Markr041 wrote:
Thank you for the comments. In your long post, this is the statement that I think is most helpful in this thread about the in-ear mics I used:
"the interaural spacing is more or less correct, and you will get most of the diffraction effects of a head with them, so the binaural will sort of work, but you should really check out the real deal too." Ok!
But "the real deal" couldn't be used for the videos I shot. What's next, claim I should shoot with an IMAX camera rig? No, dummy-head micing is not possible out in the park or in the church where I shot. Nor is an IMAX camera.
I understand that you feel defensive, but there’s really no need. I’m not attacking you.
The “real deal” doesn’t require a dummy head, which should have been apparent from my post. It does require the effects of the outer ear, the pinna, as well as a head and torso, but you have that yourself, and can easily use all of it. But you have to get your mic pretty far into the ear to do that.
For example, a number of years ago I made my own in-ear binaural mic rig. I simply used the smallest omni condenser capsule I could find, soldered some leads on it, glued it to a cut-down foam ear plug, and stuck it in my ear canal. Done, got the pinna effect just fine. The mics were similar to these:
https://www.mouser.com/ProductDetail/CUI-Devices/CMC-3015-44L100?qs=BZBei1rCqCC%2FOtF2VZ8%252BnA%3D%3D
As you can see, the cost is ridiculously low, and the one linked has leads already on it. Worst case, you might have to splice on a cable that plugs into your recorder, and could use solderless crimps to do that, so not much in the way of electronic skills required.
I never made any mention of picture quality or resolution, though. And certainly, the IMAX format would be impossible for most people, though with todays cameras, you actually could! IMAX digital films have been shot in 4K, 6K and 8K. Sound familiar? The theoretical resolution of 12K has never actually been done in digits. So, IMAX? Have at it. But it’s really not relevant to this discussion.
Most of what you have to say, which is correct, interesting and useful, does not pertain to video use of binaural micing. Videos where the shooter wears binaural mics provide an aural and visual reproduction that is perfectly in synch - what you see and hear in the video is exactly what the sound was like in the position the video camera was at. Yes, the viewer should wear headphones to get that effect, but as the music videos show, the stereo heard through speakers is not bad either (we both know it is not ideal and flawed).
Actually, you just made my point. Videos shot with binaural sound require viewers to wear headphones. The effect doesn’t work at all on two speakers, or ITU 5.1 (certainly not matrix 5.1!) So what I said does actually pertain to video because all of the above defines how videos tracks are heard. Headphone-only audio for video defines a very tiny splinter audience. It’s perfectly fine if that’s what you’re shooting for, but lets not try to imply that binaural audio is at all universal.
In fact, as most binaural producers know, it really works best on a specific type of headphones, the extra-aural open ones that sit on your ears, and don’t enclose them. It’s not nearly as good with closed-ear circumnaural headphones, or earbuds (pretty bad, those, actually) or IEMs. Expecting all of that from your audience is really asking a bit.
You are a knowledgeable and experienced sound professional, but you are not primarily a videographer I would surmise.
You surmise wrong. Most of my film work has been shot and edited in one video format or another.
So whether binaural records sell or not is irrelevant. Nor is what a performing "artist" prefers very relevant to shooting a video to convey time and place. As the "professionals say "Audio is 50% of video." Not 100%! It is subservient to the purpose of the video.
Um…you missed it again.
First of all, the “50% is sound” quote attributed to George Lucas is always taken out of context from the standpoint of when, in the film-sound timeline, he said it. It comes from the pre-digital era when theaters were mostly Academy mono, slowly converting to Dolby Stereo, and THX was the outgrowth of a very bad screening experience George had of one of his films. He turned Tomlinson Holman loose on the screening room at Sprocket Systems, and he went through it end to end. The result was a knock-your-socks-off screening room where everything was done right, possibly for the very first time anywhere. The result was THX certification. I’ve been in that room, heard and watched the demo film, and yeah, in the mid 1980s it was completely mind blowing.
But the comment is also unrealistic, especially from a sound guy’s perspective. When I worked as an engineer for an FM station our transmitter room was next door to that of a UHF TV station. The TV engineer and I used to kid each other. I’d say “TV is just radio with pictures”, and he’d reply with “Perhaps, but TV without sound is still TV”. And he was right. Very few are the scenes carried by the track and supported by the picture. Yet, you can mess up the sound pretty badly, and still watch the movie. So, 50% was a statement supporting high quality theater audio in the early days of THX sound systems, but it’s not the real ratio, which changes, literally, shot to shot. It’s more likely below 50%. But, if you’ve gone to the trouble to produce your track in a way intended to immerse your audience, like 5.1 surround, and now Atmos, it is quite disappointing to hear what your audience hears in the stereo mixdown, much less mono. You really want people to hear the results of all those extra hours of crafting the track, placing the little sound cue in the left surround channel, etc. Fortunately, 5.1 is available in millions of homes now, and much of TV programming is produced in 5.1. The mixdown is easy and metadata driven. But binaural only works in headphones, there is no standardized process to play it on two, much less 5 channels. So it’s not a “portable” sound format. Not to say it doesn’t have a place, it clearly does, but not in the mainstream.
My point it citing binaural records was to illustrate that the market, and thus the audience, is microscoptic for binaural audio. If a film/video indicator means more to you, then try this: After more than 50 years of binaural audio capability, I can count the number of films with binaural soundtracks on….let me see…yes, no hands. The idea of film and TV is to maximize the number of viewers. No technology is accepted that introduces an incompatibility with the audience.
Is binaural audio something that should be used for all video shooting - no. For most video, probably not.
It serves the purpose of novelty, and generally when experienced, those impressed learn something about audio, and that’s a very good thing.
Geez, I posted some videos with binaural micing just as examples to show what it does and how accessible the technique is. I have posted lots of non-binaural videos here; they don't get such comments (there is better equipment; here are the limitations, my video with other equipment is better, try better equipment) or such long dissertations (helpful as they are). Even on YouTube, a commenter posted over and over again that the recording was simply NOT binaural because I had used the in-ear technique. Yes, he was sound engineer too.
I think this is an exaggeration. He didn’t say they weren’t binaural, but was referring to the quality of the binaural cues being less than optimal with your mics.
If I had posted a video using ORTF micing, would I have also encountered such responses (not the best, use XY, spaced omnis, there are better mics, try a different height, a shorter distance)?
Only if a particular mic placement was extolled as superior over others. Otherwise, all of those are well recognized as completely valid techniques when applied appropriately, which is something not so universally shared by binaural techniques.
My defensive (in the reasonable sense) reactions to the many comments is not because I take them as personal criticisms; rather, I worry that many of these responses about limitations, unpopularity and the existence of better equipment will simply discourage users to try binaural video/audio, which they can do at low cost, with little inconvenience, and as you agree, get very good binaural results.
I’m only pointing out that there are limitations, and specifically, what they are and at least one suggestion of how to overcome them. I do have a problem with the whole “binaural for video” concept, because it would limit the audience that could hear my track as intended, and alienate everyone else, which is counter to general filmmaking. It works as a a novelty, or for specialty films where the audience can participate properly just fine.
Sony MDR 7506 - you are a professional! Even if they are not even close to having a flat frequency response.
When the 7506 was introduced it filled a need for a pair of circumnaural headphones that were revealing, actually unforgiving, to use as a monitor. We use them as a tool, but they were never pleasurable.
BTW, I use a pair of B&W 801 speakers for monitoring my non-video, non-binaural DSD recordings, really.
Forget headphones. Yes, there are two of these.
And I use Sony noise-cancelling headphones on airplanes; better than BOSE.
Mixed more than a few projects on 801s. Nice warm speaker with a decent sweet spot. Yes, I’ve heard the Sony’s are great.
