wektor
Well-known member
I think for me the big realization was that maybe I do like things very, very simple at times. and I am not talking the "simple means, complex results" methodology, which is great, but actually making things that are just that. simple.
quite difficult to get over the self-awareness of it when perhaps it's not some hyper-complex standing wave pattern with crazy ratios or something possible to appreciate for technical reasons at least (which of course is a very easy way to shield yourself from criticism but makes things way less honest).
I'm sure someone could easily complain about things like that being boring, but I think the less substance there is, the more fucked up the subjective experience can get if given the right approach.
Perhaps what I am talking about is sort of equivalent to staring at the wall, well, it is idiotic, but try and do it for a couple hours straight.
What I also find interesting in this case of really simple sound pieces (especially ones based on synthesis, not samples), is there's hardly an notion of a "correct" manner of playing them back.
If you went to Corsica Studios and played Bar Sachiko through their system, your listening experience would be difficult to classify as simply better or worse than listening to it at home off your phone speaker. It would definitely be a different situation, but so it would also change if you would sit down for the entire or walk around your room, but only an imbecile would claim you need an audiophile grade speaker setup to have a "proper listening experience".
All will require attention, but the strong point is the differences are highlighted more as you are focused in timbre anyway. Rather than ohhh the drums sound a bit muddy in this space and I can barely tell what the lyrics are you can very easily notice the particularities of how played back sound diffuses in the space, as well as the space reflecting it back.
Normally the "best sound" would mean the best possible reproduction of the "original" experience - sitting in the concert hall, or whatever, being as close to it as available, I think Bonnet says something about the difference (between the original and each reproduced sonorous) being infra-thin in this context, but I am not too certain if I intuitively understand it correctly.
So you have an extremely clean and nicely mic'd up recording, played through a great and pricy sound system in an appropriate listening space.
What I am doing is making up that trace (or recording) of a sonorous object that's non-existent, there was no primary case of myself engaging in some sort of physical process, striking a resonating body or whatever.
Perhaps it's such an obvious point to encounter, but acoustics are very complex on their own already and even simple excitations of the air in a space can be enjoyable and interesting, in their unique way each time.