Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Jørn Bonne]

Bump!!


Yannick Willox wrote on June 13, 2004:

However, this immediately exposes THE big drawback : one should play blumlein recordings on speakers that are spaced 90 degrees instead of 60 ! (a good blumlein recording on a normal speaker setup sounds great, if you space the speakers 90 degrees it sounds 'real')

How about modifying the Blumlein setup and use an inclusive angle of 60 degrees instead of 90? I've tried it recording steel string guitar from about a foot away. Seems to work allright with a rather narrow soundstage like that. Any comments on potential problems?

Thanks

J

[Yannick Willox]

There seems to be a consensus that crossed eights should be 90 degrees only, however we regularly use two bidirectionals in an MS configuration. Varying the S signal doesn't seem to have obvious drawbacks (in most situations). This is basically the same as physically changing the angle.
Making the angle bigger (adding S signal) tends to give too much out of phase information.

If it sounds right, it must be right ?

[ted nightshade]

I'd like it if everybody had their stereo speakers at a 60 degree angle, but they're liable to be pretty much any way at all...

[amit]

hi, was listening to "kamara musicin native tounges" by waterlilly records. they claim to have done the recoding by blumlein. i do not know if u have heard it, but the guitas and vocals sound much louder than the violin {played karnatic style} and the indian percussion, mridangam, sounds a lot lower. now, i have never used the technique and do not know what  went wrong there but could it be that the 2 guitar players{also singing} were sitting on stools and the indian players sitting on the ground{as they usually do} made so much of a difference in the recording levels?4 people should not be that difficult to record, i am puzzled by it.

Dear anonymous poster:

1. Please unblock you PM.
2. Please only post with your full, real name, and insert it into your post and profile (as per ground rules of this forum)

Thanks, K.H. (this note will be removed as soon as you have complied)

[Barry Hufker]

I am not familiar with that recording, but it could be the singers were closer than the other instruments.  I would think the producer/engineer would have thought carefully about the "soundstage" and musical balance when recording.  I can only assume that how you hear it is how they meant if to sound.

Stereo is supposed to be three dimensional.  All too often the concept of "depth" is left out of modern recordings.  I would say that as long as the instruments are in the proper balance (and maybe you're suggesting they aren't), then it is a nice change to have musicians close and far.  That's how you would have heard them in a live performance.

Barry

[Future_One]

Lots of good knowledge in this thread.

Cheers,



Mark Sloane

[Klaus Heyne]

Barry Hufker wrote on Tue, 17 May 2005 04:28

Stereo is supposed to be three dimensional.

Correct me if I am wrong, but I was under the impression that a conventional 2-channel recording cannot render a three-dimensional image, only the illusion of one.

Such illusion is fairly well recreated psycho-acoustically with binaural headphones, after binaural (ear canal-like) treatment before the sound waves enter the microphone capsules (dummy head, f. ex.)
But any true three-dimensional rendering would require more than two recording channels and more than two playback channels/speakers.