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:
> >
>><=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]
>
>
>
>
>"Microphones are not ears,
>Loudspeakers are not birds,
>A listening room is not nature."
>Klas Strandberg
>Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
--
Wild Sanctuary, Inc.
P. O. Box 536
Glen Ellen, California 95442-0536
Tel: (707) 996-6677
Fax: (707) 996-0280
http://www.wildsanctuary.com
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
|