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 that this argument becomes moot. Just exercise and listen without prejudice!
1) two councident hyper cardioids (with their slight out of phase lobe at about 150 degrees) 2) coincident cardioids (pretty boring and far from spacious to my ears) 3) two coincident figure 8s (Blumlein). Something special, beats spaced miking in many cases. But not because it's coincident! Folks, thats not the answer. The answer is ---- the special way the room reflections and ambience are spatially decided by the microphone patterns themselves. The late David Hancock employed spaced figure eights and it worked well for him. He used to call coincident miking "monereo". And I know what he was talking about, but I do think he missed the point about the big difference between two cardioids with their in phase boringness and the richness that even two coincident fig eights bring to the table. BK If you think what I just typed on my iPhone is funny you should visit http://damnyouautocorrect.com/. Please excuse the excess quoting ----deleting text is a job. Thanks! On Jul 5, 2013, at 1:04 PM, Robert Greene <gre...@math.ucla.edu> wrote: > > 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 timbre as a function > of location I think). But this immpression is just another piece of anecdotal > evidence. > No one needs to take it seriously, however much I personally > believe it. > But I would actually like to know in some systematic > way if this is true!--or not. > > I cannot imagine why people would not want to know this > sort of thing themselves. > > One other point: I have read a great many book on > recording techniques, as I am sure we all have. > I have never seen a systematic treatment of this > subject. If the information JN alludes to actually > exists, it is surely a well kept secret from > the authors of those books.(In my experience, > such audio information tends to be like the > midnight kisses in "When I fall in love"-- > not there in the sun the next morning. All this supposed > literature of reliable scientific information > tends to turn out to be very dubious stuff if > it even exists , once one starts to look for it > and look at it hard. Even the localisation literture > is not all that convincing in detail as far > as microphone technique is concerned, though there > is a good bit of it. And a lot of it is contradicted > by other parts of it.) > > Robert > > > > > On Fri, 5 Jul 2013, Robert Greene wrote: > >> >> 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 >> these exist and everyone know they exist- or the >> implication of the latter. >> >> Apparently few people actually do know of such things-- >> since only JN claims they are there. >> >> I believe they might be there in private. I am >> asking where one can find them in public. >> Private science is not science. Science >> is about shared information. I know a proof >> of the Riemann hypothesis--but I am not telling. >> Everyone would laugh , if they even noticed. >> >> Information kept private is not really scientific >> information at all. >> >> Robert >> >> >> On Fri, 5 Jul 2013, Robert Greene wrote: >> >>> 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 people can actually obtain? >>> Localization--lots of literature and Boyk's recording >>> Timbre--sources please? >>> Robert >>> On Wed, 3 Jul 2013, J?rn Nettingsmeier wrote: >>>> 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. >>>> stereophonic techniques have been scrutinized and researched in very great >>>> depth and detail, and test recordings of the sort you were alluding to are >>>> routinely done by sound engineering students and seasoned recordist alike. >>>> the papers and data are out there. >>>> stating otherwise doesn't change that fact. let's not make sursound into a >>>> boring solipsistic debate club that negates everything which hasn't been >>>> discussed here before. >>>> <snip> >>>>> Except in audio, where no simple question ever seems to >>>>> get definitively answered and every almost discussion turns into >>>>> mush by means of enlarging the complexity of the situation >>>>> to the point that there are so many variables that no analysis is >>>>> possible without wild difficulties, if at all. >>>>> Personally, I would just like to know which mike technique >>>>> does what to the tonal character of sources at different >>>>> locations around the recording stage. If you don't care, you >>>>> don't care. But I wish I had a disc where I could listen >>>>> and find out. I find it hard to believe that other people >>>>> are not interested in this. >>>> that's because they demonstrably _are_ interested in this. >>>> it's just not as easy as you make it sound. >>>> let's begin with the simple definition of "tonal character". >>>> you won't be able to separate tonal character from spatial rendition. >>>> coloration and comb filtering are a fact of life, and a perfectly >>>> uncolored monophonic source will often sound less pleasing than a >>>> comb-filtered stereo reproduction (unless your listening room helps a >>>> bit). 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 :) i'm looking >>>> forward to hearing about your test design. >>>>> Science works like that:one step at a time. Assuming that >>>>> people are interested in science. >>>> yeah, that's why we have complete understanding of the human brain. >>>> because it's sooo easy to understand, if only people would read more >>>> sursound and not add needless complications. come on! >>>>> Years ago I decided to learn the piano(I am a violinist!) >>>>> just to see how it would go, by learning the Rachmaninoff 3rd >>>>> piano concerto --a measure at a time. As you can imagine I >>>>> did not get very far! >>>> q.e.d. >>>> your approach to scientific evaluation of recording techniques seems >>>> similar. >>>>> Audio seems to be missing a lot of the basics. >>>> yes, because psychoacoustics is _hard_. >>>>> PS There is a good bit of this sort of thing about >>>>> LOCALIZATION. But not so much about timbre. >>>> check out for example theile's "spectral objection to summing >>>> localization", but do get a case of wine and cigars before you dig in, >>>> because it's going to be a loong and very interesting night if you follow >>>> through some more papers. >>>> best, >>>> j?rn >>>> -- >>>> J?rn Nettingsmeier >>>> Lortzingstr. 11, 45128 Essen, Tel. +49 177 7937487 >>>> Meister f?r Veranstaltungstechnik (B?hne/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 >> _______________________________________________ >> 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 _______________________________________________ Sursound mailing list Sursound@music.vt.edu https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound
