On 07/01/2013 06:47 AM, Robert Greene wrote:
Embarrassing that after a century and more of recording.
there are NO comprehensive demo discs of what really happens
to controlled known acoustic sources. Really makes audio
look like a silly subject. One hundred years--the scientific
world in that
On 1 Jul 2013, at 08:12, Jörn Nettingsmeier netti...@stackingdwarves.net
wrote:
On 07/01/2013 06:47 AM, Robert Greene wrote:
Embarrassing that after a century and more of recording.
there are NO comprehensive demo discs of what really happens
to controlled known acoustic sources. Really
On 1 Jul 2013, at 08:21, Paul Hodges pwh-surro...@cassland.org wrote:
--On 30 June 2013 21:47 -0700 Robert Greene gre...@math.ucla.edu wrote:
and audio is still uncertain which mike
technique really reproduces the live sound.
But you see, how ever many times it gets said (and it does),
This whole discussion is to my mind a living
illustration of why no progress to speak of ever
occurs in audio. Nothing is made precise,
no one does any experiments on what happens
to sound like what was there, everyone just
talks about what sounds nice to them or what
sounds like what they think
On 06/29/2013 07:40 AM, Dave Malham wrote:
Still, this is all a continuation of a discussion I have been having with
the beard Scotsman, Mike Williams, at AES conventions, over emails and in
person for the last three decades without every coming to a real agreement
- and we are still mates,
On 29 Jun 2013, at 07:40, Dave Malham wrote:
On 28 June 2013 23:07, Goran Finnberg master...@telia.com 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 missing
when I hear the same forces recorded via
On 29 June 2013 13:21, Jörn Nettingsmeier netti...@stackingdwarves.netwrote:
Jörn
You have just proved conclusively that there are things which are
truly high fidelity without having anything directly to do with recording.
The sonic image generated in my imagination by what you wrote of
27, 2013 12:05 pm
Subject: Re: [Sursound] Giving Precedence to Ambisonics
On Thu, Jun 27, 2013 at 01:52:55PM -0400, Thomas Chen wrote:
By adding time to the recording you can keep the edges still
left and right however the center will move as you move.
The center still moves, as by symmetry
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
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
--On 29 June 2013 00:07 +0200 Goran Finnberg master...@telia.com 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,
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
On 28 June 2013 23:07, Goran Finnberg master...@telia.com 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
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 master...@telia.com 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
On 29 June 2013 00:35, Fons Adriaensen f...@linuxaudio.org 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
On 06/26/2013 07:02 PM, Eric Carmichel wrote:
Creating a virtual Decca Tree seems straightforward. To move
the center channel, or a virtual mic *forward* would require little
more than offline processing. I wonder whether anybody has tried the
following: Slightly delay all channels except the
martin.le...@stanfordalumni.org
To: sursound@music.vt.edu
Sent: Wednesday, June 26, 2013 10:53 AM
Subject: Re: [Sursound] Giving Precedence to Ambisonics
Eric Carmichel wrote:
...
Two-channel playback (both convention and binaural) is here to stay for a
while, so optimizing Ambisonics
are unmistakable...
Jeff Silberman
From: Eric Carmichel e...@elcaudio.com
To: sursound@music.vt.edu sursound@music.vt.edu
Sent: Wednesday, June 26, 2013 10:02 AM
Subject: [Sursound] Giving Precedence to Ambisonics
Greetings All,
I have a friend who's an advocate
On 06/27/2013 01:27 PM, JEFF SILBERMAN wrote:
May I suggest Demonstration of Stereo Microphone Techniques,
Performance Recordings #6 wherein 18 coincident, near-coincident and
spaced omni (2 and 3 mic) stereo techniques are compared via a line
of loudspeakers mounted at equal intervals and
will move as you move.
ThomasChen
-Original Message-
From: Aaron Heller hel...@ai.sri.com
To: Eric Carmichel e...@elcaudio.com; Surround Sound discussion group
sursound@music.vt.edu
Sent: Wed, Jun 26, 2013 11:06 am
Subject: Re: [Sursound] Giving Precedence to Ambisonics
Ron Streicher has
On Thu, Jun 27, 2013 at 01:52:55PM -0400, Thomas Chen wrote:
By adding time to the recording you can keep the edges still
left and right however the center will move as you move.
The center still moves, as by symmetry you can't use delays there.
The edges will stay put even without delays as
Greetings All,
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, so I looked into
aspects of the Decca Tree technique. For those who may not be familiar, the
*traditional* Decca Tree arrangement is comprised
Eric Carmichel wrote:
...
Two-channel playback (both convention and binaural) is here to stay for a
while, so optimizing Ambisonics for stereo is desirable to me. In fact, one
of my favorite recordings from the late 80s was made with the band (The
Cowboy Junkies) circled around a Calrec
Ron Streicher has written about using a Soundfield as the middle mic in a
Decca tree
http://www.wesdooley.com/pdf/Surround_Sound_Decca_Tree-urtext.pdf
and Tom Chen has a system he calls B+ Format, which augments first-order
B-format from a Soundfield mic with a forward ORTF pair. I've heard
sursound@music.vt.edu
Sent: Wednesday, June 26, 2013 11:06 AM
Subject: Re: [Sursound] Giving Precedence to Ambisonics
Ron Streicher has written about using a Soundfield as the middle mic in a Decca
tree
http://www.wesdooley.com/pdf/Surround_Sound_Decca_Tree-urtext.pdf
and Tom Chen has a system
25 matches
Mail list logo
