I can appreciate both sides of the argument. However, one thing that I would love to see:
a) sterile, measurement-like recording of as close to possible to what happened recording b) post processing with whatever effects, tricks, etc. is required to have things sound pleasant and engaging. What I don't like is the idea of b) being part of a) In other words, if I want to "fatten up the sound" then I want a "fatten up the sound plug-in" to process an anemic recording. I don't want the recording be molested by a "fatten up the sound microphone" or "fatten up the sound preamp". Basically, the aesthetic choices should be separated from capturing the raw data as much as anyhow possible, if not for any other reason than to allow some alternat aesthetic choices to be made at some later point in time to take into account differing tastes, playback devices and environments. If the raw master recording already has too many artistic/aesthetic choices nailed down, it makes it less valuable a resource for posterity. Ronald On 6 Jul 2013, at 03:34, Dave Malham <dave.mal...@york.ac.uk> wrote: > All of this, of course, just goes to show how subjective recording is. In > my younger days I naively thought that we should be working towards exactly > re-creating a soundfield as a way of making the best possible recording. > But until such time the day comes that we can record and reproduce, in our > own living rooms, the position of every molecule of air over a significant > volume in real time _and_ make due allowance for the effect of the listener > and furniture that wasn't there in the original.... > > However, and unfortunately even with that accomplished, we would not > recreate (or create) the percept we would have gotten had we been at the > concert because we haven't walked/cycled/driven to the concert hall, nor > eaten the same food in the same restaurant beforehand, nor met the same > people, or... Anyway, at this point I can hear Peter Lennox laughing his > head off, because that was exactly what we used to argue about when he was > at York - and his side of the argument :-) > > Dave > > On 5 July 2013 22:16, Fons Adriaensen <f...@linuxaudio.org> wrote: > >> On Fri, Jul 05, 2013 at 10:04:46PM +0100, Paul Hodges wrote: >>> --On 05 July 2013 20:54 +0000 Fons Adriaensen <f...@linuxaudio.org> >> wrote: >>> >>>>> 1) two coincident hyper cardioids >>>>> >>>> My preferred one. Iff the mics are available. If not, >>>> see below. >>> >>> I commonly do that too (from the B-format, of course!), >> >> With very few exceptions, whenever I have to produce >> stereo from a B-format recording (with the mic placed >> to optimise the Ambisonic rendering), I end up with >> two virtual hypercardioids at 120 degrees or so. >> >>> but also >>> Blumlein, depending on the room. Crossed hyper-cardioids is similar >>> to MS with a front-facing cardioid, of course, as another >>> alternative if no hyper-cardioids are available. >>> >>> As for spaciousness, which is usually associated with spaced mics, I >>> suggest that out-of-phase components also contribute (which Bob >>> Katz's comments seem to my mind to support). >> >> They certainly do. You'd want more or less random phase >> for the diffuse part of the reverb. >> >> Ciao, >> >> -- >> FA >> >> A world of exhaustive, reliable metadata would be an utopia. >> It's also a pipe-dream, founded on self-delusion, nerd hubris >> and hysterically inflated market opportunities. (Cory Doctorow) >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Sursound mailing list >> Sursound@music.vt.edu >> https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound >> > > > > -- > -- > As of 1st October 2012, I have retired from the University. > > These are my own views and may or may not be shared by the University > > Dave Malham > Honorary Fellow, Department of Music > The University of York > York YO10 5DD > UK > > 'Ambisonics - Component Imaging for Audio' > -------------- next part -------------- > An HTML attachment was scrubbed... > URL: > <https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/private/sursound/attachments/20130706/1c8a3755/attachment.html> > _______________________________________________ > 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
