Anyone? Anyone? Bueller?
(Sound of tumbleweed bowling by in full periphony.)
On 7 Jul 2013, at 13:00, John Leonard wrote:
> The ball's in your court, folks.
___
Sursound mailing list
Sursound@music.vt.edu
https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/s
Ronald C.F. Antony wrote:
I can appreciate both sides of the argument. However, one thing that I would
love to see:
a) sterile, measurement-like recording of as close to possible to what happened
recording
It is important to see that the reproduction stage also matters. And
that you wil
I might well be able to make a series of recordings, but I repeat: where would
you like it to happen and what equipment would you like to be used? Are we
talking recording studios? Concert halls, churches and other venues used for
recordings? Just saying it would be nice but not qualifying preci
Would be nice. And is it not strange that it has never
happened(apparently) at least for public consumption?
Robert
On Fri, 5 Jul 2013, Dave Malham wrote:
Fair enough - and if I was still at the Uni with its facilities I would now
be thinking about doing it and publishing it on line for people
I suppose it depends upon what interests you.
I personally would like to hear instruments
exactly as if one were hearing them live.
I have always felt for example that
I would like to have a recording and playback
combination that would have the property
that one could decide whether one wanted
t
This seems sensible to me. Also, it is part of
my basic hope, that one could come to understand
exactly what one should do to make (a) below
as accurate as possible.
However, the description of (a) as sterile is something
I would take issue with. I like the sound of real
music. It does not sound
I love the intrinsic sound of Hancock's Grieg Violin and Piano Sonatas
recording(where Hancock plays the piano part!). But there is not
real stereo. One can hear in a rather obvious way that there
are two spaced microphones being used. The tonal character
of the sound is so attractive that one fo
I can appreciate both sides of the argument. However, one thing that I would
love to see:
a) sterile, measurement-like recording of as close to possible to what happened
recording
b) post processing with whatever effects, tricks, etc. is required to have
things sound pleasant and engaging.
Wha
All of this, of course, just goes to show how subjective recording is. In
my younger days I naively thought that we should be working towards exactly
re-creating a soundfield as a way of making the best possible recording.
But until such time the day comes that we can record and reproduce, in our
On Fri, Jul 05, 2013 at 10:04:46PM +0100, Paul Hodges wrote:
> --On 05 July 2013 20:54 + Fons Adriaensen wrote:
>
> >>1) two coincident hyper cardioids
> >>
> >My preferred one. Iff the mics are available. If not,
> >see below.
>
> I commonly do that too (from the B-format, of course!),
Wit
--On 05 July 2013 20:54 + Fons Adriaensen wrote:
1) two coincident hyper cardioids
My preferred one. Iff the mics are available. If not,
see below.
I commonly do that too (from the B-format, of course!), but also Blumlein,
depending on the room. Crossed hyper-cardioids is similar to M
On Fri, Jul 05, 2013 at 01:17:30PM -0400, Bob Katz wrote:
> 1) two councident hyper cardioids
My preferred one. Iff the mics are available. If not,
see below.
> 2) coincident cardioids (pretty boring and far
> from spacious to my ears)
I'd agree, certainly if the angle of the mics is only 90
But using what speaker in what space with what microphone at what distance?
Regards,
John
On 5 Jul 2013, at 20:48, Dave Malham wrote:
> Fair enough - and if I was still at the Uni with its facilities I would now
> be thinking about doing it and publishing it on line for people to
> experimen
Fair enough - and if I was still at the Uni with its facilities I would now
be thinking about doing it and publishing it on line for people to
experiment with. Is there no-one around that can't just book some studio
time and do it?
Dave
On 5 July 2013 20:39, Michael Chapman wrote:
> > Oh d
Okay, Bob - but which do you think sounds "best" and in this case I
specifically mean "most accurate", i.e. closest to the sound I would have
heard in the original acoustic? You see, I am not interested (in this case)
in the "spaciousness" or even the "envelopment" (whatever the heck that
means) o
> Oh dear, sorry to upset you, Robert. I _do_ recognise the value of pink
> noise and I've used it plenty of times myself for exactly the reasons you
> give. However, I don't regret a bit what I said about the far greater
> value
> of real instrumental recordings for these sorts of purposes. Pink n
Oh dear, sorry to upset you, Robert. I _do_ recognise the value of pink
noise and I've used it plenty of times myself for exactly the reasons you
give. However, I don't regret a bit what I said about the far greater value
of real instrumental recordings for these sorts of purposes. Pink noise is
in
>
To make a name for learning,
When other roads are barred,
Take something really easy,
And make it really hard.
For the removal of doubt ... I am on your side Robert.
Had a student from a certain university convinced that one needed a
trillion spot mic's at 5K each and that _recording_ above 1
Blumlein has certain virtues that transcend the concept of spaced versus
coincident. The out of phase lobe is one of the contributors so it is unfair to
lump Blumlein into the universe of coincident sound. The sound of the following
three coincident techniques is so different from one another th
I should add that this is not "academic" for me.
From (nonscientific) personal experience, I
have formed the impression that spaced mike techniques
color instrumental sound. Even ORTF--not very space--
is not as spot on for tone color as Blumlein.(Widely
spaced omnis are all over the map on ti
I answered a lot of messages in succession without going
on the the next. So please forgive evolving answers!
I do note the complete discontinuity between
the response to my original post to the effect
that no one needs or wants what I was suggesting
(simple tests recorded) and JN's claim that
t
If they are out there, please tell me where
I can buy a recording of what I indicated--
pink noise sources recorded at various positions
on stage with various mike techniques?
that people may have done this in private
I can believe.
But public information seems limited.
Source please? Things peop
WHat a lot of ado. I am not talking about
understanding people. I am just asking :
If you use mike technique x to record a pink
noise source in position y , what does the result
sound like on playback?
This is a simple question. It is obviously
relevant to what recording sound like in terms
of so
This is true. It is not what most of us do.
But it really would help what people do if they
knew what various techniques did to simple
but revealing sources.
I cannot see how anyone would not feel
that this would be useful information!
Robert
On Wed, 3 Jul 2013, Richard G Elen wrote:
On 03/07/
Hugely long. But one point cries out for comment:
It is simply nonsense to say that it would not
be useful to have the results
available for pink noises sources at various
spots on the stage recorded via various microphone
positions. It is well known and completely established
that pink noise is
I was just going to, in response to the passage below, suggest Gunther Theile
1985, but then noticed at the end of your post that you had indeed referenced
him
"...the brain is able to extrapolate from severely
comb-filtered sensory input and gives us the impression of hearing an
uncolored audit
On Wed, Jul 03, 2013 at 11:46:26PM +0200, Jörn Nettingsmeier wrote:
> ... moreover, the brain is able to extrapolate from
> severely comb-filtered sensory input and gives us the
> impression of hearing an uncolored auditory event.
> good luck simplifying that :)
That is absolutely true. We are ve
On 07/03/2013 06:31 AM, Robert Greene wrote:
I apologize if people took offense.
fwiw, i did not take offense at your clear preference for realistic
recordings (which i share and aspire to as well). i do object to
hand-wavey cultural pessimism that postulates the end of scientific
thinking.
Robert:
You (and others) speak of "science" as if it was one "thing" -- which
clearly it is not.
The history of science is filled with discussions of this matter and it
would be presumptuous to summarize them except to say that mathematics does
not equal science -- either as a philosophic
Subject: Re: [Sursound] A higher standard of standardness
>
>
> I apologize if people took offense. But the issue is serious.
> It is surely acceptable if people want to make recordings
> that do not sound like what was really there. This does
> not interest me personally all
On 03/07/2013 05:31, Robert Greene wrote:
If people want to treat recording as a pure art form
where one simply judges the results on aesthetic grounds.
it would be hard to say that was wrong. But it surely
takes recording out of the realm of science.
I am not sure that recording is a science
On 3 July 2013 07:37, David Pickett wrote:
> At 06:31 3/7/2013, Robert Greene wrote:
>
> Variations from reality ought surely to be based on knowing
>> how to reproduce the reality first and then introducing the
>> variations. One does not bend pitches for artistic effect
>> until one is able to
At 06:31 3/7/2013, Robert Greene wrote:
Variations from reality ought surely to be based on knowing
how to reproduce the reality first and then introducing the
variations. One does not bend pitches for artistic effect
until one is able to play in tune, so to speak.
Yes, indeed; but such questi
I apologize if people took offense. But the issue is serious.
It is surely acceptable if people want to make recordings
that do not sound like what was really there. This does
not interest me personally all that much, but to each his own
artistically.
But surely no one would argue that this freed
This post is with regard to Sursound Digest, Vol 6, Issue 1; specifically, Dr.
Robert Greene's post:
**This whole discussion is to my mind a living illustration of why no progress
to speak of ever occurs in audio. Nothing is made precise, no one does any
experiments on what happens to sound like
35 matches
Mail list logo
