Rob,
what do you mean by stationary arrays (as mentioned in #6)?
Thanks very much for your comments, I especially agree with number 10. :)
I"ve not really recorded any other way than mono, binaural or Mid-Side, but
it occurred to me (after hearing about Marcus' preference), that ORTF could
be seen as more like binaural than like coincident. Given that (thought),
I'm not surprised that the stereo image might be more pronounced (i.e. more
easily discernable) as you describe in #5.
Further following that line of thought, it seems to me though that the
accuracy of the soundstage would then be (more) tightly coupled to the
playback mechanism (as is the case with binaural) than would coincident
arrays.
As for accuracy (of soundstage), I'll admit to not having a clue about any
sort of standardized view on soundstage accuracy - seems to me it's a prime
example of "beauty is in the eye of the beholder".
Am I waay off-base? I'm much more of a listener (aka audiophile) than
recordist. and hoping to learn more.
thanks
Clay
On Wed, Aug 25, 2010 at 10:47 PM, Rob Danielson <> wrote:
>
>
> 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
>
>
>
|