@Roger Noren said:
And in that case classical recordings would be made that way - why bother setting up the extra microphones then?
I don't understand this question, sorry.
What you wrote seems like a contradiction to me. First you say (which I agree upon) that classical recordings are made with balancing close and distant miking, and then you say a convolution reverb can control the depth placement just as good. Then I wonder why classical recordings are not made that way since it seems much easier.
My point is that close and distant miking gives different characteristics, which not entirely could be simulated by the CR. In my opinion, the best way to simulate something would be to do it as close to the real thing as possible. I understand that users don't want to have any reverb sometimes, so the close and distant miking should be done in a fairly dry room. Then, by balancing these two, adding the reverb wanted, it should give a convincing result. The demos I've heard from VSL are very impressing in every aspect expect for the depth definition.
You didn't read my previous post properly (or it's a language thing - English isn't my mother tongue, as you may have guessed 😊 ...)
What the main microphone in an orchestral recording picks up is 90 or more percent room reflections. These reflections are coming from sources which are "dry" by definition (as an instrument isn't a room in our sense of the word - well, maybe with the exception of an organ).
This room signal is what MIR is all about. Mix in the dry signal to the "proper" amount - which is always more a question of aesthetics than pure science, to my experience - and you are right there. The feeling for "distance" is built-in.
Of course we are in the virtual world, so we have to deal with side-effects that wouldn't occur in reality, so all we can do is to betray the human ear as skillfully as pissible. 😊 MIR is still brandnew, so we yet have to gain mastership.
Kind regards,
