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:
>
><=Unsubscribe>
>
>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]
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
|