If they are out there, please tell me where
I can buy a recording of what I indicated--
pink noise sources recorded at various positions
on stage with various mike techniques?
that people may have done this in private
I can believe.
But public information seems limited.
Source please? Things people can actually obtain?
Localization--lots of literature and Boyk's recording
Timbre--sources please?
Robert
On Wed, 3 Jul 2013, J?rn Nettingsmeier wrote:
On 07/03/2013 06:31 AM, Robert Greene wrote:
I apologize if people took offense.
fwiw, i did not take offense at your clear preference for realistic
recordings (which i share and aspire to as well). i do object to hand-wavey
cultural pessimism that postulates the end of scientific thinking.
stereophonic techniques have been scrutinized and researched in very great
depth and detail, and test recordings of the sort you were alluding to are
routinely done by sound engineering students and seasoned recordist alike.
the papers and data are out there.
stating otherwise doesn't change that fact. let's not make sursound into a
boring solipsistic debate club that negates everything which hasn't been
discussed here before.
<snip>
Except in audio, where no simple question ever seems to
get definitively answered and every almost discussion turns into
mush by means of enlarging the complexity of the situation
to the point that there are so many variables that no analysis is
possible without wild difficulties, if at all.
Personally, I would just like to know which mike technique
does what to the tonal character of sources at different
locations around the recording stage. If you don't care, you
don't care. But I wish I had a disc where I could listen
and find out. I find it hard to believe that other people
are not interested in this.
that's because they demonstrably _are_ interested in this.
it's just not as easy as you make it sound.
let's begin with the simple definition of "tonal character".
you won't be able to separate tonal character from spatial rendition.
coloration and comb filtering are a fact of life, and a perfectly uncolored
monophonic source will often sound less pleasing than a comb-filtered stereo
reproduction (unless your listening room helps a bit). moreover, the brain is
able to extrapolate from severely comb-filtered sensory input and gives us
the impression of hearing an uncolored auditory event. good luck simplifying
that :) i'm looking forward to hearing about your test design.
Science works like that:one step at a time. Assuming that
people are interested in science.
yeah, that's why we have complete understanding of the human brain. because
it's sooo easy to understand, if only people would read more sursound and not
add needless complications. come on!
Years ago I decided to learn the piano(I am a violinist!)
just to see how it would go, by learning the Rachmaninoff 3rd
piano concerto --a measure at a time. As you can imagine I
did not get very far!
q.e.d.
your approach to scientific evaluation of recording techniques seems similar.
Audio seems to be missing a lot of the basics.
yes, because psychoacoustics is _hard_.
PS There is a good bit of this sort of thing about
LOCALIZATION. But not so much about timbre.
check out for example theile's "spectral objection to summing localization",
but do get a case of wine and cigars before you dig in, because it's going to
be a loong and very interesting night if you follow through some more papers.
best,
j?rn
--
J?rn Nettingsmeier
Lortzingstr. 11, 45128 Essen, Tel. +49 177 7937487
Meister f?r Veranstaltungstechnik (B?hne/Studio)
Tonmeister VDT
http://stackingdwarves.net
_______________________________________________
Sursound mailing list
[email protected]
https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound
_______________________________________________
Sursound mailing list
[email protected]
https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound
