what is your definition of 'good sound' in digital domain?

[pacifique]

ok.. my moaning here is quite unorganised and confused because i am not good at writing in english.. but please get the drift and share your opinion on this subject should you please

my current dilemma is that when i focus on each individual sound the mixing balance goes bonkers or when i do that to the whole balance each sound seem to go pearshape! of course creativity is about overcoming the circumstantial sensual limit through CONTEXTual genius rather than being stuck within sensual absolutism but my current egotistical desire for quality sound is so huge i cannot settle possibly for anything less - i guess i ain't snappy or creative enough to solve this situation!!

and when i seek advices how to get that naturally hightened/concentrated sensual sound WITHOUT HAVING TO SPEND RIDICULOUS AMOUNT OF MONEY and i know there is a way...most times people just lightheartedly tell me to focus on dynamics.. or some just says boost eq on equaliser (if anything sophisticated eq subtraction and overlap sounded more natural) or something and i felt frustrated.. it's like getting a sachet of splenda when you want some real sugar! i want both sound and music to be nice!

afterall digital is singal processing so spending ridiculous amount of money appeared unreasonable to me.. but i don't want to settle for crap either .. !!
i mean, i tried a number of things and sometimes managed to simulate the sort of naturally high def phat sound overlapping certain frequencies and multi band process them via multiple buses, cropping eq using many different curves over and over etc it did sound natural and rich but to do that over and over to every each sound is too exhausting!

in my own distorted terms, i think good, quality sensual sound in digital domain can roughly be categorised in the following respects - the quality of EQ concentration and of course dynamic but that's another factor i'd like to focus more on frequential / spectral aspect of sound on this particular post

to me, a 'quality' documented sound seem to have a high degree of eq concentration, saturation, compaction whatever you call it and frequential balance in it self so that it represents its source and its frequential make up pretty dense and clear/pure fashion
(intuitively i have to guess that density has to do with the elegance and sophistication of signal amplification and clarity i think it has to do with using less range but more amount subtler partials within that to express more? or more amount of eq partials in a similar area but a lot of subtle partials in dense compaction.. transparent in a subtle compaction rather than having unnatural edge or flat - more like impressionist painting than romantic stuff)

i got sm58, akg p420, mbox 2 protools le and logic pro and that's it
though i wish i had a preamp to simplify things a bit i can't be bothered to buy that for now

any idea/tactic on processing dry sources to naturally thickened sound (naturally phat but precise in balance) in basic/generic set up?

also, sonogram seems to do a better job than eq spectrum when showing frequential density because level metre or eq spectrum visualiser only display the largest point but not the eq-make up and density)

[toneguru]

The definition of good sound in the digital domain is the same as the definition of good sound in the analog domain.

and that is...

The absence of bad sound.

[Duardo]

I'm not sure exactly what you're saying the whole way through, but one thing you said early on jumped out at me. You said "when I focus on each individual sound"...that's one thing you may want to try not doing. If you focus on the sound as a whole rather than each individual sound your results may be quite a bit better.

The first thing that came to mind when I saw the title of the thread, though, was pretty much the same thing that toneguru just said...I don't think there's any difference between the definition of good sound in the digital domain and good sound, period.

[narcoman]

Originally Posted by Duardo

If you focus on the sound as a whole rather than each individual sound your results may be quite a bit better.

massively brilliant quote that......