David Pickett wrote:
In my experience, early models were also very fussy regarding output
levels: either noisy or distorted.
As is common in Sursound, we are drifting out from the thread subject, but
yes, tell me news. I tried to use a SFM for dialogue recording in the
first half
of the nineties, but had to give up because of the high self noise of the
microphone. Our actors sometimes use a very soft voice and the studio
air conditioning noise attacked from all around. Instead of the SFM I used
a good mono mic and encoded it into UHJ with the Transcoder. I only
used the SFM for recording ambient sound effect outdoors (which again was
problematic because I had to arrange powering for an Adat and the SFM).
Protools came along a decade later.
When I wrote my list I didn't think about just certain years. To be
fair, I didn't
think a lot, it was a flow.
It was analog when the SF mike came
out, and lack of phase coherence on multi-track magnetic tape is one
reason why ambisonics didnt take off then.
In my job in the broadcasting studio one problem was also the lack of
tracks in the analog multitrack. 16 tracks would have meant only four
"sounds"
in B-Format. We normally used 8-10 stereo tape recorders for playback in
mixing,
so mixing a radio play in B-Format wasn't a realistic option.
I dont quite see this argument. We take as much time as necessary to get
things right.
Maybe I was a bit too critical. In my job at the broadcasting the
workflow really
had to be fluent. Getting the programs finished in a certain time
wouldn't have
happened without proper tools and a well thought out workflow. The best way
to achieve that is to get the whole process done within the same application
from beginning to end. When I have discussed with recording studio people
they have told me the same thing.
Eero
_______________________________________________
Sursound mailing list
Sursound@music.vt.edu
https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound
