naturerecordists
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: mic spacing vs spatial veracity

Subject: Re: mic spacing vs spatial veracity
From: "rock_scallop" rock_scallop
Date: Tue Aug 13, 2013 10:39 pm ((PDT))
Hi David,
I find the concept of perceived phantom source shift interesting though som=
ewhat confusing. The paper explains "shift" as "the percentage of distance =
from the middle of the image to either of the speakers." The greatest maxim=
um average shift of 104%(shown in Table 2)was found from a Binaural setup, =
and the lowest maximum shift was 81% from a XY setup.  Even if they found X=
Y to be most linear, still we are talking of a compression to 50 degrees of=
 the original 180 degree horizontal soundstage.
Meanwhile on the nature recording front, soundscape microphone techniques l=
ike Jecklin Dick, SASS, Curt's parallel boundary arrays, and other techniqu=
e can produce much wider spread to significantly outside the speakers, givi=
ng a maximum phantom shift upwards of 200% (or 120 degrees) from a standard=
 speaker setup. Some with fairly linear localization also, if that is what =
is important.

John Hartog
oregonsoundscapes.com

--- In   wrote:
>
> >> Some years ago there was an AES paper (sorry I can't find it now) on a=
 >> shoot-out between a number of popular stereo arrays. ORTF got high mark=
s >> for source positioning accuracy.
>
> Dan,
>
> I have more on another paper below but what I have also found is:
>
>  "Choosing and Configuring a Stereo Microphone Technique Based on
>  Localisation Curves
>
>  Magdalena Plewa1 / Piotr Kleczkowski1"
>
> Link:
> http://www.degruyter.com/view/j/aoa.2011.36.issue-2/v10168-011-0026-8/v10=
168
>  -011-0026-8.xml
>
> URL:
> http://www.degruyter.com/dg/viewarticle.fullcontentlink:pdfeventlink/$002=
fj$
> 002faoa.2011.36.issue-2$002fv10168-011-0026-8$002fv10168-011-0026-8.pdf?t=
:ac
> =3Dj$002faoa.2011.36.issue-2$002fv10168-011-0026-8$002fv10168-011-0026-8.=
xml
>
> Spin down past the maths and look at the plots on page 9. These give the=

> object/image localisations for various setups. Figs 6 and 7 compare ORTF=

> with XY at 90 deg.
>
> Back to another email:
>
> > Is it this one
> > http://tinyurl.com/potfwud
>
> John,
>
> I've just waded through this paper and it is assessing distance perceptio=
n
> with different loudspeaker combinations in large auditoriums.
>
> They settled on an ORTF mic setup:
>
>  "In a comparison of various stereophonic
>  microphone arrays, Hugonnet and Jouhaneau [8] find
>  that coincident techniques (such as XY and MS) yield
>  the most accurate lateral localization, while closely
>  spaced techniques (including O.R.T.F.) yield the finest
>  distance discrimination. In another comparison, Ceoen
>  [9] found a subjective preference."
>
> The recordings were all done on an ORTF mic rig, after rejecting AB and M=
S
> but "dipole" loudspeakers were included in antiphase. They were only look=
ing
> for distance and special effects, not lateral effects.
>
> However, one reference looks interesting but I haven't located it:
>
> C. Hugonnet and J. Jouhaneau, =E2=80=9CComparative
> spatial transfer function of six different
> stereophonic systems,=E2=80=9D 82nd Audio Eng. Soc.
> Conv., London, Preprint 2465(H-5), 1987.
>
>
> My conclusion for nature recording? Check out your rigs with a shaking
> peanuts test using your ears. :-)
>
> David Brinicombe
>








<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>
Admin

The University of NSW School of Computer and Engineering takes no responsibility for the contents of this archive. It is purely a compilation of material sent by many people to the naturerecordists mailing list. It has not been checked for accuracy nor its content verified in any way. If you wish to get material removed from the archive or have other queries about the archive e-mail Andrew Taylor at this address: andrewt@cse.unsw.EDU.AU