10 hours later…
10:29
Thanks for the reply! But I'm referring to another concept :) I'm not talking abut "why I'm able to distinguish between piano and guitar". That's true: we are good at pattern recognition, and that's easy to filter out that the two spectrum are differents, thus different sound.
But what about the same sound (i.e. the same piano played in different environments, or taking my basic example with synth which have only 10 partials).
Every time I play it in different environments, timbre (spectrum) of each partial will change. So basically you will hear "different" sound. And in fact thats what we get
so every time listen to music is "part of what we always get (and I think that's the main purpose of sound design: put elements that will be always recognized on each environments translation) and some that will change every time
If that's true, why using environments that will change that part (which is not under the control of artist, i.e. the color added by components, for example vinyl) will increase/decrease our pleasure on listening the tracK? if we focus to the important/foundamental things put by sound designer, why the "changing" part will affect the Whole listening? all should sound "the same" if brain filter out what is not part of the element of "track" that remain fixed on each environments
instead, if I play music on my €300 headphones I feel very well rather than listening to my speakers in badroom (I really don't like reflections), even if in both case my brain extrapolate the same "important" elements printed within the tracks by the artist
take the Rainbow example and a picture made by me, which I want to express colorated Rainbow. if than I see on a old tube tv or in a new LED television, I can get the same fixed objects (Rainbow, colors, position, and so on) plus some that depends by the environments (pixels definition, for example)
but I would prefer LED, because the different colors added by LED is more "linear". So environments change my perception of it, even if artist does nothing
So what't the purpose of making "stuff" if than later the perception (of some of the elements) will be alterad by enviroments?
if environments A make change in partials such that those 10 partials make a different/bad sounding result, what's the point of my work if that will be changed?
of course it won't change drastically, but many colors during procession will be altered. if I won't play on many system, would be hard for my ear distinguish between fixed elements by artist and what's could be added by environments
My problem now is that every time I listen to somethings, I ask to me "this details is from artist or from environments"? And I'm losing the ability to get music hehe
If I EQ the Whole sound (as an environemnts will do), I can hear this: an EQ. The same "component" with more/less high/mid/low
the same should apply when environments add colors (by harmonic distortion or noise), but in fact the "component" is still the same. How brain is able to "filter" color added by environments and my actual "component" sound? This is the "magic" I don't get maybe...
Is there a sort of "precision" within our brain? Such as if I change levels between just two fixed partials within a range I won't perceive differences? Maybe...
still doesn't explain why "component + color A" (i.e. digital reproduction) let feel me better than "component + color B" (i.e. vinyl) :) (of course, without carry about the fact that vinyl will be a different Mastering; let ignore at the moment...). I could do the same example with "color A = speaker 1" and color B = speaker 2"
11:20
you said "
the room and recording mechanism may add their own characteristics, but we can still recognize the pattern" how this could be possible, if the characteristics affect the "pattern" itself?. I think that if you are able to reply to me at this question, I'll got the whole point! For me it's pure "magic" ahhaha
the room and recording mechanism may add their own characteristics, but we can still recognize the pattern" how this could be possible, if the characteristics affect the "pattern" itself?. I think that if you are able to reply to me at this question, I'll got the whole point! For me it's pure "magic" ahhaha
5 hours later…
15:56
@paizza this doesn't make any sense to me. I think it is because your use of partials doesn't match anything I know
If you listen to an orchestra in a large auditorium, playing a piece of music you will be able to tell what sounds are reflected, what sounds are reverberations, and the general tonal atmosphere of the room
16:30
17:54
what environments do is add some delayed and phase shifted reflections, obviously, and potentially alter the balance of the tone (by accentuating or reducing tones)
try this example: you have a violin playing a note, and then you add a saxophone playing the same note: you hear a saxophone and a violin playing
18:41
@paizza trying to get the best sound in any environment. This is very similar to the question of why we do a lot of photo work in ICC calibrated environments when most people are going to look at it on their completely out of spec 70% sRGB monitor anyway
but at the end of the day, we produce for an intended environment and can choose our intended environment based on many factors (either closely resembling the average expected environment, or based on an idealized environment if we want the best possible experience, but knowing it will suffer for the average)
and there is a segment that say "screw it, it doesn't matter since it will be all over the map for final consumption"
I know plenty of photographers that don't bother with color calibration because they know 99.9% of people viewing it aren't going to benefit from the color calibration anyway
@paizza I can relate to this problem too. I can't go to the vast majority of concerts. I can't switch off the sound guy part of my brain and get frustrated. It's also why I listen to music primarily with either headphones I know very well or environments I know very well
@paizza a room doesn't impact the pattern of the sound you are listening to, it adds it's own patterns to it
the initial sound waves are still there, but other waves are produced by the room that may constructively or destructively interfere
if you know how the environment impacts sounds, you can effectively cancel them out of what you are perceiving. It isn't that I stop hearing them, but I know a particular resonant frequency for example, or a particular reverb, is the result of the room reflections and not the original sound
@paizza but speakers also have a particular frequency response curve. They reproduce sounds with a consistent and recognizable impact (to a trained ear). My SE535's are actually somewhat non-ideal for mixing as they have an overly powerful bass range because of the dual sub drivers, but they were the replacement that shure sent me when I had to send in my E5s for replacement
but it doesn't matter that much because I learned how the bass response works on them and can account for the difference in reproduction
would it be less work if they were neutral, sure, but it isn't that hard to work around with experience
@paizza the amount of noise and signal inaccuracy should be fairly minor on good speakers, but yes, some amount of alteration occurs from when the speaker is unable to reverse quick enough and either applies too much or too little pressure to match the wave being fed in to it
not really so much "noise" unless it's very violently over extending (for example playing a square wave through a speaker)
@RoryAlsop funny story on that, first time I tried a pair of the top end beats headphones, I thought the demo unit was broken
@paizza I think maybe you are getting either lost in the level of impact or lost in the level of control you are looking for. Art is never a tightly controlled medium. Even in something like sculpture, each person's impression of the same physical piece is going to be different
even in a live environment with no sound reinforcement, each person will hear differently based on where they are
when you are producing a work, you try to make it so that it will be the best it can be for the intended audience
that may be a highly controlled museum environment where you can exert extreme control and precision, or it may be targeted at mass consumption through beats headphones where you are trying to make sure it still sounds ok on those while sounding decent (even if not as good as it could) on a high end system
the better the mix, the better it can balance the broad variety of playback possibilities to allow it to sound good for as many people as possible in as many situations as possible
it isn't so much "magic" as it is understanding what the most common kinds of environments are and how they'll (broadly) impact the sound
for example, you can safely assume the vast majority of listeners will have poor dynamics, overdriven bass, likely a fairly noisy dac and probably tinny speakers despite the overdriven bass
because they are trying to squeeze the important elements in to the range that will play back on everything
some would argue that hurts the quality of music production overall, some would argue it makes it more accessible to people
19:22
20:46
I'm hoping it is just the language barrier, but it's really not about "significant patterns" staying, and other patterns always changing. I think what will help you is trying it:
But do it the other way and make it sound perfect for the reference monitors first, then look at what you need to change to make it sound good on headphones or a home hi-fi. And keep note of those changes
And it really doesn't matter. If people want better sound they'll buy better kit, and then they'll buy the mastered version of your music
« first day (1082 days earlier) ← previous day next day → last day (2950 days later) »
