Is good tone really subjective? Discuss...

[Bob Savage]

at what point do the Haunting mids occur

301Hz below 3D and 1.04Khz above Chewy.

 

[Vrad]

at what point do the Haunting mids occur

301Hz below 3D and 1.04Khz above Chewy.

56.473 octaves in relation to Organic.

 

[gtr31]

at what point do the Haunting mids occur

301Hz below 3D and 1.04Khz above Chewy.

-- this seems challenging .will I require more than one parametric eq ..will a digitech Gonkulator enhance the effect???

 

[Gainiac]

at what point do the Haunting mids occur

301Hz below 3D and 1.04Khz above Chewy.

Bab, I disagree. Thats waaaay too subjective...

 

['63-Strat]

I agree with the OP to a certain point. The freq ranges aren't set in stone, but as far as a guideline goes? Sure, I agree. I hate too much bass on guitars, and also really overly bright sounds for the same reason. Fighting with the bass/kick or cymbals is just stupid. All too often the guys I've spoken to that want more "huge tight low end!!!" are confused about what they're hearing. They hear the interaction between kick, bass and guitar and think that their guitar tone needs to sound like that, but of course trying to do that with guitar tone alone will sound like crap in a mix. I think a lot of people would be shocked at how "thin" or "boxy" a lot of guitar tracks from hit songs can sound solo'd but in the mix are killer. But beyond saying its a good idea not to step on other intruments freq ranges too much, I do think its subjective. Most guys that totally ignore this could be said to have bad tone though, sure.

 

[Cornfordcrunch]

deleted

 

[Bob Savage]

Tone is subjective but there are principles of it that are not. In a real world live setting where the band is mic'd through a full range system any decent soundman is going to put the guitar where it belongs in the frequency spectrum regardless of what it sounds like at the source. If your pushing a ton of low end, he'll shelve you at 100 Hz...if your pushing too much sizzle, he'll cut you off where it becomes less offensive on his rig.

If the parameters a "decent soundman" uses for running a guitar through the mix aren't subjective, I would be interested in seeing the objective documentation detailing the methodology, principles and paramenters. If the principles are not subjective then there should be no disagreement amongst authorities.

If it's not subjective, let's see the sources.

 

[Cornfordcrunch]

Yes sir...you are correct. Sorry for posting an opinion on a chat forum.

 

[PaulyPanacea]

good tone is good tone. and bad tone is bad. horrible tone is , well, horrible. I think thats the easiest way to put it. everything is subjective in the whole chain. player, guitar, gear, cables etc. all change with the quality of each.

 

[Bob Savage]

Yes sir...you are correct. Sorry for posting an opinion on a chat forum.

You're quite a baby. Here, have a tissue.

 

[gtr31]

this thread as a whole is subjective

 

[moltenmetalburn]

SUBJECTIVE
adj.


1. Proceeding from or taking place in a person's mind rather than the external world: a subjective decision.

3. Particular to a given person; personal: subjective experience.

4. Moodily introspective.

4. Existing only in the mind; illusory.

5. Psychology. Existing only within the experiencer's mind.

6. Medicine. Of, relating to, or designating a symptom or condition perceived by the patient and not by the examiner.

7. Expressing or bringing into prominence the individuality of the artist or author.

8. Grammar. Relating to or being the nominative case.

9.. Relating to the real nature of something; essential.

Some more thoughts:

I believe that a sound that steps on other instruments frequency range is fact a bad sound. No matter what your subjective preferences are for those frequency "cutoffs".

If your tone competes with the other instruments in the band live or in the mix that is bad.

It is a bad tone because it makes the band sound worse as a whole.

Will any of you argue that these are in fact good sounds even though they make the band sound worse? how?

Would you have me believe that if your mix has a guitar pumping so much information below 300 that the bass and kick drum are practically inaudible that you'll just pump those instruments in the guitar ranges and that mix will sound just as good to the ear as one that is mixed with the instruments sitting cleanly in their own ranges of their fundamental tones?

Id like to meet the person who truly believes this, I think you would all agree that the latter mix sounds better. It allows the instruments to shine where they create the most information fundamentally and the accompanying higher harmonics that give each instrument its individual timbre.

I would bet that anyone could hear the difference as "better" or "good" and choose the latter mix not just musicians and engineers.

 

[Cornfordcrunch]

Yes sir...you are correct. Sorry for posting an opinion on a chat forum.

You're quite a baby. Here, have a tissue.

Not being a baby. Just dont care to argue with you over something stupid.

 

[glpg80]

ill argue it - and add a variable to your tone equation.

time scale.

a bass is a full octave below a guitar - im also not talking about your average bedroom noodler here or someone who likes a shit load of gain/bass for no appearent reason.

musicians that can actually play music is based on a 4/4 time scale or whatever you choose. say that your bass frequency is rock solid - and the bassist is decent enough to actually play in time with you.

in no reason or way can you tell me that if everyone is clicking along and stops playing, and starts playing at the same exact time - that the thump you get in your chest is not desirable and not badass? im not talking about just the bassist, im talking about the fullness of the band as a whole - drums included and hell keyboards to if you want.

in a recording based sense of thought you cant get that feeling. in recording you would want to apply everything about frequency cutoffs for each instrument, and proper highs for the regarding instruments.

time is a key here - you cant record time and the wow factor of live playing on record. only what is played during that time. the differences are playing live and played recorded CD's or in a studio with a microphone. a microphone is nothing more than a variable capacitor - they have limits and tones themselves.

anyways i go for a fullness effect for band practices - it gets the juices flowing. and yes i do mean by using my ears for the entire band and not X setting that sounded good in the basement the night before.

 

[glpg80]

i will also agree with a few that mentioned there is good tone, tone that you dont prefer, and horrible tone that just makes you want to hunch over - resume the fetal position - and hurl all over yourself.

i have heard tones from opening live bands that literally gave me a headache - i had to leave my spot to find a store to take medicine before i missed the real act.

 

[Bob Savage]

I believe that a sound that steps on other instruments frequency range is fact a bad sound. No matter what your subjective preferences are for those frequency "cutoffs".

There is always frequency overlap amongst instruments in a mix. Always. The extent and amount of the overlap is a matter of pure personal preference (subjective).

If your tone competes with the other instruments in the band live or in the mix that is bad.

There are always overlap/competing freqs.

It is a bad tone because it makes the band sound worse as a whole.

Bad and worse are a matter of personal opinion.

Will any of you argue that these are in fact good sounds even though they make the band sound worse? how?

Look up "loaded question."

Would you have me believe that if your mix has a guitar pumping so much information below 300 that the bass and kick drum are practically inaudible that you'll just pump those instruments in the guitar ranges and that mix will sound just as good to the ear as one that is mixed with the instruments sitting cleanly in their own ranges of their fundamental tones?

Look up "straw man."

You cannot simply pull out extreme examples in order to prove your point. It's as if I'm stating something like "red roses have a sweet scent" and the retort is "but what if red roses smelled like a dog's butt? Would they still smell sweet?"

 

[Bob Savage]

Not being a baby. Just dont care to argue with you over something stupid.

So let me get this straight. You post your opinion "on a chat forum," I state my opinion, then you decide to condescendingly respond as if I'm somehow being rude or not allowing you to state your opinion on a "chat forum?"

Seems like you're being a baby.

 

[Death by Uberschall]

Bottom line: everybody likes what they like, good or bad.

 

[Bob Savage]

Bottom line: everybody likes what they like, good or bad.

True statement. I think we're done here.

 

[moltenmetalburn]

I believe that a sound that steps on other instruments frequency range is fact a bad sound. No matter what your subjective preferences are for those frequency "cutoffs".

There is always frequency overlap amongst instruments in a mix. Always. The extent and amount of the overlap is a matter of pure personal preference (subjective).

If your tone competes with the other instruments in the band live or in the mix that is bad.

There are always overlap/competing freqs.

Obviously. It should be obvious to you as displayed by your ability to articulate that I am still discussing the extreme here. I am referring to a guitar sound heavily pushing frequencies that are outside of the instruments fundamental and usable harmonic range.

It is a bad tone because it makes the band sound worse as a whole.

Bad and worse are a matter of personal opinion.

As I believe bad sounds can be scientifically quantified. Nope, a bad sound is a bad sound. a good sound is a good sound.

Will any of you argue that these are in fact good sounds even though they make the band sound worse? how?

Look up "loaded question."

From my point of view this isn't loaded at all. It's only loaded form your point of view as you disagree that a bad sound can be a quantifiable fact.

It is my belief that bad sounds are in fact quantifiable secondary to dozens of discussions with audiophile engineers who has the schooling and scientific knowledge to illiterate the reasons, something I do not posses. Therefore my rebuttal could be nothing less than futile. I have been well convinced numerous times In my experience based on their scientific facts as evidence.

I remember you mentioning that you never agree with "these types". Well these types are the only people I believe. they have been trained scientifically in sound and psycho-acoustics. to me science has always been king.

thus far you have only been able to pick apart my loose ideas about the subject. Admittedly I don't posses enough of the scientific knowledge to prove any of my ideas correct.

On the other hand you have presented nothing to me that convinces me otherwise about the subjects we have discussed. Lets just agree to disagree as neither can inherently prove the other wrong.

Would you have me believe that if your mix has a guitar pumping so much information below 300 that the bass and kick drum are practically inaudible that you'll just pump those instruments in the guitar ranges and that mix will sound just as good to the ear as one that is mixed with the instruments sitting cleanly in their own ranges of their fundamental tones?

Look up "straw man."

You cannot simply pull out extreme examples in order to prove your point. It's as if I'm stating something like "red roses have a sweet scent" and the retort is "but what if red roses smelled like a dog's butt? Would they still smell sweet?"

How does my argument not support my supposed conclusion? Can you argue that those mixes will sound equivalent?

I HAVE heard bands using tones that match my examples these weren't "pulled" from anywhere. After almost a decade on the road I have seen thousands of live bands. this is all in my experience and they sounded terrible.


I'm tired of going back and forth with you. You wont convince me otherwise as I will not you. I know your opinion and I 'd like to hear more from other members as well. This was a discussion I started in order to see some other opinions on the subject, I clearly have yours and we happen to disagree on a major fundamental component.