Christophe,
I agree that there are two different approaches for the applications that you have sighted here. But we also have the occasional application where it can be either/or in the recording process. With a smaller scale jazz band there is the chance to record both ways. In the studio you can use close miking or in a large enough studio you can record with the same techniques as a large orchestra would be done. This is an engineers decision and the bands choice to make. I am not sure of what Chesky does in their recording but I would imagine that both methods could be combined. Also we do have the occasional rock and roll band that uses horn sections to augment the sound. Fleetwood Mac comes to mind when they used a large marching band on their recordings. I think that this was done in a large studio in England and was this close miked or was it from spaced omni mikes I do not know. There are always crossover applications that combine the two methods.
OT here though. What does all this have to do with the electronics and John Curl's preamplifier design?
I agree that there are two different approaches for the applications that you have sighted here. But we also have the occasional application where it can be either/or in the recording process. With a smaller scale jazz band there is the chance to record both ways. In the studio you can use close miking or in a large enough studio you can record with the same techniques as a large orchestra would be done. This is an engineers decision and the bands choice to make. I am not sure of what Chesky does in their recording but I would imagine that both methods could be combined. Also we do have the occasional rock and roll band that uses horn sections to augment the sound. Fleetwood Mac comes to mind when they used a large marching band on their recordings. I think that this was done in a large studio in England and was this close miked or was it from spaced omni mikes I do not know. There are always crossover applications that combine the two methods.
OT here though. What does all this have to do with the electronics and John Curl's preamplifier design?
Because the approach is determinant when it is about to design some electronic part and talk about their qualities or defaults ?
(of course, my remarks were willingly rough, and all nuances exists in between, as well for producing than reproducing)
I wonder why you ask this question about my post while your previous answer was about some geographic and cultural differences ?
If i do not mistake, i don't see many post focused about any precise subject in this thread, people here are talking more or less about everything related to audio, (and never about John Curl's preamplifier design, witch is an other thread ,part one -) .
Just the place to talk with nice, experienced and clever people like bcarso, Scott Wurser, Bob Cordel, Jneutron, kgrlee, RnMarsh etc. and exchange ideas between professionals ?
The thread's subject should be changed ?
Last edited:
Hi!
Could not find any audio files there, only some links on *.amb.torrent files
There are however pictures with "DTS" on them, but no links.
Please advise.
Could not find any audio files there, only some links on *.amb.torrent files
There are however pictures with "DTS" on them, but no links.
Please advise.
Steam train sounds impressive.
Now please try mine and compare:
http://wavebourn.com/Frogs.wav
http://wavebourn.com/rain_helicopter.mp3
Now please try mine and compare:
http://wavebourn.com/Frogs.wav
http://wavebourn.com/rain_helicopter.mp3
The reason why you always want more ambience with a Soundfield in a good hall is cos it sounds so good. That's why you tend to move towards fig-8 and move the mike back .. very different from what you usually do with lesser mikes where ambience often sounds hollow & wishy washy.
If you are making a surround recording, the main Soundfield sets your perspectives and any spot mikes are usually to sweeten individual instruments that might be hidden behind the orchestra.
But experienced recording engineers who hear Aaron's recordings for the first time are always puzzled cos everything has the clarity of spot miking yet appears in a natural setting. Even a solo violin has a finite size which spot miking compresses into a ... spot! Angus McKenzie, using a Soundfield for the first time said at last he could hear the "pools of sound" which are the audible signature of a string quartet in a good hall.
Christophe, this is exactly how the BBC used the Mk3A that was the main mike in the Royal Albert Hall for many years. The spot mikes were at very low level, usually -20dB or less.
BBC Radio officially stopped their interest in surround sound for political reasons
though some BBC producers secretly carried on making full Ambisonic recordings with the Soundfield and other techniques. One of my most thrilling experiences of recorded music was hearing in full Periphony (Ambisonics with height), the Last Night of the Proms with the audience, the best singing audience ever, all round and above & below you, exactly as though you were suspended above the conductor.The exciting thing is that BBC TV is re-discovering surround and Ambisonics
It looks like the rivalry between BBC TV & Radio is still there .. never the twain shall meet.Mr. Marsh, using a more distant soundfield for ambience is a stereo technique and probably worthwhile though I've not heard of anyone trying it. The problem isn't one of spacial accuracy further back but perspectives in stereo. Usually not a problem with orchestral stuff cos the usual above & behind the conductor is often a place many of us would like to be in a real concert.
For smaller groups in a good hall, placing a single mike for nice ambience often makes the actual sources too distant for a commercial stereo sound. The Nimbus recordings are perhaps the biggest offenders. You can get away with more ambience on a surround recording but this is often too distant when heard in stereo.
I've placed a Mk4 within a string quartet and this is so out of the ordinary that I've played it only to a few friends, string players mostly. But musicians are totally knocked out as it captures to a frightening degree, some of the intimacy of playing in a small group.
You mean you are from Venus?
I felt that way when I heard Stock, Waterman & Aitken were using my mike to make Top 10 hits. Not all Dead White Men's Music is like that. Hendrix broke guitars for show. Beethoven broke pianos from the force of his playing. The modern steel frame pianoforte was invented cos Herr Ludwig kept breaking the wooden frame fortepianos of his day. If he was alive today, he would be a Heavy Metal musician. His keyboard music is probably the most Headbanging ever written.
This is a huge topic but I'll just point out some "features"
- ORTF often sounds "betweent the speakers" though not as bad as coincident cardioids. Fig-8s @ 90 and indeed more 'hyper' cardioids can extend the stage seamlessly beyond the speakers.
- Cardioids have limited LF
- Central sounds often lack clarity cos they are well off-axis
Loadsa fun designing little black boxes. My favourite technique is to use a modified ORTF and some M/S tweaking.
I just got note from the CEO of Stanford Research, the SR1 has 39 797's in it.
No wonder it sounds so good!
I just got note from the CEO of Stanford Research, the SR1 has 39 797's in it.
It is about $350!
AD797ANZ Analog Devices Inc | AD797ANZ-ND | DigiKey
I assure you they get a serious price break since they buy lots of DSP's etc.
Clarion did this with McIntosh a long time ago. It was seen at Harman as an attempt to grab a brand name (if anyone remembered) and use it to catapult Clarion into the branded OEM automotive biz.
I don't believe it worked very well.
Try my record above, the helicopter and rain had been recorded by couple of 22 mm cardioids.
Frogs were recorded by an array of 5 Panasonic omni-capsules.
Where LF is more limited? Sounds like real pressure-gradient mikes recorded LF better than pressure mikes in counter-phase, despite of beliefs.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.