Yes. Roll away the acoustic shells and eliminate things that make noise.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sir Terrence the Terrible
So "most likely" is now "history". Your story gets embellished with each telling. BTW, an ellipsis has three dots.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sir Terrence the Terrible
That is, however, one more time than you. I observe. You speculate.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sir Terrence the Terrible
Your opinion and that of Mr. Bruill so noted.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sir Terrence the Terrible
Less costly, no doubt. Why bother spending big money for the 2% market after you've already made 170+ recordings? There is a difference between what can or has been done and what is considered cost effective in today's market.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sir Terrence the Terrible
Music Lover vs Audiophile
Printable View
-
06-11-2012, 01:59 PME-Stat
-
06-11-2012, 02:33 PMSir Terrence the TerribleThat is what he did when YOU were there at that ONE recording, Great, meaningless in another hall with different acoustics, different music, and different orchestra.Quote:
Originally Posted by E-Stat
Embellished. Right Ralph, I have heard him speak enough about his approach to recording to know he has a history of doing exactly what I state. His three microphone approach would not work otherwiseQuote:
So "most likely" is now "history". Your story gets embellished with each telling. BTW, an ellipsis has three dots.
Whatever Ralph. Whatever you saw him do live, he will have altered to fit to a different venue. So what you saw is meaningless, as it would be different in a different hall. As I have stated before, I heard him say that he puts down "planks" over seats to increase the RT of the hall. I have heard him state that he has removed seats and moved the orchestra into the hall. I have heard him say he puts blankets over seats and floors to "soak" up echo's and decrease reverberation time. I heard him state these things, so I don't have to be there to see him do it. There is no speculation here, it came from the horses mouth.Quote:
That is, however, one more time than you. I observe. You speculate.
My opinion happens to fit the comment.Quote:
Your opinion and that of Mr. Bruill so noted.
That is because technology and a better understanding of digital audio makes the three microphone approach obsolete. You get the same high quality without the cost of altering the venue to fit your recording practices. 170 recordings is a drop in the bucket when compared to all of the recordings produced over the last 50 years.Quote:
Less costly, no doubt. Why bother spending big money for the 2% market after you've already made 170+ recordings? There is a difference between what can or has been done and what is considered cost effective in today's market.
Ralph, it is very dishonest to parse quotes. If you are going to repeat a comment, repeat the whole thing. -
06-11-2012, 02:53 PME-StatHave you already forgotten what you said fewer than two hours ago? You must meet lots of new people. Here, let me assist your memory:Quote:
Originally Posted by Sir Terrence the Terrible
Most likely the same kinds of things he did in Cleveland and other places he has recorded.
"Most likely" became history in the mere space of two hours! How long was that fish? :)
Actually, he used five in Atlanta. The other two were back in the audience area a bit.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sir Terrence the Terrible
You are doing exactly what you chastise me for - extrapolating the experience of one instance to all. It seems logical that he would adapt to different settings differently. It is you who made the unsupported blanket statement.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sir Terrence the Terrible
The introductory clause:Quote:
Originally Posted by Sir Terrence the Terrible
"I am sure this is why Concord Music broke up Telarc's recording team"
in no way changes the meaning of the significant part of your statement:
"...it was too expensive to keep the three microphone approach when there are other less costly ways of recording without sacrificing quality."
I agree completely with your explanation. I'm fully aware that the best way to create realistic sounding stereo recordings is not the cheapest way! Telarc was most certainly not a "me-too" label. Nor are others like Reference Recordings or Windham Hill who also choose minimal miking and very limited processing. -
06-14-2012, 02:58 PMSir Terrence the TerribleMost likely means that there is a very high probability. Based on his lectures and the pictures he has shown of his recording sites at AES, I know that I am right. In this case it is not such a stretch to go from high probably to history based on listening to him, and those pictures.Quote:
Originally Posted by E-Stat
Oh so now three has become five. Thank you so much for making my point. Once again Ralph, without a standard, minimalist miking is nothing more than a floating target that means different things to different people. Basically, he uses what he needs to get the job done - however many it takes. Three works for one location, five another. Bishop uses four to start, and as many as seven. I know other engineers that use 7 to start, and upwards of 12. All call themselves "minimal mike" recordists.Quote:
Actually, he used five in Atlanta. The other two were back in the audience area a bit.
A blanket statement supported by lectures and pictures. Can't get any more precise than that can you? Yu have shown ZERO evidence that supports an idea that minimalist recording practices are directly tied to sound quality.Quote:
You are doing exactly what you chastise me for - extrapolating the experience of one instance to all. It seems logical that he would adapt to different settings differently. It is you who made the unsupported blanket statement.
Creating realistic sounding stereo recordings does not have to be expensive either - and I am sure Concord music found that out.Quote:
The introductory clause:
"I am sure this is why Concord Music broke up Telarc's recording team"
in no way changes the meaning of the significant part of your statement:
"...it was too expensive to keep the three microphone approach when there are other less costly ways of recording without sacrificing quality."
I agree completely with your explanation. I'm fully aware that the best way to create realistic sounding stereo recordings is not the cheapest way! Telarc was most certainly not a "me-too" label. Nor are others like Reference Recordings or Windham Hill who also choose minimal miking and very limited processing.
I found it pretty ironic that all of these companies are independent record labels possibly looking for a market differentiation slant to separate themselves from the larger labels. There is zero evidence that ties the amount of microphones used in a recording to its sound quality. Zero, considering that there have been plenty of high quality recording made with a "forest" of microphones.
Once again I am going to pose this question to you since you seem to so firmly believe that Renner's approach is the only approach(or those like it) to getting a high quality recording. Based on what you learned in ONE recording session with Renner, how would you record 1300 singers, a 110 piece orchestra. a 10 piece band which includes electronic instruments and soloists in a 8,000 seat auditorium that is highly reverberant with a high ceiling. You do not have the option of customizing the room, you have to take what you have. Now I am sure since you so directly tie the amount of microphones with sound quality, you will have a very creative approach - I mean after all you have this whole recording thing down pat. Please trying not doing the fox trot around this answer like you have previously. -
06-14-2012, 07:17 PME-StatYour speculation remains...speculation.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sir Terrence the Terrible
I will be happy to discuss anything I've actually said. Arguing with your imagination is quite pointless. At the expense of confusing the issue with facts, I have mentioned mike count using two references: single digit and a range. Hint: three is not to be found.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sir Terrence the Terrible
You've mentioned Cleveland. Tell us how he "reconstructed" the Royal Festival Hall. How about in Prague? San Francisco?Quote:
Originally Posted by Sir Terrence the Terrible
You still don't understand the concept of "preference". Others do not share your opinion.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sir Terrence the Terrible
Only to those who have heard them.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sir Terrence the Terrible
The only reference I've made is to a stereo recording. Understand the difference?Quote:
Originally Posted by Sir Terrence the Terrible
Have never heard such a recording. The compromises must be numerous!Quote:
Originally Posted by Sir Terrence the Terrible
-
06-18-2012, 11:56 AMSir Terrence the TerribleIt is speculation until it is supported by pictures and a lecture from the horses mouth. After that it becomes fact.Quote:
Originally Posted by E-Stat
So your whole argument is meaningless without defining EXACTLY what minimal miking is. Anything between 1-9 is not a definition. You are now hedging, because a single digit and a range defines absolutely nothing. I think you avoid specifics because there aren't any. Minimalist miking has no definition.Quote:
I will be happy to discuss anything I've actually said. Arguing with your imagination is quite pointless. At the expense of confusing the issue with facts, I have mentioned mike count using two references: single digit and a range. Hint: three is not to be found.
Not relevant to this discussion. You love to introduce mud to clear water. Though I can tell you what he did in San Francisco, it is majoring in minors.Quote:
You've mentioned Cleveland. Tell us how he "reconstructed" the Royal Festival Hall. How about in Prague? San Francisco?
I understand preference, I just don't like it referenced as the only way to get good sound. Others do not share my opinion? What, did you ask all of the others? I think most everyone that actually records music shares my opinion, and I think you are full of it. My opinion is you use exactly what you need to get the job done, It does not matter if it takes 3 or 60 time aligned(with individual A/D conversion) microphones, you use what gets the job done.Quote:
You still don't understand the concept of "preference". Others do not share your opinion.
This is a subjective as well...equals meaningless. Some people can't hear very well.Quote:
Only to those who have heard them.
Regardless of stereo or surround the amount of microphones used in a recording is not going to determine sound quality. Understand this?Quote:
The only reference I've made is to a stereo recording. Understand the difference?
I don't care if you have never heard one, I asked you to apply what concepts you learned from a single recording session to this scenario. Prove that you can accomplish this with your single digit or range of microphones since you think this is the only way to go. This question has been posed to you at least twice now, and you still refuse to answer the question. This tells me clearly you can't because you don't have the experience or know how. In other words, you bullshyte and that is it.Quote:
Have never heard such a recording. The compromises must be numerous!
I didn't have to make any compromises because I had plenty of experience recording in the place, and had plenty of pre-production and rehearsal time to iron things out - not to mention the right equipment and great staff. You assume too much as usual.
Ralph, you are running out of one liners.......and beginning to bore me. -
06-18-2012, 12:08 PME-StatClearly, you don't understand the concept.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sir Terrence the Terrible
I didn't really expect any substantiation from you.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sir Terrence the Terrible
Such is obvious to anyone who has read this thread.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sir Terrence the Terrible
Your memory lapses are becoming more frequent.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sir Terrence the Terrible
-
06-18-2012, 12:35 PMSir Terrence the Terrible
Okay, this is devolved into majoring in minors. Ralph..give it up.
-
06-18-2012, 12:57 PME-StatIf everyone shared your opinions and preferences as to what constitutes the best sounding recordings, we'd all be listening to something resembling your sig sound system.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sir Terrence the Terrible
Such is clearly not the case for the obvious reasons. Why you cannot understand that concept is beyond me. -
06-19-2012, 11:03 AMSir Terrence the TerribleStill babbling Ralph? Give it up, you have completely failed to tie the amount of microphones used in a recording to sound quality. Outside of making this point, you are just swirling shyte in a circle.Quote:
Originally Posted by E-Stat
-
06-19-2012, 11:13 AME-StatOnly to you. There have been many successful record labels who find otherwise.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sir Terrence the Terrible
-
06-19-2012, 11:57 AMSir Terrence the TerribleAnother diffusive air sandwich. More empty comments that make no connection to sound quality and microphone count. More dancing, more deflection.Quote:
Originally Posted by E-Stat
Recording quality audio is a series of processes, and it takes the whole series of processes to get that quality. Your profound ignorance of the recording process has allowed you to be tripped up by marketing hype of microphone count, when that is just one part of the process. Renner says its the quality of microphones, cables, mixing board, microphone placement, acoustics of the site that make the quality of recording so good(and I agree), and you have narrowed it down to just the microphones.
Give it up, you are bankrupt..... -
06-19-2012, 12:01 PME-StatWhat's to give up? That you don't accept the practices of many engineers before you? That is readily apparent.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sir Terrence the Terrible
Don't really care. -
06-19-2012, 12:06 PMSir Terrence the TerribleMore assumptions and proof that either you are a complete idiot, or your ego just won't let you go. The common practice of the best engineers before me was to use whatever you needed to get the job done. That includes the necessary amount of microphones, and the use of high quality equipment behind them. I have embraced this practice since the first time I recorded audio, so your comment screams of pure bullshyte.Quote:
Originally Posted by E-Stat
Give it up Ralph, you have no legs here. -
06-19-2012, 12:16 PME-StatReading the liner notes as to how and why albums were recorded the way they were, speaking at length with Renner and others from the ASO assumes nothing.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sir Terrence the Terrible
Why are you so bitter? Is it because your dear multi-channel world is only a curiosity to the music industry? Does using crude language make you feel better? Perhaps you're like Mash who is convinced only he is a happy person.
Really sad. -
06-19-2012, 02:34 PMSir Terrence the TerribleWhat is sad is liner notes is not experience, and talking is not experience. Your problem is you lack experience and knowledge on the subject, and it makes you post ignorant comments like you have.Quote:
Originally Posted by E-Stat
Now you are such a low class gutter snipe individual, that you make a feeble attempt turn to your lack of knowledge and experience into a psychological assessment of me. Deflection on steroids. Every time your statements back you into a corner, you change the subject.
You don't know if I am bitter, or just tired of talking to an apparent idiot. You don't know a damn thing about me. So stop the faking and the BS and move on. When it comes to recording audio, you don't know your ass from a hole in the ground. Just sit in your chair in front of your panel and enjoy the recordings, and refrain from talking about how they are made. You look like a fool when you do.
Suddenly a two day recording session and a piece of paper now equal experience and knowledge. WTF!!! -
06-19-2012, 02:42 PME-StatWhile I enjoy listening to the music of Harry Potter soundtracks, this video explains the "containerized" and unnaturally forward sound of some of the instruments.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sir Terrence the Terrible
<object width="420" height="315"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/MoHWzwAbJug?version=3&hl=en_US"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/MoHWzwAbJug?version=3&hl=en_US" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="420" height="315" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true"></embed></object> -
06-21-2012, 06:52 PMSir Terrence the Terrible
Sir T sticks his head in the room looking for evidence of a direct correlation between the amount of microphones, and sound quality....unsurprisingly, he does not find that evidence. See a lot of irrelevant stuff, but no direct evidence.
He leaves the room not entirely disappointed.......or surprised. -
06-21-2012, 07:00 PMSir Terrence the TerribleRalph, you are really desperate here. This video A) does not explain what you say it does, B) is not a print master or even a rough edit of the 5.1 score, C) is a low resolution two channel file which is a piss poor example of the final soundtrack encoded to Bluray. You don't even know if the recording is from the camera, or from some external microphones(highly unlikely) Try listening to the Bluray disc, rather than picking such a poor example. You will find it sounds nothing like this, and perhaps you will figure out just what a poor example you chose to represent your point. A youtube clip of the score will never sound like the 24/48khz lossless track on the Bluray.Quote:
Originally Posted by E-Stat
Your desperation is so profoundly apparent you should be embarrassed. The only thing this shows is how poor the audio encode is for this video, or how bad data reduced low bit rate lossy audio sounds. Nothing more. -
06-22-2012, 06:21 AME-StatIt illustrates the point perfectly.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sir Terrence the Terrible
It is exactly what it says it is - one of the scoring sessions you end up hearing on the soundtrack, piped in chorus and all. I have both the movie (special BR edition no less!) and the soundtrack.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sir Terrence the Terrible
I think it is pretty funny that you think I'm commenting strictly on the sound of the Youtube video! I'm certainly not referring to when you hear this segment in the movie either - amongst the thunder and all the noise of the mayhem wrought by the flying dementors. I refer to the music. Have you ever listened to the soundtrack?
The Soundtrack
What the video clearly illustrates is why the close miked tympani sound like they don't belong to the orchestra. On the soundtrack. The Only Way to Listen to This Music. You hear this not only with "Opening", aka 1M1, but in other cuts as well like "Dumbledore's Foreboding". -
06-22-2012, 09:19 AMSir Terrence the TerribleIf your point was to BS, then yes it made the point perfectly. If the point was an attempt to save face because you have not made ANY point, then you were a miserable failure. Youtube videos are not the place to evaluate the sound quality of ANY soundtrack.Quote:
Originally Posted by E-Stat
One problem, you don't know if the take we saw in the video is actually the take used on the soundtrack CD or the movie itself. Do you see how your ignorance is killing you? Probably not.....Quote:
It is exactly what it says it is - one of the scoring sessions you end up hearing on the soundtrack, piped in chorus and all. I have both the movie (special BR edition no less!) and the soundtrack.
No, I don't listen to soundtracks on CD. Are you aware there is a different mix for the CD, and for the Bluray release? Do you realize the CD is a mixdown from the original 5.1 source? Do you realize a soundtrack designed for 5.1 will sound completely different when mixdown to two channels?Quote:
I think it is pretty funny that you think I'm commenting strictly on the sound of the Youtube video! I'm certainly not referring to when you hear this segment in the movie either - amongst the thunder and all the noise of the mayhem wrought by the flying dementors. I refer to the music. Have you ever listened to the soundtrack?
The Soundtrack
Sorry, but the CD is not the way to hear ANY film score. Film scores for the last decade have been mostly recorded at 24/48khz, and most recently mostly 24/96khz and optimized for a 5.1 or 7.1 A 16/44.1khz two channel mixdown of that will have noticeable degradation when compared to the original printmaster, and will not have the spatial accuracy of the original printmaster. Last time I checked, a 5.1 mix does not sound anything like a 2.0 mix. So what sounds close on the CD, will definitely not sound so close in 5.1 because the spatial characteristics of the two are quite different. We have been through this before with AvatarQuote:
What the video clearly illustrates is why the close miked tympani sound like they don't belong to the orchestra. On the soundtrack. The Only Way to Listen to This Music. You hear this not only with "Opening", aka 1M1, but in other cuts as well like "Dumbledore's Foreboding".
http://forums.audioreview.com/home-t...ons-32888.html
You are repeating the same mistake here that you did there. Using the CD as a reference to a film score is a mistake from the very start. Film scores were designed to accompany a picture, not designed to be sold as a CD. -
06-22-2012, 10:09 AME-StatObviously. What is does quite well is illustrate the recording environment. It was the pictures that told the story.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sir Terrence the Terrible
Perhaps they were trying to deliberately mislead us as to the environment where the music was recorded. Once the cameras were off, they moved the timpani out of the booth into the main area. I'll bet you now claim that to be fact. LOL!Quote:
Originally Posted by Sir Terrence the Terrible
Now I understand why you don't have the foggiest idea as to what I refer.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sir Terrence the Terrible
Here in the real world of buying music, we choose among what is available. That is THE soundtrack, warts and all. Different acoustic environments for each instrument or not.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sir Terrence the Terrible
It is the music industry that should be sorry. The general public has no choice in the matter. Evidently, those who mix the stereo soundtracks don't know any better.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sir Terrence the Terrible
Call me crazy, but I would rather listen to a wide range of wonderful music by composers like Bernard Hermann, Jerry Goldsmith, John Williams, James Horner, Hans Zimmer, Alan Silvestri, and Alexander Desplat on what is available rather than not enjoying their talent at all.
You may choose to avoid them completely. -
06-22-2012, 11:36 AMSir Terrence the TerribleWhen speaking of audio, a picture of a recording environment tells nothing about the outcome of the sound quality. So this is another fail among many in telling anything, let alone a story. I thought we were talking about microphone count being tied to sound quality? Damn you can dance....Quote:
Originally Posted by E-Stat
Perhaps YOU were trying to mislead us by using this video as an example of a point. More deflection.Quote:
Perhaps they were trying to deliberately mislead us as to the environment where the music was recorded. Once the cameras were off, they moved the timpani out of the booth into the main area. I'll bet you now claim that to be fact. LOL!
And what you are using as a reference is not really a reference at all. Once again, you are walking forward facing backwards.Quote:
Now I understand why you don't have the foggiest idea as to what I refer.
This is a stereo version of a 5.1 soundtrack. Either you are blind as hell, or you lie like a rug. In the video I didn't notice that each instrument was in a different acoustical environment. I saw a timpani that was isolated to prevent bleeding into other microphones, but all of the remaining instruments were in the same room. If a person has to mislead, then their point must be pretty damn weak.Quote:
Here in the real world of buying music, we choose among what is available. That is THE soundtrack, warts and all. Different acoustic environments for each instrument or not.
Don't blame those who mix the stereo soundtrack. Blame yourself for using a poor example to make your point. More deflection here.Quote:
It is the music industry that should be sorry. The general public has no choice in the matter. Evidently, those who mix the stereo soundtracks don't know any better.
What the hell does this comment have to do with the topic at hand? Nothing.Quote:
Call me crazy, but I would rather listen to a wide range of wonderful music by composers like Bernard Hermann, Jerry Goldsmith, John Williams, James Horner, Hans Zimmer, Alan Silvestri, and Alexander Desplat on what is available rather than not enjoying their talent at all.
You may choose to avoid them completely.
So back to the point. Where is your evidence that ties microphone count to sound quality? -
06-22-2012, 12:07 PME-StatMore importantly, I can observe. Putting a box around a set of timpani and close miking them will sound different than if the kit is situated as you normally find them in the orchestra and not separately miked.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sir Terrence the Terrible
Anything can serve as a point of reference. It is clear you do not understand the sonic characteristic to which I refer.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sir Terrence the Terrible
Yes, that "bleeding" is a quite natural consequence of what we hear in a normal concert hall. Shared ambience.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sir Terrence the Terrible
I really have no expectation that multi-channel music will ever be more than the 2% curiosity it is now as determined by the music industry.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sir Terrence the Terrible
Regardless of whether or not listening to THE two channel soundtrack is "the best way", IT IS THE ONLY WAY. You argue about angels dancing on the head of a pin. My observations have always been about existing recordings and their foibles.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sir Terrence the Terrible
Joe and I (among others) must necessarily have different perspectives of the numerous factors that constitute sound quality than do you. Such is obvious by the different choices we make with our systems. There is no single answer.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sir Terrence the Terrible
No recording completely replicates the original event. All fail. Some fail in different ways than others. A few provide natural perspective while most don't. Some miking techniques affect perspective in a way you can't "fix" afterwards.
I remain amazed that as a recording engineer you don't understand such a simple concept.
Sheesh! -
06-22-2012, 02:58 PMSir Terrence the TerribleMost Orchestras don't record in scoring studios right? A timpani will sound different in different rooms no matter how you mike them. Once again you are majoring in minors, and are trying to deflect from the issue at hand.Quote:
Originally Posted by E-Stat
So, and MP3 can be used as a point of reference for high sound quality? Anything cannot serve as a reference when the objective is well defined. High quality sound is the objective, and only high quality examples should be used as a reference. You failed in this respect using youtube.Quote:
Anything can serve as a point of reference. It is clear you do not understand the sonic characteristic to which I refer.
Well, this was not a concert hall, it was a scoring stage. Concert hall concerts don't support pictures, and film scores really should not be separated from its video or film counterpart. Bleeding is not welcomed on film score recordings as it is recording an orchestra sans video. Do you often fry chicken with tupperware?Quote:
Yes, that "bleeding" is a quite natural consequence of what we hear in a normal concert hall. Shared ambience.
More deflection and not relevant to the topic at hand. So were is this evidence of microphone count equals high quality sound?Quote:
I really have no expectation that multi-channel music will ever be more than the 2% curiosity it is now as determined by the music industry.
Multichannel music is found on every film track recorded in the last two decades. So in film and video(of which you used as an example) it is quite a bit more than 2% - it is more like 99%. Film scores do not come from the music industry, they come for the studios and are distributed by music companies.
If it is not the best way to listen to it, then it should not be used as an example to make a point. The CD is not representative of the best way to hear a FILM SCORE. The CD uses a different master, with different equalization, designed for a different format, and mixed by different people on different equipment than where the FILM SCORE was originally recorded and optimized for. You are comparing apples and pears even if the track was sourced from the same recording event.Quote:
Regardless of whether or not listening to THE two channel soundtrack is "the best way", IT IS THE ONLY WAY. You argue about angels dancing on the head of a pin. My observations have always been about existing recordings and their foibles.
Here we go with the co-signing as if this makes a point legit.Quote:
Joe and I (among others) must necessarily have different perspectives of the numerous factors that constitute sound quality than do you. Such is obvious by the different choices we make with our systems. There is no single answer.
No sound system completely replicates the original event. The stereo format is a complete fail in this area. The fact that you have to use speakers that scatters reflections everywhere to create artificial reflections to give the format a sense of (fake) ambience is really telling.Quote:
No recording completely replicates the original event. All fail. Some fail in different ways than others. A few provide natural perspective while most don't. Some miking techniques affect perspective in a way you can't "fix" afterwards.
Stereo cannot provide a natural perspective because it is not a spatially correct format in the first place. Ambience should come from behind YOU, not from behind the SPEAKERS.
Now, cut the dance Ralph. Where is the evidence that ties the amount of microphones directly to sound quality? You have skirted around this now for more than two pages, so just when are you going to directly answer the question?
You are so full of shyte, you should just explode. You really need to stop making stupid statements like this if you expect me to take you seriously.Quote:
I remain amazed that as a recording engineer you don't understand such a simple concept.
Sheesh!
I am amazed as a person who made a very direct claim, cannot support that claim with any evidence whatsoever - and yet has spent two pages dancing every which way but loose.