Originally Posted by J_Palmer_Cass
There was no limit to bandwidth in that paper. Was there any need to test 200 Hz, 500 Hz, 1000 Hz and on and on and on?
By extension, according to your rules there is no such thing as a stereo recording. Bass, midrange or treble sounds recorded with a microphone (or a generated sound) then mixed with other instruments, voices and sound effects regardless of the number of channels used is not stereo. Locating uncorrelated or correlated content on multiple channels will not give you stereo or multichannel sound. Everything is all just panned mono.
I guess that settles everything the Bossopedia way!
As usual, I have no idea what you're trying to say, except that you're saying it incorrectly.
I've been in recording studios from the age of 13. I'm fairly aware of the processes, especially where it concerns electric bass, which I play.
You say you're intimately familiar with Soundhound's take on the matter, but you post as though you actually know nothing about it, as he never referred to stereo bass as panned mono bass. He produced a stereo bass recording. I got a copy. I set up stereo bass and listened to it. THEN I commented on it.
Bottom line is, yes, if you direct-inject any mono signal, the only choice you have for 'placement' in the mix is panning. This is what the 'test' in your cited study was about. This is a no-brainer not worth arguing.
Some highlights, since you haven't actually read the paper:
6. Informal listening tests- Binaural 25-100 Hz.
"...the results were most effective at 56 Hz and higher."
"Full range music recorded using spacial microphone techniques with a head spaced main microphone (Panambiophonic 4.0)... "
"Widely spaced microphones such as those advocated by Griesinger would produce a more pronounced effect, coincident microphones, none."
The differences between a mono panned signal (sine waves, modulated with a beat frequency) and actual stereo bass are clearly delineated in the test. Sorry you can't see the difference.
No panned mono bass signals movie soundtracks were used in the listening test.
The 1st 3 octaves were chopped because the listeners' response drops to 20% below 56 Hz, even in a controlled environment with a very controlled source.
Back to my point... if those cited recordings (all of them being live to 2 or 4 track using "spacial microphone techniques") are the ones you prefer, you should start your campaign to make them mainstream immediately and elsewhere instead of misrepresenting them here, and good luck with that.
For anyone interested, here is a archived discussion that Soundhound posted in 2004, which, as he mentions, was a repost of a thread he started at Home Theater Forums in 2002, in which he was tarred and feathered and run off the boards:
Here is an excerpt from the 1st posts for anyone interested. Please note the technique of microphone recording of a live music performance and no mention of panned mono electronic bass:
An example - suppose that you have a group of performers on a stage and they are being recorded by two or three omni directional microphones in front about 15 feet away, which is a common technique. Now say you have someone playing a bass drum or string bass on the extreme left of the stage. The sound of that instrument will reach the left microphone earlier than the right microphone. Considering the frequency of the instruments will be be around 30 Hz in the case of the bass drum and 40 Hz in the case of the bass, the delay in the sound reaching the left and right microphones will be as much as half a wavelength. If you were to play this with a single subwoofer, or two subs with the bass between the channels electronically summed by the crossover as it is when you use the "sub/LFE" output on your pre/pro, this acoustic delay would simply cause peaks and dips in the response of the bass from that instrument. However, if you use stereo subs and are hearing ture stereo bass, this delay between the sound reaching the left and right microphones is heard as natural acoustic mixing of the bass frequencies from those instruments in the listening room, just as it did in the original recording venue.
Since this has been exhaustively discussed over a decade ago, I'm done with the hijack of Josh's thread here and the subject in general. The info is all in archives for those who are interested. I just did not want to be misquoted from 10 years ago and especially wanted to clear up the "I know everything about Soundhound" BS, for the record. Without guys like SH, the progression from being totally in the dark about bass management, subs, etc., would have been a lot slower process.
Anyone who thinks panned electronic bass is prevalent in movies soundtracks, and who also believes that it's important to reproduce according to JPC or anyone else's opinion, it is a very simple setup. Just run your FL & FR as 'large' and take the pre out of each of those channels into an active crossover, sending the low end of that crossover to a 'L' and a 'R' sub, which you need to place one on each side of your seat and watch Star Trek.
Since JPC will never do that and report back his findings, we'll have to wait until someone else goes through the trouble to tell us if it was worth the effort.