0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic. Read 4570 times.
Very cool indeed to see the venue and setup. Thanks for sharing Barry. Have you ever experimented with those dummy heads with mics in the ears or are they strictly for binaural recordings? I've messed around with a crudely set up Blumlein stereo pair about 10 years ago and really liked the results. The drum kit sounded pretty real for a change, like it sounded standing in the room. Close miking sucks!!... the life out of recordings!! :^)Cheers,TV
Hello Barry,Thank you for answering my question and for sharing your valuable insight and experience. I have not had the pleasure of hearing different mic techniques, at least not knowingly, to be able to form my own opinion. I'm always curious about sound recording and I conjure up my own ideas but I don't have the means to experiment. I'm sure the spacing between the mics in your setup makes a huge difference. I wonder though how one knows that the system they are monitoring on is accurate, in that the speaker/room interaction and speaker position in the room will affect the sound field originally picked up by the mics. In such a situation, how does one know to adjust the mic positions or the speaker positions. It seems to me like a 'what came first the chicken or the egg' conundrum. Does that sound reasonable or am I complicating things?Best regards,TV
Hi, Barry. Thanks for posting and I look forward to hearing some of your work. I am a fan of the Blumien technique for recordings of acoustic instruments recorded on location and have several recordings of which without proper credit given to the engineer, Harmonia Mundi (the label) comes to mind, and a few by Keith Johnson who thanked me in writing for praising his very old "Listen . . The L.A. Jazz Choir" elsewhere that are superb. AC member and Canadian Russell Dawkins does extremely fine work, too, IME. Have you any releases on vinyl? My analog front end is superior to my digital one at this time. Thanks. PS- Couldn't view the video. Got a message that says no can do at this time.
Hi TV,Thank *you* for your kindness.To answer your question, I think it is an iterative process. One must use trusted recordings in order to set up speakers properly. At the same time, one must hear properly setup speakers, capable (along with the associated gear) of revealing the soundstaging and imaging information in the recording (if it has any).Of course, being at the recording session helps determine how good a job the whole chain (from recording to playback) is doing. However, in my experience, this is *not* an absolute requirement (even though it does make things easier).As with all links in the audio chain, I find the greatest accuracy is achieved when the component or system reveals the greatest degree of difference between recordings. Every recording is different from every other recording. The greater the difference revealed, the more neutral (i.e. honest) the system.Any coloration in a component or system is applied to everything which passes through it. Hence, when recordings all seem to have, for example, a common treble sound, one is listening not to the recordings but to a coloration imparted by the system. When all recordings have the same depth of field, again, one is listening to a coloration imparted by the system. (When I say system, I mean either one or more components and also how they are set up.)Once I had a monitoring setup I felt I could trust (including a room with fully treated acoustics, covering room resonant modes and their harmonics, and reflections, both early and late) I started experimenting with mic separation, moving around during recordings done at different separations, all the while announcing exactly where I was in relation to the microphone array. Playing back the different recordings showed me the effects of the different spacings. I also added an absorbent baffle I designed (to provide the third type of cue humans use for sound localization). Upon listening to all the recordings, I found a spacing that provided playback with my voice coming from where I said I was during the recordings.Taking these recordings to other rooms where I trust the monitoring revealed the results to be consistent.For most "civilians" (i.e., folks who don't make recordings they can use for testing), I think the key is finding those recordings you feel you can trust. This, and the concept of seeking maximum difference between different recordings will, I believe, lead to accurate monitoring. Then, the only problem is the realization that all too many recordings are not made with these sorts of considerations in mind. ;-}Best regards,Barrywww.soundkeeperrecordings.comwww.soundkeeperrecordings.wordpress.comwww.barrydiamentaudio.com
Hello Barry,Thank you so much for taking the time to explain the process you went through to end up with your mic setup and baffle. It's great to have professionals in the business like yourself with many years of experience taking the time to answer forum questions here and elsewhere.I'm not an expert but I agree with your statements 100% and can appreciate your scientific approach to the problem. In my brief experience in recording studios, the room plays a huge role, both for the recording and the playback of music.In one case getting together with an audio friend at his house to audition gear a couple of times shone a bright light on the importance of the room. In listening session 1 his living room was carpeted and in my memory remains as some of the best imaging and sound reproduction I have heard. In listening session 2, the carpet had been ripped out and a nice new shiny hardwood floor installed. Well, that floor did wonders to destroy what was there in the first listening session. In the first session it was extremely easy to tell the differences in recordings and the differences in equipment. Poor recordings or flawed recordings were easily revealed and for the first time it felt like I could easily hear the balance of all the frequencies in the mix. In the second session we were rather shocked that we could not discern much difference at all in anything. He wishes he stuck with the carpet of course!Based on that experience I've heard and read good advice that the best equipment upgrade is to acoustically treat your room, which is something I still need to do.You mentioned the third type of cue that humans use for sound localization. What are the cues? I suppose timing and distance might be two cues.Also, I often hear of time and phase aligned loudspeaker designs. Is that important to achieve a better sound experience? I don't know if I have ever heard such loudspeakers.Thank you again Barry for sharing your experience and knowledge. It's always a pleasure to read the answers you post to peoples questions.Best Regards,TV
Hi TV,Thank you for your kind feedback.Yes, it is amazing what a single early reflection source, like a floor, can do to a system, isn't it?I've always been a fan of at least having an area rug between the speakers and the listening position.You ask about the three types of localization cues humans use. They are the differences between what the ears receive in three characteristics of the sound:1. Amplitude - for example, a sound coming from the left will be louder at the left ear than at the right ear2. Time - for example, a sound coming from the left will arrive at the left ear before it arrives at the right ear3. Frequency - for example, a sound coming from the left will be somewhat "shaded" by the head, which will diminish the amount of high frequencies arriving at the right earTypical studio techniques involving multiple closely placed microphones, as well as the common Blumlein technique of a "coincident" pair, provide amplitude differences.Spaced omnidirectional microphones, and to an extent, ORTF type stereo arrangements, provide both amplitude and time differences.Adding an absorbent baffle between spaced microphones will add the frequency component.When I experimented with all sorts of mic arrangements for recording in stereo, I found the spaced omnis (at a particular intermic separation) provided the most accurate capture of the soundstage. However, there were some areas that were still a bit vague. Adding the baffle firmed everything up.Regarding time and phase aligned loudspeakers, the first I heard were the wonderful Dahlquist DQ-10. While I think time alignment is definitely important, it is just a single component of speaker design. (I've heard time aligned speakers that I would not particularly want to hear again because other aspects of the designs, in my opinion, got in the way of what the time alignment was providing. For example, who cares if the speaker is in focus if the high frequencies are so bright, they hurt?)With some of my favorite speakers (the Magnepans), I believe the crossover changes wrought in the .7 series (1.7 and 3.7) brought better time response to these models and quite appreciably improved focus and, for lack of a better word, palpability, the sense that an imaged instrument of vocalist is really present and three-dimensional.Best regards,Barrywww.soundkeeperrecordings.comwww.soundkeeperrecorings.wordpress.comwww.barrydiamentaudio.com
