24 Jun
2010
24 Jun
'10
10:56 p.m.
On Thu, Jun 24, 2010 at 10:08:39PM +0200, Arnold Krille wrote:
On Thursday 24 June 2010 00:55:29 Jonathan Gazeley
wrote:
Given my background [*] maybe I could be too sensitive to
mono compatibility. But a stereo signal that has bad mono
compatibility doesn't have much chance to work well in
stereo either.
[*] Broadcasting. When I was working for BRTN, the situation
was quite simple. If you made a recording that would not work
well in mono, and the 'supervisor of transmissions' would
notice - either instantly for a live transmission, or some
months later in the other case, then you'd be invited to
report to the director of engineering some days later to
explain and/or justify what you had done. If the director
did not like whatever you had to say, the result would be
an 'official reprimand' :-)
Ciao,
--
FA
O tu, che porte, correndo si ?
E guerra e morte !
On 06/23/2010 11:26 PM, fons(a)kokkinizita.net
wrote:
Many people today have a "stereo" where the two speakers are about 20cm away
from each other. Which makes it mono for any practical listening.
Other people listen to it in their car. Either they have a Maibach with a Bose
sound-system, or each passenger will sit in front of one speaker and only hear
the other channel very thin => Mono for all practical efforts. I don't fully agree on the benefits of using
omnis.
A *good* cardioid will reproduce the bass as well,
even if maybe you need to EQ a few dB. And spaced omnis
on organs or anything that produces long sustained notes
can be a disaster for mono compatibility, unless they are
spaced much more than a meter. And in that case you risk
the 'hole in the middle' or you need at least three mics.
Thanks too for
your advice. How important is mono compatibility, given
that these recordings are burnt to CD as stereo, and handed out to
people who listen to them on their stereos at home?