Accept yourself for who you are.
Nobody is perfect and we are not robots.
One can do this well, but has weaknesses elsewhere.

Life itself is always a struggle. Where there is good there is also bad - where it is hot, it is also cold. Man is healthy and sick at the same time. The body is constantly trying to keep its balance. If you get a virus - the immune system tries to fight the harmful virus, sometimes the body fails because the immune system is already too damaged by the modern way of life and it dies of a virus.

So there is always something opposite, your illness also produces something good. The compulsion is the driving force and it is important to use it. The best thing to do is to look at nature - on the one hand beautiful, on the other hand a hurican with destruction.
Do what you have to do.

I understand when you say "I have to understand how I did it", so get to work, maybe you are restructuring your brain in a new or different way. Because only you are the captain of your ship, you know your course and you know subconsciously where the journey is going.
You can also fail in arranging, sometimes the journey takes a lifetime.

 

Wooow, wonderful, love the "polyrythmy"! (each instrument follows its own rhythm, independently) Just love it!

 

You could also look at Gamelan music,
maybe not as poly-rhythmic, but being heterophonic it's got a very unique way of structuring things, and dealing with time/recursivity..

If the african example grows in length,
gamelan will also grow in depth, being kind of multilayered..

This guys are masters of tempo/dynamics..
they can nail this crazy accelerandos/ritardandos, and sound almost like they're One instrument rather than an ensemble..

 

Last edited: Sep 8, 2021

Song reminded me of Ben Howard when I hit play, Oats In The Water. Its a really nice arrangement.

I can see logic in the cascades etc. It has a destination and a vision.

 

Yeah for sure this is happening. I can feel myself becoming familiar with the change and how huge it is, but I'm also starting to accept it and come to terms with how it plays out.

 

@reziduchamp

I don't know how an autistic person perceives the world, so it's difficult to give useful tips on a subject that is already incredibly complex and with which even non-autistic people can sometimes have great difficulty. Many of the problems you described are common. Also among non-autistic people. I myself have had to face many of these challenges in the past, and I'm sure I still have some challenges ahead of me.

I think the idea of arranging the tracks in the daw in their position and color shading to visualize sonic depth structure is great. I can imagine that it can help to stay focused and not lose sight of the goal. I'm not so sure about the usefulness or benefit of using macros, though. For study purposes, I have spent quite some time developing macros, some of them quite complex, which can have a psychoacoustic influence on depth perception through all kinds of technical parameters. This can work very well with the right sound sources and in the right context, but it doesn't solve the actual problem that you have addressed. Namely - if I understood you correctly - the problem of not knowing how something should actually sound - or how it should sound in the mix. Or even worse, not knowing how the mix should sound at all. And in trying to achieve something meaningful by just doing anything, ruining everything. And as you've recognized, tutorials often don't help, because they often don't convey the "why". Why should you use a particular process? And in what situation? What is the purpose? How do you make the right decision?

The point is, it's not a problem that only autistic people have. There is a lot of half-knowledge or false knowledge spread around, but rarely logic. For example, yes, it makes no sense at all to use pink noise as a guide when mixing levels. Pink noise is, however, well suited to calibrate the ear. Well, even if many tutorials lack logic, the good thing is, there is logic in mixing! Pretty much everything in mixing follows logic. It is just as mathematically calculable and computationally applicable as music theory is to composing.

What must be learned, however, are physical relationships and the conscious experience of how something is perceived by you sonically. For example, how does a car with a running engine sound when it is 3 meters away from you? How does it sound when it passes you on a street 10 meters away? How do the frequency ranges behave? How does the pitch behave? Is there any noise? Why is there noise? What is the noise level in relation to the hum? How do cars sound on a street 100 meters away? How do different rooms sound? Small rooms? Large rooms? Long rooms? How does sound behave in rooms with high ceilings? How do reflections sound on stone? And what about reflections on wood paneling? Why does something sound the way it does? What happens to transients, what happens to the frequency response, and what happens on the time axis due to reflections and resonances? So my tip to you is: Analyze the sound of your environment! Everywhere you are. Because if you don't know how something sounds and what causes it, how can you imitate it? And that's exactly what mixing is: Balancing energy and imitating real sonic relationships. Everything beyond that is purely an artistic decision. When you do these analyses while you are not busy with your music, you will not have to think so much about '"how" something sounds, but how you can achieve that sound.

At first it may seem counterproductive to deal with these things obsessively, because suddenly many more variables appear in the calculation, but if you manage to put these variables logically in order, you learn to understand, for example, what is too much or too little in the sound of a recorded instrument and what you have to raise or lower with an EQ to create balance in a sound. You learn to pay attention to dynamics and make a conscious decision about whether an instrument has too much or too little transient material for its intended place in your mix. you learn to recognize what the important perceptual frequency ranges of a given sound are or should be in its current state in your mix, which helps you make the right decisions about frequency staggering in the mix and placing instruments (or specific frequency ranges of instruments) in the right pockets.

And if you have problems applying these concepts to music mixing, maybe try something else first. So if you're not a regular at concerts or opera houses, you could build and mix soundscapes, for example. Your brain knows what the environment around you sounds like, so this might be easier for you to practice your craft. Maybe start with 15-30 second scenes to get results. In my initial phase after university, for example, I produced cinematic sound scenes for apps, because I was hopelessly overwhelmed by music mixing jobs. I had all the knowledge, but I still lacked a lot of the technical experience.

I hope this helps.

 

Last edited: Sep 9, 2021

Nailed it throughout here man. Brilliant words, thanks.

The Macros are there for workflow speed in a single menu. Doesn't really relate to the arrangement aspect unless the track needs a Delay to automate for example. I have mapped these out in advance in my previous PBN versions that work. I can make a new track in a day and repeat the process, but the emotion is lacking in the arrangement because its Pinocchio production. I'm trying to create a boy and then determined to give it life. It never was a real boy.

Love the points about reflections, great advice there. I built a vocal booth last year and spent a lot of time listening to reflections in nature, and absorbence while I was building it with different materials. I was in a factory shouting at the material inside composite door throwouts like a lunatic in different octaves, to see how much I needed to absorb sound. Hand behind the material I could feel bass coming through on a single layer but with 2 or 3 it killed it... All very good advice that you gave there thanks.

Yeah you nailed the point about my learning. I can't actually latch on to some conventional teaching - generally if it has no confidence in its direction, as I've discovered here. Knowing this is illuminating really. Understanding gives us the potential to solve. Motivation, meditation etc, its all just sticking plasters on a virus. Doesnt work for me. I don't need motivating, I'm a fountain of creativity when I turn the taps on. I think I was searching for a method to control the flow. This seems to be it. It feels complete.

This approach might be relevant to a far wider scope than I'd realised, after reading what you wrote. I thought it would relate to learning difficulties, but in the thread it might be something else that gives us the need for structure. Maybe the chaos only works for so many people so everybody else ends up directionless and blaming themselves?

Your idea about 15 second mixes is interesting because this was one of the things I was going to practise with arrangement to try to solve the disconnect. But I think it has become redundant now, because I think I'll develop this better by practising dynamic Depth in the arrangement. But its a good idea to fall back on if it doesn't, thanks.

Yeah also some great points on sound levels. This is something that I struggle to hear. I don't think this is something that I can ear train learn. I've tried that and it doesn't work. Compressors too. But focusing on the Transients for Depth I can hear the difference. Very strange really... I've been controlling Width for 3 years or so, I can hear that and abuse it, but nobody ever taught me Depth, other than in soundbytes. They certainly don't work with it in tutorials as a process or an approach. Its secondary and accidental at best...

So hopefully I won't need to learn those differences and this will make more sense as it develops... And with any luck, other people might pick up some of these ideas and see improvements to help...

Cheers for the ideas. There probably isn't much that I haven't already tried and considered. Structuring Depth though, I didn't see that having any relevance. I've heard people talk about it briefly and I glossed over it.

 

You don't find tutorials on Depth explaining the text above in detail. "How" do you place in the background? I found a YouTube from Point Blank explaining the concept and bits here and there, usually in the middle of a different tutorial but nothing really showing this stuff in action as a working process, with deliberate moves pushing sounds around. Its seriously lacking as an explanation...

Since the concept has now clicked with me, the text above is clear. Until I could see Depth in EQ, Compression etc, this text would mean nothing.

Nice post btw. Its a good visualisation of the aim.

 

Some gentle theory behind the ideas
https://www.sonible.com/blog/adding-depth/
https://www.soundonsound.com/techniques/creating-sense-depth-your-mix
There's a Groove3 tutorial - Mixing for Depth and Space Explained

Some plugins that provide a visual interface for spacial location.
These are pretty good - you should have a lot of fun exploring these.

Parallax Virtual Sound Stage https://www.parallax-audio.com/documentation.php

Wave Arts Panorama https://wavearts.com/products/plugins/panorama-6/

dearVR https://www.dear-reality.com/

eareverb https://eareckon.com/en/products/eareverb2-reverb-plug-in.html

 

(In humour only)
Autism is a neurodevelopmental disorder characterised by difficulties with social interaction and communication, and by restricted and repetitive behaviour. You have described and tailored it to the majority of people in this entire forum.

(Seriously now) Well done.

 

Lol... Could well be that they aren't diagnosed :D

Thanks. I've never thought to write humour out like this before, it makes sense.

 

These look great, thanks... I've just noticed one from iZotope still open on my tabs unread as well... Here in case its useful to anyone else...

https://www.izotope.com/en/learn/what-is-mix-depth-how-to-create-front-back-space.html

Wonder how long it will be before Sonible etc start to A.I. the Depth into their plugins as a deliberate move...? ... Or is this the point here, are they already there, but not specifically tailoring it that way just yet?

I guess that the next level for these plugins is for the user to be able to write in what each sound is (Lead, Backing, Atmos etc), so that Sonible can do that balance to perfection, rather than just guessing which sound balance is the best...

And now I'm seeing how A.I. can only work if it has been made clear how we need to interact. So if its asking for our style, that's a half-arsed cop-out way of stereotyping the balance. Whereas asking us where we want to put things, by making it clear and asking questions in the logical way that I'm setting things out here (Backing, Lead etc) would make the balance instantly pleasing once we know what we want, rather than having what we want decided for us ("is it more like Jazz or Rock??? Oh I'll have to click Jazz, its definitely not Rock")

I wonder if I can move their concept forward by encouraging the A.I. to push and shape my default Depth positions better? I think I might split my time today between the start up track and a duplicate balanced Template to experiment with it..

Oh, in case its not clear here, what I'm seeing is that I'm not sure if all these companies are seeing what I'm seeing. The message is there, but I'm not sure if these words will connect with me to make sense... So if they just push a sound into a space where they think that I want it, I might be back at square one, where I'm not hearing the balance again, because they pushed things into weird spaces and suddenly I don't like it or just can't hear their logic of what they think sounds balanced. That might sound strange if they create an awesome balance, but I'm aware that this is a disconnect for me, so I should hopefully be aware of what just happened and why I lost focus, rather than just thinking I'm shit again...

I'm really interested now to see if guiding the A.I. in advance with my Buss balances can encourage it to enhance my decisions, rather than 'correct' them and turn that into carnage... And beyond that, my PBN stuff isn't really primed in advance for Stereo Width with different sounds on each side. The Busses are balanced ready to pan sounds into those Widths, but it hasn't made sense to start from wide mixes yet so I have just sent all the PBN lines down the middle... It might make sense to make that improvement already to work with moving forward (pan different sounds L and R to widen it)... That's worth looking into today as well...

Cheers for all of these links. They might have helped to improve things dramatically... I'm wondering if it makes more sense to start here today, instead of Comping the Vocals - which now that I have written it is more admin than creative, so I probably should approach both aspects with this awareness and consciously flip between if I can... A 10 minute timer might be worth using on the Depth aspect to limit that focus shift and I think loading different tracks creates a conscious switch between the workmodes... I think the Comping might be better in short sessions too... I'll try 30 minutes and see how that goes... Plus the Width enhancements, one Buss at a time then switch...

I've written out a plan of action - 3 tasks, super-streamlined

Brilliant. Thanks for this stuff...

 

I love it - your plan, your energy, your enthusiasm, all firing an all cylinders.
I feel almost overloaded just reading about your intentions - yet alone pursuing them.

You're obviously enjoying the process.
As a personal preference, I really do find that the creative process and the explorations,
with (and only occasionally without) many challenges and frustrations,
are far more rewarding than evaluating the results.
But both matter - so "Good Luck" with both!

 

Yeah this is probably true. I do tend to love the challenge aspect, that probably is the enjoyment part... But not the carnage... Booted up this morning, went to copy files and Ubuntu destroyed USB drive access. Its not allowing me access to any drives now, so I just hacked the piece of shit and got the files out - probably took nearly 2 hours though, that I won't get back and it destroyed the mindset...

And I really don't have a proper reference point yet for what I'd consider success. When I can repeat it, that's when I'm there. I have a reference point where I can repeat through cheating (Ghost Arranging) but because its Pinocchio it feels empty. Maybe making a real boy won't be satisfying either, but at the very least it needs concluding.

So I'm going to reset and ignore the format issues ahead and deal with that later... Onward and upward. I'm conquering this shit... This is happening...

Cheers for the wishes.

 

Ok, you said that color and sound have no connection for you, but I still dare to try an explanation based on colors. Please excuse me, if you should not be able to take any insight from this. But at least I tried


Edgar Alwin Payne once painted a picture called 'Riders Overlooking Canyon'. The painting is a study of color theory and I think it illustrates the concept of depth very well.



In the foreground we see the riders with their horses and the canyons. We have foreground areas, which are illuminated by the light, with bright and cool shades of yellow, green and red. And we have the shaded side of the canyon, with slightly darker and warmer shades of yellow and red. Overall, the colors in the foreground are quite saturated. However, the further the objects are in the background of the image, the less contrasty the colors become. The colors are all still there, but they become desaturated and cooler in hue. Instead of green, yellow and red, we see blue and gray, with only a small amount of green, yellow and red mixed in. Details are less and less visible with increasing depth. In the far distance, it's just a blurry mud of gray.

What does this tell us about the depth staging of music sound mixes? Well, it follows the same concept.

In the foreground we have instruments in their full frequency spectrum. We have warm shadows (low frequencies) and we have cold light (high frequencies). We have different instruments, which we distribute over the phantom panorama like the different colors in the image (green, yellow, red). We emphasize some frequency components of an instrument a little more, and we take back others so that something else can take this place in the frequency spectrum.
See the green down there on the shady slope of the canyon? Both are at the same depth level. The canyon releases a small part of the space it occupies so that something else can live there. But around the green, the color of the canyon is very saturated. It's like a frequency pocket. A frequency range of an instrument has been EQ'd down so that another instrument (or a small part of it) can occupy that space. But so that the instrument in this pocket doesn't get out of hand like weeds, there are two small resonant boosts around the EQ cut, as a limitation. Frequency staggering!

But actually we wanted to discuss depth, didn't we? Okay, let me try.

If we consider sounds, as painters do with colors, as a conglomerate of different values, the concept of depth gradation is perhaps more comprehensible. Because, as in Edgar Payne's painting, we create the feeling of depth through contrasts. While in the foreground we have strong contrasts in the frequency ranges that the instruments occupy there, and these instruments also like to be transient-rich and receive saturation from us, the instruments in the background contain fewer and fewer of these values. Instead, we give instruments in the background other values, creating a contrast between foreground and background, but more on that later.
The further sounds move into the background, the fewer high and low frequencies they have. In particular, high frequencies are often lost with increasing distance before they reach us. For example, due to air resistance attenuation or dispersion. This means we have to filter these frequencies (or mask them with another instrument that sits more in the foreground). We can also use compressors with fast attack and release times or transient designers to soften the transients a bit. The further an instrument moves into the background, the less we perceive its transient or noise-prone oscillations. For example, the string noise of a violin is not audible at a distance of 10 meters, especially if other instruments are playing at the same time. If we want to move the violin into the background, it makes no sense to increase frequency components that emphasize sound characteristics that in real life can only be heard at close range. So we have to make sure that processes like compressors, filters, saturation, etc. that we use don't have exactly this effect. So by removing or lowering the details of all the instruments, details that are in the high mids or high frequencies, the less contrast there is between those instruments. They all become more and more gray. Just like the canyons in the background of the image.

The next thing we can do is to work with reflections. The further an instrument is in the background, the more reflections we can add to it. You can use delays for that. Or reverb. I would leave the instruments that are in the front completely dry, but anything that doesn't need to stick directly to the speaker diaphragm can use a little early reflection. And the further an instrument should be in the background, the more late reflections it needs, but less early reflections. But there is more we can do to stagger the instruments in depth and create contrast between foreground and background. Take a look at this image here:




Do you see how sharp the image in the foreground is and how it becomes more and more blurred the further you look into the distance?
The delay and reverb AUX tracks have probably already done a large part of this effect. Possibly the instruments you want to move into the background will not sound like they are really far away, because the instrument is not "in" the reverb. The reverb is parallel to the instrument. Well, if that's the case, you can put a reverb with only early reflections on the instrument insert, and mix it in via the mix (or dry/wet) knob. And if that's still not enough to sink the instrument in the distance, try a widener plugin. Just a little bit to blur the instrument or the reverb. Or both.

And that's really all there is to it. As I said in my other post, the rest comes from the listening experience. "How does something sound when it's far away?"

 

Last edited: Sep 10, 2021

You know what OP, I think you need to learn some hardcore psychoacoustics.
I mean the math behind our hearing and behind the sound's behaviour.
Like how air dampens high frequencies, the more distant sounds without reflections sound more mono, phase shift from panning, that sort of stuff.
Then visualize where you want all your sounds to be in an actual space. Then, having learned the psychoacoustic stuff, work towards this, and listen. Compare what you hear from your DAW with what you hear in a real world. Take note if your brain can properly decode the space like it does in real life.
Now how to visualize, how to chose what goes where? Well that's another fucking story, but I have a suggestion here.
Think through what story you want to tell with the music. Who are main actors in your design, who are the supporting cast? Position them accordingly. No rules here, all depends on what you want to tell.

 

Yes, I really couldn't agree more with it!

 

You're gonna love this story... I studied fashion design a couple of decades ago at college. In the art class, the tutor tried everything to show me what he was painting in life art, to show me the shade, the contrast, how to paint or draw the strokes. In the end he gave up. Same story in all of the drawing, painting and creative classes really. I just couldn't do any of it. I quit a couple of times because I just can't do that shit... I came back and finished the course but I was shit throughout... When we had a module late in the course to apply for University everybody laughed when I looked at the options and asked why I was even bothering. They were all going to get into this College and that Uni and I didn't stand a chance of getting into the shittest place. Its true, I'm that shit at fashion designing. But I applied to the best Fashion Uni in Britain and I got offered a place before I even left the interview. Before he'd even looked through my stuff properly actually.

So if I can't draw for shit, I can't paint, I can't put my designs down on paper then I can't do fashion. I'm shit at it, because this is the way that it is done and this is the way that it has to be done. Its the only way. Its how the industry works... So when I am the anomaly defying the odds and proving the theory wrong and proving that there are other ways, does that change the whole game? Can we actually do this shit in a way that they tell us is impossible?

The only way that I can see fashion is in the Templates. We make bodice blocks which is basically the shape of a body and design into those. We can also design onto the mannequins, wrapping the fabric into shapes. I'm decent at that. I create weird stuff that people wouldn't come up with normally... But where I excel is in the bodice blocks. I can see fashion from there. I can see the designs, I can see creativity and most of all my sewing and construction skills with fabric are pretty awesome. I'm largely a hacker of sorts, I find solutions. I figure shit out. But I just can't do things in the conventional way and no amount of teaching will work if I just can't do it... So if painting designs in advance won't work, should I just give up? Or if I already know that I can create clothes roughly based on old clothes, with a bit of guidance from a different perspective showing me how a bodice works, how it folds around the body and how the seams bring it all together, somehow I see it all. And I see where the creativity sits within that structured approach.

So its not that I'm not capable of making clothes, or making music, I just have to do it in a way that makes sense, or its just not going to work.

Its crazy that I can 'see' this Depth here in colour now, when I can't really see the shade in the painting. But I think that maybe this is the relevant part. If I'm looking at the painting trying to see colour, I'm not going to see it. I can. I know where the red is and the darkness alongside it, but there's a disconnect that stops me from feeling the colour as such. But I can feel the contrast in darkness, which might sound like the same thing. So if we call it colour, I struggle to connect. But if we call it shades, and focus in on those, it seems to change how I look at the arrangement. I also struggle to learn anything, any time really. Videos get rewound every minute, probably less. Sometimes 10 times because the words just don't take shape.

There's a flipside to working in flat patterns. I could never show someone a design on paper without mapping it out onto a bodice. But then most people can't see how that bodice becomes clothing, and I can't understand that aspect. Its clear to me. Its a very strange thing how our brains see things differently, but really we shouldn't be analysing to that extent and just accept that if we can't learn in a certain way, its probably not worth spending months or years on the same concept, but trying different approaches to get the message across. Maybe the whole concept is what needs to change... So in fashion from brush strokes to vectors. Most people will tell you that you can't design in vectors because its not creative. But all of the seams are vectors. They all need a stitch line - its a vector from A to B.

I still make clothes when I can be bothered or when I need something like gym pants. I used to make my clubbing clothes and I still make my own cycling gear, because it feels good and I enjoy it, but it doesn't fulfil me really. I've done everything I'd ever want to with it really, its pretty much concluded. I can do it and I'm good at it, in my own way. But I still could never draw an outfit that I wanted to make, nor would I want to. But why would I ever need to? I don't need to do those other aspects, I can just do it in my own way...

Music isn't at that place yet. I haven't connected all of those dots to a finish. I can see here though that this is my process. These are the small missing parts that make sense of it all. Its all about having the Depth laid out as audio in advance so that I can hear the balance. This has been clear for a couple of months now and Ghost Arranging works brilliantly. I can finish a track in a day, probably a few hours. All of the processes are already working, apart from arrangement. The logic follows my life experiences, where I can see it now. Where my method might always be a bit crazy, there probably won't be many alternatives where I can see a full path and this is probably going to need a bit more massaging into the precise kind of shape that I need it to be.

These are great examples btw. I'm aware of Depth in photos through the focus and how its imitated in art through skillful blending of colours. Funnily enough, bright orange sits really well off navy blue, which I made into some clubbing clothes decades ago. It creates an awesome contrast. Maybe sometimes examples might have to be that extreme for me to notice them. When I watch people showing Compression or EQ, I can only really hone in when its really extreme. When it comes back to moderation I seem to lose perspective.

So I don't know how it relates back in total. It feels like there are some contradictions in certain aspects in how I can focus, but I think that the main thing that hooks me in is the structure. With an absolute path that makes sense, I guess it gives me some freedom. So maybe its more about the emotional aspect that I connect to, and structure allows my emotion to lock onto the art, so that my creativity can be free... Something like that, I don't know exactly and its hard to explain how I am the way that I am, but it does seem like I only have a narrow band of options that will work for me. Strangely, as you can probably see, I'm a typist as well. I was ultra slow at that as well at first, but it took me 8 months to get to the highest level we have here. At 3 months I was useless. I have this weird way of learning ultra fast if I understand the variables...

This is why I think that we autistics probably all run on scripts. We write scripts for variables and it allows us to connect things together. Until the scripts are written we can't function in any situation. Variables are just these weird things that we don't understand. Better scripts make things run smoother, just like the plugins we use. Its like a latency thing probably. If there's too much latency involved our CPU will just lock up, or the soundcard maybe, but if I'm running a shit tonne of low latency plugins and I understand them all, my mind can process where I'm at and where I'm going. I assume autism runs like this for everyone, but its just my theory. In that case CPU size would also be relevant, just like bad sectors, buffer speed etc, which might explain the difference between severe autism and high functioning.

Its a great analysis of the colour depth. We can't have blue and red on the same dot on the page. We have to make a conscious decision which colour each 'pixel' will be and set them off against each other, in balance... Its easy to say this in theory and usually in practise these kind of things throw me. So this is exactly why having a set approach and a focus - and more importantly logic - might help me to see things better. I'm pretty sure that it can and will in the long term and maybe it will take a few practises before I can consolidate scripts for these things, but I'm near certain from here that the logic holds up as a concept. I won't be certain until its proven and repeated, but I understand it...

I figured out Compression the other day. Kush explained it properly and suddenly the lights went on. What crap people are teaching about it waiting 30ms after the sound hits the threshold before it kicks in never connected with me. What I was hearing wasn't what they were explaining, so I have become more confused about it. When he explained it I mapped out Macros to experience it in real time and it just clicked... Then it kind of went away again strangely. Its one of those really difficult things to learn. But when I figured out all of this organisation here around Depth, controlling the Transients made sense on a whole new level - particularly the attack. I get the connection of proximity now and how I can hear a Compressor by focusing not on the Transient itself, but more on where the sound feels to be positioned in relation to other sounds, based on its Transient. And the PBN setup is key to having that Depth. Without it there's nothing to learn from and its back to pissing in the wind, hoping to paint like Picasso. Crazy really. Makes me wonder why people ever start from a blank canvas.

Some nice explanations here of these processes. I've got the basic grasp of them and I really think its something I have to keep experiencing from here until I just understand how it works. Its very similar to learning Width really once you can hear it and I'm fine with that aspect now. The explanations you gave make sense already. I might need to play around with some Early Reflections only on some Busses. I never really use those like that, so that could be a great improvement.

Cheers.

 

You might be spot on. I've started to think in great Depth about what's going on and what I need to simulate.

When I learned sound design I took my time and I've found now that I know how synths work, because I'm focused on sculpting the harmonics, not the flashy synth knobs. I was aware that if I had taken some easy paths and learned with Wavetables etc, I'd end up cheating my learning. Limitation is key in understanding synthesis properly.

So when I'm looking at Depth, the temptation is to just stick a big Reverb on a sound and make it sound far away. Done. But you don't learn anything from these shortcuts. When you become aware of how Depth feels, where sounds lose their high end as they get further away, these little hacks don't cut it and I'm guessing I'll be able to see through them. I'm imagining that learning how it works properly, like getting a sense of Depth on just dry signals with EQ, Compression and Volume, primes the track for even more sense of Depth when you throw on fancy Reverbs.

And yeah, this is already what I'm seeing, where characters will make sense sitting off to the sides as supporting actors. Its why I arranged the Busses as I did. Backing Synths includes Keys, Arps, which are just background noise really. So why would they need positioning anywhere else?

So for what I'm seeing, its about creating these senses of Depth in advance, so that whatever is going through these Busses can't get too high in frequency and spoil my balance, and if they do fall out of position, I hope I should be able to see as well as hear that they tried to overplay their roles as supporting actors and they need to get back into position

Seeing it like this now, it makes me wonder why I've never seen that Backing Synths don't belong up front. Its so dumb really, the clue is in the title