Once again, it is not about whispering conversations of drunk musicians. 
When you hear reverberation trying to compare records "blindly" you engage your long-term memory and hear always different materials. But when you whisper and back up from the microphone you hear all changes immediately. Then you do the same with the other strip and compare what you just heard with what you hear now. Immediate comparison of sounds is much easier than comparison of the sound with the sound in your memory imagining how it would sound in different conditions. By the way, it is one explanation why dynamic distortions are so significant when static measurements are very nice, but "it does not sound".
Edit: About Doug Sax, I am very sorry: living behind the fence I had to re-invent many things that people in your "free market world" used routinely. But I don't complain, because it gave me my own experience that can't be replaced by any readings.
When you hear reverberation trying to compare records "blindly" you engage your long-term memory and hear always different materials. But when you whisper and back up from the microphone you hear all changes immediately. Then you do the same with the other strip and compare what you just heard with what you hear now. Immediate comparison of sounds is much easier than comparison of the sound with the sound in your memory imagining how it would sound in different conditions. By the way, it is one explanation why dynamic distortions are so significant when static measurements are very nice, but "it does not sound".
Edit: About Doug Sax, I am very sorry: living behind the fence I had to re-invent many things that people in your "free market world" used routinely. But I don't complain, because it gave me my own experience that can't be replaced by any readings.
Last edited:
I take it this is directed at designers of hedgehog mikes.However, I don't understand how somebody would seriously consider capturing some 5+1 record from the natural event. Especially using a single microphone, even if it looks like a hedgehog of capsules.
Have you got a Home Theatre surround system at home? If you do, you can download the DTS samples from ambisonia.com, burn them to disk and play them back on your 5+1 system. It won't be 100% accurate cos you haven't told the 'decoder' where your speakers are but I don't think you will be disappointed.
If you haven't got surround, download VVMic and decode to the stereo arrangement(s) of your choice. At least try classic Blumlein even if you have never had success using this with lesser mikes. You can save the decode as a stereo WAV file and burn a red book CD if you can't play directly from the computer.
May I suggest Pulcinella from ajh.
I'd be interested in your comments, good or bad.
Thank you Kgrlee;
I will download and test. I have 5+1, but I never heard good 5+1 recordings, except especially mastered for movie tracks. And I don't understand how somebody sane would expect to record them. It would be exciting to know that I was wrong, though.
(And my apologies to hedgehogs, I was kidding)
I will download and test. I have 5+1, but I never heard good 5+1 recordings, except especially mastered for movie tracks. And I don't understand how somebody sane would expect to record them. It would be exciting to know that I was wrong, though.
(And my apologies to hedgehogs, I was kidding)
Unfortunately, yes.
72 dB according to the diagram. But of course no 60 dB gain and 60 dB attenuator simultaneously.
Add here summing amps, actually.
What is great in instrumentation amp inputs, wide range of gain controlled by the single pot. Very convenient. But for high-end I prefer more narrow approach. I relatively recently discovered nice beasts: planar triodes from ancient missiles. Zero microphonics, high gain, high gm. Killing device, both for mic preamps and phono preamps.
Wavebourn's Tube Mic Pre Project - Gearslutz.com
I used to have 2 LF targets for speakers.
One was 27Hz A on a piano (ignoring headbanging Bosendorfers).
The other was 40Hz E on a string bass or bass guitar. Is the 4-5 string Blues bass a different instrument and what is it's lowest note?
A serious non-sh*t stirring question.
My Powered Integrated Super Sub tech. easily lowers the typical 70Hz cutoff of an evil mini-monitor to 50Hz. Need some thought to get lower down safely.
Last edited:
Damn! That 10Hz from E to B is real expensive in power & sense, especially for a mini-monitor ... even with all the dirty tricks available with Powered Integrated Super Stuff.Bass guitar tuning - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia ... no sh*t ...
But gotta do it to have any chance of fooling .. I mean persuading Marshy to pick a mini-monitor in a Blind Listening Test. Then he could still kill me by claiming Concorde & the 747 are Blues music ... especially as I would have the 1000W amp to give the littlies a chance.
Mr. Marsh, are we allowed powered speakers in this hypothetical Blind Listening Test lineup?
Last edited:
May-i ?
I have no 5+1 system, so i had explored few files in stereo, playing with your (nice) tool.
Take my comments in this limited context.
As expected, it provide good stereophonic files, from all couple arrangement, with, i believe, the advantage that a single not too big mike can offer.
On my personal point of view (according to my experience of post prod habits) , it does not provide an advantage for movie dialogs or effects. Mono recordings are enough for that, or even more practical, with the ability to place tje track anyway in the space during mix. Agree ?
But it is, for sure, the most practical solution to record ambiophonic ambiances.
About (stereo) localization, it is better in treble than in basses. As expected. (I mean, the little distance between the mikes) localization are not so good than ORTF couples or artificial head. It is a little like XY Couple while a little better. Something between them. Mikes themself are pretty good.
I suppose it can be good to record a musical event from a "single point" if the difficulty to find the best position is not too much increased by the back ambiance presence.
Of course, i don't believe in it for multitrack recordings, where you mix several sources (then add ambiances).
All this, very partial, with a very limited experience, and very personal, as i cannot feel the real ambiophonic feelings and i had listened to limited numbers of files.
Did this stick with your own positions ?
Last edited:
Let's make it more like real -
But, of course! I only want to hear what the musicians played and was recorded... in low distortion, full dynamic range. Sort of like -- a liitle more reality. That shouldnt be too much to ask from anyone on this forum. Thx - marshy mellow
Damn! That 10Hz from E to B is real expensive in power & sense, especially for a mini-monitor ... even with all the dirty tricks available with Powered Integrated Super Stuff.
But gotta do it to have any chance of fooling .. I mean persuading Marshy to pick a mini-monitor in a Blind Listening Test. Then he could still kill me by claiming Concorde & the 747 are Blues music ... especially as I would have the 1000W amp to give the littlies a chance.
Mr. Marsh, are we allowed powered speakers in this hypothetical Blind Listening Test lineup?
But, of course! I only want to hear what the musicians played and was recorded... in low distortion, full dynamic range. Sort of like -- a liitle more reality. That shouldnt be too much to ask from anyone on this forum. Thx - marshy mellow
Dynamic distortions are the most important... any tests (like multi-tone) that can simulate real listening conditions should be the norm for testing. Especially, power amps.
I had several scientists tell me that the Russians were (are?) killer in mathematics. The last PHD EE I talked to had earned it in Microwave field... resonances in ferrites. Microwave field is massively mathmatical. He was getting his practical experience time in so he could apply for teaching at university/college. Anyway, he said, he needed to learn Russian to read the best works in math... he said it was because they were so far behind in computers that they did everything by hand/mind only. Very impressing feats. And, because of this, they knew so much more than the "west" did. So - it might be harder but better to do some things without a computer. Or at least be able to... SIM's come to mind, here.
I met him in the walk-in size Microwave Anechoic chamber/lab that I was responsible for.... my last job at govn R&D -- There we had a captured Russian missile from Afgan (when they were on our side)... the war head electronics was all miniature tubes... hardwired... no pcb. Very reliable. No ss devices. Why?.. ss were Not immune to high field RFI/EMI and E-Mag pulse from nuke explosions. SS would die... fried under modern warfare conditions.
So, some things we think of as old and useless (like geezers) still have purpose and life in them. Maybe being raised in the remote Russian frozen tundra wasnt so bad after all; Having to do without computers and making things the hard way still has value. -RNM
Last edited:
Very funny.
Can't imagine the life without computers before the late 20'Th century.
Soviet Union was behind in computers because there was no free market allowed. Centralized planning. Ministers decided what people need. Of course, personal computers were not the necessity. Access to computers, printers, copy machines, was regulated by government agencies. Even typewriters had to be registered in state departments.
The best production was made, of course, for government. Military computers were powerful. But for industrial applications computer industry was screwed completely after somebody on the top decided that we can save money stopping investments in design of own computers, and start copying IBM mainframes and DEC mini-mainframes, so Western software will be available for free.
It was fiasco. The Dead End. The planned Far Behind.
But it is not why we knew science better. The main reason, because we were not profit-oriented. Imagine, when you have almost the same salary no matter what you do at work you wold not be interested in better profitability of your company controlled by government. You will be interested in satisfaction of your precious curiosity. You can loose your job position, but you can't loose your knowledge. Here on West, money always was the power. There on East, knowledge was the power. We had no money at all, we had like tickets printed by government from thin air.
Richard; there is a huge difference between Tundra and Taiga. Tundra is a naked field near the North pole. Taiga is deep forest near China.
Taiga is much better. Believe me. I know, despite I've never been in Tundra. I grew up in Taiga.
Last edited:
Richard; there is a huge difference between Tundra and Taiga. Tundra is a naked field near the North pole. Taiga is deep forest near China.
Taiga is much better. Believe me. I know, despite I've never been in Tundra. I grew up in Taiga.
Its a figure of speech... I wasnt paying any attention where you are from exactly. Any country that far north is way too cold for me. -20 to -40C? I dont think so. Wiki say a lot of the Taiga has been cut down since the collasp of the soviet union. So, it might now or soon be Tundra.
Anyway, there's always a silver lining. Its just a change in perspective.
Last edited:
Thanks for this Christophe.About (stereo) localization, it is better in treble than in basses. As expected. (I mean, the little distance between the mikes) localization are not so good than ORTF couples or artificial head. It is a little like XY Couple while a little better. Something between them. Mikes themself are pretty good.
I suppose it can be good to record a musical event from a "single point" if the difficulty to find the best position is not too much increased by the back ambiance presence.
Of course, i don't believe in it for multitrack recordings, where you mix several sources (then add ambiances).
There is actually a more serious problem with an accurate single point mike. If you place this in a good hall with care, you get an excellent sound. When you place it in a sh*t hall, you get sh*t sound. Aaron was lucky to have a long association in the hall(s) which is often used by some famous recording engineers with lesser mikes.
They are always surprised when told this is a single point mike recording.
When you use a Soundfield or TetraMic for the first time in a good hall, you usually start with it in your favourite position close to the musicians. Little by little, you move it back until it ends up in a place which sounds good to you if you were a listener at the concert and nearly at fig-8 @ 90.
Then you say, "this is ridiculous. Nobody records like that!" and start again. You always WANT to have more ambience with TetraMic or a Soundfield.
Peter Craven, one of the inventors said that there are only 2 stereo mike arrangements that accurately capture the sound of a good hall; coincident omnis (useless for stereo) and fig-8s at 90. John Atkinson was skeptical but when he tried a Mk4 for the first time, this is exactly what he found.
All other mike arrangements colour the sound cos they favour certain directions.
Apologies to those of you who don't record Dead White Men's Music
Here is the process of building of a prototype of my microphone matrix. As I said, all capsules were aligned horizontally only. Output was stereo only. Optical compressors - limiters are inside, to disallow clipping due to crest-factor. Bright LEDs on the picture show that compressors had been engaged (I scream to the mic array )
)Attachments
Wavebourn,
I agree that you probably had a very different environment in which to live and learn than we do here in the US and that has been for a long time. But at the same time there were many here who also worked for the honor and privilege of producing something that they really believed in and did that with the same passion that you speak of. Scott worked for the original Bell Labs and I would think that if you ask him that before the decision to only develop products for the financial gain that basic research was what this lab was all about. I think that there was a freedom to just pursue something out of curiosity and without the drive to just produce a money maker. I am sure that there were many other places that worked like that but not at the same level that could be done at Bell. I think that is one of the things that made this country great, the opportunity to create something because you just wanted to. My grandfather was from the Ukraine and came to America when he was only a child. I still have a picture of my great grandfather in his military uniform before 1903 in Russia. He came here to America for a new beginning. In my family knowledge has always been a driving force and I am grateful for that. My daughter studies math books just because she loves to learn those things. She wishes to be an engineer and I think that she will succeed at that. She just doesn't know which field she wants to pursue. She is always asking questions and wants to know why I do what I do. I grew up in a medical laboratory and was fascinated with what my father did. I loved science since I was little and wished I knew half of the chemistry that my father did, he was a bio-analyst and developed many of the tests that we routinely get from our doctors. Me, I always wanted to design products and invent new things. I think that personality has more to do with what we learn than where we are born or grow up. You my friend just had to take a harder more arduous path to get to where you wanted to go. I am sure that your intelligence would have come through wherever you would have been born. Nobody can make you curious, that is inside of those who question whatever they see. I do appreciate reading your postings even if most of it goes over my head. Glad you are here to teach us here that want to learn.
Steven
I agree that you probably had a very different environment in which to live and learn than we do here in the US and that has been for a long time. But at the same time there were many here who also worked for the honor and privilege of producing something that they really believed in and did that with the same passion that you speak of. Scott worked for the original Bell Labs and I would think that if you ask him that before the decision to only develop products for the financial gain that basic research was what this lab was all about. I think that there was a freedom to just pursue something out of curiosity and without the drive to just produce a money maker. I am sure that there were many other places that worked like that but not at the same level that could be done at Bell. I think that is one of the things that made this country great, the opportunity to create something because you just wanted to. My grandfather was from the Ukraine and came to America when he was only a child. I still have a picture of my great grandfather in his military uniform before 1903 in Russia. He came here to America for a new beginning. In my family knowledge has always been a driving force and I am grateful for that. My daughter studies math books just because she loves to learn those things. She wishes to be an engineer and I think that she will succeed at that. She just doesn't know which field she wants to pursue. She is always asking questions and wants to know why I do what I do. I grew up in a medical laboratory and was fascinated with what my father did. I loved science since I was little and wished I knew half of the chemistry that my father did, he was a bio-analyst and developed many of the tests that we routinely get from our doctors. Me, I always wanted to design products and invent new things. I think that personality has more to do with what we learn than where we are born or grow up. You my friend just had to take a harder more arduous path to get to where you wanted to go. I am sure that your intelligence would have come through wherever you would have been born. Nobody can make you curious, that is inside of those who question whatever they see. I do appreciate reading your postings even if most of it goes over my head. Glad you are here to teach us here that want to learn.
Steven
Wiki say a lot of the Taiga has been cut down since the collasp of the soviet union. So, it might now or soon be Tundra.
.
I'm afraid you are right...
What is the affect of adding a second Soundfield mic out in the middle of the music hall.. or futher back in the room... plus the original location of the Soundfield mic? - Added ambience with still spacial accuracy of soundfield. ?
Last edited:
Like with stereo couples, i believe you'll have strange delays and phase effects. Using close miking + Soudnfield can be the solution to get the freedom to add an ambiophonic ambiance to a multitrack front recording, and to can play with the level of each. But i wonder if the orchestra captured by the Soundfield would be too much present in it, where you wanted only ambiance and natural reverberation? Kgrlee ?
You can too use the Soundfield as the main recording source, adding just a bit from close mikes with delay (for the sound a arrive in the same time) to add a little presence to some instruments if needed. I would prefer this solution.
It is amusing to see that sound engineers working for classical music for companies like Deutch gramophon where using couples or artificial heads to record direct on stereo tapes, while we, Rock'n rollers, where playing with multitrack close miking recordings. They where looking at us like Martians. Nowadays, more and more, classical music is recorded the way we done, while us tended more and more with years to bring the realism of stereo recordings in our tracks, even in studio...
There is an arrangement i like: ORTF couple, and coincident ORTF couple for the back.
The advantage of ORTF couple (110°, mikes separated by 17cm) is it plays both with the mikes directivity, and phase differences close to our head's ones. Much more better than XY
In the config i show, you don't destroy the original phases with the back ones, because they are coincident.
Attachments
There is two world witch does not live in good intelligence
- The world of classical music. It is mostly public live sessions, in good acoustic theaters with acoustic instruments. (it apples too for Jazz big bands). They want fidelity in the recordings, they take great care of the way ambiance and natural reverberation is reproduced. They want their record to reproduce real life.
They love soft and delicate systems to reproduce at home, like Quad, large band, closed enclosure or flat panels, and tube amps. They don't care too much of hyper-realist transients, because what they like to hear is dumped by the distance. They love to listen to low levels details, they talk of listening fatigue, they want to feel to be in a theater when they play music in their living room...
- On the other side is Rock'n roll and all kind of electric music. Public performances use PA systems and amplified (distorted on purpose) instruments. No way to record those performances in an *acoustical* fidelity.
It is in studios that they produce their sounds, and live performance try to copy the sounds previously created by all artificial ways in studios. Recording public performance use close miking and the same studio methods to CREATE a sound track. (not to reproduce).
They love very dynamic impressive systems, prefer good horns, multi way systems and bass reflex to closed boxes, with high power fast amps. They focus their attention to instrument separation, drums attacks, presence etc... They talk of involving reproduction, they want the musicians to be in their living room when they play music.
Those two words don't often agree, of course, about what is a good system, and that is the source of lot of controversies here from people witch are not used to the two worlds together and not intelligent enough to understand from what side some poster is talking about.
- The world of classical music. It is mostly public live sessions, in good acoustic theaters with acoustic instruments. (it apples too for Jazz big bands). They want fidelity in the recordings, they take great care of the way ambiance and natural reverberation is reproduced. They want their record to reproduce real life.
They love soft and delicate systems to reproduce at home, like Quad, large band, closed enclosure or flat panels, and tube amps. They don't care too much of hyper-realist transients, because what they like to hear is dumped by the distance. They love to listen to low levels details, they talk of listening fatigue, they want to feel to be in a theater when they play music in their living room...
- On the other side is Rock'n roll and all kind of electric music. Public performances use PA systems and amplified (distorted on purpose) instruments. No way to record those performances in an *acoustical* fidelity.
It is in studios that they produce their sounds, and live performance try to copy the sounds previously created by all artificial ways in studios. Recording public performance use close miking and the same studio methods to CREATE a sound track. (not to reproduce).
They love very dynamic impressive systems, prefer good horns, multi way systems and bass reflex to closed boxes, with high power fast amps. They focus their attention to instrument separation, drums attacks, presence etc... They talk of involving reproduction, they want the musicians to be in their living room when they play music.
Those two words don't often agree, of course, about what is a good system, and that is the source of lot of controversies here from people witch are not used to the two worlds together and not intelligent enough to understand from what side some poster is talking about.
Last edited:
- Status
- Not open for further replies.