Re: [Sursound] Of stereo miking, Fourier analysis, and Ambisonics

2013-06-28 Thread Fons Adriaensen
On Thu, Jun 27, 2013 at 04:33:46PM -0700, Eric Carmichel wrote: > I have to agree with Joern that the example miking demonstration > isn’t all that fair, and for another reason: How much low-frequency > energy can a 2-inch speaker provide? I don't know what kind of signal was used for this test,

Re: [Sursound] Giving Precedence to Ambisonics

2013-06-28 Thread Thomas Chen
. (Cory Doctorow) ___ Sursound mailing list Sursound@music.vt.edu https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound -- next part -- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/private/sursound/attachments/20130628/c78f0

Re: [Sursound] Of stereo miking, Fourier analysis, and Ambisonics

2013-06-28 Thread David Pickett
At 06:34 28/6/2013, Eric Carmichel wrote: >The technique assumes that the live source is *stereo* too; that is, a >stage ahead of the mics with musicians aligned in rows that have L-R >orientations. Actually, if you think about it, the Blumlein technique assumes that the musicians are arranged

Re: [Sursound] Giving Precedence to Ambisonics

2013-06-28 Thread David Pickett
At 19:02 26/6/2013, Eric Carmichel wrote: >I have a friend who's an advocate of the Decca Tree mic arrangement. >Many of his recordings (a lot of choir and guitar) sound quite nice, Decca Trees sound nice on choirs because they do not have precise stereo imaging and thus one cannot hear individ

[Sursound] Giving Precedence to Ambisonics

2013-06-28 Thread Goran Finnberg
David Picket: > Since people who like Decca Trees usually > like the phase effects that come with the setup, When I started out recording in 69/70 I got a lot of help and suggestions from an old Swedish Radio recording engineer. He made it crystal clear that in his opinon when mixing spaced micr

Re: [Sursound] Giving Precedence to Ambisonics

2013-06-28 Thread Paul Hodges
--On 29 June 2013 00:07 +0200 Goran Finnberg wrote: And no one sitting listening to this washed out and unstable real life sterophonic image seems to think it is wrong at all. I find that "ordinary" people are as likely to like coincident recordings as spaced ones; indeed, so much so that se

Re: [Sursound] Of stereo miking, Fourier analysis, and Ambisonics

2013-06-28 Thread Eric Carmichel
nt was scrubbed... URL: <https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/private/sursound/attachments/20130628/b2e9b8e9/attachment.html> ___ Sursound mailing list Sursound@music.vt.edu https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound

Re: [Sursound] Giving Precedence to Ambisonics

2013-06-28 Thread Fons Adriaensen
On Sat, Jun 29, 2013 at 12:07:20AM +0200, Goran Finnberg wrote: > ... while my ears are certainly NOT occupying the exact same spot > instead they sit some distance apart and this gives my brain both > amplitude AND timing information lost in the pure coicident > recording systems. Whatever the

Re: [Sursound] Giving Precedence to Ambisonics

2013-06-28 Thread Dave Malham
On 28 June 2013 23:07, Goran Finnberg wrote: > > > He made it crystal clear that in his opinon when mixing spaced microphones > in a reverberant space no phase effects or comb filtering of any sort could > be heard even when listening in mono. > > The reason is simple, the mics are sufficiently sp

Re: [Sursound] Giving Precedence to Ambisonics

2013-06-28 Thread Dave Malham
Oops, clicked the send button too soon - here's the rest of my comments (continued from Varese quotation) On 28 June 2013 23:07, Goran Finnberg wrote: > > It´s all a blob of washed out sound in the middle with very little > directional effects at all. A very spacious effect that is totally missi

Re: [Sursound] Giving Precedence to Ambisonics

2013-06-28 Thread Dave Malham
On 29 June 2013 00:35, Fons Adriaensen wrote: > > It is flawed because your ears are still separated by the same > distance when listening to a stereo pair of speakers, and this > will cause ITD for off-center sources even if the mics were > coincident or the signals were amplitude-panned. It doe