Hi Marcus--
Welcome to the list. I appreciate that you want your stereo arrays to
emulate field experience. Trying to capture some of this immediacy
seems to require digging deep into the skill set and tool belt. I'm
eager to learn more about the processes and strategies you have
developed (and maybe more about what a psychoacoustician does at
night). :-)
To provide a little history, here are some fairly wide held opinions
about stereo micing & arrays that come to mind from discussions I've
read on this list:
(1) Mic positioning is factor #1 and is best done in sympathy with
local acoustics.
(2) That all stereo mic arrays have strengths and weaknesses and that
none capture human (listening-processing) experience adequately.
After these follow principles that are contested pretty regularly:
(3) That stereo imaging is highly dependent on monitoring used and
that speakers and headphones are very challenged to present universal
reference.
(4) It helps to get mics up in the air-- further away from nearby
surfaces when imaging space (not withstanding boundary arrays).
(5) Spaced arrays tend to create impressions of spaciousness more
readily than coincident arrays.
(6) Stereo imagery created with stationary arrays can possess more subtlety=
.
(7) Successful surround imagery begins with understanding stereo imagery.
(8) M-S processing is a powerful option that can be explored with any
stereo recording in post.
(9) Positioning localized, low frequency sounds (<~125Hz) in the
center of the stereo field creates more options in post production
compared to side positioning.
(10) That stereo imaging can involve active participation on the part
of the listener. Thus, a recordist gets "better" at processing the
"cues" provided by the arrays she/he uses.
Rob D.
=3D =3D =3D
At 10:43 AM -0700 8/25/10, Marcus Buick wrote:
>
>
>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 effec=
t.
>
>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 attempt
>to capture soundfields as accurately as possible with the mics in the idea=
l
>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 <<dan.cesonrocks%40gmail.com>>
>To:
><naturerecordists%40yahoogroups.com>=
m
>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
><<mbuick%40yahoo.com>> 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=
's
>> 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 =
to
>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
>
>
--
|