Do We Obsess Too Much Over Trying To Get "The Perfect" Sound?

[jens]

Nice display of cocaine saliva at 2:43...

[BONES]

i listened to Front 242 yesterday, for the first time in a while.
f**k that was embarrassing.

Embarrassing for you? Maybe you'll be that good one day?

Seriously, though, early F242 recordings are terrible but you need to hear that material live to properly get it. I mean how do you put something like this onto a record?

It works great on stage but on an album it makes no sense at all. Remastered or not, this is just awful by comparison -


But you have to remember that this was the mid-80s, they were doing the best the technology would allow them to do, both on stage and in the studio. I often wonder if I had been over there at that time if I might not have been able to clean up, because I think my mid-80s stuff was as good as theirs, but the best I could manage was runner-up at the Townsville Pacific Festival Battle of the Bands. Such is life.

Even though I don't really dig disco / "French" house, Homework is an undisputed classic. And Deadmau5' Strobe is a masterpiece.

I can't bring myself to listen to Homework but I just listened to Strobe and I kept waiting for the song to start. For ten and a half minutes! Like a lot of EDM, it feels like an extended intro to something that would probably not be any good anyway. It is as boring as any piece of music I have ever heard. It was just awful.

[Synthman2000]

What's the goal ? Signing to a label with the biggest artists in your genre ? Then maybe perfect is what needs to happen. I worked out many tracks I like have zero to do with technical perfection.

However I hate to stress you out but in 2022 with a DAW full of super powerful tools, if it is perfect as per some industry standard references, or perfectly imperfect, as in you engineered a way to be so it is all on your shoulders.

We have EVERY possible tool for perfection or engineered imperfection. You can go find out some engineering and production info from those on Youtube. Just be cautious about your sources of information.

You know what the biggest problem is. Monitoring that sucks. The obstacles that creates to humans into sound are immense. So if you have good monitoring there are no excuses really cause we have every tool to create perfection, engineered trash and everything in between in whatever amount you desire.

In this regards creativity in sound design and engineering is unequaled, yet oddly much in many genres sounds very similar. We like to emulate more than innovate. Because unless you are someone known by a label innovation is often lost, they are also stuck. Engineering "perfection" often ends with bland, uninteresting, uninventive music.

Everyone pretty much thinks they know it all now, so there are no excuses, your music had better be incredible.

The difficulty is the difference between engineered and planned trash in tasteful amounts and just trash.

If your monitoring is not really good that is the absolute first thing to sort out. Otherwise you won't know good from bad and learning anything will be set back by many many years. How does this synthy2K know anything? I work in an exemplary acoustic situation with audiophile grade monitoring down to 25Hz AMP/DAC/Monitors.

Sort that out and everything else becomes much easier. If you are careful enough you will know precisely how perfect or imperfect something sounds within your own ability to make objective and subjective judgements.

[BONES]

What's the goal ? Signing to a label with the biggest artists in your genre ?

Mine is to get to play live as often as possible, to the biggest audience we can.
Then maybe perfect is what needs to happen. I worked out many tracks I like have zero to do with technical perfection.

You know what the biggest problem is. Monitoring that sucks. The obstacles that creates to humans into sound are immense.

You know what the biggest problem is. Monitoring that sucks. The obstacles that creates to humans into sound are immense.

That's not been my experience. I find that if you know your monitors, your brain learns to compensate for their shortcomings over time, allowing you to do good work anyway. e.g. Yamaha NS-10s. I certainly don't think that spending a fortune on a pair of Genelecs has improved my mixes at all. But they do sound very, very nice.

We like to emulate more than innovate.

Abso-f**king-lutely!!!

[Michey]

Do we obsess too much and does it really matter?

Yes, we do and no, it doesn't. Well, you lot do, anyway. I just use what works.

This

sounds MAKE UP songs

A good song that uses bad sounds is still a good song, just as a bad song that uses good sounds is still a bad song.

sound is everything

See above. Songs are everything and a good song will always shine, no matter the sounds.

And that.

Sound is "Everything" ONLY for those who care to scrutinize it. and compare it to another sound.

So why does it seem like sound "matters", at all ?
well, to paraphrase Lars Ulrich : "Nowadays, EVERYONE has an opinion".

Funny thing is... when you listen to the SOUND of a lot of the "legendary" sounds that comprised the songs we adore (and consequently - most nowadays vst tools are based upon)... it sounds, umm... well, like garbage (no the band, mind you ).

It not a "bad vs good" we obsess over... it's the degree of the "very very good".

[cryophonik]

I don’t know who this “we” is that everybody keeps talking about, but I don’t obsess over some arbitrary and undefined “perfect sound”

[eytanmich123]

I don’t know who this “we” is that everybody keeps talking about, but I don’t obsess over some arbitrary and undefined “perfect sound”

"We" is anyone who attends forums, assessing the traits of a given processor(s), comparing its traits to other tools and of course : placing it in an imaginary table that consists of the most agreed upon "top" tools in a give time. it is augmented by developers (GM, anyone ?) who seem to be talking to the lowest common denominator : people who still engage with the notion of "better" or "best" (what is "best" ? how do you define "better" ? is "better" in some very narrow set of applications, ie. doing certain things in ways that were otherwise inconceivable, though the end result is pretty much the same - is enough for hailing a processor as "better" or even "best", in its entirety ? and so on and so forth...).

We are merely gear slutz. we just want to talk about the ways processors are carrying their thing.
it has noting to do with "perfect sound" (because there is no such thing in reality).

[Synthman2000]

All of this without audio is at best fun chat. Sort your room acoustics out that is by far the most important, otherwise you won't know what perfection is even if you think you hear it. Thinking you hear it does not cut it.

Monitoring certainty allows accurate judgements and then you can walk the fine line of what you want your music/mix to be. You cannot learn more than your monitors give, doubly so for the room.

If you want to spend many hours second guessing yourself that is a personal choice, one I am glad to have left behind many many years ago.

BONES I would suggest one of two possible reasons for your situation between NS10 and Genelec.

1) Your room is well treated enough but the jump between NS10 and Genelec was not sufficiently large to hear any worthwhile improvement in the speaker technology, drivers, electronics, crossovers etc. (the technological/qualitative jump was too small)

2) Your room is not well treated enough to hear the differences because what you are hearing is not accurate anyway. So you hear a smoother top end from better tweeters but the frequency response and time domain issues are so large they otherwise sound the same and do not help with the mix important stuff for mixing.

To be succinct, if (close to) perfect is not able to be resolved by your room and monitors. The laws of physics will not even allow perfect to be achieved, never mind adding the ambiguity of individual perception. So clear the barriers you can, first.

[BONES]

Funny thing is... when you listen to the SOUND of a lot of the "legendary" sounds that comprised the songs we adore (and consequently - most nowadays vst tools are based upon)... it sounds, umm... well, like garbage (no the band, mind you ).

I discovered this with all the 80s covers I've worked up over the last few years. To my ears they all, without exception, sound better than the originals (at least until I start singing) but when I play them to other people, all they seem to care about is that it doesn't sound exactly like the original, which I find hugely frustrating.

Sort your room acoustics out that is by far the most important, otherwise you won't know what perfection is even if you think you hear it.

Nearfield monitoring makes room acoustics totally irrelevant. If you saw my set-up, you'd probably think it was completely impossible for anyone to do anything approaching good work with it, yet I've produced our best sounding and best reviewed work right here, on my boat, with monitors that cost less than $200.

You cannot learn more than your monitors give, doubly so for the room.

Of course you can. You don't need to hear down to 20Hz to know what's going on down there because anything at 20Hz is also going to be present at 50Hz and at 80Hz and if there are any weird spikes, a spectrum analyser will reveal them. But in 40 years of production, I've never seen that happen so it's not something I concern myself with. Again, Yamaha NS-10s prove that you don't need good speakers to do good work.

If you want to spend many hours second guessing yourself that is a personal choice, one I am glad to have left behind many many years ago.

Why would you second guess yourself if you know your equipment?

1) Your room is well treated enough but the jump between NS10 and Genelec was not sufficiently large to hear any worthwhile improvement in the speaker technology, drivers, electronics, crossovers etc. (the technological/qualitative jump was too small).

I live on a yacht, there is no room treatment at all. It's not even a room, really. And I don't have a pair of NS-10s, I use the Genelecs with my older JBLs providing a bit of extra bottom end (both pairs playing at once). The NS-10 thing was alate 80s and 90s thing with big name producers.

2) Your room is not well treated enough to hear the differences because what you are hearing is not accurate anyway. So you hear a smoother top end from better tweeters but the frequency response and time domain issues are so large they otherwise sound the same and do not help with the mix important stuff for mixing.

Likely both things but so what? I still do great work because that shit doesn't matter. You can listen to to hear for yourself (pre-Genelecs).

To be succinct, if (close to) perfect is not able to be resolved by your room and monitors. The laws of physics will not even allow perfect to be achieved, never mind adding the ambiguity of individual perception. So clear the barriers you can, first

Or trust your brain to intuitively compensate for any and all shortcomings in your set-up. It works for me.

[Synthman2000]

"Nearfield monitoring makes room acoustics totally irrelevant "

It's time for me to leave the thread.

[noiseboyuk]

In the 1950s not very many people were making records with few sophisticated creative choices and overwhelming restrictions.

In the 2020s vast numbers of people are making records with boundless creative choices and few practical restrictions.

In general, the records today sound technically far better than those of the 1950s. Many people prefer the sound - and certainly the songs - of the 1950s. Even more true of the 60s. Many music-makers today try to re-create the restrictions and flaws of the past.

Popular music has fragmented as a result of sheer amount of content, platforms and vastly more calls on an audience’s attention. There’s a case to be made that almost the entire music-making industry today, with all of its tools and skills, is a giant displacement activity.

[8Len8]

I obsess over getting interfaces and plugins that are very intuitive and easy for my to use so my workflow is as concise and streamlined as possible.

[BONES]

"Nearfield monitoring makes room acoustics totally irrelevant "
It's time for me to leave the thread.

Good call. It will give you a chance to do a bit of reading on the subject and clear up your obvious ignorance.

[jamcat]

Inadequacies in your monitors are going to be way more consequential than room acoustics in the grand scheme.

Anyways, of the things that makes a record great, the sound quality is probably the least important. How many times has a band's first album been their best, but also their worst produced? More times than I can count. The production value doesn't diminish the songwriting or the performance. Remember that thing, "performance"? It used to really matter.

A really good case study is Twisted Sister's seminal 1984 album Stay Hungry vs. their 2004 remake, Still Hungry. Stay Hungry had pretty bad production. They rerecorded the album note for note 20 years later with much higher production values, but it's just not as good. The performances lack the energy and rawness of the original. Listen to these two albums back to back and it becomes obvious what really matters in music.

[vurt]

youth?