At 4:08 PM -0500 10/17/10, Rick Munday wrote:
>
>
>It was enough for me to know that I want to build the PBB2N as per the pla=
ns
>and experiment with a few mics.
>
>I found the PBB2Ns separation and tone to have a more "real" feel.
Hi Rick--
Greater resemblance to aural experience in the field seems to be at
the root. Stereo imaging is a very subtle game. We're it not for
the fact that some recordings come out truly amazing and others
modestly "true," I wouldn't bother with trying to understand what is
going on. I think its improved my micing and post skills.
With comparison tests, I find it helpful to break apart some
performance qualities like localization, depth, over all tonal
balance and look at them separately, but it does come back to the
overall impression created.
>I've noticed in some of the recordings posted in the group that not all of=
the
>various rigs give me the feeling of being there. I realize you "sent" the
>audio from a surround sound setup (as per post), but with that in mind I
>felt like I was sitting there.
Yes, the mics were tested at the same spot where I normally have the
"rear" stereo pair for my my wide-spread surround array, but the
samples are "simple" stereo recorded "side-by-side." Rob D.
>
>On Sat, Oct 16, 2010 at 11:20 PM, Rob Danielson
><<type%40uwm.edu>> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> Hi Rick--
>> Let me know on or off list if you have questions.
>> Its the first time we've used polar plots in our
>> discussions and explanations and they're not easy
>> to interpret.
>>
>> The imagery created by the two arrays has a
>> closer gestalt than I would have guessed.
>> Hopefully people are able to hear some
>> performance differences themselves. I enjoy
>> hearing about different impressions. I used only
>> speaker monitoring in reaching my observations.
>> Rob D.
>>
>>
>
>
>
--
|