Tags: , ,

Binaural VS ORTF
#31
29th March 2010
Old 29th March 2010
  #31
Where to use one?

Quote:
Originally Posted by didier.brest View Post
Hi Plush,

for which applications (orchestral, chamber, solo ?) the KU 100 is especially suitable ?
I'm with plush on this...but I also have had great luck with acoustics bands (pop / rock / Indie) as well as amplified live rock.

I will work on getting more samples posted here, but it may take a while as I have to first obtain permission. I think I am good to go with regard to posting the Cwoboy Junkies stuff, so those (at least some) should be posted in the next day or so.

Anyway...I do believe that it is well suited to just about any genre of music. Again, what's important to remember (just like with any recording) is what the artist / producer wish to convey sonically.

Mark
#32
29th March 2010
Old 29th March 2010
  #32
Gear Head
 

Hi Binaural Mark,

If you are posting example sound files, I would urge you to use uncompressed PCM, even short 16 bit WAVs should be fine to illustrate binaural listening.
The research that I have done in this area has shown me that psychoacoustic model based lossy data compression removes the binaural localisation components to a large extent.

Best of Luck, it is nice to see another person on here spreading the word about binaural and dispelling the myths.

Dave C.
#33
29th March 2010
Old 29th March 2010
  #33
Lives for gear
 
doug hazelrigg's Avatar
I think a hybrid approach is often desirable, incorporating binaural techniques with standard mixing techniques. I think Mark agrees with this
#34
29th March 2010
Old 29th March 2010
  #34
Gear nut
 

This is a superb and informative thread. Thanks to the experts who have chimed in.

I guess my remaining question is if I'm recording and mixing absolutely without headphones in mind (hate them, and my audience/area of music generally agrees), does binaural make as much sense? Can it be done will without a Neumann head or a head at all? Is John Willett right that ORTF with a disc can approximate the effect for loudspeaker listening?
#35
29th March 2010
Old 29th March 2010
  #35
Gear addict
 
Broken's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by marvin100 View Post
This is a superb and informative thread. Thanks to the experts who have chimed in.

I guess my remaining question is if I'm recording and mixing absolutely without headphones in mind (hate them, and my audience/area of music generally agrees), does binaural make as much sense? Can it be done will without a Neumann head or a head at all? Is John Willett right that ORTF with a disc can approximate the effect for loudspeaker listening?
Stick with ORTF and if you want to make a binaural mix for headphones use plug-ins to apply the HRTFs. You'll never get a good binaural recording without head shadowing and the pinna.

Binaural doesn't sound like a good option for what you seem to want.
#36
29th March 2010
Old 29th March 2010
  #36
Lives for gear
 
boojum's Avatar
Binaural possible with MP3's?????

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dave C View Post
Hi Binaural Mark,

If you are posting example sound files, I would urge you to use uncompressed PCM, even short 16 bit WAVs should be fine to illustrate binaural listening.
The research that I have done in this area has shown me that psychoacoustic model based lossy data compression removes the binaural localisation components to a large extent.

Best of Luck, it is nice to see another person on here spreading the word about binaural and dispelling the myths.

Dave C.
I am glad you posted that. I am not at all impressed with the files of the MSO that I downloaded and they sounded just the same over speakers as they did over earphones. I am sure they have all the right cues in PCM. I have heard true binaural and it is quite amazing. The MSO tracks were beautifully recorded but I did not hear true binaural. Is this just me? How have others perceived this recording? The Peer Gynt.
#37
29th March 2010
Old 29th March 2010
  #37
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
How have others perceived this recording? The Peer Gynt.
Just from the samples - which may be unrepresentative of the effect you get if you pay! - I'd say they present the same paradox that you can get with an MS recording, as follows.

It's often said about MS recordings that main pair mic placement is a bit less critical vs other methods as you can make the pair sound further from the orchestra (assuming that's the subject) simply by increasing the "S" component, which gives a more reverberant / distant impression.

The trouble is, when you back away from an orchestra in real life, of course the actual perceived width reduces, not increases. So adding more "S" makes it sound like it was recorded from a distance in terms of the ratio of source sound to reverberant sound, but it makes it sound closer in terms of apparent width of the orchestra - if the first violins are very left and the basses are very right, then you must be about where the conductor stands, yet the acoustic is typical of about 15 rows back.

I'm getting the same impression with the binaural recordings linked here. They simply sound far too wide in relation to the acoustic. Like the orchestra is in a great wide horseshoe around you with no player closer than about 30 feet, not in a normal layout at all.

Is this a also a bit like the problem with surround sound, that there isn't an agreed objective in terms of the image? Are you in the middle of the orchestra with some players behind you, or is the orchestra supposed to appear definitely in front of you, with the rear image just made up of room reflections from the back of the hall?

For me, if I didnt' know these were binaural recordings, I would criticise all of those linked here on the ground of excessive stereo width. Should the accepted standards (, what accepted standards?!) for the presentation of stereo width apply, or not apply, to binaural recordings? (I'm talking about the direct sound, the localisation of actual instruments, rather than about the reverberation).
#38
29th March 2010
Old 29th March 2010
  #38
Incorporating Various Techniques

Quote:
Originally Posted by doug hazelrigg View Post
I think a hybrid approach is often desirable, incorporating binaural techniques with standard mixing techniques. I think Mark agrees with this
Doug, Here is my perspective on all of this:

Use that which works, aesthetically, but be aware of what's going on with the physics and the math.

Truly, what I am saying is that if you like using binaural alone, or with other mics, or using the ORTF configuration and binaural, or a Jeklin Disc and an XY pair, or you hate binaural and want to stick with multi-track, then do it.

As far as my tastes...I really like realism in audio. This is why, for me, (i.e. this is just my preference, in my opinion / not to anger anyone etc) I prefer to hear binaural recordings over headphones because while binaural isn't perfect, I perceive the recordings as most life-like of all the techniques that I have heard, and for me, I derive the greatest enjoyment when it sounds real.

On the other hand, some of my all-time favorite recordings have been done in mono, or stereo, single-take, or multi-layered, etc and have absolutely nothing to do with binaural whatsoever, yet I love them for what they are - the Gestalt of the track as it were - because that particular vision 'works' for that song.

Again, it is (in my opinion) up to us to carry out the sonic vision of our clients - and granted, if they don't really know what they want and we think we can help, then we ought to. I am obviously a big fan of binaural, but I have also used it in conjunction with other techniques based upon what the client wanted to hear. Therefore, from an aesthetic angle, there is no 'wrong' approach.

On the other hand, I personally like knowing about things like differences in the impulse responses, polar response(s), or the FRFs, or how the coherence can be interpreted to give me more insight - I'm a E.E. who's been doing signal analysis for 20 years now, so this is what I tend to rely upon when I have questions as to why things differ. I really do think it's wise to measure - and yet I concede the importance of the aesthetic. Still, for these matters (and to define things mathematically), there's no substitute for the appropriate signal analysis software and a controlled space in which to conduct said measurements.

It's why think it's beneficial to read (as much as one can) as many technical papers on these subjects as one can lay hands to - there are scores of very clever people out there working in University and Industry who are truly dedicated to advancing the state of the art in terms of measurement and percpetion.

In short what I am saying is use what 'works', but also, knowing the "why" (from a math and physics perspective) of what works for you is just as important - and will likely open up some additional creative doors.

Last edited by Mark A. Jay; 30th March 2010 at 05:17 AM.. Reason: to correct typographical errors
#39
29th March 2010
Old 29th March 2010
  #39
Width and Placement

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ozpeter View Post
I'm getting the same impression with the binaural recordings linked here. They simply sound far too wide in relation to the acoustic. Like the orchestra is in a great wide horseshoe around you with no player closer than about 30 feet, not in a normal layout at all.
Oz: It's interesting that you say it is "too wide" (if I am reading you correctly. I say this because I suspect that the mannequin was relatively close to the orchestra rather than in a 'typical' (I know, no such thing...) seat in the house. Let me explain

I have recorded a few orchestras (binaurally) and my position is this: The acoustics of the hall, and thus, the placement of the head relative to the orchestra is the single-biggest factor in what one will hear in the binaural recording in terms of separation - and this has much to do with the direct and diffuse fields. I have recorded 'close' (i.e. in pretty much what could be argued as the direct field) to the orchestra as well as in the seats - and the results, depending upon several factors, are vastly different.

In a nutshell, when I recorded on stage, and in the house, the on-stage mannequin had much better separation than did the one in the house, and this is (simply put) because on-stage the mannequin was subjected to what is arguably predominantly the direct field. Were you to compare the stage mannequin to the house mannequin I can see how by contrast, you might find the stage mannequin to be of an exaggerated nature, separation-wise.

By contrast, the head that was placed just a few rows into the house had nowhere near the separation - it was far more amorphous because the space in which that head was placed was more diffuse than direct. So, if you are recording in a lively hall, then the further back you go, the more diffuse will be the field, and in such a case, the separation will tend to collapse in the recording - this makes perfect sense.

Again, my contention is that the 'exaggerated' separation was not exaggerated at all - it is merely what you would have heard had you been seated where the mannequin head was placed. However, since the overwhelming majority of symphonic performances that are in circulation are non-binaural, peoples' expectations are challenged by what they are accustomed to hearing, which isn't binaural and hasn't been recorded close to the Orchestra.

Thus, it can seem artifically wide because it is not what they are used to hearing (binaural) as the recording was made in a location that they have never experienced, or been able to experience, because a listener never has the luxury of hearing the performance from the stage perspective - but in this case, that's what they are hearing.
#40
29th March 2010
Old 29th March 2010
  #40
Lives for gear
 
Piedpiper's Avatar
Great posts. And thanks, Mark, for your earlier response.

If I may, I think Ozpeter already understands everything in your last post. I believe his point was that although it was a close perspective in terms of spread, it gave the impression of distance in terms of the amount of hall sound in relation to direct sound. IOW, the "great wide horseshoe around you" is fine (if you like that sort of thing) as long the closest players seem a lot "closer than about 30 feet".

What I have often had to do to serve my aesthetic in stereo micing situations, especially in non-classical music, is to place the mic a lot closer than the "ideal" audience position and condense the position of the players horizontally so that I get a miniaturization, as it were, of the image, thus getting something of the detail of typical close micing combined with the more naturalistic image of stereo micing. IME, this "miniaturization" expands in playback, especially over speakers. Obviously, in an orchestral situation, condensing the horizontal spread of the players would be an interesting endeavor.
#41
29th March 2010
Old 29th March 2010
  #41
Gear interested
 

comparing binaural and ORTF

Quote:
Originally Posted by Binaural_Mark View Post

Binaural vs ORTF Demo - Real Time
What I have found is that even when you take away the differences due to the frequency response between the microphones used in ORTF and those in the mannequin head, in these A/B B/A demos (where the comparisons are immediate) when it's binaural, you hear the fullness - as though you were 'there' anbd when it switches to ORTF or to XY or anotehr technique, there is still separation, but it just seems 'artificial', and then when you hear the binaural come back, you realize just how stark the contrast between the two approaches can be.
Mark,
Did you use only headphones when comparing your binaural and ORTF recordings? It would seem difficult to make an easy comparison, since you'd need to use headphones for the binaural and speakers for the ORTF.
Excellent samples on your site, btw.
Mike
#42
30th March 2010
Old 30th March 2010
  #42
Lives for gear
 

Don't get the impression that I'm anti-binaural - far from it, I was doing my own experiments 30 years ago (somewhere I have a cassette recorded with a very home-made dummy head attached to my baby daughter's pram as we walked round St James' Park in London - now she has her own kids but doesn't embarrass them the way I did...).

Anyway, I guess I'm saying that insofar as the samples from this thread I've tried so far convey a sense of "being there", I'm not wanting to have my head in that actual place relative to the performance.
#43
30th March 2010
Old 30th March 2010
  #43
Embarassing Our Offspring and Considering the "Ideal" Head-space

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ozpeter View Post
Don't get the impression that I'm anti-binaural - far from it, I was doing my own experiments 30 years ago (somewhere I have a cassette recorded with a very home-made dummy head attached to my baby daughter's pram as we walked round St James' Park in London - now she has her own kids but doesn't embarrass them the way I did...).

Anyway, I guess I'm saying that insofar as the samples from this thread I've tried so far convey a sense of "being there", I'm not wanting to have my head in that actual place relative to the performance.
You're cracking me up! My daughter seems to be wholly embarassed by my willingness to go full-on geek when we are out and about, made doubly worse by the fact that her more technically-minded friends think her dad (i.e., me) is actually a pretty cool guy. I truly don't mind being the butt of some jokes, beacuse I know that some of her friends have asked me questions about sound, waves, and so on that they don't necessarily feel comfortable asking another.

It's funny though - your point about not wanting to hear where the head was located is a good one. I have actually done recordings where I have placed a mannequin in the direct (predominantly so) field and another either in a very diffuse-field location, or in some instaces, at the transition between direct and reverberant fields.

It's amazing to hear the difference in the files, because it's (literally) the exact same performance, only recorded in different locations, and hearing the room acoustics' effects on the recordings is very interesting, and in some cases, very helpful.

Ideally, I would do every gig with multiple heads so that any given perspective would / could be available to the listener. Perhaps one day I will rent the additional wares (the mannequins primarily) and do just that - or maybe (for the other binaural people out there who may be geographically close)...just maybe we could pool our wares and make this happen as a one-off event.

Food for thought.

Once again, I have to say it...I love this site.
#44
30th March 2010
Old 30th March 2010
  #44
ORTF, binaural, headphones, speakers, and A/B Comparisons

Quote:
Originally Posted by rimrock View Post
Mark,
Did you use only headphones when comparing your binaural and ORTF recordings? It would seem difficult to make an easy comparison, since you'd need to use headphones for the binaural and speakers for the ORTF.
Excellent samples on your site, btw.
Mike
'Rock: Thanks for the kudos on the samples on my site. I just added (tonight in fact) some full tracks from a concert I recorded in October of last year at The Ark (Cowboy Junkies). If you want to download the tracks, just pste this into your browser:

ftp://client1.immersifi.com:binaural@immersifi.com

Now, as far as the comparison that I mentioned, yes, I have listened both ways to the demo that I mentioned (binaural vs. ORTF), that is, comparing the sounds both using headphones and speakers but to be fair, most of the comparison was done with headphones, so your point is well taken. I will have to dig those files out and set up a speaker demo as well.

Question: If I could post some A/B B/A comparisons between differing types of microphones, with one type normalized to the other, would anyone out there want me to make them available?

Anyway...it's funny in a way...because I an tell you that like with speakers, the fidelity and also, the type of headphones used (particularly for binaural) also affects the perception. For instance, my daily use headphones are Audio Technica ATH-M50's as well as some Grado 60's, but I also have used the STAX electrostatics and even with 'conventional' material, listening to the STAX sounds so different than any of the closed-back phones I have ever used. Incidentally, it is common in sound quality assessment to use such 'earspeakers' (as STAX calls them).
#45
30th March 2010
Old 30th March 2010
  #45
Gear nut
 

So Mark, am I right, then, that you agree with the conventional wisdom that binaural recordings are really best with headphones and don't offer a significant improvement over loudspeakers? You really seem to know what you're talking about and have a lot of experience, so I'm curious what you think about this.
#46
30th March 2010
Old 30th March 2010
  #46
Not Exactly

Quote:
Originally Posted by marvin100 View Post
So Mark, am I right, then, that you agree with the conventional wisdom that binaural recordings are really best with headphones and don't offer a significant improvement over loudspeakers? You really seem to know what you're talking about and have a lot of experience, so I'm curious what you think about this.
No, I'm not saying that (see post #38 or #39 - I can't recall which number is correct, but it is one of mine).

What I am saying is this: From an aesthetic point of view, whatever tools one chooses to use to create a specific sonic image are valid. Thus, if you want to use binaural as part or all of a speaker-based mix and the Jeklin, XY, ORTF or whatever as part of a headphone mix, then do it. To say that a purely binaural recording should never be played over speakers is like saying that a painter should not use an orange peel as a brush because it isn't a brush; if that particular "brush" helps the artist achieve his or her artistic vision, then it's the right brush for that particular job - even if when someone says 'paint brush', an orange peel does not come to mind.

However, from a perception standpoint, or rather, accuracy of perception then yes, I agree that a purely binaural recording is best heard over headphones due to elimination of crosstalk etc - but this also depends upon the acoustics of the space to some degree.

Let me explain. In the product development sector (those people who test the way a car door slam sounds, or a powered sunroof, or an accessory switch sounds...or for that matter, the sound of that hyper-expensive dishwasher, hair-dryer...or whatever) binaural recording and playback (over headphones) has been the de-facto approach since the early 1990's and in some locales and industries, even sooner. This is because binaural is best at capturing the acoustics of a space (assuming that headphones will be used for playback), and since the acoustics of a space play a major role in what we perceive, it is critical that the jurors (who listen to such sounds) have the most accurate playback so that it mimics what the item would sound like were they seated in the car, or standing in front of the dishwasher.

Put another way, no other typical recording technique (other than binaural) has been adopted by the test, measurement, and instrumentation community for human perception - that is, I have seen precious few test specifications that equate binaural to a stereo technique. For example, you will never see a test specification that reads "place the binaural mannequin head (or equivalently, the XY or ORTF pair) at + 100 mm (x), +240 mm (y), and - 30 mm (z)".

There is a very good reason for this, and it has to do with the spatial and temporal accuracy that binaural affords the recording, and yes, when these product sounds are evaluated, the jurors are all wearing headphones because it is understood that in assessing human response to stimuli, how we respond to stimuli depends upon how the stimuli are presented to us - this tenet is of paramount importance. I'm dead serious when I say that organizations like car companies, appliance manufacturers, or even hand-tool companies have spend enormous sums of money on labs designed to support and execute this sort of acoustical testing and analysis, as well as human perception to sound - and all of them that wish to be taken seriously rely upon binaural recording and playback as part of the design process.

So again, one must consider the aesthetic, preference, the physics, and the math and in the end, use what gets the sonic vision across to the intended audience.

Last edited by Mark A. Jay; 30th March 2010 at 03:09 PM.. Reason: correcting my fat-fingered typographical errors
#47
30th March 2010
Old 30th March 2010
  #47
Lives for gear
 
Plush's Avatar
I do understand the commentary about width in binaural and about apparent listening position. In the recordings for the MSO, I hung the mic differently for many different programs. We made around 75 binaural recordings of different concerts over 3 years. The original recordings were made 24/96, but I hardly think that a careful data reduction to 328 K robs the playback of binaural cues.

The Neumann KU 100 head does sometimes present a super wide stereo picture. This can be very effective in a recording such as a baroque piece with split strings--giving an involving left to right counterpoint to the sound picture. In some positions it is acting merely as a very good stereo mic in typical position.

Since I consider a recording a separate art form from merely imitating what one hears from a good seat in the audience, I find it completely acceptable to present this wider perspective on occasion.

Why are some posters arguing for a documentary approach?

On another point, I posit that it is possible to over think the listening experience with binaural. Is it an involving listening experience? Does it tantalize the ear?

I urge recordists to use the head if they can get hold of one. It is a learning experience. As currently constituted, the KU 100 is a very sophisticated device and by far the best binaural device currently available.
#48
30th March 2010
Old 30th March 2010
  #48
Lives for gear
 
Piedpiper's Avatar
One very common example of how using documentary values when working with stereo width can come into play is when recording/mixing a drum set. I have often found recordings with very exaggerated width on drums to be distracting, taking me out of my musical reverie. I usually strive for a naturalistic approach, balancing creativity with a sense of rightness and ease. Ironically, I find it takes more than an inappropriately strict documentarian approach to achieve a natural result though, as suggested in my earlier post about the need to "miniaturize" the image in anticipation of appropriate "expansion" by speakers.
#49
30th March 2010
Old 30th March 2010
  #49
Gear maniac
 
Mazo Audio's Avatar
 

Dang! You guys here a recording like that and find something to complain about? I thought it was lush, Plush. A new benchmark for me, and I record classical for a living. Not a bad orchestra either. Who knew there was culture in Wisconsin?

I wish I could get the 24/96.
Now that is something I would buy, I'm not that interested in mp3's myself.
#50
30th March 2010
Old 30th March 2010
  #50
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Since I consider a recording a separate art form from merely imitating what one hears from a good seat in the audience, I find it completely acceptable to present this wider perspective on occasion.

Why are some posters arguing for a documentary approach?
Totally a matter of personal taste - and what's required/desired on the particular occasion - I wouldn't for a minute put this in terms of right and wrong, though perhaps one could use 'conventional' and 'unconventional' - and conventions are there to be challenged and questioned!
#51
31st March 2010
Old 31st March 2010
  #51
Gear addict
 
MBishopSFX's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ozpeter View Post
Hmmm. I listened on headphones to several samples of the 'Angels' recording and found the exaggerated width to be very distracting. Not so bad on speakers. I opened some samples in Audition together with a Kings College Cambridge choral recording for comparison, and checking the phase analysis the amount of out-of-phase components in the 'Angels' recordings was very obvious - the 'ball' in the display was often bouncing around in the rear half rather than the front. Using Audition's stereo width effect, and separately the Voxengo MSED VST MS processing effect, it was possible by eye and ear to obtain a similar sound on the Kings College recording by adding about 6dB to the side channel. Or one could add about 6dB to the mid channel of the 'Angels' recording and the perceived width became more 'normal' and the phase display likewise - though the sound was significantly less 'lush' of course.

EDIT

Was the width of this recording manipulated at all, or is what we're hearing more or less the natural image the dummy head produced?
Please don't rely on the really junky MP3 samples on the Concord site for how the recording sounds. They're extremely lossy and the spatial cues are all messed up. There is no exaggeration of L/R on the actual CD - and the imaging was not manipulated in any way. Mastering consisted of adding PQ marks after editing - that's it!

I'll see if I can post a couple of short 16-bit WAV files here tomorrow or so...

.
#52
31st March 2010
Old 31st March 2010
  #52
Good-sounding binaural tracks

Quote:
Originally Posted by MBishopSFX View Post
Please don't rely on the really junky MP3 samples on the Concord site for how the recording sounds. They're extremely lossy and the spatial cues are all messed up. There is no exaggeration of L/R on the actual CD - and the imaging was not manipulated in any way. Mastering consisted of adding PQ marks after editing - that's it!

I'll see if I can post a couple of short 16-bit WAV files here tomorrow or so...

.
Cool. Or, if anyone wants, you can check out the Cowboy Junkies binaural tracks here (paste this string into your browser)

NOTE: (04/20/2010) The Cowboy Junkies tracks are no longer on my FTP site. However, I will add otehr demos / folders / files on a semi-regular basis, so the FTP site shown below will still work - until further notice.

ftp://client1.immersifi.com:binaural@immersifi.com

This should open a broswer window, and after a short wait, will show you all the files - just download what you want.

Or if you prefer, you can use the following with an ftp client:

User Name: client1.immersifi.com
Password: binaural
Domain: immersifi.com

Last edited by Mark A. Jay; 20th April 2010 at 10:18 PM.. Reason: Needed to update status of files (availability).
#53
31st March 2010
Old 31st March 2010
  #53
Gear nut
 

Thanks for all your info, Mark. Very illuminating and sensible, not to mention thoughtfully written.
#54
31st March 2010
Old 31st March 2010
  #54
Smile

Quote:
Originally Posted by marvin100 View Post
Thanks for all your info, Mark. Very illuminating and sensible, not to mention thoughtfully written.
Marvin: You're welcome.

I realize that I can be very wordy at times, and I apologize for that. However, as an electrical engineer who is passionate about sound and pretty much all manner of signal processing issues, it is extremely difficult for me to give a short answer where I feel one won't do (i.e. for complex matters).

Frankly, many of the issues upon which I have chimed in are pretty complex, so I'm glad that you are truly getting something from my technical and philosophical diatribes. I hope others are as well.

Oh well, at least I'll never be accused of 'not caring' about the subject matter...
#55
31st March 2010
Old 31st March 2010
  #55
Gear nut
 

No worries--I strongly prefer complex and thorough to sound-bitey and half-assed.

Thanks to Plush and others as well. I learnededed some stuffs in this here thread.
#56
31st March 2010
Old 31st March 2010
  #56
My mistake

[QUOTE=John Willett;5247177]ORTF *has* to be cardioids and is specified as 17cm and 110 degrees - any other polar-pattern, distance or angle is not ORTF.

Yes, John is right about this. I mis-spoke.

In the original post, I meant to say 'condensors' are most often used as opposed to having said 'cardoids'; cardoids are required by the spec, but one could conceivably use dynamic cardoids...though most rely upon condensors due to their smaller dimensions (shorter bodies, which makes a flat-elevation ORTF bar easier to achieve than would otherwise be possible with dynamic cardiods). Thus, my (now corrected) comment that 'cardoids are most often used'; I got ahead of myself when I wrote that thread.

Mark
#57
31st March 2010
Old 31st March 2010
  #57
Lives for gear
 
Big_Bang's Avatar
 

Please enlighten me as I a "high on binaurals" loool...


If you have a pair of condenser omins fixed to a dummyhead, wont the anti-phase section of the mic be tangent, if not inside, the dummy head?

Wont this pick up muffled low end vibrations, or really really early unwanted negative relfections on the X axis? Is that in fact desirable, because if so, the next step is to produce skin-like-mechanical-conductive fabric to cover the dummiy's hard surface, for an extra degree of reality.

It just seems "logical" to use cardioid or even hyper-cardioid to it pick up everything from the outer world and reject "false" internal material ?
#58
31st March 2010
Old 31st March 2010
  #58
Kinda-sorta-mostly-in-a-way-but-not-really

Quote:
Originally Posted by Big_Bang View Post
Please enlighten me as I a "high on binaurals" loool...

If you have a pair of condenser omins fixed to a dummyhead, wont the anti-phase section of the mic be tangent, if not inside, the dummy head?

Wont this pick up muffled low end vibrations, or really really early unwanted negative relfections on the X axis? Is that in fact desirable, because if so, the next step is to produce skin-like-mechanical-conductive fabric to cover the dummiy's hard surface, for an extra degree of reality.

It just seems "logical" to use cardioid or even hyper-cardioid to it pick up everything from the outer world and reject "false" internal material ?
I know that the surface of the mannequin (that is, its "skin" and its 'smoothness") can play a role in what the microphones effectively measure (as a function of frequency), but largely, the polar response of the mannequin mics are controlled by the ear canal, the pinnae, and the shadowing effects of the head.

Thus, a binaural response is not omni, nor is it cardioid, nor is it hyper-cardiod, nor is it stereo; the polar response is far more complicated than the others (ORTF, XY etc) due to the geometry and presence of the ears and the mannequin head proper.

You can read my previous posts on those subjects (post #3, and #6 for example) for a bit more clarification. There are some other very worthwhile posts on this thread about that, but you might also want to look into published works on binaural and the associated head-related transfer function (HRTF) and its importance in terms of human perception.

Also, please remember that the microphone elements are not merely on the side of a mannequin head but rather, placed inside of the ear canals - a very important detail.

If you want to hear what a live binaural recording sounds like, check out some of the ones that people have suggested in the 'favorite binaural recordings' post.

OK, I promise...I'll start looking for my ORTF vs binaural real time demo material and get some posted. I just need time...
#59
31st March 2010
Old 31st March 2010
  #59
Lives for gear
 
Big_Bang's Avatar
 



You got me... I didnt read the whole thread, but I promiss I will.

And THANK YOU for the tips on them books! Been looking to get some!! thankssss!!

I am extremely interested in binaurals, but for completely non-musical applications. I am also extensively knoweledgeable on the psycho-acoustic phenomena resulting. right now its the pure engineering of the recording process. I have extensively heard binaural recordings to an extent that my mixing skills have gone throught the roof! I have much more perception correlating drum, playing with phase on guitars, vocal and fx etc..

Me want to DIY a dummy

But this is what I am getting at. If the mic is inside the dummyhead, and there is but 1 point of entry to the mic's membrane, plus the polar pattern is skewed by the fake ear and cannal... what the point of having and omni?

Isnt it logical to use a hyper-cardioid condenser?

Whats left over is mechanical vibration, that properly mounted will certainly hit the membrane. Different timings to each microphone would even increase "delta T" perception.

BUT (this is my logic working up on me) ...

If its omni, the preassure gradient on the negative X (membrane facing inside dummy) axis would cancel the opposing positive axis (ear canal membrane), thus canceling (to an extent) the mic's response to that frequency. If you take into account the opposing microfone, the effect could be higher.

If it were hypercardioid, this would be by far less prominent, and whatever inter-microfone cancelations would highten perception...

wooof, I tired myself with my reasoning hope its not too confusing...
#60
28th April 2010
Old 28th April 2010
  #60
I don't know how I missed these...

Quote:
Originally Posted by MBishopSFX View Post
I've used the KU-100 on a couple of hundred major orchestral and small group (including jazz and blues) recording sessions. I love this mic and am amazed at all the uses I've found for ol' Fritz over the years. On orchestral sessions, the KU-100 is the center "stereo pair" with omni outriggers and other mics added as needed. I've used the KU-100 in that position simply because the imaging it achieves cannot be matched by other stereo mic techniques. The KU-100 has also made a terrific drum kit overhead "pair."

The vast majority of my sessions are not considered to be binaural because of the additional mics employed. Here are a few projects in which the KU-100 was the sole pickup. These are binaural recordings that play best in headphones, but are also successful on speakers.

Delta Crossroads : Robert Lockwood, Jr. : Concord Music Group

From The Isles To The Courts : Ensemble Galilei : Concord Music Group

Angeli Music Of Angels : Ensemble P.A.N. With Tapestry : Concord Music Group

.
Seriously, I don't know how I missed auditioning the tracks, but I just did. I think they sound wonderful, truly.

It's interesting that you mention a KU 100 being used as an overhead pair on the drum kit. I remember, years ago, trading email with Terry Bozzio, and we spoke about binaural. He mentioned that Frank (Zappa) did the same thing over the kit back in the day, though Terry did not recall which tracks etc.

I'm very fond indeed of the sound and personality that is the KU-100, and it's nice to see it being put to such realistic yet artistic use.

Well done.
New Reply Submit Thread to Facebook Facebook  Submit Thread to Twitter Twitter  Submit Thread to LinkedIn LinkedIn  Submit Thread to Google+ Google+ 
 
Thread Tools
Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Similar Threads
Thread
Thread Starter / Forum
Replies
Nu-tra / Remote Possibilities in Acoustic Music & Location Recording
13
MeatPye / Music Computers
0
sourceslut / Remote Possibilities in Acoustic Music & Location Recording
17
octatonic / Q & A with Tchad Blake
25
jbuntz / Remote Possibilities in Acoustic Music & Location Recording
11

Forum Jump
 
Register FAQ Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

SEO by vBSEO ©2011, Crawlability, Inc.