Rob Danielson wrote:
> Tom wrote:
>
>
>>Just a brief one on surround. I have used a pair of M/S mics firing
>>in opposite
>>directions to produce a reasonably compact mic setup. Of course there are=
a
>>whole bunch of phase issues that need to be sorted in post using this kin=
d of
>>rig. But the results where very pleasing to the ear. I did a test running=
them
>>live in a film dubbing theatre to get the spacings as good as possible an=
d had
>>someone walk around/jump up and down and make noises as they walked aroun=
d the
>>soundfield. A good 4.1 image was achieved. And I did take this rig into t=
he
>>field. I ran two timecode locked portadats - the results were great but W=
alter
>>is right it is a laborious process all in all.
Tom- did you use a single figure 8 or two? I'd think it could be done
with just 3 mics. Three MKH-80's (or the newer MKH-800's) could have all
their diaphragms in a pretty small space which should help a bit.
>>The other option is the soundfield system which is an array of capsules t=
hat
>>can record 7.1 channels the mic itself is relatively small and is easy to
>>deploy effectively with speed but it requires a processing unit which is
>>difficult to power in the field (this rig can of course be used for stere=
o
>>recordings with very pleasing results) and needs 4 tracks on a recorder t=
o
>>record 7.1.
>>The next issue is the recorder - I was not very happy lugging two timecod=
e
>>portadats around I can tell you! Computers even laptops are only good for
>>static situations and are therefore not appropriate as a main rig. In the=
pro
>>end of the market there are several multitrack location recorders due for
>>release early in 2003. The cost of them is prohibitive for all who are no=
t
>>going to use them for professional apps. as well (=A37000+) but it may be
>>interesting for you to check out the technology
>>(HHB-Portadrive/Fostex-PD-6/Aaton-X?).
>>As for commercial outlets for justifying the expense there is indeed a sm=
all
>>market in the film post world (sample CD.s) but it is a very small pond t=
o be
>>jumping into!
>>As an aside check out these PC's (I am a mac officianado...but?) in betwe=
en
>>laptop and PDA's in size with a touchscreen input and running a full
>>version of
>>windows. Combine it with apogee's mini me and you might have the first
>>practical computer based recorder.
>>
>>Anyhow it's all speculation...but the future is going to be fun!
I more view it that the future may have the potential for new and better
stuff. The reality is really up in the air right now.
I note that even Apple, while introducing a even more giant screen
Powerbook also has a 12" screen version in the new lineup. Not as small
as the micros, but a hopeful sign. There has already been intense
lobbying starting for them to up it's processing and I/O capabilities to
that of the giant Powerbook.
> Tom--
> Thanks for sharing your experiences. I agree that its an enjoyable
> set of challenges to sort out from portability to the final
> presentation situations. I've tried 4 (non sync'd) stereo recorders
> running in a large space, some m-s, some omni pairs. Of course, as
> long as the channels remain discrete (not mixed) phase issues don't
> really become a concern. When I did pan these recordings though, I
> didn't get a lot of zipping or anything. It may be that the beauty
> of multiple field micing is less required posting/mixing. The image
> seems more inviting when the mics are well placed and not panned
> around much. Of course, matched, full-range speakers all around
> provide balance, whereas the commercial units are really front and
> center systems with some off-screen percussive and lo Hz detailing. I
> like the idea of portraying space reaching in all directions. I'd
> guess installations are the main route of exploration for a while,
> though being able to use DVD to create 5.1 playback can provide a
> bridge to more main stream applications. Will surround will really
> help explore the ideas behind acoustic communications relevant to
> this list? Perhaps so if it encourages more recording, listening.
> Ways to make multi-channel field recording easier are key but, as
> Walt suggests, $ towards additional, high quality mics and preamps
> might prove more useful than the $ towards an 8 track field recorder.
> If one can't afford 6 or 8 low noise mics, getting close to the
> sources has even more impact on quality. Distributing 4 MD/stereo mic
> units around a pond is easier than running mic cable or using
> wireless. Maybe in five years, we'll have some pretty interesting
> approaches to share though we may be visiting each others studios to
> hear it.
I should probably expand on this just a little bit. Few have even
mastered stereo in nature recording, which I think is probably the
desirable route into doing surround. Learning how to record quality
stereo out there, learning how to judge the stereo when you get it is
the baby steps you start with to get to surround. I do not believe there
will be shortcuts.
On the equipment side surround is all about ambiance, and nothing ruins
ambiance as fast as mic noise or other artifacts. That leaves little in
the way of options but high end mics, regardless of how configured. And
everything downstream from them needs to match. We have some possible
configurations to try from the world of indoor recording. Back to back
M/S type things, two SASS back to back, plus some of the processed mic
arrays. How well these will do in the acoustically uncontrolled
environment that is the stage for nature recording is yet to be
determined. There have been some hopeful signs, but it's about as
awkward as the old glass plate photography of the civil war. Without a
lot of help from the manufacturers we will stay like this. Somehow the
field recording market needs to look big enough to be worth investing
new product development money in. Right now it's too tied to equipment
for the wealthy TV and movie productions.
Having gone through in the last few years working on the transition from
entirely scientific documentation recording to move to recording stuff
for listening in stereo, I know the problems of accumulating even good
stereo equipment. And I've hardly started the process of learning how to
get optimum stereo out of what I've now accumulated. It's simply not a
instant process even if you have the money to buy it all at once off the
shelf new. Surround will be even more so.
My own perspective for those headed into surround is definitely the 8
track field recorder is the last part you will need. Start at the mics,
get deep into stereo recorded in natural surroundings, so you completely
understand that and have the equipment to do that at high quality. Then
start adding channels.
And hope you can find a spot that does not have man made noise in any
direction. That may be the toughest part.
Walt
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
|