Discussion Zone

Full Version: Georgia Wonder: 'Siren
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
Pages: 1 2
Worked pretty hard on this one,about 4 hours
The question for me was, "How many acoustic guitars of the exact same sonic signature does it take before more ends up quickly becoming a lot less?". The high amount of upper mids and treble they contain (there's a really irksome ring which stacks up) can also quickly cause a loss of interest from the fatigue and lack of any real detail warranting inclusion.

I felt the mute button was our best friend here, as well as assisting in clearing out some clutter (we can have too much of a good thing). Beside, it helps take the strain off our inept ability as a species to multitask and the arrangement had some issues in this respect.
I only used one acoustic guitar track
(01-09-2019 10:00 PM)takka360 Wrote: [ -> ]I only used one acoustic guitar track

From my perspective, on the basis of the outcome, you chose the wrong track Tongue

Furthermore, the song depends a lot on their rhythm. Pushing "them" away (the illusion contains more than one acoustic guitar) into the far and distant background psychoacoustically reduces their role and impact. You see, it's the foreground that gets my attention.

Given their direct-to-indirect balance and amplitude, the spectral information also doesn't make sense and appears contradictory to the way we perceive distance. Nobody listens to an acoustic guitar with their ear 12 inches from the 12th fret, for example.
It's a good mix. I don't know the multitrack situation so I can't comment on what tracks to use or not. (As an aside, microphones aren't ears and the vast majority of the average listener's experience with acoustics are literally hearing one through a mic close to the instrument.) I thought the arrangement as presented in the mix fits the genre.
There's not much to complain about. I though it was comfortable to listen to all the way through. I think the biggest issues are the vocals. I think the lead vocal has a nice, interesting tone though it occasionally gets peaky. It's the only element that I found annoying at times. I think as the B-verses (I think) and chorus vocals feel overall smaller than the lead. I'd like the song to grow dynamically between sections. The vocals feel like they're being held in check.
Other than that the song feels needlessly long but that's not your fault. Sounds good.
(02-09-2019 10:23 AM)Monk Wrote: [ -> ]
(01-09-2019 10:00 PM)takka360 Wrote: [ -> ]I only used one acoustic guitar track

From my perspective, on the basis of the outcome, you chose the wrong track Tongue

Furthermore, the song depends a lot on their rhythm. Pushing "them" away (the illusion contains more than one acoustic guitar) into the far and distant background psychoacoustically reduces their role and impact. You see, it's the foreground that gets my attention.

Given their direct-to-indirect balance and amplitude, the spectral information also doesn't make sense and appears contradictory to the way we perceive distance. Nobody listens to an acoustic guitar with their ear 12 inches from the 12th fret, for example.

Who would know?not the general people .
Cheers Roy
(02-09-2019 03:11 PM)RoyMatthews Wrote: [ -> ]As an aside, microphones aren't ears

A microphone is designed to capture the closest representation of an instrument as the ear/brain would hear it, in the main. The science isn't perfect due to all the constraints, budget being a major one.

A mic placed close to source captures treble in all it's glory (China mics especially, lol). The resultant tracking might be what the musician can hear (hearing impairment not discussed), especially a novice looking down at the frets, but it's not what the audience hears, for reasons you appear to be unaware of. This is how we partially understand and interpret depth, or should be. The brain knows this and has developed the understanding since birth, as a frequency response coupled with the eye's confirmation. Without eyes, we only have our ears to make the judgement of depth and placement. In this mix, ears only, the message is contradictory.

Now you know where you've been going wrong all these years Tongue

For those who don't want to lose face, we may call it Art.

I suspect the treble is left brittle and fatiguing here so as to help it cut through the track density. I don't suffer from hearing impairment, but it's not pleasant listening, especially on Focal Twins.

By the way, I wouldn't type too much here because he deletes his threads.
Your just talking baloney mate
(03-09-2019 10:17 AM)Monk Wrote: [ -> ]
(02-09-2019 03:11 PM)RoyMatthews Wrote: [ -> ]As an aside, microphones aren't ears

A microphone is designed to capture the closest representation of an instrument as the ear/brain would hear it, in the main. The science isn't perfect due to all the constraints, budget being a major one.

A mic placed close to source captures treble in all it's glory (China mics especially, lol). The resultant tracking might be what the musician can hear (hearing impairment not discussed), especially a novice looking down at the frets, but it's not what the audience hears, for reasons you appear to be unaware of. This is how we partially understand and interpret depth, or should be. The brain knows this and has developed the understanding since birth, as a frequency response coupled with the eye's confirmation. Without eyes, we only have our ears to make the judgement of depth and placement. In this mix, ears only, the message is contradictory.

Now you know where you've been going wrong all these years Tongue

For those who don't want to lose face, we may call it Art.

I suspect the treble is left brittle and fatiguing here so as to help it cut through the track density. I don't suffer from hearing impairment, but it's not pleasant listening, especially on Focal Twins.

By the way, I wouldn't type too much here because he deletes his threads.

Oh, I'm well aware where I've been going wrong all these years but it has nothing to do wishing anything you've mentioned. No need to be passive aggressive.

Some mics are designed to "closest representation of an instrument as the ear/brain would hear it". Many, most, nearly all (?) aren't. An Earthworks? Maybe. A U87 no. A 57? definitely not. A 4038? No. An MXL? certainly not. All different sounds. Again most of the audience never hears an instrument 'naturally'. Either in records or live. For reasons I'm aware of. I'm not debating whether that is better or worse it's just a fact.

A mic placed close may capture a lot of treble or might not. Depends on the mic and placement. And who could tell in this case? The acoustics on these tracks have been processed and looped to death already during the arrangement. There's a lot going on in this song both acoustically and electronically but you seem to be beset by the acoustics and insist on using the thread as a soapbox to pontificate on concepts that you really seem to be passionate about but have no impact on the practicalities of this mix. I can easily place where the acoustic exists in the mix but frankly I don't care. I don't feel the need to spot every instrument in a mix. In the end it's the mix/song as a whole that we experience not the individual instruments. Yeah, I suppose I call it Art.

The rest of your post is a bit meandering and rambling and not making rhetorical sense. Wading further in it, I fear, would just digress and risk falling down a rabbit hole both figuratively and in a Lewis Carroll sense.

In the end, it's a good mix. I've probably looped it twice while making this post just to get some perspective. It's been perfectly comfortable to listen to. I don't find the Acoustic or the treble in this track to be brittle and fatiguing. Maybe the vocals, on occasion. I know that must mean I have a hearing impairment. It seems like everyone does, doesn't it?

I'll type as much as I want thank you very much. If the thread gets deleted who cares? Speak your mind.

Sorry to ramble. I haven't had my coffee yet.
Pages: 1 2
Reference URL's