Dan Dugan wrote:
> DAN DUGAN:
>>> I don't worry about mono compatibility.
>
> CURT OLSON:
>> I do, mostly because I'm in the habit from 30 years in radio
>> production. I always have in the back of my mind that somewhere down
>> the line something I record could end up on the radio, and I worry
>> about what mono listeners would hear.
>
> A good policy. But there is a trade-off between the spatiality of the
> recording and the mono compatibility.
Indeed. And that's exactly why I ended up going down the road of
boundaries. I want it both ways -- both spatiality and mono
compatibility. In my experience, boundaries seem to narrow the
trade-off equation considerably.
> When headphone listening became common (rather than something
> engineers did), and auto systems became stereo from the factory, I
> decided that mono compatibility had become less important.
Lately I've been considering the same line of thinking, but old habits
and all...
> But it's always good to check, you don't want to put out something
> that's really awful in mono!
<snip>
>> ... when I'm standing there taking the headphones on and off,
>> comparing what I hear with "naked" ears to what I hear through the
>> recording chain, I realize that the mics are often picking up and
>> amplifying a whole lot more low end than my "naked" ears ever
>> perceive. Maybe it's just me, but I'm not interested in recording an
>> over-hyped low end any more than I want to record an over-hyped high
>> end or midrange.
>
> I suspect that perception has to do with listening at a
> higher-than-natural level. Fletcher-Munson curve and all that.
Thank you for this reminder, Dan! I always factor that in when mixing
in the studio, but have consistently overlooked it when evaluating mic
arrays under headphones. I'll stop making that stupid mistake right
now!
Curt Olson
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
|