@Charles
I too suspect that closing the holes of a directional capsule will make it closer to omnidirectional.
However, I have no information about the difference in internal geometry there might be to make a capsule behave directionally.
In other words, I am not 100% sure that the holes are the only thing that make an omnidirectional capsule a directional one.
I believe this is also inconsistent from a maker to a different one.
Given this, and the fact that omnidirectional capsules are also cheaper than directional ones, I don't see any reason to use directionals in a binaural microphone.
@turk
It looks like you don't like binaural recordings in general.
Is this due to your personal experiences with building your DIY microphone?
Is there any binaural recording out there that you like?
There are some binaural recordings out there for sale that are stunning, to me.
This song https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_AkPyw1cS5U, is just an example.
I invite you to get the CD and enjoy it in high quality play back systems. It sounds amazing through regular speakers too.
I too suspect that closing the holes of a directional capsule will make it closer to omnidirectional.
However, I have no information about the difference in internal geometry there might be to make a capsule behave directionally.
In other words, I am not 100% sure that the holes are the only thing that make an omnidirectional capsule a directional one.
I believe this is also inconsistent from a maker to a different one.
Given this, and the fact that omnidirectional capsules are also cheaper than directional ones, I don't see any reason to use directionals in a binaural microphone.
@turk
It looks like you don't like binaural recordings in general.
Is this due to your personal experiences with building your DIY microphone?
Is there any binaural recording out there that you like?
There are some binaural recordings out there for sale that are stunning, to me.
This song https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_AkPyw1cS5U, is just an example.
I invite you to get the CD and enjoy it in high quality play back systems. It sounds amazing through regular speakers too.
where did i say i didn't like binaural recording?
there are many that approach a high degree of realism.
the technique i adopted works for me without all the complexity of building "heads" and setting up "barriers" and what not.
i would like to hear it but you keep linking to something that's "no longer available" or are you hoping to sell CD's?
there are many that approach a high degree of realism.
the technique i adopted works for me without all the complexity of building "heads" and setting up "barriers" and what not.
i would like to hear it but you keep linking to something that's "no longer available" or are you hoping to sell CD's?
I don't have any CD for sale, and the latest link is to a Chesky recording. Even the Adam Kossler one, which I recorded myself, I don't get any money out of if it is sold so.. no, I don't hope to sell any CDs. Just trying to engage in a constructive conversation about different binaural and quasi-binaural recordings out there... including mine.
The Kossler one was made with the dodge ball microphone, so it is not binaural. I linked it because the dodge ball microphone is somewhat similar to the flower pot one, that Bob mentioned earlier.
I have no idea why the links don't work for you. I suspect it is a Country availability issue.
Did you try a search from scratch?
The latest link is to a song titled 'Hold On', By Amber Rubarth. Sessions from the 17th Ward, Chesky.
This was made with an actual binaural microphone.
I say it looks like you don't like binaural in the sense of a 'proper' binaural recording, which is made with a human head replica including pinna and canal.
Any modification of this setup makes the microphone a quasi-binaural type.
I don't think your setup can even be defined quasi-binaural either, because it lacks any kind of shadowing between left and right mics.
It is more like your own take on a spaced pair.
That is not to say that you can't achieve amazing results with it. Just to say that it is not a binaural rig.
So my question is, again, do you like any recording out there, made with a proper binaural microphone?
The Kossler one was made with the dodge ball microphone, so it is not binaural. I linked it because the dodge ball microphone is somewhat similar to the flower pot one, that Bob mentioned earlier.
I have no idea why the links don't work for you. I suspect it is a Country availability issue.
Did you try a search from scratch?
The latest link is to a song titled 'Hold On', By Amber Rubarth. Sessions from the 17th Ward, Chesky.
This was made with an actual binaural microphone.
I say it looks like you don't like binaural in the sense of a 'proper' binaural recording, which is made with a human head replica including pinna and canal.
Any modification of this setup makes the microphone a quasi-binaural type.
I don't think your setup can even be defined quasi-binaural either, because it lacks any kind of shadowing between left and right mics.
It is more like your own take on a spaced pair.
That is not to say that you can't achieve amazing results with it. Just to say that it is not a binaural rig.
So my question is, again, do you like any recording out there, made with a proper binaural microphone?
Last edited:
the only Amber Rubarth video of "Hold On" i can view clearly shows a Neumann capturing her vocal...
so yeah i guess it's "quasi binaural" for me.
maybe improper thinking on my part but the rear rejection on cardioids provides the "shading".
so yeah i guess it's "quasi binaural" for me.
maybe improper thinking on my part but the rear rejection on cardioids provides the "shading".
I don't know what video you are looking at.
This is the link to the CD on the Chesky website. Sessions from the 17th Ward (CD356) | Chesky Records
I wouldn't say that just by using cardioids you are mimicking the shadow effect of the head, which provides a certain time delay and frequency response change depending where the sound is coming from, even from the frontal plane.
Other examples of proper binaural recordings are the ones from the Pasadena Symphony Orchestra.
I am intrigued to see if any of these sound good to you.
It might be that proper binaural is simply not your cup of tea..
This is the link to the CD on the Chesky website. Sessions from the 17th Ward (CD356) | Chesky Records
I wouldn't say that just by using cardioids you are mimicking the shadow effect of the head, which provides a certain time delay and frequency response change depending where the sound is coming from, even from the frontal plane.
Other examples of proper binaural recordings are the ones from the Pasadena Symphony Orchestra.
I am intrigued to see if any of these sound good to you.
It might be that proper binaural is simply not your cup of tea..
Last edited:
might be easier if you could post the file here (sorry not going to pay itunes fees)
well, angle and spacing along with rear rejection are so far the best combination i've had success with without all the imho drawbacks of traditional binaural tech.
not that it's a complete deal breaker but most binaural recordings have unresolved phase correlation issues that don't translate well to speakers(headphone playback mandatory) giving them a "spatial effect" quality that most easily detect/discern as unnatural.
well, angle and spacing along with rear rejection are so far the best combination i've had success with without all the imho drawbacks of traditional binaural tech.
not that it's a complete deal breaker but most binaural recordings have unresolved phase correlation issues that don't translate well to speakers(headphone playback mandatory) giving them a "spatial effect" quality that most easily detect/discern as unnatural.
I believe that would be illegal. Besides, I would not advise getting the mp3 version on itunes, but rather the lossless versions. CD quality is all you need.
All the binaural recordings I mentioned translate very well to speakers, in my opinion.
I remain of my idea that with DIY proper binaural microphones one can achieve the same and even better level of quality, too.
I can understand commercially why you would want satisfactory results when playing a binaural recording via speakers but that for me immediately spoils the intended illusion as your giving a visual clue as to the source of the sound . I want to be able to say the sound is coming from the front or from behind and possibly how far in front or behind . In short the closest experience to being there where the recording was made .
Last edited:
Absolutely. Even though great realism can be achieved through speakers play back, maybe closing your eyes, there is no doubt that binaural is intended for headphones.
I just happen to think that good binaural recordings are still much more convincing and realistic than any others I heard, even when played through speakers.
sax512 as someone who is involved with binaural recording rather then dismiss it try it, i would be interested in your evaluation of my cheap and cherry method.
I already have come up with my own simplification of a binaural microphone that I am quite happy with.
I am not dismissing your technique either.
You seem to have bad experiences with binaural recordings (the proper ones, by your own admission). I'm sorry about that, but this thread is called DIY binaural mics, so I am sticking to binaural and quasi-binaural microphones.
Maybe you should start a thread called 'why binaural recordings suck' 🙂
i wouldn't start a thread about binaural "sucking" because it wouldn't be true.
and no not bad experiences just ones that lead me down a different path.
if you want to stay true to the essence and definition of binaural go ahead my original comment in this thread was to point out that the exercise of replicating a head complete with ears becomes an engineering exercise of itself and that the technique i outlined comes close without all the fuss to get recorded results sorry that it doesn't fit your thinking.
i was hoping to be dealing with someone more open minded but i guess your certainly not going to try what i outlined and give an impartial evaluation.
and no not bad experiences just ones that lead me down a different path.
if you want to stay true to the essence and definition of binaural go ahead my original comment in this thread was to point out that the exercise of replicating a head complete with ears becomes an engineering exercise of itself and that the technique i outlined comes close without all the fuss to get recorded results sorry that it doesn't fit your thinking.
i was hoping to be dealing with someone more open minded but i guess your certainly not going to try what i outlined and give an impartial evaluation.
I just made a joke 🙂
My personal experience is that to come close to a realistic event recording one needs a proper binaural microphone.
Believe me, I tried many other ways. Binaural is just where I landed, definitely not where I started.
I'm not going to build your microphone for lack of time and money, but if you have tracks you recorded to listen to I would gladly give you my opinion. I'll be as impartial as I can be.
My personal experience is that to come close to a realistic event recording one needs a proper binaural microphone.
Believe me, I tried many other ways. Binaural is just where I landed, definitely not where I started.
I'm not going to build your microphone for lack of time and money, but if you have tracks you recorded to listen to I would gladly give you my opinion. I'll be as impartial as I can be.
You suggested mounting a mic in a tube in post 45 saying you don't see why one would use an omni if it is fitted into a tube.
Nobody wants to achieve total separation for binaural audio as that would be stupid and self-defeating. The idea is to reproduce how the head influences sounds coming from the left when heard by the right ear and vice versa.
And since you show no interest in building a binaural recording set up while confessing to prefer a stereo recording I'm not sure for what reason you are frequenting this thread at all.
C Darwin
i think you should re-read post #45
i have built several iterations of binaural mic's to have arrived at the method i'm referring to which requires no building.
your entitled to your opinion though and as far as my participation in this thread goes i was trying to share an easy method with chris661 if that's alright by you.
i think you should re-read post #45
i have built several iterations of binaural mic's to have arrived at the method i'm referring to which requires no building.
your entitled to your opinion though and as far as my participation in this thread goes i was trying to share an easy method with chris661 if that's alright by you.
Last edited:
Just a quick note to say I've built a Mk2 version of Ed. This time I've added 5mm (inner diameter) rubber tube from the pinnae to the mic capsule. 5mm was chosen because it matched the diameter of the entrance to the capsule. I know the ear canal tapers, but this'll do for now.
Result: much much smoother mid-high range. Before, there was a very deep dip at 8kHz. Now, there's a fairly shallow dip at 10kHz. Still ragged further up, though.
I tried EQing with one speaker at 45 degrees, but wasn't too keen on the result. My EQ was fairly course, though: a 31-band graphic and a couple of parametric.
Question: when EQing, did you run sweeps with both speakers at once? Approximately what distance were the speakers from the head?
TIA
Chris
Result: much much smoother mid-high range. Before, there was a very deep dip at 8kHz. Now, there's a fairly shallow dip at 10kHz. Still ragged further up, though.
I tried EQing with one speaker at 45 degrees, but wasn't too keen on the result. My EQ was fairly course, though: a 31-band graphic and a couple of parametric.
Question: when EQing, did you run sweeps with both speakers at once? Approximately what distance were the speakers from the head?
TIA
Chris
Hi Chris,
I'm glad the canal seems to work better for you. This confirms my own observations of the canal being necessary for proper binaural recording.
I use white noise, one speaker at a time (the other turned off) for each corresponding ear.
Speaker at listening distance. Basically put the microphone where your hear rests when you're listening to music.
Try using Logic Pro, if you can.
Possibly even better, get a good quality stand alone linear phase DSP.
The graphic equalizer (I assume it is IIR filters) and especially the parametric ones add phase shifts.
MatchEQ has the option to make the filter either minimum phase or linear phase.
The difference is very much audible.
I do remember the response being somewhat more ragged with the plastic tube in respect to my ear model. I suspect the abrupt transition between pinna and tube might be the culprit.
I did not pass through a model with smooth transition and a straight canal (after the smooth transition area).
I just went from straight tube to anatomically accurate canal so I can't be sure about my assumption.
Last edited:
Sorry, but I don't think linear-phase EQ applies here.
Here's a slightly different example, but close enough to work with. Here's the frequency and phase response of a Fostex FE126E driver (with cone treatments) in a small passive-radiator cabinet, with heavy EQ applied. The EQ was done with a Behringer NU3000DSP. About 6 parametric EQs, plus a highpass filter.
Check out the phase response.
The reason the phase response is so flat is because the parametric EQs I applied have a phase shift that is complementary to what the driver is doing. If the driver has a peak that gives 30-degrees shift at some frequency, the parametric EQ that levels the peak will have a -30-degree shift at the same frequency, so the frequency and phase plot end up flat.
The binaural mics are showing similar behaviour, but I haven't finished properly measuring those yet to check.
Chris
Here's a slightly different example, but close enough to work with. Here's the frequency and phase response of a Fostex FE126E driver (with cone treatments) in a small passive-radiator cabinet, with heavy EQ applied. The EQ was done with a Behringer NU3000DSP. About 6 parametric EQs, plus a highpass filter.
Check out the phase response.
An externally hosted image should be here but it was not working when we last tested it.
The reason the phase response is so flat is because the parametric EQs I applied have a phase shift that is complementary to what the driver is doing. If the driver has a peak that gives 30-degrees shift at some frequency, the parametric EQ that levels the peak will have a -30-degree shift at the same frequency, so the frequency and phase plot end up flat.
The binaural mics are showing similar behaviour, but I haven't finished properly measuring those yet to check.
Chris
If you can measure the phase of the microphone, as well as the frequency, I would definitely do that.
My system is not capable of doing it, and linear phase is the best I can get.
I can only imagine what phase shifts are going on when making the match response with IIRS, so linear phase is as good as it can get for me at the moment.
The ability to linearize phase other than amplitude is definitely a plus, and I'm looking into this stuff myself in preparation for my own single driver speaker build.
MatchEQ only matches amplitude.
That's why I said get a DSP with linear phase response. I guess a more correct definition would be DSP with phase linearizing capabilities.
My system is not capable of doing it, and linear phase is the best I can get.
I can only imagine what phase shifts are going on when making the match response with IIRS, so linear phase is as good as it can get for me at the moment.
The ability to linearize phase other than amplitude is definitely a plus, and I'm looking into this stuff myself in preparation for my own single driver speaker build.
MatchEQ only matches amplitude.
That's why I said get a DSP with linear phase response. I guess a more correct definition would be DSP with phase linearizing capabilities.