Hi Walt,
your explanation makes absolutely sense!
It explains why people are always impressed when you play them "real"
stereo recordings, no matter if they are nature or music recordings.
The feeling of actually being there is hardly ever achieved by studio
recordings. (The only exception I know, are Mikey Hart's CDs)
My personal preference apart from the SASS (I have an original one,
maybe one day I'll have a modified onre) is the Jecklin disk. The
advantages I see with it is that it can be easily transported in a
dissambled state including the tripod in a backpack to almost everywhere.
Cheers
Volker
Walter Knapp schrieb:
> From: "David Kuhn" <>
>
> >
> > Hi Bernie and all,
> > Thanks Bernie, I'll try the h-phones-attached-to-log method next
> > time, as recent developments indicate I may need to do it
> > differently:
> > I hear from the studio engineer in Hilo that "All sources [of log-
> > moving audio] should be done raw mono 48 khz; in the mix, we can
> > determine pan scenerios, levels, effects, and so on..."
> >
> > I'm up against my lack of studio experience here, whereas this
> > engineer has wide experience in studio mixing, but only for music.
> > I'll likely give it over to him to make the most of it his way, but
> > also do the mixing here in my studio and compare the results to his.
> > I guess one question is: If I record in stereo as planned and save
> > the file in mono to send to the engineer, is the result the same (to
> > him) as recording in mono originally?
> >
> > Wouldn't a studio engineer have more flexibility if he starts with
> > stereo? Isn't the use of extensive panning to create "fake" stereo?
> >
> > Thanks for any guidance that would put me on a better footing in
> > these "negotiations"--most important to me is to create the best,
> > most credible illusion for the exhibit, and to represent my work in
> > the best light. Manipulating mono to sound like stereo aint it.
>
> Virtually all music is now recorded as multichannel mono, then mixed to
> fake stereo. The label may say stereo, but it's not. Your studio
> engineer is obviously steeped in this method. He may not be able to
> handle natural stereo well.
>
> To be fair, mixing a bunch of stereo fields together to form one
> accurate field would be quite a task. Stereo is best recorded with a
> single stereo mic setup in one pass. If a sound must be recorded
> separately, it should be just the sound and that panned through the
> complete stereo field. Get your ambiance from one stereo mic setup, even
> if you record in several passes from the same spot.
>
> The multi-mono stereo lacks a proper ambiance field, each mono mic will
> pick up some resonance, some ambiance, but it does not mix to a single
> field, just a jumble all pointing odd directions. At least not without a
> huge amount of computing power, far more than is used. You'd have to
> extract the ambiance from each mono mic separately and join that into a
> single volume of ambiance. Then extract just the main players from each
> mic and pan them into that field. That's why engineers try to not pick
> up ambiance.
>
> Your engineer will simply pan the log sound where he wants it located.
> Regardless of any ambiance the recording contains. In fact he'd probably
> prefer no ambiance. I don't know how much is to be mixed in this
> soundfield, so hard to comment more.
>
> For most folks this multi-mono mix is what they think stereo is. No
> wonder even very crude mic arrangements are thought to be stereo setups.
> People are simply not used to more than the main sounds having
> believable directionality, if even that. It took me a while to learn to
> listen to the ambiance in a stereo field as well as the main players. To
> evaluate the structure of the field as a whole. The echoes of the main
> callers should be believable, for instance. And the main echo sources
> for all callers should be the same. Like, for instance, there's a rock
> that's a echo source, it's direction should be as firm as the direct
> calls, pointed out consistently by all the echoes. Only happens with
> real stereo.
>
> The SASS, for instance, I might be recording frogs calling in and around
> a pond in the woods. The reflections of the calls from the tree trunks
> will form a audio image of the forest, which is a result of the echoes.
> On good days even each tree will image. Just as I would hear it at the
> site with my eyes closed. It does not require a SASS for this, other
> well designed stereo setups can do this to a varying degree.
>
> Or listen to the Death Valley recording I put up. Hear the image of the
> back pit wall in the echoes? Encoding to mp3 blurred it a bit, but it's
> still there. It's faint and takes some listening to hear separately, but
> it's part of what makes the recording stereo. Or just how most of the
> flying birds are headed toward the water? That's in faint wing noises
> mostly.
>
> Multi-mono is like a picture album on one subject, the pictures only
> somewhat related. Stereo is like a single picture.
>
> Walt
>
>
>
>
> "Microphones are not ears,
> Loudspeakers are not birds,
> A listening room is not nature."
> Klas Strandberg
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
>
> * Visit your group "naturerecordists
> <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/naturerecordists>" on the web.
>=20=20=20=20=20=20=20
> * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
>
> <=3DUnsu=
bscribe>
>=20=20=20=20=20=20=20
> * 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]
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
|