- May 14, 2008
- 581
- 0
- 16
In my short years in the audio engineering realm I have come across quite a few words used to describe subjective views about a particular mix.
Since sound is perceived differently, and since sound waves are invisible to the naked eye, interesting words are used by individuals to define their experience.
For example:
Muddy, creamy, airy, boomy, lush, colourful, warm, etc, etc.
As individuals it is often up to our creativity and personal experience for the names which we give a particular sound (or amalgamation of different timbres in general), and most of us don't hold back in trying to embellish our description by including such terms.
But let's all agree, some of these words are very elusive; meaning that describing sound can lead to communication breakdowns and subsequent confusion. Imagine trying to explain to the artists you're recording that their mix is grainy with too much subtle airy overtones lacking a chunky low-end.
Obviously, what one is referring to is the way the frequencies of the audio piece are shaped. Through EQing, one may transform a particularly described mix and alter it just like altering the taste of a meal by chugging different spices and sauces. It is interesting how we relate different senses to the way we describe sound, such as the sense of taste and feeling.
But I ask you, as individuals, what kind of frequency parameters would you label such words with?
For example, I take it that a "boomy" mix is one which is too abundant in the low-end part of the spectrum, particularly between 60-100 Hz. But this is my inexperienced judgment.
What do you guys think? Are there universal connotations which beginners should always keep in mind in order to understand criticism better?
After all, critiquing a mix is far more interesting using easily readable terms which one can "relate to", rather than going into technical jargon like what frequencies and filters are employed and to what extent.
Is this type of embellishment dangerous in the sense that it could mislead certain folk, especially of foreign origin from the English language? I'm quite sure that different countries would have different words for different perceptions of sound. But since we all perceive sound differently, as some have more of a keen ear than others, what are your views?
Are there universal definitions of such words or are they open to interpretation? And what do you understand by the words in your fancy audio arsenal?
Since sound is perceived differently, and since sound waves are invisible to the naked eye, interesting words are used by individuals to define their experience.
For example:
Muddy, creamy, airy, boomy, lush, colourful, warm, etc, etc.
As individuals it is often up to our creativity and personal experience for the names which we give a particular sound (or amalgamation of different timbres in general), and most of us don't hold back in trying to embellish our description by including such terms.
But let's all agree, some of these words are very elusive; meaning that describing sound can lead to communication breakdowns and subsequent confusion. Imagine trying to explain to the artists you're recording that their mix is grainy with too much subtle airy overtones lacking a chunky low-end.
Obviously, what one is referring to is the way the frequencies of the audio piece are shaped. Through EQing, one may transform a particularly described mix and alter it just like altering the taste of a meal by chugging different spices and sauces. It is interesting how we relate different senses to the way we describe sound, such as the sense of taste and feeling.
But I ask you, as individuals, what kind of frequency parameters would you label such words with?
For example, I take it that a "boomy" mix is one which is too abundant in the low-end part of the spectrum, particularly between 60-100 Hz. But this is my inexperienced judgment.
What do you guys think? Are there universal connotations which beginners should always keep in mind in order to understand criticism better?
After all, critiquing a mix is far more interesting using easily readable terms which one can "relate to", rather than going into technical jargon like what frequencies and filters are employed and to what extent.
Is this type of embellishment dangerous in the sense that it could mislead certain folk, especially of foreign origin from the English language? I'm quite sure that different countries would have different words for different perceptions of sound. But since we all perceive sound differently, as some have more of a keen ear than others, what are your views?
Are there universal definitions of such words or are they open to interpretation? And what do you understand by the words in your fancy audio arsenal?
