From: gmw1@cunixa.cc.columbia.edu (Gabe M Wiener)
Subject: Re: Dat recording and processing
Reply-To: gmw1@cunixa.cc.columbia.edu (Gabe M Wiener)
Organization: Columbia University
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 1992 05:04:07 GMT

In article <1992Aug13.040400.587@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu> gburton@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Garland O Burton) writes:
>
>there are reasons to use physics and principles of acoustics.  sometimes        professionals need to see where the mics should be before the recording
>ever happens.  we don't always have our luxury of annoying musicians with,
>"wait a minute, this isnt the right spot. let me try again."

What the heck does recording on-the-fly have to do with principles of
physics?  Sure, anyone doing recording has to know what saound is going
to do in a given space, or at least be able to make an educated guess,
but no one (or at least no working recordist that I have ever met) 
consciously applies physics when setting up a rig (except, perhaps, 
to make sure the microphone stand doesn't fall over).

When you record live, you very often eyeball a lot of things, based on
your experience in similar situations.  Is the place overtly live?
Is one part of the room eating your sound?  Even if you don't have time
for a rehearsal, you can get a lot out of *being* in the room before
the concert starts and listening to the ambient sound, or to the room's
response to (your own) human voice.  I like to applaud vigorously and see
what the decay does.  If I have an assistant working with me, I send him
to different points and check what the sound does as he shouts (or 
whispers) across the room as I listen.


>you might have that luxury, but I do not.

How much recording have you actually *done* ??  Sometimes you have the
luxury of two weeks of rehearsals.  Sometimes the hall opens at 7:00 and
the conductor takes the rostrum at 7:30.


>sure, there are obvious positions in a room that can be seen by sight, but to   really fine tune the sistuation, you had better leard the most basic law of
>acoustics.  some day, soon, you might post the critical distance solution.
>I am sure you can find it in a book.

Excuse me, but why would I *want* to post it?  Location recording is not a
pure science, and a book does not a recordist make.  Sure, there are useful
references and formulae to be found in Woram and Eargle and Dickreiter, but
they only get you so far.  They only provide a certain amount of useful 
information.  Eventually you learn *why* those formulae have validity...and
you learn what happens to the *sound* when you exceed their parameters.
The working recordist learns that formulae are not all that necessary in
the field, becuase the same information can be derived with one's ears.
Once the signal passes through A/D and is scrawled out on tape, the only
thing that matters is how it sounds.  Working engineers know this, and
concentrate on making it sound good, not making it textbook perfect.

>do not make fun of things you do not understand, or eventually those things
>will make fun of you.

I am going to stay up nights tossing and turning, afraid that the critical
distance formula (which I know very well) is going to make fun of me.

>there are rules. learn them.  experiencing the wrong methods will eat your 
>lunch at the most inappropriate times.

What are you babbling about?  There are rules in the classroom.  There
are rules in the textbook.  When you go out into the field, there are
no rules.  There is no more by-the-book....not if you want a good recording.
You do what works...what sounds good.  Rules are great in a perfect 
environment.  I've never recorded in one of those...I don't think 
anyone has.  When you go out on a job, you take what rules you think are
going to make for a good-sounding recording and you use them.  The rest
you throw away for the moment. 

Rules provide a good benchmark, a good starting point.  But the best
recordings in this world are not made by someone throwing up a pair 
of coincident cardioids because some textbook told him that it was the
best way to record.  Learn to use your ears.  Your recordings will be
that much the better for it.

>I hope you are joking about your methods.  they wont cut it in the 
>professional world.

They've been cutting it in the professional world for many, many years.
Ask any of my clients.

>score -10 for gabe.

I wouldn't want to know your scorekeeper.  He probably makes lousy recordings.


--
Gabe Wiener - Columbia Univ.     "This 'telephone' has too many shortcomings 
gmw1@cunixa.cc.columbia.edu       to be seriously considered as a means of 
N2GPZ in ham radio circles        communication. The device is inherently of
72355,1226 on CI$                 no value to us." -Western Union memo, 1877