaches later during final mixdown of the project.
I always save copies of songs onto another file such as copy of all original midi events and typically named; [song title]-midi-bkup and I do that also for various arrangements ideas and whatever.
I mix as I go along (tracking), try to get a good balance as I go. When it comes to mixdown there's not much to do but to try and keep it simple, on the master bus it's EQ, MultiBand, Limiter (in that order). As for panning? that's another balancing act but in the stereo field, at times it can be tricky. I try to imagine the 'sound stage' where the performers are standing, rhythm gtr left, elec' rhtyhm gtr right, piano 35% off-center, strings 35% off-center, snare slight off-center, kick n bass straight down the middle and their freq is such that they don't muddledefuddle with one another. Hi-Hats off-center near the snare, various rides, cymbals panning will vary slightly depending on the song but typically panned anywhere from around 40% off-center to 80% although for an effect I've hit a mean crash far right or left. Toms about the same. I suppose every one has their own take on this. Stereo placement is an art form in itself.
|
skullsession
Max Output Level: -57.5 dBFS
- Total Posts : 1765
- Joined: 2006/12/05 10:32:06
- Location: Houston, TX, USA
- Status: offline
Re:Song-Producing Pearls ...
2009/09/11 06:59:10
(permalink)
Never force the Muse.
She will come when she is ready.
HOOK: Skullsessions.com / Darwins God Album "Without a doubt I would have far greater listening and aural skills than most of the forum members here. Not all but many I am sure....I have done more listening than most people." - Jeff Evans on how awesome Jeff Evans is.
|
bitflipper
01100010 01101001 01110100 01100110 01101100 01101
- Total Posts : 26036
- Joined: 2006/09/17 11:23:23
- Location: Everett, WA USA
- Status: offline
Re:Song-Producing Pearls ...
2009/09/11 10:22:52
(permalink)
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.
 All else is in doubt, so this is the truth I cling to. My Stuff
|
drewfx1
Max Output Level: -9.5 dBFS
- Total Posts : 6585
- Joined: 2008/08/04 16:19:11
- Status: offline
Re:Song-Producing Pearls ...
2009/09/11 11:09:53
(permalink)
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
|
Spaceduck
Max Output Level: -50.5 dBFS
- Total Posts : 2499
- Joined: 2004/12/29 12:51:03
- Status: offline
Re:Song-Producing Pearls ...
2009/09/11 11:18:45
(permalink)
Great stuff, P! I agree with each point even though several make me squirm (such as collaborating & playing live... I don't know if I could ever go back to that happily). As for me, I have no technical pearls to offer since my mixes remain to be proven. But from a creativity standpoint, I've got a lot to say. Some of this may sound wacky, but it works for me in full force... In the film Tiger and the Snow, Roberto Benigni gives a funny yet profound lecture on poetry. I could base my entire career on that speech. Things he says... -As the poet [musician], you are the master of all the words at your disposal. Don't let the words forget it! If the word "wall" doesn't work for you then refuse to use "wall" for the next 10 years. That'll show it! -If a bird lands on your shoulder and sits there for 20 minutes, and you run home to tell your mom, and your mom says "whatever. eat your soup." Don't blame your mom or the bird. The fault is yours for not telling the story right. Poets are people whose job it is to use the right words, put things in a way that when their heart beats, they can get other people's hearts to beat. -Never, never, never, never, never, never quit And last is one that may be tough for people to swallow, but I'm starting to understand... -To convey emotion, always be happy. If you want people to feel joy, do it with happiness. If you want people to feel sorrow, do it with happiness. Everything flows from this fundamental source. ^This coming from a guy who made a feel-good movie about the Holocaust entitled "Life is Beautiful" 
|
skullsession
Max Output Level: -57.5 dBFS
- Total Posts : 1765
- Joined: 2006/12/05 10:32:06
- Location: Houston, TX, USA
- Status: offline
Re:Song-Producing Pearls ...
2009/09/11 12:42:37
(permalink)
Polar opposites?
Duck...I wrote a song a few years ago called "There Is No Beautiful Life".
HOOK: Skullsessions.com / Darwins God Album "Without a doubt I would have far greater listening and aural skills than most of the forum members here. Not all but many I am sure....I have done more listening than most people." - Jeff Evans on how awesome Jeff Evans is.
|
Spaceduck
Max Output Level: -50.5 dBFS
- Total Posts : 2499
- Joined: 2004/12/29 12:51:03
- Status: offline
Re:Song-Producing Pearls ...
2009/09/11 13:13:53
(permalink)
skullsession
Polar opposites?
Duck...I wrote a song a few years ago called "There Is No Beautiful Life".
Haha, now that's my kinda song! In general, I have a pretty bleak outlook on life & the universe, and almost all my artistic expressions come from pathos (who's doesn't?). But something about the "happy Benigni" attitude really struck me. He doesn't try to cover up the fact that life sucks eggs & that we're all going to end up as mulch sooner or later. But instead he focuses on the energy of life despite its horrible circumstances. I think people are a lot more receptive to that sort of message. Or maybe not... whiny "emo" tunes are quite the fad these days... Anyway, it's been a personal challenge of mine to keep my songs energetic even though they may be about dark subjects. Does that make them better songs? Probably not, but at least I have more fun recording them. Heh, I once wrote a dark demented rock opera called Danse Macabre... I recorded 30 seconds of it before I got annoyed and scrapped the whole thing. 
|
foxwolfen
Max Output Level: 0 dBFS
- Total Posts : 8256
- Joined: 2008/03/29 23:41:47
- Status: offline
Re:Song-Producing Pearls ...
2009/09/11 13:33:24
(permalink)
One of these days I will be non-contrary. But not today. I do not agree with a lot of what has been written here. There is a lot of very terrible and plain wrong advice. 1. Anyone who breaths may want to be a musician/singer/composer/producer/engineer, but not everybody is going to be good at it. 2. Submit your song whenever you feel the desire to. It is easier to fix problems early in the process, not later. 3. To hell with children. Write the songs you want to. 4. Collab or not, it is your choice. Work on one song, or ten, again your choice. I work on one at a time. 5. Do not write songs for others. Do not discard songs because of others. It does not matter what other people like or do not like. 6. One man's turd is another mans fertilizer. See point five above. 7. I do encourage people to mix their own music, as you will never learn anything giving it off to others, but sometimes a polish is necessary or helpful when we can no longer be objective. 8. Do not err on the side of too much bass. This is just completely wrong and will make a disaster of all mixes. 9. Tambourine? Fine for Coom-By-Ya church music, kinda gross elsewhere (in other words, that is a subjective call and really dependent on the music). 10. Technology like Voxformer is no replacement for practice and technique. It makes you lazy. 11. If it sounds good, it is good (See #5 above). 12. Rules are meant to be broken. Otherwise music would never progress and we would still be stuck with Gregorian Chants. 13. Words like warm, brittle, harsh, clear, muddy, cold, bright, and other adjectives are excellent for communicating non-technical details that describe the feelings a listener has, and that feedback is critical to developing recording, mixing and mastering skills. 14. Ear fatigue is a measurable effect. Too many of you are taking advice from people that is just plain wrong. Too many people are giving advice when they are not actually knowledgeable about the topic outside their singular personal experience, and that does not count. Too many people read one or two books, and take what you read as the gospel. It is not gospel, it is the opinion of one person. There are many techniques and many ways to accomplish a goal. No one person has a monopoly on recording or mixing ability.
post edited by foxwolfen - 2009/09/12 00:42:05
A scientist knows more & more about less & less till he knows everything about nothing, while a philosopher knows less & less about more & more till he knows nothing about everything. Composers Forum
|
jimmyman
Max Output Level: -53.5 dBFS
- Total Posts : 2193
- Joined: 2008/12/16 06:57:38
- Status: offline
Re:Song-Producing Pearls ...
2009/09/11 13:35:29
(permalink)
Great stuff, P! I agree with each point even though several make me squirm (such as collaborating & playing live... I don't know if I could ever go back to that happily). As for me, I have no technical pearls to offer since my mixes remain to be proven. But from a creativity standpoint, I've got a lot to say. Some of this may sound wacky, but it works for me in full force... In the film Tiger and the Snow, Roberto Benigni gives a funny yet profound lecture on poetry. I could base my entire career on that speech. Things he says... -As the poet [musician], you are the master of all the words at your disposal. Don't let the words forget it! If the word "wall" doesn't work for you then refuse to use "wall" for the next 10 years. That'll show it! -If a bird lands on your shoulder and sits there for 20 minutes, and you run home to tell your mom, and your mom says "whatever. eat your soup." Don't blame your mom or the bird. The fault is yours for not telling the story right. Poets are people whose job it is to use the right words, put things in a way that when their heart beats, they can get other people's hearts to beat. -Never, never, never, never, never, never quit And last is one that may be tough for people to swallow, but I'm starting to understand... -To convey emotion, always be happy. If you want people to feel joy, do it with happiness. If you want people to feel sorrow, do it with happiness. Everything flows from this fundamental source. ^This coming from a guy who made a feel-good movie about the Holocaust entitled "Life is Beautiful" spacey. i can relate to so many things you mention here. as an (all in one) type person it can get very challenging at times for someone. we write/mix/produce/perform and so many other things in order to have what we call a song. it seems (sometimes) for a while that this new work of art we've created is a gem. maybe it is maybe it isnt? for years I wrote my lyrics in a more or less "im sad" fashion. people still write like this all the time. its a "loss" "broke my heart" "you left me" or any such (or type) wording. one day i said to myself "enough of this". I said to myself if all im doing is just writing another "song" but doing it the same old way and getting the same old results then what have i accomplished? im only speaking for myself hear so my words are not meant to be advice or any such thing. its just how i feel about what im trying to do. in my case ive had to "face the facts". this could sound like a negative term but for me its a positive thing. I have allowed myself to say that any given "part of" or "completed" song of mine (can be) terrible. in doing so i find ways to "raise the bar". you mention that if a person doesnt get they're point across that it isnt the (someone elses) fault. thats the way i see it too. i have to look at me and evaluate myself to see what im doing (wrong or right) in many ways its us "teaching" ourselves. as hard as i could try to be "plain and simple" many times it has to hard/complicated/phylisofical first (and is). once a person "gets the hang of it" it sometimes is so simple we wonder why we couldnt understand it. my input on the ops subject would be to take any given "subject" "part" "track" "sound" "tone" or anything and work on it until it can be called at least good and hopefully great. there is no doubt that having fun doing all this is important. whether or not there are "standard procedures" "ways of doing things" "proticals" etc i cant say but i have found this to be true for me; i had hoped that once i got sounds that i liked i thought shurely (for example say a bass guitar sound) that i could use this "same" setup on everything. it turns out it doesnt work that way. the good news is the "better" "the start" the better a person has something to go with.
|
drewfx1
Max Output Level: -9.5 dBFS
- Total Posts : 6585
- Joined: 2008/08/04 16:19:11
- Status: offline
Re:Song-Producing Pearls ...
2009/09/11 14:47:17
(permalink)
foxwolfen
13. Words like warm, brittle, harsh, clear, muddy, cold, bright, and other adjectives are excellent for communicating non-technical details that describe the feelings a listener has, and that feedback is critical to developing recording, mixing and mastering skills.
Sorry, I disagree 100%. These words are undefined and meaningless, and thus communicate nothing but marketing BS. Non-technical listeners trying to produce/reproduce audio need to learn what distortion, phasing, noise, frequency response sound like and using undefined "touchy-feely" words only confuse things. 10 people can audition 10 different sets of monitors and each say a different set sounds warmest. Each would be 100% right because the term is undefined. You can't say "No, I'm right!", unless you define the word. If warm means elevated low mids with added 2nd order distortion to you, just say that. These words are intentionally (mis)used for marketing purposes precisely because they are undefined and meaningless. Evocative words are useful for describing something like wine, the noises animals make or other sounds found in nature, but they have no place in pro audio. We don't lack words that are defined, measurable, and well understood. Use those instead. 14. Ear fatigue is a measurable effect.
Really? What units is it measured in? Watts? Seconds? Joules? Volts? dB's? Is there an EF meter I can buy somewhere? What's the formula to describe it? I didn't say your ears/brain don't need a break occaisionally. My point is saying that one set of monitors causes more "fatigue" than another (inevitably more expensive) set is meaningless. Explain what the difference is. Frequency response? Distortion? What is it? drewfx
|
Spaceduck
Max Output Level: -50.5 dBFS
- Total Posts : 2499
- Joined: 2004/12/29 12:51:03
- Status: offline
Re:Song-Producing Pearls ...
2009/09/11 15:02:36
(permalink)
Great thoughts, jman. I think you hit the point: the basic "I'm sad" song has been done a zillion times before. It must get boring after a while (to write as well as to listen to). But if you can do a new twist on the sad song by making it more complex, or even happy, then you've hit on something rare. It can still be sad, but we should make the listener work to discover that. Do you find your newer songs are more complex (musically) as a result? I think mine are. For example, back in the old days if I was upset I'd say 'ok, D minor. slow tempo, blaaah.' But now it's like 'How about a bouncy major riff & put a twist on it to express irony or sadness?' Sometimes it ends up sounding stupid, but other times it's pure gold. I think back to some of the great jazz & blues classics. Musically speaking, these were bouncy, happy tunes. Mack the Knife - a song about a brutal serial murderer... and a real toe tapper. I love that kind of thing! there is no doubt that having fun doing all this is
important. whether or not there are "standard
procedures" "ways of doing things" "proticals" etc
i cant say but i have found this to be true for me;
i had hoped that once i got sounds that i liked i
thought shurely (for example say a bass guitar sound)
that i could use this "same" setup on everything.
it turns out it doesnt work that way.
I laughed when I read that part because it happens to me every time I turn on the power. I swear little gremlins come in the night & change all the settings, because I can never get the same sound twice. Well, maybe that's a good thing because keeps things fresh & new 
|
foxwolfen
Max Output Level: 0 dBFS
- Total Posts : 8256
- Joined: 2008/03/29 23:41:47
- Status: offline
Re:Song-Producing Pearls ...
2009/09/11 15:32:19
(permalink)
drewfx1
foxwolfen
13. Words like warm, brittle, harsh, clear, muddy, cold, bright, and other adjectives are excellent for communicating non-technical details that describe the feelings a listener has, and that feedback is critical to developing recording, mixing and mastering skills.
Sorry, I disagree 100%. These words are undefined and meaningless, and thus communicate nothing but marketing BS. Non-technical listeners trying to produce/reproduce audio need to learn what distortion, phasing, noise, frequency response sound like and using undefined "touchy-feely" words only confuse things. 10 people can audition 10 different sets of monitors and each say a different set sounds warmest. Each would be 100% right because the term is undefined. You can't say "No, I'm right!", unless you define the word. If warm means elevated low mids with added 2nd order distortion to you, just say that. These words are intentionally (mis)used for marketing purposes precisely because they are undefined and meaningless.
Evocative words are useful for describing something like wine, the noises animals make or other sounds found in nature, but they have no place in pro audio. We don't lack words that are defined, measurable, and well understood. Use those instead.
14. Ear fatigue is a measurable effect.
Really? What units is it measured in? Watts? Seconds? Joules? Volts? dB's? Is there an EF meter I can buy somewhere? What's the formula to describe it?
I didn't say your ears/brain don't need a break occaisionally. My point is saying that one set of monitors causes more "fatigue" than another (inevitably more expensive) set is meaningless. Explain what the difference is. Frequency response? Distortion? What is it?
drewfx
Yuck, you are one of those... people who want to focus on semantics (endless circular arguments based on interpretation of meaning). Those who know what recording is, or is an audiophile, knows what a warm sound is, knows what a cold sound is, harsh, presencey. Phasy is not the same as harsh, phasy is not due to presence. If somebody says my mix is harsh, I know what to fix; fatiguing, I know what to fix; warm, I know what not to fix; cold, I know what to fix; bright... dull... (I even know punctuation). Ear fatigue... are you for real? This is so basic if you do not understand how the human ear works, what the hell are you doing producing music? You want evidence... go read some EQing techniques and you will find fatigue in many tonal areas. You want evidence, take a university course in Perceptual Psychology or an engineering course in Human Factors.
A scientist knows more & more about less & less till he knows everything about nothing, while a philosopher knows less & less about more & more till he knows nothing about everything. Composers Forum
|
drewfx1
Max Output Level: -9.5 dBFS
- Total Posts : 6585
- Joined: 2008/08/04 16:19:11
- Status: offline
Re:Song-Producing Pearls ...
2009/09/11 15:56:47
(permalink)
I don't want to totally highjack this thread, but I think you're missing what my point really was - that all those terms are useless for comparing things because 2 people can both say "Mine's warmer!" and be able to defend their position. That's different from saying "This one's more distorted", which can be shown to be true or false. I just want people to use precise/measurable terms in order to cut through all the marketing BS out there. Consider this, from an AT announcement today ( http://news.harmony-centr...e-Ribbon-Microphones): "Both offer smooth, warm and natural sound with precise, articulate detail to meet the critical requirements of today's recording, broadcast and sound reinforcement professionals." Couldn't they say that about just about any microphones (I'm not saying you or I would)? If so, what's the point in saying it? As to Ear Fatigue, again, I didn't say there was no such thing, just that since you can't measure it, it's meaningless to talk about it when comparing products. I'll stop now; I'm sure I'm fatiguing everyone. drewfx
|
DW_Mike
Max Output Level: -6 dBFS
- Total Posts : 6907
- Joined: 2006/11/29 18:06:40
- Location: The arm-pit of the good 'ol US...New Jersey
- Status: offline
Re:Song-Producing Pearls ...
2009/09/11 15:56:51
(permalink)
I only have one.
More cowbell please. You just can't have enough cowbell regardless of the style of music.
Mike
Sonar X3 ~ Scarlett 18i6 ~ Home Build DAW
GA-Z77X-UD5H
Intel i7 3770k 4.2GHz
32GB RAM Crucial Ballistix Elite (4x8)
2x Samsung 250GB SSD
1TB WD Black HDD @ 7200RPM 6Gb/s 64MB
Corsair H80i Liquid cooler
Noctua Silent Fans ~ 3x120mm ~ 1x140mm
Seasonic Platinum 760w PSU
Windows 7 Pro 64Bit.
|
DW_Mike
Max Output Level: -6 dBFS
- Total Posts : 6907
- Joined: 2006/11/29 18:06:40
- Location: The arm-pit of the good 'ol US...New Jersey
- Status: offline
Re:Song-Producing Pearls ...
2009/09/11 15:57:21
(permalink)
Duplicate post. These new forums rule. Mike
post edited by chefmike8888 - 2009/09/11 16:00:17
Sonar X3 ~ Scarlett 18i6 ~ Home Build DAW
GA-Z77X-UD5H
Intel i7 3770k 4.2GHz
32GB RAM Crucial Ballistix Elite (4x8)
2x Samsung 250GB SSD
1TB WD Black HDD @ 7200RPM 6Gb/s 64MB
Corsair H80i Liquid cooler
Noctua Silent Fans ~ 3x120mm ~ 1x140mm
Seasonic Platinum 760w PSU
Windows 7 Pro 64Bit.
|
foxwolfen
Max Output Level: 0 dBFS
- Total Posts : 8256
- Joined: 2008/03/29 23:41:47
- Status: offline
Re:Song-Producing Pearls ...
2009/09/11 16:16:50
(permalink)
drewfx1
I don't want to totally highjack this thread, but I think you're missing what my point really was - that all those terms are useless for comparing things because 2 people can both say "Mine's warmer!" and be able to defend their position. That's different from saying "This one's more distorted", which can be shown to be true or false. I just want people to use precise/measurable terms in order to cut through all the marketing BS out there.
Consider this, from an AT announcement today (http://news.harmony-centr...e-Ribbon-Microphones):
"Both offer smooth, warm and natural sound with precise, articulate detail to meet the critical requirements of today's recording, broadcast and sound reinforcement professionals."
Couldn't they say that about just about any microphones (I'm not saying you or I would)? If so, what's the point in saying it?
As to Ear Fatigue, again, I didn't say there was no such thing, just that since you can't measure it, it's meaningless to talk about it when comparing products.
I'll stop now; I'm sure I'm fatiguing everyone.
drewfx
Ah, I see now. Sorry. I did not realize you were speaking in relation to marketing hype. Yes, under those circumstances, indeed the words become meaningless. You can measure it ear fatigue, but not fully in the way you might want (empirical). Sadly, we humans are not pure creatures, and we have yet to explore many areas of perception or know how to empirically measure them at this time. So in this case, it becomes a statistical measure. Not ideal, but still scientific. This actually falls under another branch of Psychology - Cognitive. We have two large acoustic research centers at my university with two anechoic chambers for measuring acoustical phenomenon. The statistics gathered are somewhat non-generalized due to the fact that all the test subjects are university students and most are in their 20's.
A scientist knows more & more about less & less till he knows everything about nothing, while a philosopher knows less & less about more & more till he knows nothing about everything. Composers Forum
|
drewfx1
Max Output Level: -9.5 dBFS
- Total Posts : 6585
- Joined: 2008/08/04 16:19:11
- Status: offline
Re:Song-Producing Pearls ...
2009/09/11 16:27:11
(permalink)
foxwolfen
You can measure it ear fatigue, but not fully in the way you might want (empirical). Sadly, we humans are not pure creatures, and we have yet to explore many areas of perception or know how to empirically measure them at this time. So in this case, it becomes a statistical measure. Not ideal, but still scientific.
This actually falls under another branch of Psychology - Cognitive. We have two large acoustic research centers at my university with two anechoic chambers for measuring acoustical phenomenon. The statistics gathered are somewhat non-generalized due to the fact that all the test subjects are university students and most are in their 20's.
Yeah, that's an interesting subject that I'm not too knowledgable about. Have any (general, not necessarily quantifiable) connections between various audio qualities (high frequency response, distortion, etc.) and ear fatigue been established? I mean, other than listening time and volume? I'm not really aware of anything about this beyond the fact that your perception changes over time, after which you need some time away to "reset". drewfx
|
foxwolfen
Max Output Level: 0 dBFS
- Total Posts : 8256
- Joined: 2008/03/29 23:41:47
- Status: offline
Re:Song-Producing Pearls ...
2009/09/11 17:22:03
(permalink)
Cognition and perception are very illusory, but the phenomenon of psycho-acoustics is well established and put to practical use.
Here are some real world examples you may be familiar with:
Kid repellent: High frequency tones that are not heard by adults over the age of thirty for the most part, but bug the heck out of kids, even though the tone is below the audible threshold.
Disorientation: When you take away certain cues, we become disoriented. Some people experience vertigo in an anechoic chamber. If you close your eyes, you might fall down and not even be aware of it until you hit the ground. We actually use echo location like a bat, we are just not aware of it until its gone.
Anyway, most decent references will mention ear fatigue due to certain frequencies, mostly around the 400hz range and then again at round 2k. Why these areas tend to be fatiguing is due to their proximity to various components of the human voice, which is what our ears are most attuned to.
A scientist knows more & more about less & less till he knows everything about nothing, while a philosopher knows less & less about more & more till he knows nothing about everything. Composers Forum
|
j boy
Max Output Level: -48 dBFS
- Total Posts : 2729
- Joined: 2005/03/24 19:46:28
- Location: Sunny Southern California
- Status: offline
Re:Song-Producing Pearls ...
2009/09/11 19:07:19
(permalink)
I'm waiting for Andy Rooney to take this subject up on an upcoming '60 Minutes' show.
|
Jeff Evans
Max Output Level: -24 dBFS
- Total Posts : 5139
- Joined: 2009/04/13 18:20:16
- Location: Ballarat, Australia
- Status: offline
Re:Song-Producing Pearls ...
2009/09/11 21:26:57
(permalink)
Something to think about using terms to describe audio. I also teach sound engineering as well as compose and produce. I have taught at two institutions now where they have both advocated the use of terms to describle how something sounds. It is very effective. Getting a student to think about say where 200Hz - 300Hz is hard but if you apply a word like thick or honky to that area then they seem to grasp the idea much quicker. Then later when we might say oh that track is a bit thick or honky then they are reaching for that part of the spectrum. So it's not bad at all but in fact a great learning tool. Manufacturers have been doing it for years and it is just accepted jargon in fact it is our language really. Everybody here know as soon as they hear a word like warm we all know what it means and sounds like. (Kurzweils are warm and fat, and they can be icy and cold!) I use analogies all the time and create these visual scenes to describe things like compression for example. I also have taught electronics in the past too. Try explaining to someone what voltage, current and resistance is! I have got a beautiful analogy for that. Students are saying to me all the time gee Jeff after that analogy I can really see it now. Anything that helps us to understand the complexities of audio production is welcome as far as I am concerned. And besides the words are fun and they make them laugh.
post edited by Jeff Evans - 2009/09/11 21:29:49
Specs i5-2500K 3.5 Ghz - 8 Gb RAM - Win 7 64 bit - ATI Radeon HD6900 Series - RME PCI HDSP9632 - Steinberg Midex 8 Midi interface - Faderport 8- Studio One V4 - iMac 2.5Ghz Core i5 - Sierra 10.12.6 - Focusrite Clarett thunderbolt interface Poor minds talk about people, average minds talk about events, great minds talk about ideas -Eleanor Roosevelt
|
SongCraft
Max Output Level: -36 dBFS
- Total Posts : 3902
- Joined: 2007/09/19 17:54:46
- Status: offline
Re:Song-Producing Pearls ...
2009/09/12 00:45:51
(permalink)
There is absolutely nothing wrong with describing sound or feeling of a song as; 'warmth' or 'harshness'.
|
SongCraft
Max Output Level: -36 dBFS
- Total Posts : 3902
- Joined: 2007/09/19 17:54:46
- Status: offline
Re:Song-Producing Pearls ...
2009/09/12 00:46:57
(permalink)
Jeff Evans
Something to think about using terms to describe audio. I also teach sound engineering as well as compose and produce. I have taught at two institutions now where they have both advocated the use of terms to describle how something sounds. It is very effective. Getting a student to think about say where 200Hz - 300Hz is hard but if you apply a word like thick or honky to that area then they seem to grasp the idea much quicker. Then later when we might say oh that track is a bit thick or honky then they are reaching for that part of the spectrum. So it's not bad at all but in fact a great learning tool.
Manufacturers have been doing it for years and it is just accepted jargon in fact it is our language really. Everybody here know as soon as they hear a word like warm we all know what it means and sounds like. (Kurzweils are warm and fat, and they can be icy and cold!)
I use analogies all the time and create these visual scenes to describe things like compression for example. I also have taught electronics in the past too. Try explaining to someone what voltage, current and resistance is! I have got a beautiful analogy for that. Students are saying to me all the time gee Jeff after that analogy I can really see it now. Anything that helps us to understand the complexities of audio production is welcome as far as I am concerned. And besides the words are fun and they make them laugh.
Excellent post Jeff :-)
|
Kim Lajoie
Max Output Level: -88 dBFS
- Total Posts : 117
- Joined: 2009/04/28 17:19:07
- Status: offline
Re:Song-Producing Pearls ...
2009/09/12 02:08:37
(permalink)
|
drewfx1
Max Output Level: -9.5 dBFS
- Total Posts : 6585
- Joined: 2008/08/04 16:19:11
- Status: offline
Re:Song-Producing Pearls ...
2009/09/12 13:01:08
(permalink)
Kim Lajoie
It's all here:
http://kimlajoie.wordpress.com/
;-)
-Kim.
Thanks Kim, this is a great addition. TSome interesting thoughts, and there's really nothing there that I would disagree with, which is unusual for me . The only thing I might add is, in the "Dynamic range and headroom", you might want to add that, technically, 32/64 bit floating point processing allows for increased headroom inside the DAW (Sonar and all the other DAW's I've tested can go way above 0db internally without clipping). The is more of a narrow technical point (which agreeably might confuse newbies), but it's such a common myth that you can't go above 0db, that I hate to see it repeated. Thanks again, drewfx
|
Dave King
Max Output Level: -46.5 dBFS
- Total Posts : 2862
- Joined: 2005/11/13 14:19:48
- Location: Connecticut, USA
- Status: offline
Re:Song-Producing Pearls ...
2009/09/12 13:35:52
(permalink)
One more... Experiment with different Keys for the vocalist. A half-step (or more) up or down can make a huge difference.
Dave King www.davekingmusic.com SONAR X2 Producer 64-Bit
StudioCat PC
Windows 7 Home Premium, Service Pack 1
Intel Corel i5 3450 CPU @3.10 GHz
RAM 8 GB
M-Audio Delta 44 M-Audio MidiSport 2x2
|
Philip
Max Output Level: -34.5 dBFS
- Total Posts : 4062
- Joined: 2007/03/21 13:09:13
- Status: offline
Re:Song-Producing Pearls ...
2009/09/12 15:38:45
(permalink)
Woah!
There are many pearls you've all offered here ... and some anti-pearls.
There's absolutely no need for weird debates here, folks. Your/My priceless pearl may always be another's cheap-counterfeit ... your pearl is what works for YOU.
Share your pearls, carefully, and we'll all benefit ... but please don't trample on other artist's pearls!
With that said: I'm astonished at these pearls you've offered:
Jeff: I can see now a mix of mine that is thick and honky and the offending fundamental freqs I must rapple with.
Shad: IIRC ... you may be stressing that pearls aren't necessarily good-for-all artists and listeners. That's fair enough. Furthermore, what is a pearl for me this year may be a cheap-stone tomorrow.
But, methinks, I'll always proclaim, #1: anyone can be a good musician, singer, song-writer, etc. that wants to be, period! ... good to someone's ears at least ... depending on genre, age, etc. JMO!
Drew: Please elaborate a bit on the 'never' terms. Personally, I prefer numeric (frequency) terms mostly ... but 'sometimes' feel the qualitative term works to help me fix things (as per Jeff and others).
Duck: '-Never, never, never, never, never, never quit' and strive to be happy while performing, creating, etc. If only everyone would say that! Great and assuring words to my ears.
Dave: And I've been jumping 2-3 full steps oft (for vocs and choirs) while seeing other musicians adjust a half-step. Excellent pearl!
Gregg: Always great to hear and study your pearls. I'm reading them repeatedly to digest: ... you did what I just did?:
So many 'worthy' pearls of late: Singing and vox pearls, mixing and mastering pearls ... !
Bit, Skull, just when I thought I had it all encapsulated, you forced me to stretch my imagination.
Mike: I, too, had a first love for cowbells
Jimmy: the good news is the "better" "the start" the better
a person has something to go with.
While doubtless true to me (along with validating Duck's unctions)
... I have also experienced the gospel of: All turds can be fixed.
|
Jeff Evans
Max Output Level: -24 dBFS
- Total Posts : 5139
- Joined: 2009/04/13 18:20:16
- Location: Ballarat, Australia
- Status: offline
Re:Song-Producing Pearls ...
2009/09/12 19:18:25
(permalink)
Hi Philip,
I was not suggesting that any of your mixes might be thick or honky. But I do want to pass on some advice. For some reason often in a mix there can be a build up of energy around this tricky 300 Hz area. When you are doing your final mastering often a little dip in this area around 300 Hz of about -2 or -3db will improve a mix a lot. A lot of clarity will result in all other parts of the spectrum for such a simple and small dip.
Learn to make very small changes in EQ as well. Like +1db or -1.5db. When you get better at mixing and mastering these very small changes become very obvious after a while. Not at first but in time they do. Then you realise that +12 db of treble boost is just plain ridiculous!
Specs i5-2500K 3.5 Ghz - 8 Gb RAM - Win 7 64 bit - ATI Radeon HD6900 Series - RME PCI HDSP9632 - Steinberg Midex 8 Midi interface - Faderport 8- Studio One V4 - iMac 2.5Ghz Core i5 - Sierra 10.12.6 - Focusrite Clarett thunderbolt interface Poor minds talk about people, average minds talk about events, great minds talk about ideas -Eleanor Roosevelt
|
Philip
Max Output Level: -34.5 dBFS
- Total Posts : 4062
- Joined: 2007/03/21 13:09:13
- Status: offline
Re:Song-Producing Pearls ...
2009/09/12 19:42:28
(permalink)
Thanks Jeff,
It was coincidental (like you read my mind).
In a recent congested mix (today) I tried a dynamic compressor in the 140 to 640 range (with no mu gain) and multiple track EQ cuts (Adams monitors). I hoped to enhance the bass-line below and mids above,thus.
As you suggest, I'm scared of EQing too much on the master (i.e., the numbers you oft restrict to). Jimmy's ears are well tuned to spot macro and micro EQ problems, too.
... but must listen oft to understand and assimilate (I'm just 3-4 years into this).
I'm hoping to get to the point where my ears can safely mix at low-room volumes and make the connection of all the qualitative frequency elements, F-M curves, etc.
|
drewfx1
Max Output Level: -9.5 dBFS
- Total Posts : 6585
- Joined: 2008/08/04 16:19:11
- Status: offline
Re:Song-Producing Pearls ...
2009/09/13 03:33:10
(permalink)
Philip
Drew: Please elaborate a bit on the 'never' terms. Personally, I prefer numeric (frequency) terms mostly ... but 'sometimes' feel the qualitative term works to help me fix things (as per Jeff and others).
Philip Well, part of that was me going all left-brained on you and preferring quantitative, precisely defined terms. I mean, why say "bright" or "edgy" if you already know the exact frequency range you mean (I don't know about yours, but none of my EQ's sweep from warm/muddy to bright/edgy/airy, they all use Hz/kHz). But I was really talking about using those terms in relation to product comparison/equipment reviews/marketing BS. My original quote was: "Never use any of the following words in describing the difference between audio systems/devices/analog vs. digital/EQ's/etc.:" I feel they are useless in that context and overused and abused to the point of being meaningless. I certainly don't disagree with Jeff (and others) that those words can be useful in another context (to critique a mix for instance), and especially for people who aren't experienced in audio production (and who don't know a kHz from a car rental company). However, to prove my point I did a search of the word "warm" in Harmony Central news releases. Here is a sampling of PR quotes: "warm, detailed sound" "it can add real and hearable warm, color and dynamics" "to enhance harmonics and enduce warm analog saturation" "with a warm, transparent sound reminiscent of popular vintage microphones" "recreate the warm sound of magnetic recording tape" "gives you that warm, saturated sound" "to produce the warm, rich and ..." " Extreme Warmth was designed to not only soften excessive details, but warm up and fatten the track as well" "delivering the rich, warm sound and expressiveness..." These kind of descriptions go on literally into the hundreds. The point is if everything is warm, the word is meaningless. It's like saying "Everyone is exceptional!". It might sound nice to some people, but if you think about it, it's really an idiotic statement. Note also that the words I quoted are not only qualitative, evocative, descriptive words (which is why we might like to use them), they also convey subjective judgement. Unfortunately, IMHO, they are often used in contexts where passing judgement is inappropriate. If all you really want to say is "6-8kHz", why say "really nice 6-8kHz" or "really ugly 6-8kHz"? To come full circle on this (with much thanks to Spaceduck for a nice post), "As the poet [musician], you are the master of all the words at your disposal." Use them appropriately, but please don't overuse, abuse or misuse them. drewfx
|