At 11:57 PM -0400 8/25/10, clay wrote:
>
>
>Rob,
>
>what do you mean by stationary arrays (as mentioned in #6)?
Hi Clay--
Ones that are not moving. The belief is that its easier to obtain
"cues" and infer space from them than when the array is moving.
>Thanks very much for your comments, I especially agree with number 10. :)
The skills we've developed seemed to present unbridgeable differences
in discussions a few years ago,.. Maybe we're more aware of the
possibility of larger goals now.
>I"ve not really recorded any other way than mono, binaural or Mid-Side, bu=
t
>it occurred to me (after hearing about Marcus' preference), that ORTF coul=
d
>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. mor=
e
>easily discernable) as you describe in #5.
Yes, ORTF is a spaced array. There are different qualities in stereo
imaging, so more "pronounced" can mean different things. Contrast
between the speakers, for example, can sound like very pronounced
stereo, but for others, details across the center of the field can
feel very pronounced.
>
>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.
There are a several traits that can be looked at for "accuracy." Of
course, headphone listening and speaker listening are very different.
Often people with different headphones will notice different details.
When I was teaching, we'd sometimes all have on the same brand &
model phones and not be able to hear the same details. Speakers are
highly influenced by their designs and the rooms they are in. On the
plus side of this dilemma, when many us hear the same, interesting
traits, its very affirming and exciting.
>As for accuracy (of soundstage), I'll admit to not having a clue about an
>sort of standardized view on soundstage accuracy - seems to me it's a prim=
e
>example of "beauty is in the eye of the beholder".
There doesn't seem to be a substitution for "gestalt,"-- the
collective impression formed, but "beauty" is certainly the result of
separate "qualities" we can take apart. Not many people have patience
for this though-- a recording just sounds, "nice." For stereo,
"localization" and "depth" are often studied separately. We can also
try to hear how arrays treat indirect sounds differently-- perhaps an
important, demanding quality in recording "ambience."
>Am I waay off-base? I'm much more of a listener (aka audiophile) than
>recordist. and hoping to learn more.
No, not all. With many opinions to sort through and explain
consistently, we're never more than a couple of steps away from the
"basics." Rob D.
>thanks
>Clay
>
>On Wed, Aug 25, 2010 at 10:47 PM, Rob Danielson
><<type%40uwm.edu>> 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 imager=
y.
>>
>> (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
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
--
|