I think you're correct for headphone listening, but for speakers so few
people actually use them correctly that they rarely appreciate the stereo
effect. But, you're right . . . if listened to correctly using a
conventional stereo speaker setup, a stereo recording is more forgiving of
background noise.
As for listening at "too high a volume", you're absolutely correct. Nearly
everyone does this and it makes traffic or airplane noise more of a problem
than it really is. However, the flip side is that if you use real good mikes
(like my MKH 20s) and record under calm and quiet conditions where there is
little background rumble (such as a dawn chorus on a calm morning in a
remote location), then your microphones will have plenty of "reach",
allowing you to play back the chorus at a higher-than-normal volume for
improved discrimination and greater enjoyment.
There is nothing inherently wrong with playing a recording back at a higher
volume that what you might have heard while actually standing there,
especially if you wish you were closer to a particular subject or
soundstage. A parabola basically does this for you . . . allowing for a much
louder and cleaner recording than what you'd get with an omni mike where
you're standing. A parabola allows you to "snatch your subject from the busy
background", much like a good stereo mike setup allows you to "reach out for
greater appreciation and discrimination". But if you're going to "zoom-in"
using your mike setup, it should be a good mike and background noise should
be minimal.
As most of you know, I go to great lengths with my SASS setup to get
pristine recordings free of background noise, which gives the listener the
option of turning the volume up as far as is comfortable.
Lang
> 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:
>
>
>
>
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
>
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
|