wrote:
> Dear Walt,
> Thanks so much for the information. All my publications are in mono. Is there
> any reason to record in stereo if one makes mono publications?
My usage is primarily scientific. When I got the Telinga I expected that
I'd be using the Dual Science in Mono and the stereo only rarely for
non-scientific recordings. I'd done only mono up to then. What I found
was that a stereo field makes distinguishing individuals in a frog
chorus much easier. Many of my sites are layers of multiple species and
it can be sometimes quite hard to sort out and find all the species in
the recording. Stereo became standard for me as a result. The purpose of
my work is to try and identify everything at a site. We are still
finding more species in some of my recordings than we originally
identified. Partially a result of a new person listening to them to
verify them.
While your publications are in mono now, it's worth thinking about,
particularly if your recordings include multiple individuals. If you are
publishing on audio CD, it's doing two channels anyway. There is no mono
specification for CD. When we feed mono to a CD it's just duplicated on
both channels.
Note that the stereo produced by the Telinga mixes back to mono with no
problems. And the two channels are two different mono "views" in
slightly different directions. I've sometimes used that last as a
"filter" to get around some interfering noise, i.e. one channel may pick
up the animal better than the other, or the offending noise is only on
one channel.
The simple answer is that stereo is unnecessary if you continue to
publish in mono. But, the possibility of a parabolic that does a
reasonable stereo is real and does have some advantages beyond just
sounding more "real".
Note that the stereo field produced by a Telinga could be thought of as
kind of pear shaped. The edges of the field are pretty much local, the
center can be way out there.
The people I work with are used to mono and are just beginning to learn
the advantages of stereo. They all record in mono, I'm the only
scientific type around here I know of recording in stereo. So their
reviews of my material are often the first time they have examined a
stereo recording for scientific purposes. They all seem to agree that
the stereo is helping. For the most part in the new mic setups I'm
making I'm setting up for stereo. Although the M/S stereo always
contains the output of a single center mono mic.
Walt
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>From Tue Mar 8 18:23:03 2005
Message: 6
Date: Wed, 11 Dec 2002 20:39:40 -0500
From: Walter Knapp <>
Subject: Re: dither
Rich Peet wrote:
> Yes at this time I don't understand what the typical artifacts sound
> like. I am trying to understand the default settings ideal for
> Cooledit for making "stuff".
>
> It appears that the recommendations from my readings is to have
> dither "on" with Triangular shapes until the final "master". Then on
> the final mix I can use a different "shape". It also appears I
> should do everything converted to 32 bit before edits and I should
> spend a whole lot of money on a new computer as this "chunk o junk"
> is limping. I am going gray on this stuff fast.
Aren't we all.
You don't have to convert the files. Just check and if there is a
setting for how much bit depth to use during calculations, set it pretty
high. 24 or 32 bit are good enough if your files are 16 bit. The
software then does it's math on the greater depth automatically and puts
it back out at your regular, which is probably 16 bit. All invisible
once set, except it will take the processor a bit longer and produce a
bit better sound. If you should find that your software only does it at
8 bit or something, then replace the software. I'm pretty sure cooledit
is not that bad.
As far as dither, what I'd do is take a copy of a soundfile and try
various dither on it and listen to what you get. If it helps, use it, if
it does not, don't. Unfortunately, what you will probably find is a gray
area. Sometimes it will help and sometimes not. Only playing with it a
lot will help then as far as when to use it. Note if the calculations
are done at the higher bit depth you will find dither does less. It's
really to cover up limited bit depth. Often with these sorts of things I
make up a file each way and listen to it off and on for a day or so to
make up my mind which I like better.
When I started in on my CD project, I spent two months filtering
soundfiles, listening and tossing them. Only after tuning my own
listening that way and trying all kinds of filtering ways did I keep
anything. And I was still tuning all the way to the end several months
later. I'll probably go back in another year and hate them. It's just
not cut and dried. BTW, most of the people I tried that stuff on liked
it all, we get too picky sometimes.
Don't replace a computer until really forced to. Either you need some
software or hardware that won't run on the old one, or your software is
just getting too slow with what you are doing. The manufacturers would
like us to replace them every other week, but that's not practical. I
really hate retiring a computer that's still running just fine so resist
a lot. I've only changed computers 5 times since 1984 and consider that
too many. I'm still looking at the same TV set I had in 1984. And every
computer I've owned still runs fine. I should start auctioning them off
as antiques.
Walt
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
|