Rob Danielson wrote:
> I have a project going and I'll enjoy studying your test results
> closer, later. A couple of quick impressions and questions:
>
> The sense of space created is provocative with an appealing horizontal
> feel. It sounds a bit like what I trying to describe as "two field
> comparison" without losing the ability to localize sounds in the
> middle. When I EQ'd the files a bit, diminishing the pronounced,
> steady tones from ~80Hz to 1300 Hz, considerably more detail became
> evident in the center which I found interesting.
I hadn't gotten around to playing with EQ in that way, so I appreciate
your observations. That's the kind of feedback I was hoping for.
> I also noticed differences in frequency response in both mic pairs
> that, if addressed, seemed to improve transparency.
Are you talking here about differences between left and right mics in
the same rig -- as in getting the two to "match" better?
> Many of variables are involved in recording to maximize the
> impressions of space.! :-)
Mics and mounting rigs are probably the biggest, and for me right now,
they're the most interesting.
> re:
> http://www.trackseventeen.com/images/mic_arrays/3032_183.html
> Quite a deviation in your array/boundary mount?! Are the planes
> parallel? Is that about a one foot separation?
After some listening tests, I decided on parallel planes with the outer
surfaces 6.5 inches apart. Capsules are set back from the leading edge
to achieve reasonably accurate sound source vectoring as rendered by my
Sony Hi-MD recorder and MDR-7505 headphones, my current standard. (I'm
guessing other recorder/headphone combinations would give slightly
different renderings.)
My previous boundary mounts seem to give a nice stereo image and good
mono, but they fail to deliver a certain intangible "something" I'm
beginning to want in my field recordings -- a certain kind of "space"
or "transparency." This rig seems to get me closer to what I'm looking
for -- at least for now.
> Thanks for the test! Great to be able to compare the same moments.
> Both 44.1K/16 uncompressed I assume? Rob D.
HI-MD.
Curt Olson
> At 9:53 AM -0600 3/31/06, Curt Olson wrote:
>> Remember this brief thread a couple weeks ago?
>>
>> I owe a long overdue "thank you" to Rob for his helpful reply below.
>> After many days of pondering and tinkering between other duties, I
>> made
>> some test recordings early this morning just outside my front door in
>> suburban Minneapolis, Minnesota. This is two :45-second clips back to
>> back, made simultaneously using (first) AT3032s and (second) WL183s in
>> similar rigs (no processing, except for an attempt at level matching).
>> Unfortunately, traffic noise in these recordings masks the vast
>> difference in self noise between the 3032s and the 183s...
>>
>> 1.3 MB mp3:
>>
>> http://www.trackseventeen.com/media/tsp/060331-3032_183.mp3
>>
>> 15.1 MB .wav:
>>
>> http://www.trackseventeen.com/media/tsp/060331-3032_183.wav
>>
>> Photo of the two rigs, one resting on the other:
>>
>> http://www.trackseventeen.com/images/mic_arrays/3032_183.html
>>
>> As Lang points out in his appendix to Bernie's wonderful book, it all
>> comes down to compromises and trade-offs. This is one stab at it along
>> the way. Any reactions?
>>
>> Curt Olson
>>
>>
>> On Mar 16, 2006, at 2:49 AM, wrote:
>>
>>> Hi Curt--
>>> Lang Elliot has written elegantly on binaural-headphone issues-
>>> Bernie cites Lang's key argument in his book.
>>>
>>> What you describe makes perfect sense to me: a distant, freestanding
>>> speaker produces a more localized image (point of origin in space)
>>> than headphones. Cardioid polar patterns cover a smaller field than
>>> omnis. Matching speaker and micing separations can make these polar
>>> pattern spacing differences more or less apparent.
>>>
>>> I've always felt there's a micing/speaker separation trade-off:
>>> "stereo" as tending towards a comparison of two fields and "stereo"
>>> tending towards a unified field where sounders in the middle can be
>>> more predictably localized. Asking the ears/brain to compare two
>>> field with more difference between them can feel fuller and more
>>> engaging. ORTF at 13" captures a lot more timing and tonal
>>> difference
>>> than omnis at 6". Low Hz presence (125Hz-700Hz) can shift from
>>> speaker to speaker like waves bouncing and interacting in the field
>>> but its hard to sense this spatial quality, if at all, with
>>> headphones. I can walk around and function pretty normally in space
>>> listening only through binaural headphones where monitoring/moving
>>> around with a 13" card ORTF rig takes a lot more mental adjusting.
>>> Rob D.
>>>
>>> At 2:11 PM -0600 3/14/06, Curt Olson wrote:
>>>> So I'm casually reviewing some ambient field recordings today and
>>>> it
>>>> dawns on me: Recordings that I've made using cardiods (in my case,
>>>> usually some ORTF variation) seem to translate better to my
>>>> loudspeakers than recordings I've made with omnis. ("Better" as in
>>>> richer, deeper, more spacious, more interesting.) The converse also
>>>> seems to be true: Recordings that I've made with omnis (in my case,
>>>> usually involving a small boundary and head-like spacing) seem to
>>>> translate better to headphones than those I've made with cardioids.
>>>>
>>>> Am I late in understanding something extraordinarily basic here?
>>>> Could
>>>> my playback systems be deceiving me? Have I totally lost my
>>>> judgment?
>>>>
>>>> Thoughts on this, anyone?
>>>>
>>>> Curt Olson
>>
>
>
> --
> Rob Danielson
> Film Department
> University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
|