tommypiper
Well-known member
Great discussion. I like Pucho's point that the ears are our final judge and best guide. Seems that Ted is saying that as well, only in the language of advanced technical analysis -- like, we know there are still little problems here and there, even when we can't measure them. And I always love what Paul has to say, keeping things practical and real.
I've recently been thinking about this as an overview to our craft. Thinking about my mixes, and the mixes of some top engineers I've sat at the console with in Nashville and around. Seems like these guys have honed in on interfering as little as possible with the natural sound. Why?
Because we don't always know what we are hearing! And therefore how to work / change / improve / fix it.
This is like what Paul is saying about how the ear-mind interprets these little distortions as soundfield or other cues. A crude response is to apply pan to fix the soundfield, EQ, compression, etc. This approach brings us to a harder sound in the end, and less natural. (It makes me wonder how many EQ and compression conventions are misguided.)
What I'm trying to say is, despite all our experience, training, and methodologies, we still are never truly in command of the recording and mixing process if our aim is natural reproduction of sound. (The comments from Ted are only a jumping off point in this discourse. We still have problems with the gear, and we can't quite understand or measure it... This leads to the thought that we have many unnatural elements in our recording and reproducing chain, including our own recording habits.)
The great engineers I've sat with at the consoles only reach for the EQ when they have to, and only just a minor twist. They rarely use compression, except to preserve dynamic range by limiting overs. And when they record, there's always one mic close, and usually one mic back to give the air a chance to help find the natural sound. Less (interference) is more (natural).
Really, we are dealing with primitive technologies in our overly complicated way of multitracking and mixing in a quest to recreate a psuedo-natural result.
I'm just extending the idea, Ted and Paul's idea into a philosophical overview for a moment.
So, to get any work done, we have to go with what we hear and not follow preconcieved conclusions and habits, and try to tread lightly on the sound, keep our ears and minds open. My zen thought of the day. :grin:
I've recently been thinking about this as an overview to our craft. Thinking about my mixes, and the mixes of some top engineers I've sat at the console with in Nashville and around. Seems like these guys have honed in on interfering as little as possible with the natural sound. Why?
Because we don't always know what we are hearing! And therefore how to work / change / improve / fix it.
This is like what Paul is saying about how the ear-mind interprets these little distortions as soundfield or other cues. A crude response is to apply pan to fix the soundfield, EQ, compression, etc. This approach brings us to a harder sound in the end, and less natural. (It makes me wonder how many EQ and compression conventions are misguided.)
What I'm trying to say is, despite all our experience, training, and methodologies, we still are never truly in command of the recording and mixing process if our aim is natural reproduction of sound. (The comments from Ted are only a jumping off point in this discourse. We still have problems with the gear, and we can't quite understand or measure it... This leads to the thought that we have many unnatural elements in our recording and reproducing chain, including our own recording habits.)
The great engineers I've sat with at the consoles only reach for the EQ when they have to, and only just a minor twist. They rarely use compression, except to preserve dynamic range by limiting overs. And when they record, there's always one mic close, and usually one mic back to give the air a chance to help find the natural sound. Less (interference) is more (natural).
Really, we are dealing with primitive technologies in our overly complicated way of multitracking and mixing in a quest to recreate a psuedo-natural result.
I'm just extending the idea, Ted and Paul's idea into a philosophical overview for a moment.
So, to get any work done, we have to go with what we hear and not follow preconcieved conclusions and habits, and try to tread lightly on the sound, keep our ears and minds open. My zen thought of the day. :grin:
