On 1 Jul 2013, at 08:12, Jörn Nettingsmeier <netti...@stackingdwarves.net> 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 silly subject. One hundred years--the scientific >> world in that time discovered quantum mechanics, relatively, >> nuclear energym lasers, the genetic code, >> the human genome--and audio is still uncertain which mike >> technique really reproduces the live sound. Embarrassing >> altogether. > > what is this rant about? > > every recordist who's at least half serious about her/his tools has made > those very test recordings with various miking techniques, knows their > properties quite intimately, and choses the most appropriate for each > recording depending on acoustics, disposition of the instruments, and > above all, taste. and there are hundreds of comprehensive demos of every > conceivable stereo technique under the sun, with all kinds of source, > and recording professionals have listened to them and honed their skills > with them for decades. > > two-speaker stereo, in terms of spatial accuracy and precision, is more > like a charcoal sketch than a photograph (much less a hologram) of the > real thing. to claim otherwise is just witch-doctoring, and no amount of > POA/UHJ sacred chicken blood is going to make this any more true. > knowing this, most engineers prefer a technique which adds an additional > layer of abstractness or interpretation or whatever, to convey an _idea_ > through a _very_limited_ medium. it's a matter of personal preference, > and ranting about this is about as useful as pointing out to picasso how > a six-color inkjet would have fixed the disturbing blue tint of some of > his paintings, and that the perspective is a little off... > > like you, i do prefer co-incident miking, but honestly, i don't see how > the wide-spread preference for spread omnis can be construed as the end > of scientific thinking. And (putting on my asbestos underwear) surely the obvious response to complaints that people don't care about precise localisation is that people don't necessarily care about precise localisation! There are many other factors at play, and since most recording is as much about an artistic result as it is about any particular notion of accuracy, those may be more important in a given case. An informed engineer can make a reasoned decision to do that, as Jörn says. S. PS on my way to Derby... > > best, > > > > jörn > > -- > Jörn Nettingsmeier > Lortzingstr. 11, 45128 Essen, Tel. +49 177 7937487 > > Meister für Veranstaltungstechnik (Bühne/Studio) > Tonmeister VDT > > http://stackingdwarves.net > > _______________________________________________ > Sursound mailing list > Sursound@music.vt.edu > https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound _______________________________________________ Sursound mailing list Sursound@music.vt.edu https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound
