I hope you had a smile, Curt! I sure had a smile when I read your
blog about all hopeless attempts you had made on your rigs. I know
all about it. I think.
I totally agree with what you say and I am serious about "getting
somewhere". We need words, even though they are undefined, or perhaps
because they are undefined!
I don't question your observation, I welcome it, and find it
refreshing that it is described in a way that I don't understand, but
would like to understand.
I do question, though, whether there are better ways to put it. I
would rather ask whether "wavy" (for example) is a complex
combination of very subtle things that also involves psycho acoustic
matters, so complex that it's more or less useless to talk about. (?)
Continuing on thin ice, I would put the question this way:
We know that the human brain can compensate for many losses and
errors, while it cannot compensate for others. Right?
If right, what is then so special with the losses and errors that it
cannot compensate for? What is special with errors that the human
brain won't forgive?
Or back to the subject: What is it that make one microphone design
work, while another does not?
Or: Why is it that some loudspeaker systems give me anxiety, while
others give me an orgasm?
The modern explanation is that some loudspeakers are "painfully
revealing," while others are not. Well. But I had the same
experiences of loudspeakers back in 1960, when no loudspeakers were
"revealing"?? There is something more to it.
So, lets continue "getting somewhere". I think the audio "debate" has
been going in a circle for a long time and perhaps it doesn't matter
how we leave it?
I would appreciate if someone would "put a slightly finer point" on
what I have written above.
Klas.
At 20:13 2012-08-12, you wrote:
>Your good humor is duly noted, Klas!
>
>But if I may put a slightly finer point on it, I would say that
>oddball words like these *ARE* the descriptions. They are offered up
>as the best we can do in our awkward attempts to describe -- through
>language -- observations of subtle and often abstract audio
>phenomena we think we're hearing or that we aim to hear. The music
>and audio worlds are well known for this, providing us all with some
>good chuckles along the way.
>
>Back to the the "wavy" thing, though... I surely can't be the only
>one out there who has noticed this phenomenon I'm straining to
>describe with words like "wavy interactions," "jitter" and
>"inter-channel instability." I'd welcome a better way to put it.
>
>Curt Olson
>
>Klas wrote:
>
> > I like this!
> >
> > Now we have David's "splashing" and Curt's "wavy", two words that
> cannot be described.
> >
> > I think we are getting somewhere!
> >
> > Klas
> >
> >
> >> Excellent questions Scott. Thank you!
> >>
> >> "Wavy" is the best word I've found so far to describe a
> phenomenon I've noticed consistently for many years on recordings
> captured with ORTF, M-S and spaced-omni arrays. Not a partial
> blending toward mono, but rather a very subtle but audible "jitter"
> or "inter-channel instability" in these non-baffled arrays. Sorry,
> that's the best I can do at describing it. The common thread would
> seem to be non-baffled. Introduce baffles/barriers, especially
> adjacent to the mics (either perp. or flush), and it seems to
> almost always disappear.
> >>
> >> I've been able to greatly reduce the effect in ORTF-type pairs
> by moving the two mics closer and closer to each other until, at
> some point, depending on the mics, the "wavy" effect seems to
> become unnoticeable. Of course, the desired stereo width gets reduced too=
.
> >>
> >> Why this would occur in M-S recordings is absolutely beyond me,
> but it's almost always there.
> >>
> >> Curt Olson
> >>
> >>> Scott Fraser wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> The SASS-type rigs deliver a super clean image without any of
> the "wavy" microphone interactions that are common to ORTF, M-S and
> Spaced-Omni arrays.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Could you describe what you mean by "wavy"? Given how vastly
> different ORTF, MS & Spaced Omni are from each I can't imagine what
> characteristic they would all have in common. Are you referring to
> the partial blending toward mono of any non-baffled array?
> >>>
> >>> Scott Fraser
>
>
>------------------------------------
>
>"While a picture is worth a thousand words, a
>sound is worth a thousand pictures." R. Murray Schafer via Bernie Krause.
>
>Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
Telinga Microphones, Botarbo,
S-748 96 Tobo, Sweden.
Phone & fax int + 295 310 01
email:
website: www.telinga.com
|