Charles1 dad,
Indeed. If you can understand, so much the better. here is another example of Srabanese. See if you can divine what he is talking about:
"For that we need yet another example - auras. Rather than acrylics, auras act like water colors. They fluidly interpenetrate edges where acrylic brush strokes of different colors separate hard. Greater smoothness transcends instruments or voices that exist on their own as cut out and divorced from their surroundings on which they get subsequently superimposed like a shadow play. When those instrumental or vocal outlines blend into space, a softening happens. That reflects real life. Naturally, our water color example fails just as the prior examples. In this case it fails by suggesting, on the surface at least, a lessened articulation. On canvas after all, hard acrylic separation means sharper outlines, ergo superior articulation. Not so with sounds. Only when tones and their refractive actions into space are separated out are they articulated against space. Articulation per se is impossible. It would have to occur against a vacuum or nothingness for unnaturally dry lifeless sounds. While audible auras bleeding into surrounding space could suggest something diffuse, it's really a higher degree of realism. It's softer but not synonymous with less resolved. In audio, spatial resolution relies not on razor-edged silhouettes against jet-black backgrounds after all. But let's mute them metaphors. Flip the switch or hit the remote."
What component is he describing?
Neal
