In Reply to: Re: >> I don't have a clue if the two-channel is a fold-down or not << . . . posted by chris.redmond2@bushinternet.com on November 9, 2003 at 13:42:44:
To sonically recreate the sound of an orchestra realistically through two or more speakers which are standing in free space (i.e. your listening room several feet apart, and several feet from you) cannot be achieved by simply having two mics at the event. If, however, the recording was produced with only headphones as the intended delivery target, then, yes, two ear-shaped microphones, six inches apart, 5.5 feet above the ground positioned near the orchestra in the auditorium may quite realistically recreate the event.HOWEVER, if you were then to play back that same recording through two large speakers positioned several maters apart in your room, the result would sound hollow distant, but most importantly, unrealistic!
So, given the fact that we all are using loudspeakers standing in free space here, then you HAVE to recreate the event another way. That way involves capturing (fairly close-up) the sound of discrete sections of the band/orchestra etc. whilst also capturing the hall ambience using different mics which are not located close to the performers. Judicious mixing is then the essential link to reconstructing the original sound stage for playback through a conventional loudspeaker arrangement (i.e. not through headphones).
B.T.W. Dr. AIX has stated that he does not use "EQ" in his recordings.
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Follow Ups
- Mixing is NOT bad . . . - Martin . 15:05:41 11/09/03 (34)
- it ain't good - tunenut 19:11:18 11/09/03 (4)
- Clarification: Mixing using one-bit arithmetic ain't good . . . - Martin . 07:41:52 11/10/03 (0)
- Ok, 2 mics' - Frank. 04:50:53 11/10/03 (0)
- Re: it ain't bad . . . - Martin . 02:14:47 11/10/03 (1)
- can't speak to specific m/c recordings - tunenut 08:44:48 11/10/03 (0)
- You should try sticking to subjects you understand - racerguy 18:23:00 11/09/03 (28)
- It's called appreciating "The laws of physics" -- something which you can't seem to understand. . . - Martin . 02:00:11 11/10/03 (27)
- Re: It's called appreciating "The laws of physics" -- something which you can't seem to understand. . . - racerguy 18:56:03 11/10/03 (0)
- Anyway, Racerguy . . . - Martin . 02:42:59 11/10/03 (25)
- Poor Martin... - racerguy 18:54:56 11/10/03 (24)
- Racerguy, - Martin . 01:16:27 11/11/03 (23)
- Re: Racerguy, - racerguy 06:31:55 11/11/03 (22)
- Prove me wrong or fuck off. {n.t.} - Martin . 06:49:51 11/11/03 (21)
- It's "physics." - racerguy 07:11:39 11/11/03 (20)
- Here's my system; and prove, or disprove the following hypothesis:- - Martin . 07:38:14 11/11/03 (19)
- Yawn - racerguy 18:04:15 11/11/03 (12)
- Rotel and Denon ? - Jack Seaton 20:28:01 11/11/03 (11)
- I wasn't surprised - were you? - racerguy 06:08:44 11/12/03 (3)
- Not really. - Jack Seaton 18:56:21 11/14/03 (1)
- Re: Not really. - Martin . 04:10:15 11/15/03 (0)
- I guess that's because . . . - Martin . 07:08:57 11/12/03 (0)
- Yet more diversion . . . - Martin . 03:09:18 11/12/03 (6)
- are you losing your mind? - tunenut 08:35:00 11/12/03 (1)
- Jack and Racer do not bring out the best in people . . . - Martin . 09:02:11 11/12/03 (0)
- Weak (nt) - racerguy 06:09:03 11/12/03 (3)
- Pathetically weak. - Jack Seaton 19:04:09 11/14/03 (1)
- Yet more baseless subjectivity. {n.t.} - Martin . 03:56:40 11/15/03 (0)
- Yes you really are. {n.t.} - Martin . 06:20:22 11/12/03 (0)
- you are not in the realm of physics - tunenut 08:44:24 11/11/03 (5)
- Oh yes I am . . . - Martin . 09:27:00 11/11/03 (4)
- I'm not going to get into this... - tunenut 10:30:03 11/11/03 (3)
- You would say that, wouldn't you? My case is proven, (despite the attempted diversions). {n.t.} - Martin . 10:34:27 11/11/03 (2)
- congratulations, Einstein (NT) - tunenut 10:45:38 11/11/03 (1)
- Einstein? Quantum physics? Wrong asylum. :-) Anyway . . . - Martin . 11:07:08 11/11/03 (0)