After a quick search, I came across an explanation that made me rethink my approach to the concept of “perfection.” Defined as a state of completeness, flawlessness, or supreme excellence, I realized that striving for perfection is quite impractical. Even if I achieve what I consider perfection in audio, someone else might find numerous aspects to change to suit their idea of perfection.
So, who is truly imperfect, and who is right or wrong? Is there a universal standard for perfection? If so, could we collectively agree that something has reached a state of perfection?
The only real-world example where perfection might be relevant is in computer language. The CPU, or central processing unit, makes all the right calculated decisions, which could be considered a state of perfection. But is it truly perfect? And if so, why do I seek plugins that promise to emulate the imperfections of analog gear?
Nonlinearity is key.
Since this is for a mastering blog, I’ll focus on music, mixing, and mastering. However, this idea applies to many areas of life where the details matter.
Perfection often involves fixing or changing details because we can. It’s almost as if our brains are on a mission to achieve perfection, only to add distortion or noise to make it less perfect when we’re close to the finish line.
As a mastering engineer, I deal with this little voice of perfection daily. I’m not on a high horse and admit that I’m human. Making the right choices for clients’ projects involves balancing technical issues with the song’s feel. The latter is more important to me—letting go of perfection to find the core soul and energy of the music at that moment. FSM
Comments