Hey Oleg , Binaural is merely a stereo set up to try and replicate the 3d effect of reflection and Doppler created by the ears or rather the shape of the ears.

Its something i was heavily into some ten years ago and if done correctly can create a really special recording , its immersive and i think in light of the instrument and its spiritual meaning could be a plus or at least worth experimenting with. Hers a company that make 3D mic setups that are decent

https://3diosound.com/

Sennheiser make a great 3D mic but its 5 times the cost.

As promised, I offer for comparison two broadcasts of bell ringing concerts. One uses Rode NT5 (cardioid) microphones, the other uses Line Audio CM3 (cardioid). What sound do you like best?

You can compare by the first - Intercession - ringing (there are timestamps in the video description).
1. https://youtu.be/1o3veTiE3yI
2. https://youtu.be/KyCJcT0dFf8

Binaural has nothing to do with Doppler Effect.

Those 3dio mics are a little ridiculous - the dominant aspect of binaural is the shadowing of the head; the pinnae are a small part of it. The spacial realism of a Jecklin disc and the Crown SASS are proof of that. The German word for the binaural technique is 'Kunstkopf' (artificial head) - how can you have kunstkopf with no kopf?!

This is true and it has nothing to do with stereo either.

The shadowing of the head gives right-left imaging at high frequencies. But the pinnae combined with the reflections of the shoulders give the height imaging and the pinnae are also critical to being able to image sounds behind you. What makes binaural playback so realistic and so creepy is the complete sense of envelopment that is a consequence of that.

Those really have nothing to do with binaural recordings and are intended to produce realistic imaging on speakers. They both provide a good right-left image with amplitude differences and phase differences producing imaging at high and low frequencies respectively. But they are not much like binaural recordings.

True enough regarding Jecklin front/back, but the SASS gives excellent front/back differentiation, and a 360 sound field nearly as good as a full dummy head (it has other problems, but that a different issue).

Given the size of the pinnae, their effects are limited mostly to frequencies above those responsible for perceiving source direction, and are so fragile that they only really work when fed directly to the human ear/brain mechanism. Once recorded by mics buried in an artificial head, then translated over HP drivers sitting outside the listener's pinnae, their effects are largely limited to a bit of shadowing at quite high frequencies, and in a human, mostly depend on slight head-turns to determine where the high frequencies are originating. Most of the illusion of sounds coming from behind in a dummy head recording are from the fact that the path-length around the back of the head is different from that around the front of the head. This has been proven in tests of dummy heads with and without pinnae.

I've actually gotten a pretty good illusion of sounds from behind with a Jecklin by making a disc that's ovoid (egg-shape profile) and placing the mics closer to the rear of the disc than the front, to create a front/back path-length difference. Even better if using mics with APEs.

But we're seriously derailing this thread now.

Let me clarify , the angle of incidence reflection into the ear has a proximal effect within a 3d space. The further away a moving sound is, the more gradual is the apparent low to hi frequency change and vice versa.

And no 3D mics are not ridiculous, used them tons of times in recordings in similar situations as the Op ,

Tibetan bowls , Mongolian throat singers etc where spatially dependent replication enhanced the immersive feel of the recording.

So you can quote all the theories you want but experience trumps theory every time.

Nothing I said was theoretical.

Please don't worry about it.
I wanted to try the DIY head, but I didn’t have time to buy silicone ears before the sanctions.
Sure, can rent Neumann or B&K, but in the conditions of use they may be damaged and I would not like to risk it.
In addition, as Oleg wrote, there are organizational problems with the leadership of the church with the placement of something outside the bell towers.
So the project with head while frozen.

" Those 3dio mics are a little ridiculous " that is theoretical imo , ive tried them and they are a decent and an in expensive alternative to say a KU 100 ... and it was suggested because the Op is trying to keep within a certain budget.

Regarding my use of the word " Doppler " in 3d audio it is replicated all the time so i dont know why you think its not... perhaps i didnt explain myself correctly ? In actuality 3D audio tries to replicate a lot more but i didnt think it was pertinent to list all of them for the purpose of this thread.

The external shape of the ears ( pinnae ) in particular innately tell us if an object is in front or behind us even without a head. And yes i have experimented with prosthetic ears mounted to mics etc not using a head and you still get a sense of forward to rear movement in a 3d set up. Is it as good as using a KU 100 ( or similar ) No , but its decent and a heck of a lot cheaper.

definitely the line audio cm3 sounds much better, which doesn't surprise me.

Billy Bean would disagree

As far as binaural on a budget goes, I've found these $25 fabric-covered cork wig forms to be vastly superior to the styro cheapies shown in so many DIY projects out there (they're also much easier to mount to a stand). The solid cork is much heavier and denser than styrofoam.

https://www.amazon.com/Canvas-Block-...5403353&sr=8-7

If your shop around, you can find ones with a more realistic head shape.

No need to bury the mics in a hole, just pin on (these 'heads' are solid cork) a couple of mini-omnis of your choice (or attach to a headband), and you're good to go. Mount them a bit closer to the rear of the form than the front, so as to attain the aforementioned front/back path length difference.

Without pinnae, the recording doesn't have the considerable tonal coloration they produce, so sounds equally well on phones and speakers, especially with LF shuffling (as with any baffled-omnis approach).

As I've mentioned on other threads the only way conventional dummy heads with full pinnae on them can sound uncolored is to listen with canal phones (they sound fabulous with Etymotics, for example), so that the sound bypasses your own pinnae - otherwise, the sound gets pinnae-filtered twice! Or, they would need extensive compensating equalization (no, thank you).

Without pinnae, and even more importantly without shoulders, it's not binaural.
--scott

It's curious that you emphasize the shoulders - don't tell Tchad Blake his expensive, shoulder-less Neumann KU100 isn't binaural. The earlier KU 80/81 had no shoulders either. Nor the head that was available for the Sennheiser MK2002. The shoulders become significant for scientific analysis (Aachen head, Head Acoustics, etc.), much less so for music recording.

For recording music, a vaguely head sized and shaped obstruction between the mics is all that's needed. Try it for yourself - with and without pinnae; with and without shoulders - for music in a reverberent environment, the difference is pretty insignificant - except that w/o pinnae, the frequency response is much smoother, so doesn't require complex EQ.

Anyone who's experimented with eyeglasses-mounted mics (as I have) has heard the incredible all-around-you realism - the hallmark of binaural - that they produce. These place the mics well away from (not inside) the pinnae, thus avoiding their frequency-distorting effects. The shadowing effect of the head is a good 95% of binaural realism. Pinnae only affect frequencies above about 3kHz; localization is mostly below that. Note also, that Head Acoustics' BHS II binaural recording headset (shown at the bottom) places the mics entirely outside the pinnae.

One can divide binaural phenomena into micro and macro categories - the brow/nose, pinnae, and shoulders are well withing the micro; for music recording, dispensing with them is largely inaudible - the overall head size and shape (and placement of the mics on it) is what matters most. The other thing I noticed in my experiments, is that the micro effects of the brow/nose, pinnae, and shoulders becomes less and less noticeable as distance from source increases; which is why they become much less significant for music recording at classical distances (great for those barber shop demos; less so in the concert hall).

I trust my ears (no pun intended) - I've been experimenting with this stuff since the '80s, with both nature recordings and music.

One can certainly argue that technically, the term 'binaural' should be reserved for methods/devices that include pinnae, but for the practical purposes of music recording, I'm quite comfortable referring to a pinnae-less head as binaural, since their spacial qualities are largely indistinguishable in that context. Quasi-binaural would be a more accurate term.

Bruce Bartlett's book is a treasure trove of info on binaural, quasi-binaural and transaural techniques (1st edition; haven't seen the 2nd). https://books.google.com/books/about...d=_c48BPY_lIQC

An interesting anecdote from Nature recordist Bernie Krause (https://www.wildsanctuary.com/):


"If one's looking for a reasonable binaural set up, just take two omni
lavaliere mics (I use Sony ECM 55Bs), tie a rope around the trunk of
a tree with the diameter equivalent to the distance between ears on a
human head, attach the mics opposite each other, and voila! No
hassle. No great expense (about $700.00 should do it). And they will
last longer under humid condition than other types.

Once, on a project, we were given an Aachen head (with Schoeps
capsules) implanted. Costs $25,000USD and comes in a 90lb. monster
Anvil case. Our client had us drag the damned thing to a Costa Rican
jungle where we set it up. The mics failed in 15 minutes (humidity).
We implanted another spare set of mics and those failed, too.
Finally, we tied the 55s to a nearby tree, recorded, and sent the
binaural stuff to our client, who swore those were the best (Aachen)
recordings he had ever heard (we never spilled the beans). Those
same recordings are currently featured in the binaural hearing room
at Disney's Animal Kingdom in Florida. So much for the claims of the
fancy stuff.

Bernie"


Most of his work is actually done with a Sennheiser MS rig.

lol morbid but funny

To get back to the topic of recording bells....

Of course it's hard to tell EXACTLY what is going on with a YouTube recording, but that said, I like the CM-4's better. "Like" is just my preference of course. Whether they are more accurate or not is another question.

I suppose that part of the question is whether you're trying to capture the sound of the bells inside the tower, or you're trying to capture something like what your city-wide (village-wide??) listeners are hearing. I understand that it might not be practical to put microphones on the roof of whatever building is closest to the bell tower, but I might start with that. If you have a helper, they can stand on the roof of the other building and you can communicate with cell phones.

Alternatively, I might get a very long pole, at least 15 feet longer and probably longer and put the microphones on the end of the pole. stick the microphones out of one of the windows of your tower and clamp the whole thing in place. Try recording with that.

Not sure if that is in any way practical.

It's fascinating to see you play the bells! My University had a carillon, and there were carillon classes. At the end of a quarter of classes, if you passed your "test" you got to give an hour-long concert on the carillon that of course everybody within a couple of miles could hear.

Thanks everyone for the feedback and advice.
A few days ago I visited to Oleg. We tried moving the microphones outside the bell tower.

Soundtrack
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1GV4...ew?usp=sharing

https://youtu.be/X5rb6fVNQaw

Yes, thanks to @ hipporu for the support. We continue to improve the recordings of bell ringing using budget technology.
I have prepared a video that will help you compare the results.
It is interesting to hear the impressions of professionals.

https://youtu.be/vgUIwAwTut4

Small note:
it's more about comparing configurations, XY-90, DIN 90 21.5cm., and Olympus because he was.
I will be glad for any of your comments.