What does it mean?
So, clearly, the ear is far more complex than the microphone and we can't reasonably expect the microphone to deliver anywhere near the kind of information that the ear does. So what? How can we make use of this insight?
The first thing has to do with microphone placement and directionality. While the ear manages to separate our sense of room reflections from the direct sound of the instrument, the microphone can't separate the two at all, so you have to place it closer to the instrument than your ears think is reasonable . This reduces the relative loudness of the room reflections picked up by the microphone. Of course, this presents other problems. If we get really close to the instrument (within a couple of inches, say) the microphone no longer can hear the
whole instrument, and the timbre of the instrument will no longer be what it normally sounds like to you (go ahead -- just listen to a violin from 1" above the bow, near the bridge, for instance, or stick your head inside a kick drum, and you'll see just how dramatically different sounds from those perspectives are). Another solution is to use a directional (cardioid) microphone, which will tend to reduce the relative loudness of room reflections. Then you may be able to back the microphone away from the sound enough to hear it more reasonably and accurately.
The next thing has to do with interference between microphones. Again, our ears (and brain) have numerous ways to process the information coming from two different points. The mixing console has no such capability. This means that it is fairly important to keep interference between microphones under control. The standard procedure here is called the "Rule of Threes," which simply means that when you are miking two different (but of similar loudness) instruments with two microphones, you place microphones so that the distance from each microphone to the
source you don't want it to pick up is at least three times greater than the distance from that mic to its intended source. If the sources have different levels (a kick drum vs. a flute, for instance), the Rule of Threes doesn't work very well.
The third thing you can do, odd as it sounds, is learn to "listen like a microphone." Learn to listen to the sound of the room (listen in between the notes, to everything
but the music), and learn to detect the colorations the room is causing. This takes practice, and it can be really distracting from your musical efforts, but it may be worth the effort if you really get into trying to record great sounds (especially while working on really arcane crafts like sampling).
The fourth thing, of course, is to use stereo. From this article, it should be fairly clear
why stereo works: it at least begins to fill in some of the richness of details that our ears and auditory system crave. The simplest way to use stereo, of course, is to simply use two good microphones placed a couple of feet apart. You will have to give up some other things if you do this, but it may be worth it. There are numerous other techniques too, but they are beyond the scope of this article. Maybe next time . . .
Finally, of course, you have to just
try to be aware of what is going on. As this article has tried to suggest, don't make the casual assumption that a microphone is like an ear, because it really isn't. It "hears" in fundamentally different ways than ears do, and that is a major part of the reason that recordings sound different than the real thing. The microphone fails to pick up information that we routinely and unconsciously make use of all the time, without being aware of it. We only notice when those things are gone. So, it is important that we make sure we've managed to include enough of what the ear really expects to make the recording compelling. That is done by intuition, by using your ears, by modifying the sound (by mic placement, by equalization, by reverberation, or whatever) until you can say to yourself, "Yeah, that really
is an acoustic guitar!." That essence, that feeling, that sense of reality is what the goal of recording is really all about.
COMMENTS
Staten Island, NY Jun 10, 2006 11:36 PM
These articles are amazing, genius.... i can't wait to read all of them and then re-read all of them again... - Christopher
USA Mar 12, 2010 03:46 AM
The article seems to miss that whether a mic/speaker or direct sound is emanating, the ear is going to be used and all its cool features and the brain processes inherent in that, unless we are talking about robots enjoying music. The comparison should instead be the sound that enters the ear in each instance. You would not want a mic to do the processing the ear does because the processing would be doubled with, no doubt, strange results.
Also, even though light moves faster than sound the brain take more, not less time to process vision. Watching the other musician instead of listening is probably not the best choice unless you can perceive the changes more clearly with vision than sound.
I also seriously doubt that we can tell what direction sound is coming from with one ear other than by moving our heads or already knowing how loud a sound should be if we were aimed at it optimally.
I have some hearing loss in one ear. If I put a hearing plug that ear, that mutes it by an additional 33DB, I am pretty close to deaf in that ear in that situation (which I have to do some times because the muscle he was talking about goes nuts sometimes). When that is the case I truly can't tell what direction sound is coming from with my good ear. My guess is that you are picking up some small bit of sound in the covered ear that is providing you with its direction. One ear direction I say is a total myth. Memory of a sound as it changes typically going around ones head may give cues we pick up, but if there is no relative movement history of the sound, I say I highly doubt any direction can be discerned.
mindbreaker
Sydney, Australia Dec 13, 2011 09:42 PM
mindbreaker is quite right; this article shows a complete misunderstanding of the way the acoustic recording/playback system works.
We would want the microphone to be similar to the ear if we were going to bypass the ear of the listener and insert electric signals directly into his nervous system, but this is, of course, not what we intend.
The role of the microphone is to capture information that is 'encoded' in air pressure fluctuations and convert it into a forma that can be stored. The loudspeaker is then called upon to convert this information back into its original form. Of course, there are many problems with this system, mostly at the loudspeaker end, but what matters at the microphone end is the completeness of the information-capture, not the exact mechanism.
Suppose, in an analogous case, that we take a page of handwriting, scan it into a computer, and then print it back into a new but almost identical page. It makes no difference that the scanner works in a totally different way from that in which the eye does, we just want it to capture as much information as possible.
Tim Smith
Groton, MA Dec 14, 2011 09:44 AM
Without spending a lot of time on this, there IS other research suggesting how single-ear localization happens. Further, I was startled by how robust I found that localization to be, even subject to its limitations. I'm not able to comment on mindbreaker's personal experience. My experience remains anecdotal, but easily, if fuzzily, repeatable. Thanks for writing, mindbreaker!
Groton, MA Dec 18, 2011 12:24 PM
Tim Smith makes some really good points in his post (although I disagree about my completely misunderstanding how acoustic recording/playback works – actually, I think I DO understand it).
Anyway, in this article I was comparing the ear to the microphone to illuminate various things about each of them, and also to show some places where we typically get confused. Tim isn't confused – he's got a really good handle on it.
The problems he doesn't get to have to do with where errors accrue in the capture of information at the microphone. We lose a lot there. Take a look at:
www.moultonlabs.com/weblog/more/we_want_really_accurate_recordings
Anyway, thanks, Tim, for an excellent and thoughtful post.
Best regards,
Dave