Walt wrote:
> ...I'm convinced that the optimum mic setups for nature recording have
> yet to be found, there's room for a lot of experiment.
>
> The field also has it's own new limitations to impose. Like
> portability....
Like almost everything else in life, experimenting with mic setups is
about striking a reasonable balance of compromises for a given set of
circumstances and priorities.
> ...The environments you record in are extremely variable in their
> sound distribution. The bottom line is that no one mic setup is best
> for all. You end up with a
> set of mic setups, and a understanding of the sort of source volume
> each is best at recording. Kind of similar to photography with a set
> of fixed focus lenses, although you don't want to carry that
> comparison too far. I typically carry two SASS, three M/S setups, plus
> the Telinga with it's stereo mic element. Plus some other odds and
> ends (like hydrophones).
>
> Making all those diverse stereo volumes fit to a single playback
> volume is more or less what this is about. And still having them sound
> somewhat like the original.
Your purpose will dictate your priorities and the compromises you
strike. My current experiments are aimed at coming up with the most
natural-sounding array I can that is compact, light weight, highly
portable and not terribly expensive. I'm not targeting distant
individual callers at this point, only broad sound fields.
Another driving concept for me at the moment is that we are endowed
with just one set of ears for our entire journey in this world. That
one "setup" covers every situation in which we find ourselves. That's
the model I have in mind -- one really good-sounding mic array that
will cover a wide range of recording environments successfully. The big
challenge, of course, is what Klause reminds us of:
"Microphones are not ears,
Loudspeakers are not birds,
A listening room is not nature."
So I may very well end up just like you and many others here, with
several setups for different circumstances.
> One thing to be sure and do with "stereo" experiments is examine the
> accuracy of the stereo field. Many setups give something that sounds
> stereo, but is actually very irregular in it's locational accuracy. If
> it has any at all.
>
> A simple way is to get out where there are plenty of callers in all
> directions. Listening to the field with headphones check how well you
> can point to each caller. A more lab like approach is to walk around
> with some little soundmaker in the field and check the movements in
> the recording. You are checking how well the field you hear relates on
> a dimensional and angular basis to the real field.
I agree. And I go about it pretty much the same way you describe.
> With the advent of mixed/panned multi-mono recordings the true meaning
> of stereo has become blurred. It would have been good if there were
> two terms, one for the true and accurate recording of a 3d space, and
> a different one for the artificial mixed creations and "sound like 3d"
> recordings.
I've done a lot of both. Each has its place, but you're right, there is
a distinction.
Thank you Walt,
Curt Olson
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
|