s
comparison.
Hi Vicky,
That processing procedure was quick and gross, and later think I improved i=
t
with a bit more playing around.
The problem I have with most arrays is the LF stuff gets piled in the cente=
r,
attenuating that a bit might make sound more natural, however this time I t=
hink
I just I over did it.
But you are right, an external array is the best solution for improving the=
stereo image. I don't like head worn arrays because I can't look around wh=
ile
recording, and the sound of my own breath is so often noticeable.
John Hartog
rockscallop.org
--- In vickipowys <> wrote:
>
> John,
>
> I have to agree with Greg, your MS processing did not work for me
> either, when listening through headphones.
>
> In the first clip the environmental noise is evenly spaced around me
> and I can travel outwards, but in the processed clip I feel like I am
> in a pressure cooker and can't escape.
>
> Not a very technical explanation I know :-)
>
> To save on all this post-production, the best quick solution for good
> stereo from a pocket recorder is to use external head-worn electrets
> (e.g. EM172s), quick to put on if they are mounted on a lightweight
> headband from an old set of headphones.
>
>
> Vicki
>
>
>
> On 18/07/2012, at 2:30 PM, Gregory O'Drobinak wrote:
>
> > John:
> >
> > Interesting. But when listening to this with cans on, the second
> > part sounded
> > like it was pulling down hard on my ears!
> > It was a very strange sensation, with a very curious spectral
> > shift. Not at all
> > pleasant.
> >
> > I've been thinking about some ways to 'spread out' a narrower
> > stereo image, but
> > it may be very tricky with M-S processing. Perhaps having a wider
> > sound stage
> > like the SASS-type rigs is not at all possible with closely-spaced
> > capsules, no
> > matter what the method. Seems like you can't put in the proper
> > inter-aural
> > delays that one would have with a natural spacing of the mic
> > elements ex post
> > facto, but I could be wrong. I'd like to see if anyone can really
> > pull this off
> > effectively.
> >
> > What exactly was your process?
> >
> > Thanks!
> >
> > - Greg
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: rock_scallop <>
> > To:
> > Sent: Tue, July 17, 2012 10:39:01 PM
> > Subject: [Nature Recordists] Re: Olympus LS5, LS7 and Sony M10
> > internal mics
> > comparison.
> >
> >
> > For the sake of understanding values or risks of Mid-Side processing.
> > Here is a URL to a bit of my urban backyard test with the pcm-m10.
> > The first part has no added EQ, the second part has Mid-Side
> > processing to
> > correct the stereo image.
> >
> >
> > http://soundcloud.com/john-hartog/jh-test20127017-pcmm10-ms/s-TnZrf
> >
> > Any comments are welcome.
> >
> > John Hartog
> > rockscallop.org
> >
> > --- In "rock_scallop"
> > <john_hartog@> wrote:
> >>
> >> Hi Robin,
> >> It is always nice when post-processing is not needed, but show me
> >> an external
> >> array for nature recording that will not benefit from some post EQ
> >> most of the
> >> time.
> >>
> >>
> >> Of course one must be careful not to over do it.
> >>
> >> What do you mean by "skew your phase and introduce other
> >> distortions." If it
> >> sounds good, is it not good?
> >>
> >> John Hartog
> >> rockscallop.org
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> --- In "robin_parmar_sound"
> >> <robin@> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> John wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> On the other hand, the advantage of the lower noise mics in the
> >>>> M10 is the
> >> potential for an extended acoustic horizon in quieter settings,
> >> and for those
> >> capable of making MS adjustments in post that might make a
> >> difference.
> >>>
> >>> Of course the best thing to do is use external mics when low
> >>> noise is of
> >> paramount importance. Then you can control the recording topology
> >> exactly,
> >> without resorting to post-processing that will skew your phase and
> >> introduce
> >> other distortions.
> >>>
> >>> -- Robin Parmar
> >>>
> >>
>
|