No, Lang, it does make a difference, especially when played back to
"ordinary" people. When stereo, they often use words like "natural, cute,
beautiful, alive" etc. And many times you can see a beginning smile on their
lips. They don't comment on distant traffic, for example. People like us
tend more to seek for "clinically" noise-free recordings.
When traffic for example cannot be avoided, the best way is to make it as
"natural" as possible. Actually, I don't mind at all recording robins,
starlings and thrushes in the middle of London. But then the traffic noise
has to sound "live and natural".
But what Syd is saying "...at all the noise there is which I just hadn't
noticed.." is probably something else. Mic's are not ears, that is one fact
- and we also tend to replay our recordings much louder than in reality. I
very often put an open stereo mic in my garden, and monitor with headphones
inside the house. Without thinking, I ALWAYS set the replay level louder
than reality. It might have to do with that "the impression of reality" -
when being there, is soooo much bigger than what you get with headphones or
loudspeaker. This we try to compensate, perhaps, by playing louder.
Please - all - do this, just for learning: Put the mic's on a tripod. Start
a recording. Take the headphones on and off and set the output level so that
it sounds "the same" with and without headphones. Remember which setting you
used. Then use the same setting again, back home. Enjoy! Much less inherent
noise and traffic noise than what you (probably) are used to.
Then it is another thing that we want! the recordins with such a quality
that they can be replayed at a high volume level. That is another thing!
That is where manipulation comes in, because when you listen to something
too loud, "everything" changes, the whole sound picture changes - and you
have to look for a totally different "balance" between the sounds.
You can also do another experiment: record a warbler in your garden, mono.
Put a broadband loudspeaker in the tree where the warbler was, when
recorded. Enjoy! All the errors which you usually suffer from, are gone. The
garden is made for bird song, your living room is not.
Klas
At 08:20 2002-02-12 -0500, you wrote:
>While stereo may sound better when played-back properly on a stereo system,
>I doubt that a stereo signal allows for that much more "mental processing"
>than monaural, simply because most of the noise pollution will be in both
>channels anyway.
>
>Lang
>
>> Walter wrote (in part):
>>
>>> From: Walter Knapp <>
>>
>>>
>>> I consider the stereo parabolic to be the biggest advantage when I moved
>>> from my previous mono parabolic. You then allow people to use the very
>>> best filter of all, their own internal sound processing. Far more
>>> capable than any filter we might apply.
>>
>> What a very important point! I had forgotten, but am now reminded, of how
>> amazed I was, when first I started recording (in '68) at all the noise there
>> is which I just hadn't noticed. If stereo recording can let the listener
>> apply their own mental filtering, that surely is a tremendous step forward.
>>
>> I've never advanced past mono. Maybe I should!
>>
>> Syd Curtis in Australia
>>
>>
>>
>> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
>
>
>
>
>Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>
>
This outgoing e-mail is scanned for viruses with Norton 2002
Telinga Microphones, Botarbo,
S-748 96 Tobo, Sweden.
Phone & fax int + 295 310 01
email:
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
|