That's exactly what I'm saying Clay. Once in post, people generally proces=
s to
their liking, and as we well know, everyone has a different sound palette.
When I'm recording utilizing a boom pole for run and gun shoots, I'm only
interested in the talking head, one specific sound (i.e. screeching tires,=
whatever), I am not interested in the sound around that person/sound effect=
.
However, for nature recording, or capturing any natural soundscape, I am
interested in capturing the sound as it originally appeared to my ears. I =
do
understand the need for zeroing in on a specific sound and isolating that
though, and M/S is great for that.
I guess my stance is that nothing can help proper mic placement, thus I att=
empt
to capture soundfields as accurately as possible with the mics in the ideal=
location for what I am capturing. To me ORTF sounds the best (to my ears) =
of
all the coincident techniques available. However, many times one has to le=
arn
to work around the less than ideal, this is where shotgun mics, dishes, and=
M/S
works better than ORTF.
~Marcus
----- Original Message ----
From: clay <>
To:
Sent: Wed, August 25, 2010 9:51:09 AM
Subject: Re: [Nature Recordists] Re: ORTF Recommendations
On Tue, Aug 24, 2010 at 5:40 PM, Marcus Buick <> wrote:
>
>
> [stuff snipped for readability]
>
While M/S is also a coincident technique, the idea of mapping the
> soundfield to a likeable width, is also a different recording style. It=
=E2=80=99s
> more
> like sound design than accurate capture.
>
>
> ~Marcus
>
Marcus,
Presumably, you're only saying above that (gross) manipulation of the
soundfield post recording is a different recording style?
Your words could be interpreted to mean that you believe M/S (without
subsequent manipulation) is not an "accurate capture", which I would have t=
o
disagree with.
Clay
------------------------------------
"While a picture is worth a thousand words, a
sound is worth a thousand pictures." R. Murray Schafer via Bernie Krause
Yahoo! Groups Links
|