naturerecordists
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: intro & Qs

Subject: Re: intro & Qs
From: Rob Danielson <>
Date: Wed, 23 Feb 2005 02:10:43 -0600
At 1:03 PM -0500 2/22/05, Walter Knapp wrote:
>From: Rob Danielson <>
>
>>
>>  At 10:31 PM -0800 2/21/05, Ken  Durling wrote:
>>
>>>>At 08:44 PM 2/21/2005, you wrote:
>>>>
>>>><snip>
>>>>
>>>
>>>>>>Here's one example. I made a stereo recording with 21" spaced omnis
>>>>>>of a large flock of seagulls circling above me about 10-75' feet for
>>>>>>about 3 minutes. Listening at home,  I noticed that my ability to
>>>>>>track the bird motions in stereo was limited to 2, at most 3 birds at
>>>>>>a time even though 10 or more were calling in flight at any given
>>>>>>moment. My attention seemed geared to pick out only the closer moving
>>>>>>birds with the rest of the birds becoming a stationary background
>>>>>>plane in my mind. I would guess that the further away the birds, the
>>>>>>more difficult it would be to articulate their motion.
>>>
>>>>
>>>>Interesting - might it not have been more discernible with directional
>>>>mics?  I haven't done much with this, but accurate imaging requires car=
eful
>>>>phase control too, as I understand it.
>>
>>
>>  As per your interest in portraying many birds in motion, its possible
>>  there are limits as to how many objects one can perceive as being in
>>  motion at once within a stereo or guad field.
>
>This is a fairly well known characteristic of our hearing. We tend to
>filter out or merge most sound into the background and focus on a
>limited number of sounds at a time. We may shift from sound to sound
>doing this, or follow a single set of sounds. Our ability to filter
>sounds far exceeds what we can do with computers.
>
>I'll point out the book "Ecological Psychoacoustics" as being a good one
>on current thinking on the subject. There is a merging of lab
>psychoacoustics with the more outdoor studies of hearing going on. The
>lab predictions often fail when confronted with real life hearing
>situations.
>
>You are probably fighting a uphill battle trying to get your listener's
>to lock into the whole. Locking into some birds while having a swirling
>background of more birds is more likely.
>
>Walt
>
>

Thanks for the reference Walt. I read the intro chapter pdf. I wonder
why humans are so reluctant to lean on their listening abilities?
Cautiously venturing out from labs and sine tones to real spaces.

I noticed  something today  I hadn't experienced before: I recognized
the imprint of a location on a sound.   I called out to my neighbor
and my voice slapped back from the houses across the street.
Instantaneously, I recalled a recording I made from that spot of a
woman raking leaves in the Fall three years ago.  When her bamboo
rake brushed the concrete driveway, it made  a loud scratch that
bounced off of the same two buildings. I incorporated the raking
recording into a mix so I probably played it over and over for a day
or so years ago.  Not surprising, but its the first time I've sensed
this.

The idea of swirling the background is a great one and doable in
surround.  In my listening to the gull recording, I could lock onto 2
,at most 3 birds and track their motion, but I knew the situation.
Rob D.




________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>
Admin

The University of NSW School of Computer and Engineering takes no responsibility for the contents of this archive. It is purely a compilation of material sent by many people to the naturerecordists mailing list. It has not been checked for accuracy nor its content verified in any way. If you wish to get material removed from the archive or have other queries about the archive e-mail Andrew Taylor at this address: andrewt@cse.unsw.EDU.AU