Hi Russell,
I think we have heard plenty of examples shared here on this group of non-c=
oincident arrays producing good stereo localization without any aberrations=
being noticeable or problematic. I also think coincident arrays like XY, B=
lumlein, and MS will also produce localization aberrations, like on-axis lo=
bes, depending on the polar frequency response of the particular microphone=
s used. Ocean and stream sounds can be especially challenging with any arra=
y, and I would agree, at least in specific instances, a coincident array ma=
y help simplify things.
John Hartog
rockscallop.org
--- In Russell Dawkins <> wro=
te:
>
> Any stereo array can easily be tested for efficacy by the simple expedien=
t of (while recording) walking across the soundfield in an arc equidistant =
from the mic array. If the spatial representation is accurate as captured, =
when the recording is played back over properly positioned loudspeakers (=
=B130=BA for conventional stereo; =B145=BA for X-Y Blumlein crossed figure-=
of-eight) the footsteps should progress evenly from one side to the other. =
You could be forgiven for thinking this would be the result in most cases, =
but in fact it seems to work only with crossed figure of eights and M-S arr=
ays, both coincident. All spaced arrays produce extremely aberrant results =
with this experiment.
> For most nature sound recordings I don't think it matters much - especial=
ly of animal sounds - but to me it does matter when I am trying to capture =
what might be called an acoustic, such as a stream or a beachfront with wav=
es (to realistically capture the movement of the breaking part of the wave)=
.
>
|