At 2:21 PM -0400 6/25/06, Walter Knapp wrote:
>Posted by: "Curt Olson" flipov411
>
>> You're right that it's only with the same capsules that can you make a
>> true "apples to apples" comparison. My test had a different purpose. It
>> was mostly "apples to oranges" to help me figure out whether I prefer
>> "apple" or "orange" in that setting. I'll be doing more of that to
>> better understand what circumstances might call for one type of rig or
>> another, at least to my ear. So far, I'm finding that in enclosed
>> spaces, ORTF rigs tend to render events in ways that I usually like
>> better. Outdoors, I'm leaning toward the parallel barrier rig, at least
>> for the time being.
>
>ORTF was designed originally for recording music concerts in concert
>halls, so it's not surprising it does well with enclosed spaces. Several
>other mic setups were designed for the same purpose. The problem is that
>nature recording is rarely in enclosed spaces. Nor are the reflections
>and absorption of sound near as regular as a custom designed acoustic
>space like a concert hall. For nature recording we do have to
>investigate outside the box of music recording. I'm not at all convinced
>that the indoor designs represent the best for outdoor recording.
>
>When you compare using a single pair of mics through various rigs you
>are more investigating how that single pair of mics might be used than
>anything about how the rigs may be used or what they sound like. Only by
>adding more pairs of different mics can you investigate how the rigs
>themselves perform. In other words, even with a single pair of mics you
>are not really doing a apples to apples comparison of the rigs. In terms
>of amplitude and other parameters, you still won't know if the
>differences are the rig or the mics. Though you may come to a decision
>as to which rigs that particular set of mics work best with.
>
>And, since different rigs respond to different soundfields differently,
>the original question of finding the "right" stereo set is a bit of
>nonsense. There may be a right stereo set for a specific site with
>specific callers recorded by a specific recordist who will then choose
>what's right for their purposes. But the next site, even with the same
>recordist may need a entirely different rig. That's why I cart around 5
>different rigs in my main set. And that is probably not enough if I want
>the most perfect rig for each site.
>
>And I've spent several years with those 5 rigs and still cannot always
>easily choose which one to use on a specific occasion. That's far more
>recording than a single test of each rig. Only some of my initial ideas
>concerning these rigs have stood the test of longer usage.
>
>Walt
>
For sure, there is no one, "right" stereo rig.
When I put everything you describe about your field techniques
together, it seems like having 5 mic rigs to choose from and trying
these rigs over and over still adheres to standard, scientific
testing method of using "constants." Choosing a particular rig
because of one's familiarity with that rig in a similar setting is
based on this principle. Looking for a setting that is more likely
to complement one, given rig is too.
I've found it useful to regard natural spaces, acoustically, as
enclosures. There are often fewer "sides " and large distances, but
almost always some enclosure produced resonance. For example, I came
across standing wavelengths in the sound file Dana just posted and
one can hear sound reflections from the distant island in Cedric's
recording posted on the 8th of this month.
Isn't it true that most, if not all of the usual stereo rigs were
designed recording indoors? I feel this is another reason why our
(re)searches are exciting and full of surprises. Rob D.
|