Just one other comment, Kevin. In the horizontal plane, a triangular speake=
r
arrangement results in very wide angle between the listener and any speaker
pair. So wide that imaging between the speakers would no doubt be weak.
Remember that conventional stereo utilizes a narrow angle of 60 degrees. A
quad setup increases that angle to 90 degrees. A triangular setup would pus=
h
it up to perhaps 120 degrees or thereabouts (who knows trig?).
The wider the speakers the poorer the imaging will be between them.
Granted, the top speaker might help in this respect, producing a stronger
horizontal center for each speaker pair, but I'm not sure if this would be
the case.
One question we had with the quad speaker setup was whether or not imaging
was weak halfway between the speakers. This might be the case, although it
was not noticeable to me during the listening test. One would probably have
to test this using a sound level meter to find out for sure. Or else one
could hide the four speakers and try to determine weak directions by ear,
without knowing where the speakers are. I have found that if you see a
speaker, your brain will work hard to make sounds come out of it. Why? . . =
.
because we know that sound is supposed to come out of speakers and we
thereby strive to make that our reality. Seeing the speaker positions reall=
y
biases this kind of testing.
Lang,
As long as we're setting up the ideal listening room may I dredge up my
old idea of mounting 4 mics in a tetrahedral (pyramid shape) with 3 on
the surface plane parallel to the earth and one pointed upward? Then
all sounds coming from all directions would be localized. (An isolating
barrier between the mics would be helpful.) A bird flying overhead
would really sound like it's right there in 3D. The listening room
might need to be an indoor pyramid with one speaker mounted directly
overhead. Has anyone tried this?
Kevin
-----Original Message-----
From: Lang Elliott
Sent: Tuesday, June 15, 2004 2:28 PM
To:
Subject: Re: [Nature Recordists] Re: for all you high end surround heads
out there
My only practical experience was at the Nature Sounds Society workshop
where
we set up a simple quad speaker arrangement in a small cabin. We did
utilize
blankets to reduce reflections, but the setup was very crude indeed. And
it
worked really well, or seemed to. At least the results were encouraging.
My
conclusion was that it would be fairly simple to put together a home
quad
setup that would work. One could certainly do it nearfield, by placing
the
speakers around a swivel chair, maybe six to eight feet away. The swivel
chair would keep the listener in the sweet spot.
Again, this is not for your average listener. This is for our pleasure.
The
only way a group could experience such immersive sound is to do it in a
large room, with maximum speaker distance from the listener. This would
enlarge the sweet spot considerably. A nearfield setup would have a
small
sweet spot, but it would certainly be large enough for an individual in
a
swivel chair.
The sweet spot in our cabin setup seemed pretty large, meaning it was
easy
to find and easy to stay in it while turning in different directions.
And
this was a rather small cabin, maybe 12' wide by 16' long or
thereabouts.
The best listening situation no doubt would be a relatively dead room
without reflections. That way the sense of perceived spaciousness is
provided completely by the signals from the speakers, which I think
should
be rich in binaural cues (that's why I would choose a quad-binaural type
of
mike array design). Then the sense of landscape and geography will be
imparted by the sound itself. You will hear what you would have heard in
nature, or nearly so. Room reflections would degrade the experience to
one
degree or the other. Nonetheless, things sounded pretty darned good in
the
little cabin at the workshop.
Right Greg? (who is Greg? He is Greg Weddig and he was at the NSS
workshop
and tested his own quad mike setup)
I completely understand, Lang. I was simply recounting my experience
with the attempt of reproducing something heard in my mind's ear from
one environment (trans. medium) to another. As we discussed during
your recent visit, I am still trying to do something similar to the
illusion you're speaking about using 2 M-S systems back-to-back and
with reversed channels (on one system) with some success - as long as
the indoor room environment will support it - a rare situation in our
square, parallel-surfaced environments. Therein lies one of the major
rubs, I suspect, since to reproduce what's there in the first place
(assuming an absolutely perfect input transducer system) would
require a similar physiological landscape and geography, as well,
wouldn't it?
Bernie
>Bernie:
>
>Hrmph!
>
>I'm trying to figure out a way that "I" or "we who are interested" can
have
>a rich and wonderful playback experience. For satisfying "they" in the
>marketplace, the best approach is to conform to a 5.1 setup.
>
>But realize that the technique I'm suggesting can easily be "degraded"
into
>5.1. There are different ways of doing this. The most obvious is to
send two
>neighboring channels to front right and front left, then send the other
two
>channels to rear right and rear left (this means that a listener could
adopt
>the quad setup if he wanted to). If this produces any confusion because
>there's too many discrete signals in the rear channels, then adding a
delay
>on the rear channels will do magic (or so I am told), but this will
screw up
>the marvelous quad possibility. But who cares if we're just trying to
>satisfy the average consumer?
>
>In no way does the technique I'm describing rule out 5.1 playback. But
it
>does rule in the possibility of a quad speaker setup and a resulting
indoor
>soundscape that blows 5.1 away (at least from my point of view). Thus,
we
>enthusiasts can format our surround for the wider audience but then
enjoy a
>much more immersive and accurate experience ourselves, using just four
>identical speakers.
>
>I am talking here about reproducing the sound experience as it actually
>occurs, or nearly so. True, this is a form of illusion, but it is an
>illusion that really mirrors reality and thus is quite useful in terms
of
>documenting biophonies.
>
>Antonio Celis has a wonderful application of this kind of recording. He
is
>doing bird survey work down in Riverside CA, and he's experimenting
with
>using field recordings for the scientific analysis of choruses. He
makes his
>field recordings and then has trained blind listeners document what
they
>hear. The object is to demonstrate that such indoor listeners can
produce an
>accurate assessment of what really was happening in the field. By
allowing
>them to listen in a 360 degree soundscape, it is probable that their
>accuracy will increase. In any event, it is quite important for survey
work
>that a realistic soundscape be reproduced in the indoor listening
setup.
>
>Why survey birds with recordings? Well, for several reasons. One is
that the
>recording provides an archival documentation that can be re-analysed at
any
>point in time. Also, it allows the listener to rewind and listen again
to
>busy sections where birds are singing simultaneously from all
directions. By
>rewinding and then facing toward the different birds, a more accurate
>assessment can be made. That is something that cannot be done in the
field,
>where it all rushes by never to be heard again.
>
>Antonio clearly understands the limitations of 5.1 in this respect and
he's
>probably the only one currently experimenting with more immersive
>bird-oriented surround experiences that ultimately can be used for very
>fine-tuned survey work.
>
>Constructed ambiences are a completely different ballgame. While they
may
>please many a listener and provide them with a varied soundscape
experience,
>they do not at all provide an accurate documentation of natural
soundscapes
>or biophonies.
>
>Apples and oranges, Bernie. Both taste good, but they're entirely
different
>critters.
>
>Lang
>
>
>
>The "indoor" acoustic problem, as I see it, Lang, is architectural
>and practical, rather than hopefully rational. I get the strong
>impression that in typical Western homes, the ways in which rooms and
>furniture are generally laid out obviate simple solutions to playback
>of the type(s) being suggested here.
>
>It is the same reason that four-channel discrete failed as a concept
>during the late 60s and early 70s. It worked in Japan because the
>room layout and spatial concepts are very different. But not in
>Europe or N. America. Seduced early into embracing the idea, I
>remember a jazz album Paul Beaver and I did for Warner Brothers
>(Gandharva) - the first four-channel discrete music recording of its
>kind done in 1971 in Grace Cathedral in San Francisco featuring the
>late Gerry Mulligan (bari sax), Bud Shank (tenor and flute), Howard
>Roberts (git), Gael Laughton on 2 concert harps (at the same time),
>Paul on 5-manual organ, and me on Moog synth. all done in spectacular
>surround. The disappointing fact was that no one in North America
>could play the disk as it was intended because of the limitations
>noted above. The older I get, the more I sense the importance of not
>trying to replicate what happens in the wild natural in indoor
>environments designed primarily to shut out that experience in the
>first place. My thought for what it's worth: If ya wanna hear the
>sound all around, then go to where it's happening and pay careful
>attention to the spaces we've created specifically to place barriers
>between us and it. If you're recording, create whatever illusion
>engages your fancy, but remember Luc Ferry's axiom: "Nature is
>beautiful when it imitates art."
>
>Bernie
>
>>Rich:
>>
>>I assume you're playing this back using a typical 5.1 setup, but not
using
>>the front center speaker. I wonder what happens to imaging if you were
to
>>walk and talk around your array in a big circle. Then play the
recording
>>back indoors and see if what you hear resembles what actually happened
(in
>>other words, upon playback do you sound like you're circling around
the
>>array?). And can you also turn and face yourself as you walk and talk,
>>without a breakdown of the imaging?
>>
>>I'm looking for a miking and playback technique that reproduces as
close as
>>possible the actual experience; where individual soundmakers actually
come
>>from the directions in which they naturally occurred, and where the
listener
>>is free to turn in whatever direction he desires. This is what we can
do
>>outdoors, so why not indoors too?
>>
>>Lang
>>
>>--- In Lang Elliott <>
>>wrote:
>>
>>....
>>
>>> And the Holophone design won't do this for me.
>>
>>Agreed it won't do it for me either.
>>If I wanted to mic a quartet and put the mic in the center then maybe.
>>
>>I will just describe my personal favorite to add to the mix on this
>>thread.
>>
>>Critters are often found most dense in oval shaped territories.
>>Often where there is a critter highway between two good land areas.
>>This is why I started playing with linear arrays.
>>
>>Try placement of a binaural (take your pick of sass, square barrier,
>>million dollar man head, whatever) place that in the center or most
>>important area you can find. Then, place two omni mics each 25 to 50
>>feet out to the sides from the binaural to form a line. Exact spacing
>>is determined based on loudness of the voice of individual callers
>>and just listening for the sweet spots.
>>
>>The binaural is the left and right fronts, and the omnis are the
>>rears.
>>The benefit is a large area of capture where the rears expand the
>>image from the fronts, add species density to the whole recording,
>>and no channel gets in the way with any other.
>>
>>Rich Peet
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>"Microphones are not ears,
>>Loudspeakers are not birds,
>>A listening room is not nature."
>>Klas Strandberg
>>
>>
>>Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ADVERTISEMENT
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>Yahoo! Groups Links
>>To visit your group on the web, go to:
>>http://groups.yahoo.com/group/naturerecordists/
>>
>>To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> >
>><=3DUnsubscri
be>
>>
>>Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service
>><http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/> .
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> >
>>
>>
>>
>>"Microphones are not ears,
>>Loudspeakers are not birds,
>>A listening room is not nature."
>>Klas Strandberg
>>Yahoo! Groups Links
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
>
>[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>
>
>"Microphones are not ears,
>Loudspeakers are not birds,
>A listening room is not nature."
>Klas Strandberg
>Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
"Microphones are not ears,
Loudspeakers are not birds,
A listening room is not nature."
Klas Strandberg
Yahoo! Groups Links
"Microphones are not ears,
Loudspeakers are not birds,
A listening room is not nature."
Klas Strandberg
Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ADVERTISEMENT
Yahoo! Groups Links
To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/naturerecordists/
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
<=3DUnsubscribe>
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service
<http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/> .
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
|