Thanks Walter for your insight--as I suspected, studio engineeer and
I are poles apart on this. I think I'll keep on getting the best
stereo I can, mix the pieces to my taste, let him choose a channel
of my stereo and do what he will, then compare the results. I'm sure
to learn from this interchange.
I'm off to the Big Island for a week of recording, mostly for this
same project. Most interesting challenge will be to get ambience at
a Hawaiian adze quarry at 13000 feet on Mauna Kea,where the wind has
been up to 30-40 knots this past few days, but forecast to drop to
10 knots. I hope to use the MKH20/SASS for this, but still haven't
come up with adequate windscreen for high wind, so will likely fall
back to spaced MKH20's with my home-made zeppelins, which work fine.
Most interesting sounds high up on Mauna Kea, for this project, are
the 'Ua'u or Hawaiian Petrel, which nest there.
Aloha,
David
--- In Walter Knapp <>
wrote:
> 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
>
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
|