|
Post by Hexspa on Aug 5, 2017 1:42:08 GMT
A recording will sound different on different configurations yet it will be recognizable. But is this the main concept of music? Just recognize the "recordings"? Of course I can get "its a guitar", but what trigger to me "emotions" is (in part) "the way" that guitar is sounding, by the information that I'm extracting on that moment. Am I right? So the perception I "made" in that moment, with the current reverb, timbre, dynamics, bias, temporaney memory, and so on. That's my first dubt: am I correct with this? Because the options are 2: 1. Do I (you?) got different perception? 2. Or rather, in the end, my brain compensate all of those "hearing variations" (introduced by setup/room) and I get the same "perception" every time? This is very unclear also on what I'm experiencing every days listening to music. For me its the first point, and you got different "perception". Because you "feel" how it sounds (in a different way) on different halls (for example, in a club, with heavy bass and punch). Let me make a stupid example, check this: www.youtube.com/watch?v=h-CyqVay2ToOn studio, you "add" somethings to the kickdrum, the "presence", by reverb. So you are not hearing even more only a kick. But kick + reverb. Now if you play on a room, you got kick + reverb + room's reverb. So if it counts at mixing stage (because on headphones you get/feel/enjoy that reverb effect applied to the kick), logically on a room you got a different "effect" due to room's reverb. Everything in the chain will sculpt the final perception. But if that's true (option 1), artist/producer have not really "control" of the delivered message (again, I'm talking of a single person, not comparing perception of the mass), because that message will be sculpt every time. Rather, if the perception is the same (option 2), what's the purpose (as first) of adding fx like reverb? I'll got the kick with or without it. What the purpose of mixing/mastering? My brain will still extrapolate the informations from the recorings. My dubts first is "what" we perceive; due to this answer, I've a puzzlement for both Nowhk, I appreciate your inquisitiveness. Can you boil your question down to a single line with just a single period as punctuation? Half of solving a problem is clearly defining what it is exactly. I want to say five things, though: 1. Your perception is always going to be different because life is never the same twice. Similarly, your attention will never focus on the same thing twice in the same way. Life never repeats itself even if digital does. 2. Your brain will not compensate for changes. It will simply remember that it's the same recording in name only. Like the jacket, you might even think it's not the same recording. Even something apparently static devolves imperceptibly over time. Even digital data decays. Every object you see is not the same it was even a microsecond ago nor will it be the same less than a microsecond in the future. You simply imagine that things are static but it's a mental trick. 3. Although you can boil sound down into something scientifically measurable, music stimulates your mind which produces thoughts which produce emotions. Even if you listen to a song on your iPhone and then in a car and then go to a concert you'll probably always access that same experience and then add your new experience to it. It's very much like a flower which has a scientific binomial, parts and other constituencies. As a whole, it is something which gives a particular experience. Once you pick it apart, it dies and the individual components fail to deliver that cohesive message. Many things in life are like this where overthinking and overanalyzing takes you out of "the zone". Concepts like timbre are part of the analytical process whereas feeling a song is a different thing. They can be related and both have their place but anyone with six months of experience in any area that emphasizes some kind of performance can tell you that there is a definite difference between the two states and what kind of results they're capable of producing. 4. The artist/production team has immense control over the delivered message. That's why Katy Perry doesn't sound like Mumford and Sons. What they can't control is you, your reproduction system or any other number of factors. 5. We perceive what we're capable of perceiving. One person might have relative pitch. Another might be deaf in one ear. Yet another may have a highly refined sense of relative pitch and his brother might not discern between a minor ninth and a perfect fifth when played in isolation against a tonic. Though these conditions might be true there are again other factors at play such as how much attention is being paid to the music, inebriation, desire to listen critically or emotionally, whether or not the music is to the taste of the listener etc. This is related to point 4. Again, I'm not sure what your fundamental question is about but if it's about getting an idea from point A to point B then I think the answer has been delivered quite clearly by now: some things are under your control and others not. Thanks.
|
|
Nowhk
New Member
Posts: 11
|
Post by Nowhk on Aug 6, 2017 10:41:49 GMT
Sorry man, my type of discussion is like that. I'll try to do my best. Are you sure about this? I've read lots of "perceptual constancy" also in audio. That's a fancy paragraph that talk about this, for example. I really can't deal with this I see one of your blog post about The Art Of Mixing by David Gibson, which I really like. It show probably how auditory objects works within our brain. Take the example where our brain perceive such of these auditory objects when listening to a track: Let say our brain concretize the bass instruments's auditory object like that green sphere (just an example). When I play the recordings on a different environments, that circle will be shaped. Reverb by room, different circumference, different color, and so on. I guess artist/producer job is try to build those audiutory object to the brain of the listener, and make these object partecipate/dialog each others. This what make me enjoy music I guess: perceptual elements that interacts each others, triggering emotions. Am I wrong? But if those auditory objects can't be exactly translated between environments, part of the intentions (i.e. auditory object) will be lost/shaped due to the playback setups. So the intent Is not preserved. That's my puzzlement. Instead, if perceptual constancy exist, there isn't this problem, since brain will extrapolate the same green sphere informations across different environments. I really don't know how I'm listening to music actually Do I got same objects? Or differents? In any cases, I'm confused.
|
|
|
Post by Hexspa on Aug 7, 2017 11:07:37 GMT
Nowhk, thanks for the reply.
A bit of frustration has arisen but not anger so I'll reply with that disclaimer and try to be polite.
"Your type of discussion" is confusing, difficult to understand and apparently English is not your first language. If you want to talk to yourself, that's one thing. If you want to communicate with others then you should do everything in your power to help them understand what it is you want.
I just don't know what is the essence of your question.
I am sure that if I hear, say, "People Are Strange" by The Doors on my mixcube it will sound totally different on Karla's laptop in the kitchen. My brain will not compensate! It will know that it's the same song but will perceive it afresh given the conditions present. There is no argument about this otherwise Ethan would have no grounds for his research and business. Again, were your question more clear I'd know if I'm hitting the mark here. The only thing the brain will do is trigger a memory sequence of what the parts are like lyrics, music, emotion and so on. I'd go so far as to say the mind doesn't perceive at all but merely remembers. YOU perceive. You can even perceive your mind. How can the mind perceive itself?
What is it exactly that you can't deal with? I'm happy you've done extensive reading but knowing something theoretically is not the same as intelligently observing something first hand. Of course, because it's written doesn't make it true or relevant to you or even guarantee full understanding should you read it.
I think I understand what you mean by "concretize" but, the thing about music - at least if you listen with a critical, active or experienced ear - is that your perception evolves and shifts points of focus. The bass is an auditory object, of course, but it doesn't sit there in your brain like it does in that image you posted; at least not in a fully-conscious way and certainly not if you can't hear it at all for whatever reason that precludes the possibility.
Yes, interacting elements, and the elements in isolation are likely to produce an emotional response.
The intent of the artist is to make you feel something. You don't need ideal or even consistent playback to achieve that. Again, one of the best listening experiences I had recently was in the kitchen. Who knows - maybe that's where they expected me to listen...
Here's the definition of "perceptual consistency": Perceptual constancy, also called Object Constancy, or Constancy Phenomenon, the tendency of animals and humans to see familiar objects as having standard shape, size, colour, or location regardless of changes in the angle of perspective, distance, or lighting.
It's a vague definition. We can split hairs letter by letter if you really want - I don't - but words like "tendency" and "standard" really make it shaky. Maybe I'd have to look deeper into the concept.
The bottom line is that, if you pay close enough attention, things aren't going to be perceptually constant.
Take, for instance, my new vape mod. When I first got it it didn't have the paint chipping off like it has now. If I was not paying close attention then I might not have noticed. And, while I might "know" that it's purple even when it's dark, if I'm really paying attention then I can clearly see that it looks different in the different lighting. Honestly, this "perceptual consistency" concept sounds like jargon for "not paying attention and just assuming the stairs are there".
idk. You're going to hear what you're going to hear no matter what you think so I'm not sure what the discussion is about.
Thanks.
|
|
Nowhk
New Member
Posts: 11
|
Post by Nowhk on Aug 7, 2017 13:21:47 GMT
Damn man... I'm so (sooo) sorry you can't get my words and what I'm asking to you. Yes, obviously English is not my first language Maybe talking so much is not the proper way here. I was trying to do a sort of general premise of what I thought is my think, and than proof that maybe its not this way. I try to go as direct as possible. Here's my first wrong idea about music, I think. I think that anyone will feel and have emotions when hearing to somethings. The intent for the artist is to work and create this somethings. Translated: create auditory object. But when you correctly says this (I say "correctly" because I ponder to think the same): This confirm my thoughts: there is nothing really concrete in music that I can build and than translate entirely from setup to setup. That bass will be perceived always differently. So one time I can perceive the kick of a song less "punch" and with bright color, another one in a different way, and so on. I can get a general idea, yes, but when it falls to specific details, they will always vary a bit. So the perception of that whole auditory object is not fixed. Consequently, if these foundations change, also the feeling/emotions will changes, accordly. That's not really an intent: its span between a range of possibles results. Again: only if I fall to higher levels of details. Probably this can be preserved only at lower level of observation/recognition: such as "is a guitar", "is a synth", and so on; or that guitar has "a red" or "a green" tone. But when you want to catch the shade of the red (i.e. got the timbre/red in its entirety), you will fail, since theres always somethings that is going to change (the things you defined "not under controls"). Follow this, I would think that theoretically neither the artist and listener can catch these shades. But artist choose instruments also for its tone, right? They prefer one red to another one. Me the same! I usually open my addictive synth, I try to color my own sound/patch adding fixed harmonics/partials at fixed levels (generating a specific tone)... ... but than I listen to different environments, and that specific tone IS different. What do I really preserved? And the puzzlement begin: what can I really preserve? Timbre seems not an element I can translate... How can it be? You are working on frequencies at the end of the story Frequencies content change on different playback... if also your brain won't compensante for changes, how can you attempt to get the same "feel"?
|
|
|
Post by Hexspa on Aug 7, 2017 23:56:05 GMT
I think that, ideally, the intent of the artist is not to create "auditory objects" as much as use them effectively as a means to the end goal of emotional resonance.
Music has been called the "finest of the arts" for good reason. I think it's quite a leap for someone to walk into a studio like mine and make something. It's easy to pick up a guitar and physically strum chords. Arrangement, form, orchestration, lyrical themes etc. are a whole different level of mentation. If the creating is partially invisible then it would make sense than some of the result can be hidden as well i.e. it comes down to the individual perceiver.
I know what you mean about preserving subtleties of tone but in reality even the artist will not hear the entirety of their record, in all likelihood. Even the mix engineer can miss things.
You preserve what's captured on your medium. Nothing about perception can be accurately preserved. Memories are subject to distortion as well as the perceptions themselves.
Though your experience will be different on a different listening system your brain, due to memory, can trigger the same emotional sequence. Like this "perceptual consistency" concept, your brain uses shorthand to "know" what something is even if it really doesn't know. You "know" it's the same song (perceptual consistency) but if you are alert - even a bit - you'll recognize that there is a lot of difference too. Both possibilities exist.
I can agree that perceptual consistency exists but I suppose it's just a mental shorthand for not having to painstakingly review everything's existence. Careful observation is a highly demanding task. The brain is a mass consumer of energy and, because our body is designed to minimize output, there are systems in place to preserve that energy at virtually any cost. The whole mechanism is probably just cruise control, low-power mode or any other type of survival sequence.
I really don't know. I guess one can get deep into analysis about what the mind does and does not. This is just my perspective, however limited.
Thanks.
|
|
Nowhk
New Member
Posts: 11
|
Post by Nowhk on Aug 8, 2017 13:40:05 GMT
Probably that's the whole concept. I try to resume... So, your brain "build up" the auditory objects guessing part of them and take all details as guaranteed. In this way there is "consistency". These are fancy articles that could describe this task: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cepstrumen.wikipedia.org/wiki/Independent_component_analysisOf course if you go deeper, those objects will mutate on every listening. But usually your brain "take it easy" and ignore subtle variations. If that's true, the concreteness (for a single person) is true only at some degree of details: if you go "deeper", all will change a bit everytime, impacting everything's existence. So the only "consistency" become the recordings. I guess that's true for many stuff in the world. What do you think about? Paradoxically, the more one's fine mind, the more the world is varying through his experiences!
|
|
|
Post by Hexspa on Aug 8, 2017 17:46:43 GMT
Probably that's the whole concept. I try to resume... So, your brain "build up" the auditory objects guessing part of them and take all details as guaranteed. In this way there is "consistency". These are fancy articles that could describe this task: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cepstrumen.wikipedia.org/wiki/Independent_component_analysisOf course if you go deeper, those objects will mutate on every listening. But usually your brain "take it easy" and ignore subtle variations. If that's true, the concreteness (for a single person) is true only at some degree of details: if you go "deeper", all will change a bit everytime, impacting everything's existence. So the only "consistency" become the recordings. I guess that's true for many stuff in the world. What do you think about? Paradoxically, the more one's fine mind, the more the world is varying through his experiences! That's cool, man. I only mess with psych insofar as it helps me live a happier life. I don't find this topic all that intriguing but if you like it then that's awesome. Thanks.
|
|
|
Post by Hexspa on Aug 9, 2017 0:02:24 GMT
I do want to address your point about delivering the intent all the way through to the listener. I think it's a real problem that music makers face as a matter of course. Every artist is hoping to deliver that intention yet has to overcome the challenges of their medium, fluency of technique, efficacy of the delivery team and their systems etc. Yet it happens. However, the song "Man Eater" by Hall and Oates is about what? Do you think it's about a woman? According to them it's about the music industry. edit: here's the story according to John OatesJust as a lyric's interpretation falls upon the hearer's emotions and comprehension so do the auditory aspects of music succumb to the "telephone game" that's always being played. In the recording world this is called "mix translation". A producer also has to translate the artist's vision into auditory objects that make a record. An artist has to translate his pristine vision into a concrete format which, more often than not, arrives less beautiful than imagined. Even Ramana Maharshi mentioned this when asked why he doesn't go travelling and preach. He said that by the time the message hits the recipient it has decayed so much. This is apparently a different topic than "perceptual consistency" but, since you mentioned it and I found it interesting, I thought I'd hit it up. Thanks.
|
|
Nowhk
New Member
Posts: 11
|
Post by Nowhk on Aug 9, 2017 14:54:13 GMT
That's maybe mainly depends where you think ART takes place: is the object (whether it be a painting, sculpture or recordings) the ART, or the ART extends into what is happening within your own mind as you view it?
|
|
|
Post by Ethan Winer on Aug 9, 2017 16:00:17 GMT
Nowhk asked me to look in on this again and chime in. But in all honesty, I don't have anything to add to the discussion. I too do best answering specific direct questions, as opposed to philosophical concepts about what the meaning of "is" is. (That last part is a joke that non-Americans might not get because it relates to past president Bill Clinton.)
|
|
|
Post by Hexspa on Aug 9, 2017 22:46:47 GMT
Nowhk asked me to look in on this again and chime in. But in all honesty, I don't have anything to add to the discussion. I too do best answering specific direct questions, as opposed to philosophical concepts about what the meaning of "is" is. (That last part is a joke that non-Americans might not get because it relates to past president Bill Clinton.) is is or is not is That is the question.
|
|