masteringhouse said:
Interesting perspective G. I've also heard it explained this way before, but I don't get the frequency up/down thing. For me that's amplitude.
Yeah, like I say it's not a direct translation or a perfect analogy by any kind of a longshot. I only think of it as "up/down" in the sense of "high/low" frequency. I have read somehwere (I don't remember where) some engineer with more chops than I refer to the three dimensions but he analogized a slightly different way than I do...I really can't remember the specifics, but it was a bit different.
That's not really all that important, I don't think. The key is not to try and relate the sonic dimensions to actual physical dimensions literally, but rather as a visualization and memory trick. Whatever way works for the individual is fine.
The only real literally direct translation to a physical dimension is the panning on the soundstage. (This actually becomes two dimensions when you move from stereo to surround sound, but that's a whole other complication we'll leave out of it for now
.
There is some front-to-back correlation with the physical dimension; amplitude and dynamics can play a part in that quieter is an integral component in sounds that are further away, but there is both more to dynamics than distance, and there is more to distance than volume (e.g. reverb, Haas effects, etc.). So that is at best a fuzzy correlation. But there is at least some correlation there that helps the process, I think.
And, of course, the frequency spectrum has no direct translation to the physical dimensions whatsoever. I just think of it as up/down because that is the only remaining physical dimension (string theory aside
), and because we do talk about going "up" and "down" in frequency. It's not literal, it's just a way of thinking about it and visualizing it as *a* third dimension and not *the* third dimension.
It's really a very basic philosophy like pingu says, but more than that, it turns into a very powerful technique when you consciously apply it in your mix design. When one considers mixing as akin to painting on a 3-dimensional sonic canvas, it's amazing how much room you can find for your instruments, how much easier tracks fall into and fit into the mix, and how muc extra real estate there is for creative landscaping, all without feeling anywhere near as crowded as one who uses only their pan and their compresser to force-fit their mixes
.
Then add the fourth dimension of time, and it's like turning a painiting into an animation (or a snapshot into a movie). That adds the drama. And speaking of that...
masteringhouse said:
I like the concept of drama though, and time as another element. Technically speaking phase relationships also enter into this area.
Yeah that is very true. That's not quite what I personally think of when I think of the "dimension" of time, or drama, though. While phase relationships do indeed happen in the dimension of time, their effect is (correct me if I'm wrong) actually usually felt somehwere in the other sonic dimensions. It's like delay or reverb occurs in the dimension of time, but their effects are more felt in the front/back relationships (verb and delay can make things sound distant, or in the case of tempo-synched delay, more present), the L-R dimension (stereo delay and echo) and in the spectrum dimension (verb can add a lot of mid-high freq paste to the sound.)
When I think about the time dimension, it's on more of a direct and macro scale; how to vary the mix over the duration of the song, not just for corrective measures (though those are important too), but also for the "dramatic" elements, the storyline of the song, so to speak.
I'm glad to hear that there is an extension of this philosophy and technique into the mastering phase with the M/S approach. I'm so excited, I'm going to see if it has useful applications to my current project (which I really need to get back to and stop typing here
). I feel like a kid at Christmas that can't wait to open his new present.
(Gotta be better than my usual lump of coal.
)
G.
