This seems sensible to me. Also, it is part of
my basic hope, that one could come to understand
exactly what one should do to make (a) below
as accurate as possible.
However, the description of (a) as sterile is something
I would take issue with. I like the sound of real
music. It does not sound sterile at all. Not if
it is well played in a good hall and is listened
to from a sensible position. I do not find the sound
of a real orchestra in need of fattenin up or anything
else! It just neeeds to be recorded--to my tastes.
Robert
On Sat, 6 Jul 2013, Ronald C.F. Antony wrote:
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
_______________________________________________
Sursound mailing list
Sursound@music.vt.edu
https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound
