It's always okay to be wrong as long as one is open to discussing it, understanding why, admitting so, and working toward making it right.
I've no problem with contradictory approaches and opinions, and consider them an opportunity to reconsider and better explain my position, how and why I arrived at it.. with the potential for expanding my own understanding and learning something new in the process. Likewise, I encourage folks here to do their own thing - do what you like and use whatever methods get you the results you want, as long as its not unsafe or threatening the freedoms of the rest of us. If anything my own oddball approaches to recording are quite left field compared to the standard way of doing things.
At the same time, I always seek to base what I'm doing and how I evaluate things in basic fundamental principles that underlie everything we are doing. Understanding that is key to me. If I can connect the dots in this way, it all makes far more sense and potential solutions to a problem become apparent, including those which may be unusual but fit the core principles. As a consequence I and hopefully others following along will be more easily able to avoid pitfalls which might otherwise go unforeseen. I find this approach, in combination with verifying or refuting things by actually trying them, makes for the surest path to success.
Also, I tend to write my posts here at TS in a way intended to address a general audience of tapers and whoever else may be reading, as much as I'm replying directly to any one person here. I try to convey information this way because that's what I originally came here looking for long ago.
If you read my posts carefully, you'll notice I rarely say "just do it this way.." or "that won't work", without explanation of why. I instead try to explain why its more or less likely to work successfully, and anchor that in something of a framework. That takes a lot of effort and often a lot of explanation, frequently resulting lengthy posts. That seems to annoy some folks, yet it is important to me to try and communicate these ideas clearly and with justification.
For example, I don't dispute that ORTF or whatever with a third mic in the middle has worked great for you. But I will hot hesitate to talk about what the implications of that are, what is going on by doing so, where it might be problematic, and how it is likely to be improved. If you go back and read what I wrote, I think I said it would be more optimal to increase the standard ORTF spacing when using a third mic in the center. Not that it wouldn't work without doing so, only that it might have some potential for problems, could potentially be better, and then probably went on to discuss the details of why.
I'll go farther.. I can certainly see how a third mic in the middle may improve on ORTF in certain situations, yet I still hold that it could be further improved while reducing the potential for problems. Taping scenarios tend to be strange situations in the recording world, which is why unusual approaches can work that otherwise would seem odd. ORTF has a rather wide angle between microphones that tends to place the mics farther off-axis to the source than other near-spaced configurations when recording from a position that is not close to the stage. A third mic in the center will likely help with that. I think it could still be made better though, and will continue explaining how and why. I look forward to those discussions and hope you do too. Feel free to contradict, but follow up and defend your position.
Topic: DPA Stereo Recording Comparisions - archived from old website (Read 5769 times)