q: for someone whos been here since the dawn of time

[Steve Henningsgard]

Semantics. If the guy is 3 inches from the mic and he's singing pretty loud, or if the room is completely dead, you aren't recording the room. (or, at least you don't intend to)

Oh it's totally semantics at this point, I agree. Practically, you are correct. Technically, I am correct.

Realistically, who gives a shit?

 

[Farview]

It's a matter of intent. Are you trying to capture the space around the vocalist or not?

 

[Steve Henningsgard]

It's a matter of intent. Are you trying to capture the space around the vocalist or not?

You're not intending to, but with the exception of a perfect anechoic chamber, you have no choice but to capture the room on some level. Of course, we both agree that ideally the vocals would be captured as directly as possible. On the other hand, if the vocalist is anywhere but outside, the room he/she is in will directly affect the sound of his/her voice, and as the microphone is also in the room, there will be obvious differences between different positions relative to the singer's mouth. Therefore, with two microphones, in anything but a perfect anechoic chamber, you will get a stereo effect on some level. It will, as we agree, be a completely useless endeavor, as you will simply be magnifying the characteristics of the room while adding almost nothing to the sound of the voice itself.

Plus, it's all going to be smashed to within an inch of its life and surrounded by a bunch of other noise anyway, thus further removing any possible use from capturing "stereo" vocals.

 

[thajeremy]

So three isn't the correct answer?

Damn.

it seems that indeed 3 is wrong...sorry man...