Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

1 Follower

About esldude

  • Rank
    Masters Level Member

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Hey, sun shades at the Lagrange point L1 is what I'd suggest. Get the material from moon mining to build and put it in place. Much less of a gravitational well operating from the moon. Blocking 2% of the sunlight will counteract all the carbon increases in the atmosphere. Best plan to put into place if you aren't some maladjusted fearfully panicked northern European teenage girl. Maybe someone should point it out to her as a solution. Our future is so bright we have to wear shades. We got it made in the shade.
  2. The convolution reverb I had in mind, which isn't used often, is where I (or some other recording person) goes to where I am recording someone or wish to have it sound like I did, and I run an impulse or sweep to get the impulse. Then convolution creates my own custom reverb for the real space. I could then close mike and place people in this real space. For instance before moving in my house had a 50 ft long 8 ft wide concrete storage area under a porch. I recorded sweeps in there and can create the reverb from that for my own space. You can do that with any place you might wish to have the reverb from. If I wish to be really picky I can do that in stereo with the microphones I intend use recording the musicians so it all matches. And I can send the file to someone else if they have a use for it. In this case Schmitt used an echo chamber plus the Bricasti. If I had the impulse from the same echo chamber I could presumably get close to the real thing.
  3. Your comment reminds me of good simple recordings. In the two seconds before the music starts you hear the end of your room seem to open into a larger space, and then there is music in that space. The positioning of everything is at least close to correct. It does seem at least stereographic. It isn't quite the real absolute sound, but a reasonable facsimile from a particular point of view. I find most non-audiophiles don't like that. To them it is noise in the way of the music. Room 'noise' comes too much from the same direction as the music. Good multi-channel can give much of that same sense of space, more spread around, and still have the stereo field up front done simply. It pleases audiophiles and non-audiophiles pretty well. How simple is really simple in stereo miking? Two mikes is. Commonly a stereo pair and a pair of flanking mics for ambiance. You have to place mikes differently and closer than where listeners normally are to get a sound like near front of the house seats. If using only one pair, and you misjudge this you can end up with an overly distant uninteresting recording. A wasted recording opportunity. Using 4 mikes you can place the stereo pair closer to make sure you don't get a distant sound, and mix in the flanking microphones to taste in regards to how much room sound is in there. It is insurance of sorts. You can then get into a stereo pair with certain spot soloists mixed in. That can be done well. Even if you can hear what is done, as in it definitely isn't real in the absolute sense it can work without being a jarring effect. All this however is to attempt giving the perspective of a listener in the good seats. In the front few rows. Most listeners don't get to hear that anyway. I think spaced omni (usually will need to be 3 unless the orchestra is small) can work well. It is close enough you don't get a distant dull sound. But instead of more direct sound it gives a good reproduction of how things would sound in the cheap seats further back. You definitely get no real imagining in those seats anyway. And in fact you don't get all that much closer, but the imaging of close stereo pairs somewhat replaces the loss of visual knowledge of where things are happening. This can sound very fine, non-gimmicky even though it actually strays from the absolute sound in more ways. To me most multi-miked orchestra's sound anywhere from awful to not quite awful. Occasionally even acceptable. Multi-miked smaller groups of a handful of musicians isn't so offensive to me if done well. Which it rarely is. The use of impulse convolution reverb could be helpful. Certainly better than artificial reverb. Other than some experimenting here and there which is all I've done with it myself, I don't know of any name recording people or mastering people who say they normally use it. They have convinced themselves they are good enough with conventional mixing and mastering tricks it is a bother they don't need. It is probably more commonly used in studio recording for a gimmick effect. Using impulse from some odd location to overlay onto studio tracks. Besides, true minimalist or even nearly minimalist recordings are exceptionally rare. I do agree with Barrows the concept is actually effectively a myth for most purposes.
  4. I can confirm hearing to at least 38,000 feet (11,500 meters).
  5. Don't know if you had the Janzen's, I had an old pair of these from RTR.
  6. I've look upon Kimber's Isomike recordings as a more sophisticated version of omni's with a Jecklin disc. A method I like quite a lot, but which also as some problems. I've experimented with different baffles, but never came up with anything that had correct directionality. I don't know if his large heart shaped baffles did that or not. There are a number of ways to make very nice enjoyable recordings with baffled omnis. You'd not really know the imaging was inaccurate if you weren't at the performance. Omni's always seem in some important ways more accurate and direct with other patterns seeming slow and veiled by comparison.
  7. Looks like your first post, so welcome to the forums here. Maybe some detail of what your speakers are and what your receiver is would let us give you better advice. I guessing from what you say it is a stereo receiver with outputs for two pairs of speakers? Once we know more details we could give advice that might work for you.
  8. Having done some recording, I find there is a dichotomy one has to choose sides on first. They are here in my room. Or I am there where it was recorded. Which absolute of that is one attempting? Typically it is the latter. The one you can get closer to is the former. I find one instrument per speaker recorded up close or in a dead environment can be highly convincing upon playback as they are here. Of course that means a few speakers and even then you are restricted to only a few instruments in play. Now the I am there where it was recorded can be done to a fair facsimile of the real event. One close enough to allow suspension of disbelief and significant musical enjoyment. But it can't come as close to sounding like the absolute real thing. Beyond all of that, more than 99% of recordings are using over-complex miking, and tremendously over complex processing so that you have no chance of doing a very good job of either version of the absolute sound. Plus, over time the market has spoken in supreme clarity. It doesn't prefer realism in recordings. Recordings are a created third reality.
  9. I think Chris has given you the answer. XLR on the Aegis is mono input, and you have to connect speakers differently.
  10. Well don't feel bad. I've had such "brilliant" ideas many times. About once very 5 times it has some real merit. If I didn't dabble in such ideas I would not have the really good ones from time to time. And sometimes you just get lucky. After complaining about how awful Diffmaker was, but how good the idea of it is, some fellow said he thought he could do better. I sneakily encouraged him at every turn. I asked for new features and he quickly supplied them almost like having my own accomplished programmer and signal analyst work for me. And here we are less than a year later with this useful accomplished bit of software called Deltawave.
  11. Finally the real truth comes out. And without wgscott's link I would have missed. Many have thought climate change and sea level rise was a conspiracy of some sorts. Now, from an unexpected group of conspirators the truth is out. https://www.theonion.com/study-finds-rising-sea-levels-result-of-expansive-colon-1830752818
  12. Yes, I meant to ask about this too, but sidetracked myself. Actually wouldn't these signals council out? I've got a few of those where I recorded everything twice. Wouldn't this be the same as inverting the second one and mixing together or am I missing something. I also am not sure this separates the effects of DAC and ADC if you do this. I did think about taking the difference signal, inverting it and adding to the original. Run the original plus inverted difference back thru, and compare this one to the unaltered original. But if that worked perfectly, I still just get the original file.
  13. Thanks for doing this. Such a level of effort is almost insane.
  14. Yes, and one of the myths, apparently not so, is the old Italian violins "project more forcefully" in a hall. I do believe the winning violin was carbon fiber, and likely much louder. Dare I mention carbon fiber is an environmental problem versus wooden instruments. 🤐
  • Create New...