Using two mikes far apart creates comb filtering effects, which is a wave effect resulting from the time difference. Although this page is about speakers, you can read about it here: http://www.prosoundweb.com/live/articles/jbrusi/pa.php
Also, in reference to mono recordings, we used to do that in the 70s because the recordings were so noisy: mono has less noise. Now that the noise problem is solved, it isn't used; however, one could take either mic and use it as a mono source, and you could choose the better sounding of the two, so in this way stereo is the best way to record mono. Mono is used in youtube, but this will change as the other sites use stereo. In a small room, an ambient mic just picks up the reflection off the wall. The main issue in recording is mic placement. That's why John Buckman can make a great recording with cheap mics: he has a talent for mic placement. Next is the mics, if they can't handle fast moving harmonics, it will sound cheesy. dt At 03:50 AM 7/11/2007, you wrote: >Hi David - I've been following this with some interest. I find your >completely dry recordings too dry, and I have to say that I find the >more distant micing too muddy (I'm looking for clarity in the music, >not realism of the listening experience). In post-production I find >SIR or other processing useful because of its ability to fine tune >the mix of dry and ambient "signals". But I agree that for the lute >SIR seems not quite right compared with real room ambience. > >I didn't see the following approach discussed: rather than record a >stereo signal, use one mike close and the other far, then select the >desired dry/ambient mix in the final stereo master. I'm curious how >this would sound with your home recordings. Of course having 4 mics >for stereo close and ambient recording would be best for this >purpose, but it would be interesting to see what you can do with two >mikes. > >Just a suggestion. I've been enjoying your playing with all your mic >arrangements. >Steve > >On Jul 10, 2007, at 9:23 AM, LGS-Europe wrote: > > > I like the technology behind and the sound of impulse response reverb: > > recreate the sound of an existing room and use that to add reverb. > > Very > > natural. But my playing is not in that room, so I play differently. > > Said > > differently: it's easier for the ear with the reverb, but not more > > musical. > > A delicate touch of reverb to make it more smooth is no problem, of > > course, > > but if it's not needed, I think it would be better and at least > > easier in > > some respects. So, back to the drawing board. > > > > I unplugged the refrigirator and the air circulation again and sat > > myself > > with lute in the living room. Peter Philips on the music stand and > > mics with > > omni caps and much further away and higher this time. It's not a > > church, but > > not as dry as a studio either. Listen for yourself at: > > > > http://home.planet.nl/~d.v.ooijen/david/homerecordings_f.html > > > > As usual: comments welcome. > > > > David > > > > > > > > **************************** > > David van Ooijen > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > www.davidvanooijen.nl > > **************************** > > > > > > > > > > To get on or off this list see list information at > > http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html > >--- >http://homepage.mac.com/stevepur > > >--
