I agree that a stereo recording is probably always more pleasant for
listening than a mono recording. However, if you are interested in the
scientific analysis of the recorded sounds, I would always prefer mono
over stereo.
It is true that certain stereo recordings (employing the M/S
technique) can be converted without any loss of quality into mono.
Unfortunately, the additionally required figure-8 microphone would
make the recording system more complicated, which often cannot be
justified.
However, other common stereo techniques such as XY, AB, ORTF or any of
the head-based or baffled set-ups can introduce unwanted artifacts.
Among the potential problems are comb filter effects or simply the
fact that none of the two microphones are pointing exactly at the
sound source. Due to physical limitations, there is no microphone that
exhibits a perfect omnidirectional pick-up pattern for all signal
frequencies. At least at frequencies above 10 kHz, the frequency
response is no longer flat for off-axis sounds, which means that high
frequency components will NOT be recorded properly.
Regards,
Raimund
John Hartog wrote:
> However, is there a reason you cannot get just as close to a Lyre Bird
> with stereo mics?
>
> By recording in stereo, you could still achieve the detailed analysis
> you are after. Not only could you get the same precise sound
> signatures you get from mono, but you would also have spacial
> information. Perhaps you don't need that extra information today for
> this specific project, but in the future you may be interested in the
> placement of surrounding sounds, the qualities of the local ambiance,
> or resonances the lyre bird's call that help describe the subject
> within its setting.
>
> It is possible to extract mono from stereo, but not stereo from mono.
> That is why stereo has more potential.
|