Those look really interesting. Wouldn't they capture the sound of the person moving their head and walking around? On a high-end playback system you'd be able to hear the changes in perspective. That might be really interesting or very dizzying. I have to admit though it would be a great test of system resolution during playback. Bearcat M. Sandor Audiophile, not engineer.

On 4/11/07, Dragan Noveski <perodog(a)gmx.net> wrote: I certainly wouldn't mind going for a binaural effect... hmmm... where to find a head? -- Mike Taht PostCards From the Bleeding Edge http://the-edge.blogspot.com

I forked the topic as to not de-rail the original one. That's contrary to my experiance. Of course, you may be talking about something else. With a good audio system you can hear changes in perspective. I am in the process of purchasing a audio system that consists of the following: a set of Gallo Accoustic reference 3.1 speakers and Bel Canto Ref 1000 monoblock amps. My front-end will be my computer with an rme HDSP AES-32 going out to an RME ADI-8QS. I have spent months auditioning these speakers and amps at my stereo store. They are revealing enough that you can hear the sound of the venue that a recording was made in. You can hear the sound of the walls change when the recording moves to another place. As far as perspective goes, i have been able to hear performers moving around on stage and been able to hear their placement. Thus, when the mics are moved around, you can hear the stage move forward and backward and side to side. Since i am listening to stereo this is in a plane in front of me, but that is still a change in perspective, i'd argue. The poster of the original question regarding recording the outside environment was talking about turning this into a 24/192 surround sound mix. That will give you perspective in all directions. I hope this person has a big hard drive! Thanks, Bearcat M. Sandor Audiophile and wannabe engineer

There is something that has been bothering me for a long time that i have never recieved a satisfactory answer to. I keep asking audiophile people like myself, and it only just occurred to me that i have this whole list of audio engineers here to pester..er..ask. Why is it that most of my CD's suck as far as recording quality? Now, don't bite me, i'm not talking about you folks. I know all of your recordings are awesome! *nods wisely* As i mentioned in another thread, i am in the process of purchasing an audio system: Gallo Accoustic Reference 3.1 speakers, Bel Canto ref 1000 mono bloc amps, and my computer+RME HDSP aes-32+ RME adi-8qs for the front end. This system is *very* revealing of recording quality and you can hear minute changes at the boards. They have really shown me which of my discs are recorded well and which are recorded badly Here's the kind of thing i'm complaining about: If i listen to a well regarded recording like Mile's Davis' "A Kind of Blue" the sound stage is spread out, the drums and piano have weight, and the cymbols have shimmer. Then when i put on one of my heavy metal or popular cds the sound stage colapses to a very smal area right between the speakers (live recording or not), the kick drums and piano sound almost wet and the cymbols are cut short. I have almost 700 cds now (ripped lossessly to my hard drive with flac). It occurred to me that once this system is in my house i'm gonna start playing the discs that are well recorded instead of all of it. That means that about two thirds of my music is gonna be not played so much. Sad. So, my question to you is what causes these bad recordings most of the time? Is it musicians who can't afford good producers and equipment? Are kick drums, ambiance and cymbols hard to capture? Is it compression to make things sound "louder"? Are they saving money by mixing for low-end systems figuring no one will care? As far as the compression goes, would i do better to buy vinyl and master it to my hard drive or is the compression done before the mastering to vinyl takes place? Any comments, ideas? Thanks, Bearcat M. Sandor Audiophile not Engineer

On 4/11/07, Lee Revell <rlrevell(a)joe-job.com> wrote: Iron Maiden's latest album was released without any mastering... the mix that went to press came right form the mix studio. -- Brett ------------------------------------------------------------ "In the rhythm of music a secret is hidden; If I were to divulge it, it would overturn the world." -- Jelaleddin Rumi

On 4/11/07, Bearcat M. Sandor <HomeTheater(a)feline-soul.com> wrote: Some of that could be using less reputable/less experienced mastering studios. Bands like Tool and NiN can probably afford the best (and yes, Trent has gone independent so he has more control over things) and be able to tell the mix and mastering engineers exactly what they want. Some of the younger bands probably have no clue and the stuff is just sent off without much input from the musicians. There is also the dream many have to get played on the radio and there seems to be a narrowly defined range of where radio friendly mastering is -- not much panning, too much compression... -- Brett ------------------------------------------------------------ "In the rhythm of music a secret is hidden; If I were to divulge it, it would overturn the world." -- Jelaleddin Rumi

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On Wed, Apr 11, 2007 at 12:54:43PM -0400, Lee Revell wrote: "I hate compression. It makes everything sound like a beer commercial." -- Steve Albini - -ken

Am Donnerstag, 12. April 2007 schrieb Lee Revell: Well, compressors/limiters are also great for not overloading your ADC while getting good volumes in. And they are unbeatable getting much more punch out of the electric bass. And they provide power and steadiness in volume to the vocal tracks. Live you can work without them (if not enough money) but in recording they simply necessary. Even if you do no mastering... Arnold -- visit http://www.arnoldarts.de/ --- Hi, I am a .signature virus. Please copy me into your ~/.signature and send me to all your contacts. After a month or so log in as root and do a rm / -rf. Or ask your administrator to do so...

What I'm hearing is distortion created by the artifact of compression. What i'm speaking of is the cropping of the lower and uppper frequencies and boosting of the midrange. Cymbols sound aweful no matter what system you play them on when compression is used. Of course, it depends on the amount of compression you apply, but I just feel it's wrong to ask me to pay money for music that has been deliberately scewed-up. Given a good recording, without compression kick drums don't sound muffled, the decay of instruments is present and cymbols sound metallic and not ceramic. How could that be a bad thing on any system? Does decay, air and body sound bad on a boombox or a cheep reciever? I know you may not beable to detect them, but that's not the same thing as bad. Bearcat

I'm sure Gordon just had you confused with the other Bearcat M. Sandor, that's all :) g.

Well, Rush is imfamous for bad mastering aren't they? It's a shame. You'd think they'd want to get a good drum sound what with Niel Pert and all. When you speak of "mastering methods" what specificly are you referring too? I could not get that article to load, so i apologise if the answer is contained within it.

On Wed, Apr 11, 2007 at 10:34:24AM -0600, Bearcat M. Sandor wrote: It's impossible to answer your question, since as far as I can see you use the term 'bad' in a purely subjective way - it's 'bad' when you don't like it. The first thing to ask yourself when evaluating a recording is what has been the intention of the recording engineer or producer: 1 - To recreate at the listener's side a sound that is as close as possible to the original. 2 - To create at the listener's side a sound that the listener will think is close to the original even if it is in reality something quite different. 3 - To create a sound that most listeners will like, that is in fact synthetic but still sounds natural. 4 - To create a sound that doesn't even exist as real acoustic event. Or on a different scale: A - Create a 'you are there' effect. B - Create a 'they are here' effect. C - None of the above. For classical music, or any type requiring the acoustics of a concert hall or other space normally used for that type of music, most recordings are of type 2. Even people who go to classical concerts, and know how e.g an orchestra sounds in a good hall, do in general *not* like type 1 when listening at home. So what is 'good' and 'bad' in this context ? The recordings that most people prefer are not the most faithfull ones. The situation changes when you can listen using a real 3-D surround system (not an ITU 5.1 one, that's a joke). In that case type 1,A do work well. A type 2,B recording also works well with solo instruments or chamber music, after all they could be in your living room while an orchesta clearly can't. For things like jazz and folk where there is still some pretense to making things sound natural, most recordings are type 3. Usually, the less processing the 'better' it sounds, 'better' meaning 'natural' or authentic here. For all the rest, almost everything is type 4,C and there is no relation at all to any 'real' sound. Assuming things are more or less in balance and the sound is not overly distorted, filtered or compressed, or drowned in effects, anything goes. It's purely a matter of personal preference if you like it or not. The terms 'good' and 'bad' can still be used, but they would refer more to the skill of the producers than to the anything else. Most people don't even know how a kickdrum, a snare or cymbals sound in reality. What you hear on most pop recordings and what many people take for reality is in fact very far from it. These are two questions, and the two answers are not necessarily related. With very few exceptions all recordings are compressed, either manually (as for classical music), or during mastering, or even individual tracks during recording or mixing. Mastering techniques for vinyl and digital media are different, so it's no surprise they sound different. If you prefer the typical sound of vinyl, go ahead and buy that. But don't think it's better since it isn't. You may just like its imperfections. -- FA Follie! Follie! Delirio vano è questo !

you know, audio is a totally subjective subject as is music itself; and audio has no other major purpose other than the reproduction of music.(a movie consisting only of atmos,fx and dialogue isn't generally made and distributed.sound installations are fine but are only available in the "round".) just rely on your ears and your heart. everything else is just science. g.

Hi! Bearcat M. Sandor wrote: Well, it is true that one has to stand still to get a non-moving stereo image, but they are perfect for location recording situations where you should be able to move and have a portable setup. Ever entered a noisy cafe with a shotgun mike and wondered why everyone shuts up and looks at you? .-) I use the OKM mikes on a mikestand as well, mounted on a chinese chop-stick which is horizontal, to get a traditional AB spaced omni pair at approx 20-30 cm apart. And this really makes some cool recordings! Other approach: Mount it onto a (showroom) dummy head, or onto a ball if you want a binaural recording without using your own head. One last thing about binaural recording and headphones: Yes it is true that the spactial resolution is much better when you listen to it via headphones (and of course, the best when you were using your own ears to record it, read: HRTF) But the quality over loudspeakers is not much worse, at least as far as my perception goes. Peter P. Plessas Engineer, not audiophile.

Mike Taht wrote: thanks for reminding me to start Part 2! (of probably 3) -- brad fuller http://www.Sonaural.com/ +1 (408) 799-6124

Robin Gareus wrote: hey, what means 'even me' ?? thx robin, i was even lookin at wikipedia, but not patient enough. but as i realized that you are involved here, i was thinking at is much easier to ask for a translation. omnidirectional sound good! cheers, doc

Robin Gareus wrote: i did not joined that thread, so writing my comment here i was laughing! looks like a nice article. i would think on this at mastering level, but generally it should sound good everywhere? thats true, there is a sony-ecm... electret series, you can get as stereo mic. i did some experiments with it - you should not compare to neumann/shoeps condenser, but it works too, if the recordings are for own collection and not for making a vinyl (or cd) release of it. cheers, doc

Arnold Krille wrote: but arnold, the original question was "which mic for outside recording of singng birds". you are partly right here, a 3€ omni-mic will not do a job - it is always a price question, but from the wikipedia link, robin searched for us: "Omnidirectional microphones, unlike cardioids, do not employ resonant cavities as delays, and so can be considered the "purest" mikes in terms of low coloration; they add very little to the original sound. Being pressure-sensitive they can also have a very flat low-frequency response down to 20 Hz or below." of course, 0Hz i mentioned is strongly theoretically, but a good omni-mic will do better here as a good cardioid. cheers, doc