On 1 July 2013 08:21, Paul Hodges wrote:
> --On 30 June 2013 21:47 -0700 Robert Greene wrote:
>
> and audio is still uncertain which mike
>> technique really reproduces the live sound.
>>
>
> But you see, how ever many times it gets said (and it does), the
> discussions continue to ignore that
On 1 Jul 2013, at 08:21, Paul Hodges wrote:
> --On 30 June 2013 21:47 -0700 Robert Greene wrote:
>
>> and audio is still uncertain which mike
>> technique really reproduces the live sound.
>
> But you see, how ever many times it gets said (and it does), the
> discussions continue to ignore
On 1 Jul 2013, at 08:12, Jörn Nettingsmeier
wrote:
> On 07/01/2013 06:47 AM, Robert Greene wrote:
>> Embarrassing that after a century and more of recording.
>> there are NO comprehensive demo discs of what really happens
>> to controlled known acoustic sources. Really makes audio
>> look like a
--On 30 June 2013 21:47 -0700 Robert Greene wrote:
and audio is still uncertain which mike
technique really reproduces the live sound.
But you see, how ever many times it gets said (and it does), the
discussions continue to ignore that fact that there are two independent
aims in recording:
On 07/01/2013 06:47 AM, Robert Greene wrote:
Embarrassing that after a century and more of recording.
there are NO comprehensive demo discs of what really happens
to controlled known acoustic sources. Really makes audio
look like a silly subject. One hundred years--the scientific
world in that ti
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 what was there, everyone just
talks about what sounds nice to them or what
sounds like what they think
On 29 June 2013 13:21, Jörn Nettingsmeier wrote:
Jörn
You have just proved conclusively that there are things which are
truly high fidelity without having anything directly to do with recording.
The sonic image generated in my imagination by what you wrote of your
encounter with Mike was tot
On 29 Jun 2013, at 07:40, Dave Malham wrote:
> On 28 June 2013 23:07, Goran Finnberg wrote:
>> It´s all a blob of washed out sound in the middle with very little
>> directional effects at all. A very spacious effect that is totally missing
>> when I hear the same forces recorded via coincident mic
On 06/29/2013 07:40 AM, Dave Malham wrote:
Still, this is all a continuation of a "discussion" I have been having with
the beard Scotsman, Mike Williams, at AES conventions, over emails and in
person for the last three decades without every coming to a real agreement
- and we are still mates, mu
On 29 June 2013 00:35, Fons Adriaensen wrote:
>
> It is flawed because your ears are still separated by the same
> distance when listening to a stereo pair of speakers, and this
> will cause ITD for off-center sources even if the mics were
> coincident or the signals were amplitude-panned. It doe
Oops, clicked the send button too soon - here's the rest of my comments
(continued from Varese quotation)
On 28 June 2013 23:07, Goran Finnberg wrote:
>
> It´s all a blob of washed out sound in the middle with very little
> directional effects at all. A very spacious effect that is totally missi
On 28 June 2013 23:07, Goran Finnberg wrote:
>
>
> He made it crystal clear that in his opinon when mixing spaced microphones
> in a reverberant space no phase effects or comb filtering of any sort could
> be heard even when listening in mono.
>
> The reason is simple, the mics are sufficiently sp
On Sat, Jun 29, 2013 at 12:07:20AM +0200, Goran Finnberg wrote:
> ... while my ears are certainly NOT occupying the exact same spot
> instead they sit some distance apart and this gives my brain both
> amplitude AND timing information lost in the pure coicident
> recording systems.
Whatever the
--On 29 June 2013 00:07 +0200 Goran Finnberg wrote:
And no one sitting listening to this washed out and unstable real life
sterophonic image seems to think it is wrong at all.
I find that "ordinary" people are as likely to like coincident recordings
as spaced ones; indeed, so much so that se
David Picket:
> Since people who like Decca Trees usually
> like the phase effects that come with the setup,
When I started out recording in 69/70 I got a lot of help and suggestions
from an old Swedish Radio recording engineer.
He made it crystal clear that in his opinon when mixing spaced micr
At 19:02 26/6/2013, Eric Carmichel wrote:
>I have a friend who's an advocate of the Decca Tree mic arrangement.
>Many of his recordings (a lot of choir and guitar) sound quite nice,
Decca Trees sound nice on choirs because they do not have precise
stereo imaging and thus one cannot hear individ
: [Sursound] Giving Precedence to Ambisonics
On Thu, Jun 27, 2013 at 01:52:55PM -0400, Thomas Chen wrote:
> By adding time to the recording you can keep the edges still
> left and right however the center will move as you move.
The center still moves, as by symmetry you can't use delays there
On Thu, Jun 27, 2013 at 01:52:55PM -0400, Thomas Chen wrote:
> By adding time to the recording you can keep the edges still
> left and right however the center will move as you move.
The center still moves, as by symmetry you can't use delays there.
The edges will stay put even without delays as
move as you move.
ThomasChen
-Original Message-
From: Aaron Heller
To: Eric Carmichel ; Surround Sound discussion group
Sent: Wed, Jun 26, 2013 11:06 am
Subject: Re: [Sursound] Giving Precedence to Ambisonics
Ron Streicher has written about using a Soundfield as the middle mic in
On 06/27/2013 01:27 PM, JEFF SILBERMAN wrote:
May I suggest "Demonstration of Stereo Microphone Techniques,"
Performance Recordings #6 wherein 18 coincident, near-coincident and
spaced omni (2 and 3 mic) stereo techniques are compared via a line
of loudspeakers mounted at equal intervals and span
hnique are unmistakable...
Jeff Silberman
>
> From: Eric Carmichel
>To: "sursound@music.vt.edu"
>Sent: Wednesday, June 26, 2013 10:02 AM
>Subject: [Sursound] Giving Precedence to Ambisonics
>
>
>Greetings All,
>I have a
Martin Leese
>To: sursound@music.vt.edu
>Sent: Wednesday, June 26, 2013 10:53 AM
>Subject: Re: [Sursound] Giving Precedence to Ambisonics
>
>
>Eric Carmichel wrote:
>...
>>> Two-channel playback (both convention and binaural) is here to stay for a
>>> while, so
On 06/26/2013 07:02 PM, Eric Carmichel wrote:
Creating a virtual Decca Tree seems straightforward. To move
the center channel, or a virtual mic *forward* would require little
more than offline processing. I wonder whether anybody has tried the
following: Slightly delay all channels except the sig
group
Sent: Wednesday, June 26, 2013 11:06 AM
Subject: Re: [Sursound] Giving Precedence to Ambisonics
Ron Streicher has written about using a Soundfield as the middle mic in a Decca
tree
http://www.wesdooley.com/pdf/Surround_Sound_Decca_Tree-urtext.pdf
and Tom Chen has a system he c
Ron Streicher has written about using a Soundfield as the middle mic in a
Decca tree
http://www.wesdooley.com/pdf/Surround_Sound_Decca_Tree-urtext.pdf
and Tom Chen has a system he calls B+ Format, which augments first-order
B-format from a Soundfield mic with a forward ORTF pair. I've heard
Eric Carmichel wrote:
...
>> Two-channel playback (both convention and binaural) is here to stay for a
>> while, so optimizing Ambisonics for stereo is desirable to me. In fact, one
>> of my favorite recordings from the late 80s was made with the band (The
>> Cowboy Junkies) circled around a Cal
Greetings All,
I have a friend who's an advocate of the Decca Tree mic arrangement. Many of
his recordings (a lot of choir and guitar) sound quite nice, so I looked into
aspects of the Decca Tree technique. For those who may not be familiar, the
*traditional* Decca Tree arrangement is comprised
27 matches
Mail list logo