B
Baz97
New member
Just doing some surfin' when I stumbled accross this...is it for real?
http://www.sonicstudios.com/multitrk.htm
http://www.sonicstudios.com/multitrk.htm
Scooter B
Member
I sure would like to hear Harvey "take the mic" on this one.
At first read is sounds like completely laughable B.S. ........
but there was an intersting TapeOP article with Mr. Rupert Neve himself about how "true stereo sound" (for this purpose I am defining "true stereo sound" as how we experience it in person) has not really been achieved in musical recordings. He explained that the way we percieve location and the movement of a sound source rely on certain naturally occuring phase cancelations that happen when one ear hears mostly directly radiated sound waves and the other ear hears mostly reflected sound waves.
The differing volume of the sound and a very small delay also play a part in locating a sound source in a stereo field and these two methods for recreating (ie creating an artificial stereo experience) have been most widely used but without a virtual recreation of all variables including multiple reflections and phase cancelations (wich will be different in every room or location) we only create a psuedo stereo experince.
Does it matter musically?
I don't know....As a home recorder/engineer my goal is to create a recording that is musically pleasing, exciting and vibrant to the ears. That sound in stereo may or may not qualify as a "true stereo experience" but I would not sacrifice what I percieved as a better sound musically to achieve a "true stereo experience". I just don't see achieving a "true stereo" experieince as my goal unless it definitely sounded better. We would not watch too many movies if they were not produced to achieve a "super normal" experience.
Sometimes the artistry of recording is being creative and heavily modyfing the performance, sometimes the artistry of recording is capturing the magical moment on tape exactly (or close to it) as it sounded when performed live.
The inventors of this product may have had noble goals of producing a more life-like recording experience...or they may be misguided in knowledge or virtue. I just know I don't know enough acoustic engineering theory etc to dismiss it out of hand either but I would be suspicious of their claims.
Harvey can you enlighten us this product and its engineering claims?
At first read is sounds like completely laughable B.S. ........
but there was an intersting TapeOP article with Mr. Rupert Neve himself about how "true stereo sound" (for this purpose I am defining "true stereo sound" as how we experience it in person) has not really been achieved in musical recordings. He explained that the way we percieve location and the movement of a sound source rely on certain naturally occuring phase cancelations that happen when one ear hears mostly directly radiated sound waves and the other ear hears mostly reflected sound waves.
The differing volume of the sound and a very small delay also play a part in locating a sound source in a stereo field and these two methods for recreating (ie creating an artificial stereo experience) have been most widely used but without a virtual recreation of all variables including multiple reflections and phase cancelations (wich will be different in every room or location) we only create a psuedo stereo experince.
Does it matter musically?
I don't know....As a home recorder/engineer my goal is to create a recording that is musically pleasing, exciting and vibrant to the ears. That sound in stereo may or may not qualify as a "true stereo experience" but I would not sacrifice what I percieved as a better sound musically to achieve a "true stereo experience". I just don't see achieving a "true stereo" experieince as my goal unless it definitely sounded better. We would not watch too many movies if they were not produced to achieve a "super normal" experience.
Sometimes the artistry of recording is being creative and heavily modyfing the performance, sometimes the artistry of recording is capturing the magical moment on tape exactly (or close to it) as it sounded when performed live.
The inventors of this product may have had noble goals of producing a more life-like recording experience...or they may be misguided in knowledge or virtue. I just know I don't know enough acoustic engineering theory etc to dismiss it out of hand either but I would be suspicious of their claims.
Harvey can you enlighten us this product and its engineering claims?
H
Harvey Gerst
New member
Well, here's an exchange I had with Len about 4 years ago on rec.audio.pro:
guysonic@aol.com (GuySonic) wrote:
>A best way to record Big Band is to do an ambient stereo recording.
>I and many others have used this approach using my patented method and DSM
>stereo microphones.
Snipped blatant plug for his products, again.
>BTW, the RAP group is full of studio 'guru' types that seem to have no clue on
>how to do a really excellent live group performance recording with anything
>other than using the old and tired (very costly) mics; using mic methods that
>most often don't sound very satisfying, take a lot of skill (and luck) to get
>something that just sounds OK at best.
>
>Best Regards in Sound & Music, Leonard Lombardo
>Sonic Studios(tm) "Making Audio History With DSM(tm) Microphones"
Leonard, this is from another one of your recent posts:
>You've unfortunately asked the wrong group (or at least got the usual
>poor info response from those few regulars who posted a reply) for
>practical advise on field equipment. This has been the story with this
>group of studio 'gurus' for quite some time.
For the most part, your posts have consisted of either blatant plugs for your products, diatribes against Eric Blackmore's Earthworks mics, and now blasts against this group. And yes, you've also posted some helpful things, but in far fewer numbers.
I'm sure your microphones are well made and do a great job, but why attack the very people you're trying to sell to? I've used minimalist approaches before (and so have many others here); it work well for many things, BUT it's not the only method that works.
I can't speak for the rest of the group, but I, for one, am very disappointed in your taking cheap shots at the rest of the group - and your blatant ads (i.e. "Want the solution? Go to my webpage for the answer, and use my mics!!").
Even David Butler doesn't do that, and I think you'll agree that David is one of the most knowledgeable people on the group, even if he doesn't share that knowledge as much as I'd like to see.
I respect your expertise, but I know full well that a 1/2 dozen or so, well placed Neumanns might occasionally beat out your fine DSM mics. There are other manufacturers of mics represented in r.a.p., but I haven't seen any of them trashing the group.
I don't want to get into a long thread or fight about this. I'm just saying that I, personally, am very unhappy with your recent posts and the attitude you're manifesting lately.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Later, he posted this, and this was my reply:
guysonic@aol.com (GuySonic) wrote:
>Well, I'm not at all happy with yours either Harvey. If you spent a little
>'open minded time' looking at what my site is about, you'd realize that over
>half is envolved in education on a method of using baffled onmi mics and
>portable DAT deck issues.
I think I understand the principles involved.
>This is probably too simple an argument and method to get across easily to
>those who have never understood natural ambient acoustic recording and human
>response listening science.
Thank you for painting a vivid picture with such a broad brush.
>Now it you could forget on 'selling yourself' in being so knowing and expert,
>you might learn something really new, appropriate, and expand the art of
>recording for everyone's benefit including your own.
Sorry, I won't be drawn into a fight with you. I use a variety of methods to record, depending on what I'm recording - and what I think is the most appropriate recording technique for the subject.
You seem to be espousing the "one size fits all" method for everything. This runs counter to some of my own experiences. In the late 60s, I experimented with various two mic techniques, using various B&K calibration microphones. The results were about what I expected - excellent on some things, less stellar on others.
>Until then, I'll respectfully keep beating on this drum and take the heat as it
>comes.
Leonard,
A "word to the wise is sufficient", and I see I've already repeated myself.
Respectfuly yours,
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Finally Fletcher posted this and here's my response to Fletcher:
>Fletcher <Fletcher@mercenary.com> wrote:
>>Harvey Gerst wrote:
>> As far as the points Leonard makes, I'm not going to get into a fight
>> with him. Hell, I live in the buckle of the "Bible Belt" so I'm used
>> to people screaming it's "their way or I'm going to hell". I've had
>> reservations booked there for a long time now.
>Save me a seat at the bar...first rounds on me...
No problem. I spoke to the devil - it seems we have adjoining rooms. It appears that all the record industry is located on the same floor. They tried to scatter all the people at first, but it turned out the A&R guys were corrupting everybody in Hell, so now, they keep us all isolated. It's a great place, best studios and equipment, great players, but you never get airplay or a hit, and the mastering sucks.
>> I simply tried to point out to Leonard that blasting r.a.p. wasn't the
>> smartest career move a manufacturer could make. If he wants to try to
>> escalate that into a war, that's fine, but I don't intend to
>> participate.
>I actually spoke to Leonard late last week. He really has a firm belief
>in his product, and it's abilities, and has agreed to loan me a unit to
>try...the results of this trial will be posted here...I found him rather
>pleasant to talk to, and his theories quite interesting.
As I've said many times, his sincerity was never in question.
>In our direct conversation he did indeed make mention of the Earthworks
>products...and may I add that he did not mention them in a disparaging
>light, nor manner. If anything, I found him nearly complementary of the
>product, but that could have been my interpretation as I was half
>expecting him to slag them...or...perhaps Leonard is aware that we are
>Earthworks dealers, and didn't wish to raise my ire concerning a product
>I enjoy using.
I don't think he has any animosity toward Eric or Earthworks. I think that was an error or misreading on my part, for which I apologize.
>> I believe Leonard probably makes a fine product. I believe Leonard
>> sincerely believes everything he says about his products. I believe
>> his mics or Earthworks may produce superior results on some types of
>> recording sessions. I simply find his methods of advertising his ideas
>> (at our expense) personally distasteful.
>Interestingly, I did sense during our conversation that Leonard, while
>obviously very knowledgable, didn't really seem to grasp how I intended
>to use the product...I am quite excited about using the DSM system, and
>interested to hear it improve my work. The irony is that I would have
>entirely dismissed the entire product line, if Harvey hadn't become
>offended by Leonard's NG demeanor...
Yup, me too. It sounds interesting.
>I mean we're talkin' Harvey here...he's cut slack to some of what I
>consider the largest walking turds the world has ever seen...this guy
>could find something nice to say about Ghengis Khan...and he found
>Leonard's marketing distateful!!! Well, I've gotta say that it
>backfired, but I sure hope I like the system!!!
Guysonic has actually posted some helpful things here, when it's outside his general bias toward his system, and I really appreciate that, but I shudder when I see his name next to a reply for mic help. "Oh, so you wanna record a harp, or a guitar, or a string quartet, or a big band, or an organ, or a you name it? - go to my website for ALL the answers to your problems!"
I know he honestly believes he's right in what he's saying, but so do the guys that show up on my doorstep with bibles in hand. I realize it's my problem, but his mic posts are a little too "cut and paste" for me.
My major problem was listening to him trash the group. I have no problem with anything he wants to say about me or my views on microphone technique - that's his right. I just found his remarks about the group distasteful and offensive to me. Either way, it ain't worth starting a war over.
>So I reckon I owe ya yet another "thanks," oh great Papal dude of the
>Texas plains...
>Fletcher
Well, it looks like something good came out of my bitchin.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
That was the extent of my commenting on Len's DSM system, which is basically a "baffled omni" recording technique (which I covered in the big thread). So, you can decide for yourself if it's right for you.
guysonic@aol.com (GuySonic) wrote:
>A best way to record Big Band is to do an ambient stereo recording.
>I and many others have used this approach using my patented method and DSM
>stereo microphones.
Snipped blatant plug for his products, again.
>BTW, the RAP group is full of studio 'guru' types that seem to have no clue on
>how to do a really excellent live group performance recording with anything
>other than using the old and tired (very costly) mics; using mic methods that
>most often don't sound very satisfying, take a lot of skill (and luck) to get
>something that just sounds OK at best.
>
>Best Regards in Sound & Music, Leonard Lombardo
>Sonic Studios(tm) "Making Audio History With DSM(tm) Microphones"
Leonard, this is from another one of your recent posts:
>You've unfortunately asked the wrong group (or at least got the usual
>poor info response from those few regulars who posted a reply) for
>practical advise on field equipment. This has been the story with this
>group of studio 'gurus' for quite some time.
For the most part, your posts have consisted of either blatant plugs for your products, diatribes against Eric Blackmore's Earthworks mics, and now blasts against this group. And yes, you've also posted some helpful things, but in far fewer numbers.
I'm sure your microphones are well made and do a great job, but why attack the very people you're trying to sell to? I've used minimalist approaches before (and so have many others here); it work well for many things, BUT it's not the only method that works.
I can't speak for the rest of the group, but I, for one, am very disappointed in your taking cheap shots at the rest of the group - and your blatant ads (i.e. "Want the solution? Go to my webpage for the answer, and use my mics!!").
Even David Butler doesn't do that, and I think you'll agree that David is one of the most knowledgeable people on the group, even if he doesn't share that knowledge as much as I'd like to see.
I respect your expertise, but I know full well that a 1/2 dozen or so, well placed Neumanns might occasionally beat out your fine DSM mics. There are other manufacturers of mics represented in r.a.p., but I haven't seen any of them trashing the group.
I don't want to get into a long thread or fight about this. I'm just saying that I, personally, am very unhappy with your recent posts and the attitude you're manifesting lately.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Later, he posted this, and this was my reply:
guysonic@aol.com (GuySonic) wrote:
>Well, I'm not at all happy with yours either Harvey. If you spent a little
>'open minded time' looking at what my site is about, you'd realize that over
>half is envolved in education on a method of using baffled onmi mics and
>portable DAT deck issues.
I think I understand the principles involved.
>This is probably too simple an argument and method to get across easily to
>those who have never understood natural ambient acoustic recording and human
>response listening science.
Thank you for painting a vivid picture with such a broad brush.
>Now it you could forget on 'selling yourself' in being so knowing and expert,
>you might learn something really new, appropriate, and expand the art of
>recording for everyone's benefit including your own.
Sorry, I won't be drawn into a fight with you. I use a variety of methods to record, depending on what I'm recording - and what I think is the most appropriate recording technique for the subject.
You seem to be espousing the "one size fits all" method for everything. This runs counter to some of my own experiences. In the late 60s, I experimented with various two mic techniques, using various B&K calibration microphones. The results were about what I expected - excellent on some things, less stellar on others.
>Until then, I'll respectfully keep beating on this drum and take the heat as it
>comes.
Leonard,
A "word to the wise is sufficient", and I see I've already repeated myself.
Respectfuly yours,
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Finally Fletcher posted this and here's my response to Fletcher:
>Fletcher <Fletcher@mercenary.com> wrote:
>>Harvey Gerst wrote:
>> As far as the points Leonard makes, I'm not going to get into a fight
>> with him. Hell, I live in the buckle of the "Bible Belt" so I'm used
>> to people screaming it's "their way or I'm going to hell". I've had
>> reservations booked there for a long time now.
>Save me a seat at the bar...first rounds on me...
No problem. I spoke to the devil - it seems we have adjoining rooms. It appears that all the record industry is located on the same floor. They tried to scatter all the people at first, but it turned out the A&R guys were corrupting everybody in Hell, so now, they keep us all isolated. It's a great place, best studios and equipment, great players, but you never get airplay or a hit, and the mastering sucks.
>> I simply tried to point out to Leonard that blasting r.a.p. wasn't the
>> smartest career move a manufacturer could make. If he wants to try to
>> escalate that into a war, that's fine, but I don't intend to
>> participate.
>I actually spoke to Leonard late last week. He really has a firm belief
>in his product, and it's abilities, and has agreed to loan me a unit to
>try...the results of this trial will be posted here...I found him rather
>pleasant to talk to, and his theories quite interesting.
As I've said many times, his sincerity was never in question.
>In our direct conversation he did indeed make mention of the Earthworks
>products...and may I add that he did not mention them in a disparaging
>light, nor manner. If anything, I found him nearly complementary of the
>product, but that could have been my interpretation as I was half
>expecting him to slag them...or...perhaps Leonard is aware that we are
>Earthworks dealers, and didn't wish to raise my ire concerning a product
>I enjoy using.
I don't think he has any animosity toward Eric or Earthworks. I think that was an error or misreading on my part, for which I apologize.
>> I believe Leonard probably makes a fine product. I believe Leonard
>> sincerely believes everything he says about his products. I believe
>> his mics or Earthworks may produce superior results on some types of
>> recording sessions. I simply find his methods of advertising his ideas
>> (at our expense) personally distasteful.
>Interestingly, I did sense during our conversation that Leonard, while
>obviously very knowledgable, didn't really seem to grasp how I intended
>to use the product...I am quite excited about using the DSM system, and
>interested to hear it improve my work. The irony is that I would have
>entirely dismissed the entire product line, if Harvey hadn't become
>offended by Leonard's NG demeanor...
Yup, me too. It sounds interesting.
>I mean we're talkin' Harvey here...he's cut slack to some of what I
>consider the largest walking turds the world has ever seen...this guy
>could find something nice to say about Ghengis Khan...and he found
>Leonard's marketing distateful!!! Well, I've gotta say that it
>backfired, but I sure hope I like the system!!!
Guysonic has actually posted some helpful things here, when it's outside his general bias toward his system, and I really appreciate that, but I shudder when I see his name next to a reply for mic help. "Oh, so you wanna record a harp, or a guitar, or a string quartet, or a big band, or an organ, or a you name it? - go to my website for ALL the answers to your problems!"
I know he honestly believes he's right in what he's saying, but so do the guys that show up on my doorstep with bibles in hand. I realize it's my problem, but his mic posts are a little too "cut and paste" for me.
My major problem was listening to him trash the group. I have no problem with anything he wants to say about me or my views on microphone technique - that's his right. I just found his remarks about the group distasteful and offensive to me. Either way, it ain't worth starting a war over.
>So I reckon I owe ya yet another "thanks," oh great Papal dude of the
>Texas plains...
>Fletcher
Well, it looks like something good came out of my bitchin.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
That was the extent of my commenting on Len's DSM system, which is basically a "baffled omni" recording technique (which I covered in the big thread). So, you can decide for yourself if it's right for you.
K
knowdoubt
New member
It's a perfectly legitimate technique & works well. The idea is quite old & the logic behind it is sound (no pun intended). I didn't read the whole page from the link so pardon me or clue me if I missed something ground breaking, but it seemed a little exaggerated on the benefits (typical sales hype) but still basically legitimate claims as to the ability to achieve realistic human perspective stereo recordings. You can get similar though not perfect results without being so anal as to use a virtual human head simulating the actual density of a head & skin texture. I've gotten quite decent & usable recordings with just a small pillow. In the end though, it's just another technique that yields a particular result that may or may not be the right result for a particular recording project. It's not the technique to end all others
crazydoc
Master Baiter
Quote from above webpage
" THE SHAPING OF THE SOUND (by the head) BEFORE YOU RECORD IT WITH THE MICROPHONES IS ALL THAT'S MISSING FROM MAKING IT REAL!"
It would seem that if having a head-shaped object between the mics were so important, then having the mics inside approximately one inch long quarter inch diameter tubular orifices pointed laterally and terminated by some irregularly ridged auricular appendages would be even more important in shaping the sound to "make it real."
" THE SHAPING OF THE SOUND (by the head) BEFORE YOU RECORD IT WITH THE MICROPHONES IS ALL THAT'S MISSING FROM MAKING IT REAL!"
It would seem that if having a head-shaped object between the mics were so important, then having the mics inside approximately one inch long quarter inch diameter tubular orifices pointed laterally and terminated by some irregularly ridged auricular appendages would be even more important in shaping the sound to "make it real."
L
littledog
New member
Neumann has been giving binaural "head" for a while now. Check out their latest model "KU 100" with the cool eyes, nose, and ears!
C
chessrock
Banned
The only problem I see with mixing an entire song using this method is in Rule number 2:
"RULE #2: SET YOUR RECORDING LEVEL FOR THE MAXIMUM AND LOUDEST SOUND YOU WILL RECORD (That's with some headroom) AND LEAVE IT THERE.
All tracks are recorded at this setting regardless of softer type acoustical instruments that may be included in the arrangement.
This rule may be a tough one to understand; however....it is very important; you must plan ahead. Changing the reference levels for any one or more of the DSM tracks will cause aberrations of the perceive acoustical ambient room response that may be heard as a kind of distortion in the final mix."
Most of the problems with this method are probably rather obvious, and shouldn't need much explanation.
Now I don't know this for sure, but it appears that you wouldn't be able to do any actual "mixing" afterward, as changing the fader volume on a particular track, I'm assuming, would create some of these "distortions" he's talking about. He also goes on to say that any reverb you might apply in the mixing stage would screw things up as well.
And if you don't like the way something is panned, you're pretty much sol also.
What I really like about the possibilities for this technique would be for things like grand piano, since a lot of the sound is dependent on the room and probably even how your head reacts with the room. Also, I like the prospects of using it on drums. One would think this technique would allow you to pick up the sound of "the whole kit" as opposed to all the bits and pieces mixed together.
"RULE #2: SET YOUR RECORDING LEVEL FOR THE MAXIMUM AND LOUDEST SOUND YOU WILL RECORD (That's with some headroom) AND LEAVE IT THERE.
All tracks are recorded at this setting regardless of softer type acoustical instruments that may be included in the arrangement.
This rule may be a tough one to understand; however....it is very important; you must plan ahead. Changing the reference levels for any one or more of the DSM tracks will cause aberrations of the perceive acoustical ambient room response that may be heard as a kind of distortion in the final mix."
Most of the problems with this method are probably rather obvious, and shouldn't need much explanation.
Now I don't know this for sure, but it appears that you wouldn't be able to do any actual "mixing" afterward, as changing the fader volume on a particular track, I'm assuming, would create some of these "distortions" he's talking about. He also goes on to say that any reverb you might apply in the mixing stage would screw things up as well.
And if you don't like the way something is panned, you're pretty much sol also.
What I really like about the possibilities for this technique would be for things like grand piano, since a lot of the sound is dependent on the room and probably even how your head reacts with the room. Also, I like the prospects of using it on drums. One would think this technique would allow you to pick up the sound of "the whole kit" as opposed to all the bits and pieces mixed together.
K
knowdoubt
New member
crazydoc;
I think what you're describing is more akin to the 'binaural' method that the webpage specifically discredits on the basis that the ear & ear canal is a nonlinear sound shaping devise best left out of the recording phase since then the sound would be shaped twice (once during recording & again during listening). He claims his system to be more accommodating to listening environments other than the ideal (headphones). I would think any of these type methods would only be valid to it's point when listening through headphones or from the sweat spot.
chessrock;
I played around with recording drums similar to this method a few years back & from what I remember it gave pretty decent results. Very natural stereo image. I put a pair of omni's on the sides of a pillow about head high of someone sitting about 3 feet in front of the drum set. Post mixing or adjustments while recording is kind of contrary to the aim of this method (which is to merely capture natural human perspective spatial imaging of the sound in it's original & real acoustic environment). The natural filtering that the head baffling applies to sound entering the left mic from a source to the right & visa versa, the spacing of the mics for phase relationship & the omni directional nature of the mics are the foundation of this principal. Yeah, I also think it might be a useful method for Grand Piano & even acoustic guitar & this thread reminds me that I want to try it some time for those.
Just another method to be evaluated on a case by case basis as to it's appropriateness for the particular recording application & style of music production.
I think what you're describing is more akin to the 'binaural' method that the webpage specifically discredits on the basis that the ear & ear canal is a nonlinear sound shaping devise best left out of the recording phase since then the sound would be shaped twice (once during recording & again during listening). He claims his system to be more accommodating to listening environments other than the ideal (headphones). I would think any of these type methods would only be valid to it's point when listening through headphones or from the sweat spot.
chessrock;
I played around with recording drums similar to this method a few years back & from what I remember it gave pretty decent results. Very natural stereo image. I put a pair of omni's on the sides of a pillow about head high of someone sitting about 3 feet in front of the drum set. Post mixing or adjustments while recording is kind of contrary to the aim of this method (which is to merely capture natural human perspective spatial imaging of the sound in it's original & real acoustic environment). The natural filtering that the head baffling applies to sound entering the left mic from a source to the right & visa versa, the spacing of the mics for phase relationship & the omni directional nature of the mics are the foundation of this principal. Yeah, I also think it might be a useful method for Grand Piano & even acoustic guitar & this thread reminds me that I want to try it some time for those.
Just another method to be evaluated on a case by case basis as to it's appropriateness for the particular recording application & style of music production.
K
knownuttin
New member
Oops, I misunderstood! I read the title of this thread and thought someone was calling me names.
Never mind. Carry on.
-kent
Never mind. Carry on.
-kent
C
chessrock
Banned
Why am I all of a sudden much happier about my purchase of those Behringer omni-directional mics Harvey recommended?
crazydoc
Master Baiter
knowdoubt said:
Your right - my mistake. It was late at night and I was confused by all the brightly colored, variable sized fonts on the page and missed that part. It's hard to take all that info seriously when it's presented like a used car commercial.
C
chessrock
Banned
crazydoc said:
LMAO
P
Phloodpants
New member
OK, I absolutely LOVE binaural recordings. (some of you may have heard my recent work posted on another thread in the MP3 mixing forum)
But I don't see how removing the ears from a binaural dummy head is going to somehow make it translate well to speakers!
The problem is not just the "double ear" effect. A binaural recording needs to have complete channel separation on playback, thus the requirement for headphones.
So with an earless dummy head you've still got the same problem. You've got two localization methods at work here, and they conflict!
One being the binaural HRTF effect. (albeit with no ears)
The other being that you are listening to speakers in a room.
Messy.
But I don't see how removing the ears from a binaural dummy head is going to somehow make it translate well to speakers!
The problem is not just the "double ear" effect. A binaural recording needs to have complete channel separation on playback, thus the requirement for headphones.
So with an earless dummy head you've still got the same problem. You've got two localization methods at work here, and they conflict!
One being the binaural HRTF effect. (albeit with no ears)
The other being that you are listening to speakers in a room.
Messy.
P
Phloodpants
New member
OK everyone...
He does have a sample available...
http://www.sonicstudios.com/bigband.htm
Have a listen and report back!
He does have a sample available...
http://www.sonicstudios.com/bigband.htm
Have a listen and report back!
C
chessrock
Banned
Phloodpants said:
Yea, but isn't that a problem no matter what kind of stereo micing technique you're using? I mean no technique's separation will be as good as with headphones, right? Or am I missing something else, here (Please explain) ?
I can tell you one thing after listening to some of those samples: I think you have to be careful, with this technique, to make sure the singer is stationary and doesn't move around a whole lot.
With one of those examples, it seemed like she (the singer) was swaying around from side to side, so I didn't get that central focus on the voice which I think is importan.
P
Phloodpants
New member
Well, with a conventional stereo recording, you are not relying on total L/R separation. You're essentially trying to place a pair of microphones in such a way that when played back on stereo speakers, they give a reasonable faxsimile of a stereo image. Pleasing if not realistic, cuz let's face it, a pair of stereo speakers isn't fooling anyone... That's OK though! It can sound great!
When doing a live stereo recording, I like to visualize the microphones being plugged directly into the speakers as if they were able to drive them directly.
When doing a live stereo recording, I like to visualize the microphones being plugged directly into the speakers as if they were able to drive them directly.
K
knownuttin
New member
Well...allright then. Long as nobody's calling me a Dummy Head!
-kent
-kent
Scooter B
Member
Thanks Harvey for offering some balance to the the subject and the excerpts from previous discussions.
RE: Chessrocks comments on the obvious limitations on mixing anything after recording...it sure seems from the web page that they assume you will be recording everything live and won't be overdubbing anything.
I sure did not get guysonic's over-reaction (it seeemd to me) of Harvey's comment but oh well.
Thanks again Harvey
RE: Chessrocks comments on the obvious limitations on mixing anything after recording...it sure seems from the web page that they assume you will be recording everything live and won't be overdubbing anything.
I sure did not get guysonic's over-reaction (it seeemd to me) of Harvey's comment but oh well.
Thanks again Harvey
B
Blackburn
New member
Dummy head mics are good for classical and jazz recordings when your are trying to get an ambient recording of a live band in a room...as far as I understand. The dummy head is used to capture the most pure live sound possible and it is not a good technique for recording rock or pop where you would want more control over the music later in the mix stage.
T
Tonewoods
New member
I've made many binaural mics, and I wouldn't want to be without them in any recording situation...love the way they sound...
Drum overheads, room ambiance, horns, you name it...the binaural mic will do a nice job of recording it...
Here's some pics of the "Binaural Skull"...this was a prototype powered with 9V batteries...we use phantom powered units these days...
www.tf4.com/webskull
Bruce
www.bruceharvie.com
Drum overheads, room ambiance, horns, you name it...the binaural mic will do a nice job of recording it...
Here's some pics of the "Binaural Skull"...this was a prototype powered with 9V batteries...we use phantom powered units these days...
www.tf4.com/webskull
Bruce
www.bruceharvie.com