Yeah go ahead, talk down to me like you know my music taste
(and also dismissing genres - mind you a binaural progressive/psy-trance album would be mind blowing)
Many of the binaural demo albums have some good music on them, but they have a number of demonstrations of mic placements, talking in your ears, shaver etc which I'm not interested in except for a single listen or two. I enjoy binaural albums if the thing is a full performance of music not randomly assorted things with occasional tracks with no common genres. Those demo tracks do nothing for me musically.
Mind you cheskys other released albums may be to my liking, just not demostration discs usually. I'm not knocking Jazz, Acoustic, World or Classical at all.
I really didn't address this post (though I cited it before to call attention to a very unusual (for most reading this) style of music), but I did want to say something about this in response.
I happen to agree with you. As someone who does more than a fair bit of binaural recording, it has always bothered me that so many of the 'demo' recordings have been a bit on the gimmicky side (virtual haircut, match strikes close to the ear, that sort of thing), rather than music-centric. That's why I'm glad that someone like Chesky (and of course...my little project...immersifi recording services) takes the technique as a means to an end - enjoyment of artistic expression - rather than the end itself. By that I mean, each technique has merit, be it mono, stereo, n.1, binaural, ambisonics etc., and to make recordings that simply demonstrate the format seems a bit, well, empty - or it can be.
On the other hand, the people in industry and academia who research such matters (cone of confusion, MAA, front-to-back confusions etc.) have a definite need to make what some would consider 'antiseptic' recordings for the purpose of better understanding the HRTF and other perceptual phenomena. Some of these individuals have posted such recordings on-line; they are more research-focused than they are aesthetic.
Live binaural (or live mono or stereo for that matter) is a tricky thing (if no overdubs / filler are going to be done). One thing that the live recording thing has taught me is that few people (and few artists) really want truth in their recordings. Indeed, it is the rare artist who says they want a warts-and-all live recording of a specific show, and equally rare to hear them say they want others listening to experience what the audience experienced. It's interesting just how many people have no idea that a 'live' album is almost never that - countless 'live' recordings are done thinking a priori that the tracks are nothing more than the starting point of the production. Mind you, I have nothing against that approach. However, what I am saying is that when you know your mistakes can be fixed, it changes the tension of the performance as well as the Band's performance proper. This is sort of what Dave Grohl is railing against these days (and there is a lot of truth in his words) in that digital post production has made 'fixing' things very, very easy. The typical live album may have 32 or more tracks - every instrument close mic'd or taken via direct box. Why? Because a) it affords the opportunity to produce a great mix, and b) it also lets performers 'off the hook' when they have messed up a solo or their guitar had gone out of tune etc...
With all forms of live recording (going back to SUN style (i.e. mono, one mic, one-track), the balance between musicians had to be done with arranging where the musicians stood relative to each other and to the mic. In a way (just my opinion here), that 'lack of a parachute' forced musicians to be better performers; singers to better master pitch and modulation, and / or master their instrument by perfecting their styles. It also made for better recording engineers (my opinion, nothing more) as it was the ultimate proof that where one places the mic is (again, my opinion) the single biggest factor in terms of the fidelity and what one perceives overall.
So...this is why I have so much love for folks like Chesky. To quote the late David Bowie (from the album TRaFoZSatSFM) "It Ain't Easy" to get qualified musicians playing well together (i.e. live...as a Band, quartet, what have you) as well as properly place the mannequin head, as well as choose a venue that is best suited toward the end product - and this is true even if you're doing a mono session, or a conventional spaced-pair or X-Y, M-S (or whatever two-mic approach). In this respect, recordings made assuming no overdubs are possible have the bulk of their work up-front (managing the Band member placement, venue, acoustics etc), just like the old 'throwback' recordings...because when mistakes happen, you have but two choices - live with them...or do another take. This is the antithesis of multi-track recording.
