[Hi Marcus-- Welcome to the list. I appreciate that you want your stereo ar=
rays
to
emulate field experience. ~Rob]
Thank you, Rob.
[(1) Mic positioning is factor #1 and is best done in sympathy with
local acoustics.]
Absolutely. Without question.
[(2) That all stereo mic arrays have strengths and weaknesses and that
none capture human (listening-processing) experience adequately.]
I agree about strengths and weaknesses and it=E2=80=99s true that no stereo=
mic array
captures what humans hear. To the defense of stereo array=E2=80=99s howeve=
r, we must
conclude that utilizing the most reference technology gives us our basis of=
understanding and thus gives us an adequate experience by which to judge.
[(3) That stereo imaging is highly dependent on monitoring used and
that speakers and headphones are very challenged to present universal
reference.]
Image is dependent on reproduction (and the acoustical space that reproduct=
ion
system lives in). I find speakers to be like microphones. Pick the color =
you
wish to paint with.
Headphones/Earspeakers are a very personal choice and while no universal
reference exists, common perception can allow people to agree and collabora=
te.
[(4) It helps to get mics up in the air-- further away from nearby
surfaces when imaging space (not withstanding boundary arrays).]
Every boundary that creates acoustic signatures affects microphone pickup
pattern, coloration, and image. The more free field a pickup pattern exist=
s in,
the more accurate the capture. With the ground being the largest and most=
predominant boundary we are saddled with, I agree getting the mics up in th=
e air
helps with the image, but then wind usually becomes a greater factor of con=
cern.
[(5) Spaced arrays tend to create impressions of spaciousness more readily =
than
coincident arrays.]
Indeed this is true. The only thing I love more than ORTF are spaced omni=
=E2=80=99s.
When spaced omni=E2=80=99s are done right, the bass response captured can t=
ruly move the
soul (or create bone-conduction that can move bodily organs!)
[(6) Stereo imagery created with stationary arrays can possess more subtlet=
y.]
And less image shift, signal attenuation, and movement born vibration.
[(7) Successful surround imagery begins with understanding stereo imagery.]
Yes and I do believe that theory and practice are of equally relevant impor=
tance
for both.
[(8) M-S processing is a powerful option that can be explored with any
stereo recording in post.]
Indeed, as has been discussed earlier in this thread. Also, re: (9), a per=
fect
example of when M/S is better than any other coincident technique.
[(9) Positioning localized, low frequency sounds (<~125Hz) in the center of=
the
stereo field creates more options in post production compared to side
positioning.]
I think in theory this is correct, however, because low frequency sounds ar=
e
omni-directional, the SPL of the low frequency content is probably of more=
concern. In post I would prefer a louder low frequency in one mic, than a=
centered, barely audible, low frequency signal in both. Because the abilit=
y to
center an image in post is easy, I would focus my efforts on capturing the=
greatest amount of low frequency content in the field and worry about the i=
mage
later.
(10) That stereo imaging can involve active participation on the part of th=
e
listener. Thus, a recordist gets "better" at processing the "cues" provided=
by
the arrays she/he uses.
Absolutely! It=E2=80=99s the reason I love my Schoeps so much!
An interesting side note: a paper written by Eugene Brandewie and Pavel
Zahorika, in the JASA titled, Prior listening in rooms improves speech
intelligibility, indicates that acoustic effects of a single re=EF=AC=82ect=
ion are
perceptually suppressed after repeated exposure to a particular con=EF=AC=
=81guration of
source and re=EF=AC=82ection.
Results from14 listeners indicate that with prior room exposure, masked spe=
ech
reception thresholds were on average 2.7 dB lower than thresholds without
exposure, an improvement in intelligibility of over 18%.
This effect, which is shown to be absent in anechoic space and greatly redu=
ced
under monaural listening conditions, demonstrates that prior binaural expos=
ure
to reverberant rooms can improve speech intelligibility, perhaps due to a
process of perceptual adaptation to the acoustics of the listening room.
I believe this effect is also present when listening to music or any comple=
x
recording, and the inverse of this seems to be true as well, i.e. that with=
repeated exposure to any recording process, the listener=E2=80=99s ears hea=
r more of
what they want their mics to capture, than everything the mics actually =E2=
=80=98hear=E2=80=99.
Basically what you said Rob, that a recordist gets "better" at processing t=
he
"cues" provided by the arrays she/he uses.
|