--- In Rob Danielson <>
wrote:
> (Here's a copy of the article I
> scanned through
> http://www.audiosignal.co.uk/Resources/Stereo_shuffling_A4.pdf)
That's the article I was referring to...
> Wouldn't the LS-10
> recorder have to be employing spatial
> equalization (shuffling) under 600 Hz to achieve
> these benefits?
Good question! Gerzon wrote: "The use of bass-widening up to 600Hz
with this technique seems to give a much better sense of space than
the use of ORTF technique, and without the latter's 'phasiness'
anomalies." I am not sure whether he meant the 5cm technique with
bass-widening was better than ORTF without bass-widening; I'm also
not sure whether or not he was saying the bass-widening was essential
for the 5cm technique to work, or whether it was just a worthwhile
enhancement.
> I saw mention that the lowest octaves seem to
> play a larger role in the enhancement technique
> and signal captured with the LS-10's internal
> mics seems to have considerable low frequency
> roll-off under 100Hz (probably to reduce handling
> noise).
Especially with coincident techniques, where at low frequencies both
capsules capture the same signal. As the mics are moved further
apart, the 'roll-off' from stereo to mono gets lower in frequency
and, theoretically, so does the roll-off point for the shuffling. But
at the same time, pinpoint imaging decreases.
The 5cm spacing and angling of the capsules might offer a good
compromise between the two - with or without bass-widening.
As for the LS10's 100Hz roll-off, it would only be a problem for
sounds that included important content down there!
> Most stereo arrays should be able to capture the
> spatial cues Greg Peterson and I assessed in his
> Brush Warbler recording. To my ears, Vicki's
> Shure 183 rig which positions two omni
> forward-facing at ear spacing exhibited a
> significantly a wider stereo field over the
> built-in array in her LS-10.
Are you referring to speaker listening, or headphones?
> In a couple of cases when we attempted to
> evaluate stereo imaging between different arrays
> on this list, people's preferences varied more
> than I would have guessed.
It becomes highly subjective with many factors that need to be
defined, beginning with a definition and consensus of what is meant
by 'stereo imaging' itself. Some people's concept of 'stereo imaging'
means pin-point localisation of individual sounds, and they'll
naturally prefer recordings that offer this. Other people's concept
is a sense of immersion in the recording, a sense of space or
spaciousness. From a stereo miking point of view, pin-point
localisation and spaciousness are often inversely proportional - the
factors required to create pin-point localisation do so at the
expense of spaciousness.
Then there is the question of speaker or headphone playback. Few
stereo techniques work well in both playback situations.
[As an aside to this: when I record direct-to-stereo albums for
acoustic musicians, one of the first things I do is ask the client to
play me some recordings they like the sound of. I ask why they like
those recordings, and I also take note of how the client mostly
listens to music - through speakers or headphones. This helps me to
choose the most appropriate stereo technique; one that will give the
client the desired sound.]
> That doesn't mean we
> couldn't learn a lot from more testing/comparing
> stereo array performance-- but I do think the
> tests would have to be done very carefully for
> one to come away with observations that would but
> widely agreed upon.
I wonder if they could ever be widely agreed upon!
- Greg Simmons
|