Sine energy experiment (Sound Design / Master)

Have an urge to learn, or a calling to teach? Want to share some useful Youtube videos? Do it here!
RobC
Posts: 894
Joined: 10 Mar 2018

Post 24 Sep 2018

selig wrote:
24 Sep 2018
RobC wrote:
I thought you meant by 'untouched system', that we generally don't equalize our device to our hearing during work, but try to keep its response flat.
The recordings themselves, what we can load as a waveform, do get processed. They get split into frequency bands, and the average levels of those bands are brought to the same level. That's what I dubbed as 'flattened' for now.

But I think it will be best to wait for a beat, made with this method, so you can hear what it will be like. This might be a bit complicated to just talk about.
Ouch- so the entire mix is run through all these filters, just to make it “flat” (even though flat probably sounds bad)? Have you analyzed good sounding mixes? If so, you’ll notice none of them are spectrally flat, and most of them don’t look alike - indicating there isn’t “one” setting that works for all types of music.

And when you say flat, you mean like white noise on a spectrum, or pink noise (more preferable) or some other arbitrary standard?

Are you trying to take an artistic process, and make it conform to some “standard” response curve (e.g., “flat”)? It sounds like you’re taking the “ears” out of the equation, and just making every frequency range hit some sort of target?

Apologies if I’m missing something here - still sounds like a solution in search of a problem as you’ve described above. But I’m still interested in making sure I’m understanding the basic concept, and trying to understand what “problem” this solution is addressing. Maybe I’ve totally missed your intention here, and if so it is not at all intentional!


Sent from some crappy device using Tapatalk
I just checked the noise sample I posted a couple comments earlier here, and it doesn't sound that bad already. Sure I'd add some flavor to it as a general listener, but it sounds pretty okay as is.
Personally, I don't understand why it's a problem, if every single sound would be perfectly audible (even if we do remove some bands - think high/low pass filtering).

There are good sounding mixes, but I believe it's possible to beat them this way. And the differences between songs would still be there, if the filters are applied to every single sound (drum hits, notes, etc.) individually.

Again, listen to the noise sample I posted. That's flattened the way I said. But if you generally listen to a sine wave sweep, you hear the sound that has equal energy in every band, too.

In total, this kind of takes the ears out, yes. Then, when the user listens to the song, they can add their ears to it with EQing.

We can take Thriller for example. As the song truly begins with the bass line, I (or rather just my ears) for example find the hats way too sharp, I'd like the kick to have just a bit more treble, and the bass is a bit too much in the low end. If I start equalizing that, then either the hats get even sharper, or the kick gets lost in higher ranges - depending if I boost or drop highs when I equalize it for myself on my playback device. If I tweak the low end, then the kick is going to lose quite a bit, too.

That is something that can't be controlled with simple tools, like an EQ on a phone for example, on the go, and I'm not overly fond of it.

That said, I'm not sure if it will all work the way I imagine it! Still a lot of work to do...

User avatar
selig
Moderator
Posts: 7251
Joined: 15 Jan 2015

Post 24 Sep 2018

RobC wrote:
24 Sep 2018

I just checked the noise sample I posted a couple comments earlier here, and it doesn't sound that bad already. Sure I'd add some flavor to it as a general listener, but it sounds pretty okay as is.
Personally, I don't understand why it's a problem, if every single sound would be perfectly audible (even if we do remove some bands - think high/low pass filtering).

There are good sounding mixes, but I believe it's possible to beat them this way. And the differences between songs would still be there, if the filters are applied to every single sound (drum hits, notes, etc.) individually.

Again, listen to the noise sample I posted. That's flattened the way I said. But if you generally listen to a sine wave sweep, you hear the sound that has equal energy in every band, too.

In total, this kind of takes the ears out, yes. Then, when the user listens to the song, they can add their ears to it with EQing.

We can take Thriller for example. As the song truly begins with the bass line, I (or rather just my ears) for example find the hats way too sharp, I'd like the kick to have just a bit more treble, and the bass is a bit too much in the low end. If I start equalizing that, then either the hats get even sharper, or the kick gets lost in higher ranges - depending if I boost or drop highs when I equalize it for myself on my playback device. If I tweak the low end, then the kick is going to lose quite a bit, too.

That is something that can't be controlled with simple tools, like an EQ on a phone for example, on the go, and I'm not overly fond of it.

That said, I'm not sure if it will all work the way I imagine it! Still a lot of work to do...
I'm not sure I'm following everything you're saying, but I'll just say that music fans don't listen to the kick or the bass, or the hi hats. They listen to the song.

Only an engineer wants to re-EQ an already amazing sounding mix, and of all the records I'd want to EQ, Thriller is probably very low on that list!

The noise file you sent - is noise. What am I supposed to be hearing when I listen to it?

I'm not sure your goal - first I thought it was to equalize your hearing, then to flatten out a mix, now it sounds like it's to beat world class mixes with a "formula" of some sort. I personally don't think art works that way, but again, I don't want to pre-judge what you're doing here. For all I know, you could be on to "the next big thing" in the audio world. So keep at it, share when you have something to share!
:)
Selig Audio, LLC

RobC
Posts: 894
Joined: 10 Mar 2018

Post 25 Sep 2018

selig wrote:
24 Sep 2018
RobC wrote:
24 Sep 2018

I just checked the noise sample I posted a couple comments earlier here, and it doesn't sound that bad already. Sure I'd add some flavor to it as a general listener, but it sounds pretty okay as is.
Personally, I don't understand why it's a problem, if every single sound would be perfectly audible (even if we do remove some bands - think high/low pass filtering).

There are good sounding mixes, but I believe it's possible to beat them this way. And the differences between songs would still be there, if the filters are applied to every single sound (drum hits, notes, etc.) individually.

Again, listen to the noise sample I posted. That's flattened the way I said. But if you generally listen to a sine wave sweep, you hear the sound that has equal energy in every band, too.

In total, this kind of takes the ears out, yes. Then, when the user listens to the song, they can add their ears to it with EQing.

We can take Thriller for example. As the song truly begins with the bass line, I (or rather just my ears) for example find the hats way too sharp, I'd like the kick to have just a bit more treble, and the bass is a bit too much in the low end. If I start equalizing that, then either the hats get even sharper, or the kick gets lost in higher ranges - depending if I boost or drop highs when I equalize it for myself on my playback device. If I tweak the low end, then the kick is going to lose quite a bit, too.

That is something that can't be controlled with simple tools, like an EQ on a phone for example, on the go, and I'm not overly fond of it.

That said, I'm not sure if it will all work the way I imagine it! Still a lot of work to do...
I'm not sure I'm following everything you're saying, but I'll just say that music fans don't listen to the kick or the bass, or the hi hats. They listen to the song.

Only an engineer wants to re-EQ an already amazing sounding mix, and of all the records I'd want to EQ, Thriller is probably very low on that list!

The noise file you sent - is noise. What am I supposed to be hearing when I listen to it?

I'm not sure your goal - first I thought it was to equalize your hearing, then to flatten out a mix, now it sounds like it's to beat world class mixes with a "formula" of some sort. I personally don't think art works that way, but again, I don't want to pre-judge what you're doing here. For all I know, you could be on to "the next big thing" in the audio world. So keep at it, share when you have something to share!
:)
True, but if they still want to set their EQ, then with traditional mixes, they most likely experience bad surprises. This reminds me, there's the -16 LUFS standard. It's flawed. They should have given a reference noise to which one has to set the loudest/busiest part of a song, and 'then', songs could be equally loud.

Well, okay, I kind of was worried, too that lightning would strike down on me, when I typed things about Thriller out.

Well, if you did sound design day and night, it says a lot. There are a lot of differences between one noise and another. White noise is awful to listen to, pink noise is so-so, but this, with averaged/flattened bands, sounds quite nice. A bit of EQing and it's perfect. There's a feel to every sound.

I want to squeeze the possibilities out of the digital domain. This is done by flattening, and once there's a flat song, then every listener can equalize it to their own hearing. That way every sound is supposed to have a perfect frequency response - meanwhile characteristics and dynamics remain.

So, you got it pretty correctly by now. There sort of would be a formula, which people are supposed to be able to very easily reshape to their hearing. You still add the artsy part during song writing, positioning, adding expression, designing sounds, etc - this rather just standardizes pre-mastering and mastering/design in general, which I felt is so technical, that it didn't really feel like art to me.

If it will work the way I imagined it, then I surely will use it.

User avatar
aeox
Posts: 1724
Joined: 23 Feb 2017
Location: Oregon

Post 25 Sep 2018

Help me understand please!
whoahh

Last edited by aeox on 24 May 2018, edited too many times in total.

User avatar
selig
Moderator
Posts: 7251
Joined: 15 Jan 2015

Post 25 Sep 2018

RobC wrote:
selig wrote:
24 Sep 2018
I'm not sure I'm following everything you're saying, but I'll just say that music fans don't listen to the kick or the bass, or the hi hats. They listen to the song.

Only an engineer wants to re-EQ an already amazing sounding mix, and of all the records I'd want to EQ, Thriller is probably very low on that list!

The noise file you sent - is noise. What am I supposed to be hearing when I listen to it?

I'm not sure your goal - first I thought it was to equalize your hearing, then to flatten out a mix, now it sounds like it's to beat world class mixes with a "formula" of some sort. I personally don't think art works that way, but again, I don't want to pre-judge what you're doing here. For all I know, you could be on to "the next big thing" in the audio world. So keep at it, share when you have something to share!
:)
True, but if they still want to set their EQ, then with traditional mixes, they most likely experience bad surprises. This reminds me, there's the -16 LUFS standard. It's flawed. They should have given a reference noise to which one has to set the loudest/busiest part of a song, and 'then', songs could be equally loud.

Well, okay, I kind of was worried, too that lightning would strike down on me, when I typed things about Thriller out.

Well, if you did sound design day and night, it says a lot. There are a lot of differences between one noise and another. White noise is awful to listen to, pink noise is so-so, but this, with averaged/flattened bands, sounds quite nice. A bit of EQing and it's perfect. There's a feel to every sound.

I want to squeeze the possibilities out of the digital domain. This is done by flattening, and once there's a flat song, then every listener can equalize it to their own hearing. That way every sound is supposed to have a perfect frequency response - meanwhile characteristics and dynamics remain.

So, you got it pretty correctly by now. There sort of would be a formula, which people are supposed to be able to very easily reshape to their hearing. You still add the artsy part during song writing, positioning, adding expression, designing sounds, etc - this rather just standardizes pre-mastering and mastering/design in general, which I felt is so technical, that it didn't really feel like art to me.

If it will work the way I imagined it, then I surely will use it.
SO much I could say to respond to each paragraph, and I’ll do my best to address the main points for the sake of brevity.

The main response is to your comment that a “flat” mix (which would sound horrible, since we prefer a pink distribution as a general rule) is a viable option. And, if it IS true that all listeners would want to EQ their music, then why not just give them the raw tracks and let each user mix the song to their taste? Or why not just give them music creation software and let them create their own music - where does it end?

I say that because even as a life long recording engineer - specifically, someone who know how to mix - even “I” don’t want to TOUCH other songs when I’m listening. I’d rather not even touch the volume knob, and neither would other listeners - which is why we now have ways of evening out levels between songs automatically.

What you’re suggesting listeners “want” is not born out by any market data I’m familiar with, and the current market trends suggest exactly the opposite - listeners want to (wait for it)…LISTEN! ;)

As for noise, there is really only pink and white - if you have created a noise curve that sounds good to you, then great (it’s now EQ’ed noise) - but it’s not any better than any other curve. How can it be?

As for “flat”…White noise is already totally flat with regard to frequency. Pink noise is already flat with regard to pitch. What other reference do you propose when suggesting noise be “flat”?

And finally, if you feel mixing and mastering is a purely technical endeavor, then that’s probably where we are not understanding each other. There is joy and artistic expression in every stage of music creation - if YOU don’t feel it, that’s fine, but it doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist for others!


Sent from some crappy device using Tapatalk
Selig Audio, LLC

User avatar
selig
Moderator
Posts: 7251
Joined: 15 Jan 2015

Post 25 Sep 2018

Just checked out your noise file - it's pink noise. I don't get it.
I'm assuming you're already aware of those who suggest using pink noise as a mix reference tool, right?
Selig Audio, LLC

User avatar
normen
Posts: 3429
Joined: 16 Jan 2015

Post 26 Sep 2018

aeox wrote:
25 Sep 2018
Help me understand please!

RobC
Posts: 894
Joined: 10 Mar 2018

Post 26 Sep 2018

selig wrote:
25 Sep 2018

The main response is to your comment that a “flat” mix (which would sound horrible, since we prefer a pink distribution as a general rule) is a viable option. And, if it IS true that all listeners would want to EQ their music, then why not just give them the raw tracks and let each user mix the song to their taste? Or why not just give them music creation software and let them create their own music - where does it end?

I say that because even as a life long recording engineer - specifically, someone who know how to mix - even “I” don’t want to TOUCH other songs when I’m listening. I’d rather not even touch the volume knob, and neither would other listeners - which is why we now have ways of evening out levels between songs automatically.

What you’re suggesting listeners “want” is not born out by any market data I’m familiar with, and the current market trends suggest exactly the opposite - listeners want to (wait for it)…LISTEN! ;)

As for noise, there is really only pink and white - if you have created a noise curve that sounds good to you, then great (it’s now EQ’ed noise) - but it’s not any better than any other curve. How can it be?

As for “flat”…White noise is already totally flat with regard to frequency. Pink noise is already flat with regard to pitch. What other reference do you propose when suggesting noise be “flat”?

And finally, if you feel mixing and mastering is a purely technical endeavor, then that’s probably where we are not understanding each other. There is joy and artistic expression in every stage of music creation - if YOU don’t feel it, that’s fine, but it doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist for others!


Sent from some crappy device using Tapatalk
Seems, that we once again thought of the opposite, but I'll get to that noise sound in a bit.

Personally, I'm willing to set the volume, as a listener, and load an EQ, or just turn the bass and treble knob to my liking.

I simply see a little bit more than how things are 'supposed to sound', just cause they sound somehow in real life. I'm hooked on this, cause I once equalized music to my own hearing, and it sounded like it had the best equalization/frequency-balance I've ever heard. Like I said multiple times, that can only be achieved if sounds are reshaped the way I explained, and when it's sent to the listener, they just add their EQ to it, and have an excellent sound experience.

I never said what listeners want, but if anybody would give this a try, they might be positively surprised by the sound.

It doesn't really have any specific curve at all, what I made with that noise, etc. but again, next comment, I get to that, cause there's some confusion.

Now, we can have different opinions, I didn't say that my views would rule anyone's at all. However, mixing and mastering seems to be more transparent to me.

RobC
Posts: 894
Joined: 10 Mar 2018

Post 26 Sep 2018

selig wrote:
25 Sep 2018
Just checked out your noise file - it's pink noise. I don't get it.
I'm assuming you're already aware of those who suggest using pink noise as a mix reference tool, right?
I checked a pink noise, and there are quite some differences. The noise I created, was originally white noise. I split it into bands, the bands got analyzed through software, and set to a fixed average volume in RMS, for each band individually. If I'd do that procedure with pink noise, clearly the same noise sound that I uploaded would happen, but it also would be different than that original pink noise. As I checked 2 bands quickly, there were about 10 dB differences in average volume. Whereas the noise I 'resulted', has even RMS volume in every 10 frequency band.

RobC
Posts: 894
Joined: 10 Mar 2018

Post 26 Sep 2018

aeox wrote:
25 Sep 2018
Help me understand please!
Come on, guys! This is super simple!

User avatar
selig
Moderator
Posts: 7251
Joined: 15 Jan 2015

Post 26 Sep 2018

RobC wrote:
26 Sep 2018
aeox wrote:
25 Sep 2018
Help me understand please!
Come on, guys! This is super simple!
Now that I see it's just pink noise, it's simpler because that means you actually don't have to do anything when mixing but mix and make it sound right to you.

OTOH, trying to convince listeners to buy special software to equalize their music will be a little more difficult.
Selig Audio, LLC

RobC
Posts: 894
Joined: 10 Mar 2018

Post 26 Sep 2018

selig wrote:
26 Sep 2018
RobC wrote:
26 Sep 2018


Come on, guys! This is super simple!
Now that I see it's just pink noise, it's simpler because that means you actually don't have to do anything when mixing but mix and make it sound right to you.

OTOH, trying to convince listeners to buy special software to equalize their music will be a little more difficult.
Unfortunately, I had a huge confusion, and seems like what I created, indeed is like pink noise.
However, that won't change anything here, because the method is that I split up any sound into multiple bands, set their volume levels to the same average and that's it.

Now, maybe in total, professionally mixed songs have a pink-noise like shape at some point, but that doesn't eliminate the unnecessary differences (see what I "complained" about Thriller) between sounds/individual notes/drum hits.

Like I said repeatedly, any equalizer does the trick for listeners.

...but somewhat true - with the method I described, once sounds are processed like that, there will be little to nothing to do during mixing. Except add that artsy touch'

User avatar
selig
Moderator
Posts: 7251
Joined: 15 Jan 2015

Post 26 Sep 2018

RobC wrote:
26 Sep 2018
selig wrote:
26 Sep 2018


Now that I see it's just pink noise, it's simpler because that means you actually don't have to do anything when mixing but mix and make it sound right to you.

OTOH, trying to convince listeners to buy special software to equalize their music will be a little more difficult.
Unfortunately, I had a huge confusion, and seems like what I created, indeed is like pink noise.
However, that won't change anything here, because the method is that I split up any sound into multiple bands, set their volume levels to the same average and that's it.

Now, maybe in total, professionally mixed songs have a pink-noise like shape at some point, but that doesn't eliminate the unnecessary differences (see what I "complained" about Thriller) between sounds/individual notes/drum hits.

Like I said repeatedly, any equalizer does the trick for listeners.

...but somewhat true - with the method I described, once sounds are processed like that, there will be little to nothing to do during mixing. Except add that artsy touch'
Again, I say Thriller sounds "right" to my ears, but sounds "wrong" to your ears. You can never correct for something that is not heard the same by every listener.

If you want every listener to have EQ, and most already do but don't use it except in some cases as an overall effect, then you don't have to do ANYTHING at the mix/master stage.

If each of us just mixes so it sounds great, then each listener EQs so it sounds great, where is the need for any additional (and destructive) processing at any other stage?

In other words, what is the "problem" for which you are providing the "solution"?
Selig Audio, LLC

RobC
Posts: 894
Joined: 10 Mar 2018

Post 26 Sep 2018

selig wrote:
26 Sep 2018
RobC wrote:
26 Sep 2018


Unfortunately, I had a huge confusion, and seems like what I created, indeed is like pink noise.
However, that won't change anything here, because the method is that I split up any sound into multiple bands, set their volume levels to the same average and that's it.

Now, maybe in total, professionally mixed songs have a pink-noise like shape at some point, but that doesn't eliminate the unnecessary differences (see what I "complained" about Thriller) between sounds/individual notes/drum hits.

Like I said repeatedly, any equalizer does the trick for listeners.

...but somewhat true - with the method I described, once sounds are processed like that, there will be little to nothing to do during mixing. Except add that artsy touch'
Again, I say Thriller sounds "right" to my ears, but sounds "wrong" to your ears. You can never correct for something that is not heard the same by every listener.

If you want every listener to have EQ, and most already do but don't use it except in some cases as an overall effect, then you don't have to do ANYTHING at the mix/master stage.

If each of us just mixes so it sounds great, then each listener EQs so it sounds great, where is the need for any additional (and destructive) processing at any other stage?

In other words, what is the "problem" for which you are providing the "solution"?
We already talked these over multiple times. I'm not forcing anyone to try this method.
During sound design, it will be very useful for me, cause I'm going to make use of effects like multiplied sample detuning, which creates that drifting away effect - sounds interesting, but creates comb filtering that can go very wrong quickly. This can also help balance issues like that out in seconds.

RobC
Posts: 894
Joined: 10 Mar 2018

Post 27 Sep 2018

Hmm, could be that the original CD release of Thriller might have still had that vinyl-pre-mastering flavor - barely any lower sub, kind of squashed or reduced higher treble, and definitely limited side channel. That partly explains my complaint, seems there might be a slightly boosted higher sub, and lower treble, to make up for the necessary reductions, though I'm not sure.

RobC
Posts: 894
Joined: 10 Mar 2018

Post 29 Sep 2018

Well... it didn't work the way I imagined it. T_T

Seriously, this is heartbreaking. I would have already been happy, if I had found a way to at least make sound design more easy. Especially when we synthesize completely new sounds, things can go wrong very quickly on the frequency spectrum. How are we supposed to shape some special effects, if there's no exact reference sound to go by?

It's times like these, I want to burn all my audio equipment and never look back again.

User avatar
normen
Posts: 3429
Joined: 16 Jan 2015

Post 29 Sep 2018

RobC wrote:
29 Sep 2018
Well... it didn't work the way I imagined it. T_T

Seriously, this is heartbreaking. I would have already been happy, if I had found a way to at least make sound design more easy. Especially when we synthesize completely new sounds, things can go wrong very quickly on the frequency spectrum. How are we supposed to shape some special effects, if there's no exact reference sound to go by?

It's times like these, I want to burn all my audio equipment and never look back again.

User avatar
Timmy Crowne
Posts: 108
Joined: 06 Apr 2017
Location: California, United States

Post 29 Sep 2018

RobC wrote:
29 Sep 2018
Well... it didn't work the way I imagined it. T_T

Seriously, this is heartbreaking. I would have already been happy, if I had found a way to at least make sound design more easy. Especially when we synthesize completely new sounds, things can go wrong very quickly on the frequency spectrum. How are we supposed to shape some special effects, if there's no exact reference sound to go by?

It's times like these, I want to burn all my audio equipment and never look back again.
I feel your pain man.

It really does seem like there must be some kind of golden ratio or secret formula that could help us get our mixes cleaner and more presentable. The holy grail. :) I still believe such a blueprint exists, but maybe it’s not written down explicitly in any single document yet. It’s embodied in all the great music of the past.

I believe great music is great because there are certain principles and structures that the artists and engineers felt. Perhaps they couldn’t even articulate it themselves, but they knew it when they felt it. We have to listen (and create) and feel the same energy, to extract out the principles.

Maybe one day these governing dynamics could be expressed and improved and applied mathematically, and if that’s your mission I applaud and encourage you. I don’t think it’s impossible, nor do I think it would ‘ruin the art and mystery of music.’ But for now it seems we have to do the work manually because each of us has to define what we consider great in each genre, in each song, in each very specific musical context.

I used to read threads on gearslutz where an eager creator would ask a question about specific compressor or EQ settings, and would be met only with “use ur earz.” I felt that such answers were condescending and dismissive (and they were most of the time), but there is truth there.

It’s not that merely using our ears will always result in great music, but great music must, by definition, appeal to our ears.

Try to keep going, man.

RobC
Posts: 894
Joined: 10 Mar 2018

Post 30 Sep 2018

normen wrote:
29 Sep 2018
RobC wrote:
29 Sep 2018
Well... it didn't work the way I imagined it. T_T

Seriously, this is heartbreaking. I would have already been happy, if I had found a way to at least make sound design more easy. Especially when we synthesize completely new sounds, things can go wrong very quickly on the frequency spectrum. How are we supposed to shape some special effects, if there's no exact reference sound to go by?

It's times like these, I want to burn all my audio equipment and never look back again.
You know, there was this conversation in that headphone thread where Marco Raaphorst mentioned, that we actually could make perfect mixes and masters on a potato (joke slang for any generic equipment) with the right experience. I tested a mix of mine, which I did 3 years ago. A song I made for fun (cause I never finished a DnB song before) after that Propellerhead tutorial 'Super Neat whatever' the drum and bass edition. I was curious, compared to quite bad sounding Shure SRH-240A - which it was mixed on, how would I mix it with my ok-sounding "joy listening" PA system (I think 35-16000 Hz), which I just set up so the balance is in center, and the bass and treble sounds good with Thriller. Would mostly use that for some games, shows, etc. But the odd thing is, when I started mixing some sounds, example bass, snare and kick, etc. - and I turned down everything to zero for a fair start, I was very surprised to see that I mixed to the exact same values as 3 years ago. And I haven't listened to that track in a while. Guess it's not about the potato after all.

I mean, I get it, I should just let it go, but I may have this OCD thing in me. Like my amount of Midi keyboards. I didn't feel like a musician, as long as I didn't have at least 3. (Barely touched the 4th one. Nor my drum pad...)

That said, I still do want a system which's sound I enjoy. Cause I neither like my speakers for this purpose, nor the headphones.

(Yes, I sedated yesterday, after. xD)

RobC
Posts: 894
Joined: 10 Mar 2018

Post 30 Sep 2018

Timmy Crowne wrote:
29 Sep 2018
RobC wrote:
29 Sep 2018
Well... it didn't work the way I imagined it. T_T

Seriously, this is heartbreaking. I would have already been happy, if I had found a way to at least make sound design more easy. Especially when we synthesize completely new sounds, things can go wrong very quickly on the frequency spectrum. How are we supposed to shape some special effects, if there's no exact reference sound to go by?

It's times like these, I want to burn all my audio equipment and never look back again.
I feel your pain man.

It really does seem like there must be some kind of golden ratio or secret formula that could help us get our mixes cleaner and more presentable. The holy grail. :) I still believe such a blueprint exists, but maybe it’s not written down explicitly in any single document yet. It’s embodied in all the great music of the past.

I believe great music is great because there are certain principles and structures that the artists and engineers felt. Perhaps they couldn’t even articulate it themselves, but they knew it when they felt it. We have to listen (and create) and feel the same energy, to extract out the principles.

Maybe one day these governing dynamics could be expressed and improved and applied mathematically, and if that’s your mission I applaud and encourage you. I don’t think it’s impossible, nor do I think it would ‘ruin the art and mystery of music.’ But for now it seems we have to do the work manually because each of us has to define what we consider great in each genre, in each song, in each very specific musical context.

I used to read threads on gearslutz where an eager creator would ask a question about specific compressor or EQ settings, and would be met only with “use ur earz.” I felt that such answers were condescending and dismissive (and they were most of the time), but there is truth there.

It’s not that merely using our ears will always result in great music, but great music must, by definition, appeal to our ears.

Try to keep going, man.
It could be that they just recorded real life instruments, and made sure it sounds the same as in real life (or as close as possible). Then, those became the guides, even for EDM and genres alike, cause the sounds were still similar sounding. But for example special effects, are a different matter. I could level two sounds (mostly meaning solo special effects) to one-other as-is, but things can sound really off, especially when things like comb filtering happen.

Unfortunately, these things are way too tough for my brain. We could try making a formula for various instruments, but when it comes to unique sounds, there's not much to do.

People could help with how they should set their tools up - though describing that is definitely not my strong point. At least they can help others with how they can achieve a specific purpose.

Then there's the matter, that the song has to translate well from one system to another. I guess this is where I should consider checking the equalization of other songs. There's no perfect equalization/sound or standard, sadly. Tops that one guide ~ how things sound in real life.

Thank you!

  • Information
  • Who is online

    Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests