Robert Whitworth wrote:
> Hello to all.
>
> My name is Rob and I'm new to the nature recording
> community. Thanks for having me. More to the point,
> I'm a musician who is interested in incorporating
> environmental soundscapes into my existing
> compositions. I feel quite timid posting this
> "neophyte" call for help so-to-speak to a community
> who is obviously discussing in-depth technical details
> as they relate to nature recording. So, that being
> said...
We cover the range from simple to complex and new folks are always
welcome. That's the beauty of this group. There are few places like this
where a complete beginner may get advice from some of the top people in
the field. We all have in common a love of the sounds of nature and a
interest in capturing them. We like helping new folks get started.
And those who get called experts around here mostly don't feel that way.
The more you learn, the more you find out you don't know.
> I would like to know what brand(s) and model(s) of
> PORTABLE devices are typically used for "real world"
> recording applications. I would be interested in
> acquiring a device capable of recording ambient sounds
> e.g., rain, ocean surf, crickets, etc, and more up
> close and personal sounds such as the human voice and
> solo instruments. Basically I'm looking for a device
> capable of producing high quality recordings that can
> "do it all"- if there is such a thing.
In recorders you can come close with something like the HHb Portadisc.
DAT recorders can do fairly well, but that's a dying format. Analog tape
does not do as well. There are newer solid state, or hard disk based
recorders. They are still fairly new and a bit of a unknown when it
comes to field conditions. Consider them experimental for field recording.
Field recording as nature recordists use the term involves being out in
the wild dealing with whatever is out there. In practice it means large
swings in temperature, dealing with high humidity, or even actual rain,
wind, dust, mud, brush and so on. The criteria of continuing to run well
under all conditions weeds out quite a few things. It is as important or
maybe even more so that the equipment is truly field equipment than any
fine points of it's sound reproduction. As long as that's pretty decent.
Mics and so on are not universal, no do it all there. And they must be
up to field conditions too.
The goal is to keep the basic kit as simple as possible. Each extra lump
of stuff you carry is a multiplier of problems.
Somewhat the standard "kit" depends on how much money. I generally don't
recommend to new folks to go expensive (like the Portadisc) unless they
are sure that they are in it for the long haul, and have the money. It's
possible to get out nature recording fairly cheaply. The current cheap
route usually involves a walkman style minidisc recorder, and either
something like a ME series shotgun mic or a homemade parabolic. For
ambiance a mic like the Sony ECM-MS957 can work pretty well for close
stuff. If you have more money and know where you are going, there are
plenty of choices.
Even if you have money, it may be best to start with a limited kit. Each
person's needs and style differ, and their equipment will reflect that.
Only getting out and recording will tell you what you really need/want.
> I have gathered from many of your messages that the
> portadisc is a popular and highly esteemed choice.
> Recently I have been made aware of the Marantz CDR300
> direct to CD recorder. This is a new machine, and I
> was wondering if any of you knew anything about its
> merits... I have also been told to stay away from
> mini-disc because of compression issues. Supposedly
> with direct to CD-R you don't get compression, which
> results in a more accurate recording.
The problems I'd see with CD-R in a field recorder is that it's a larger
media, unprotected. Far too easy to damage out in the field, really
designed for inside nice clean buildings. A minidisc, in contrast is a
small disc, with a protective shell, designed for out and about. The
minidisc coatings have a longer life expectancy than CD-R by a little
bit as well.
In addition, I'd expect that burning CD-R would require more battery
than minidisc, though I don't know for sure. I don't re-record my field
minidiscs, so the issue that CD-R is not re-recordable does not enter in
for me.
The bit about minidisc being somehow unique and bad in compressing sound
is a red herring with modern levels of ATRAC. All digital audio is a
sampling process from the infinite number of possible samples in analog
sound. All of it, therefore, compresses. To say nothing of all the
various kinds of compression going on with the sound once it's brought
into a computer. The word seems to scare some folks.
Any problem with a recording made with minidisc is almost always
immediately blamed on the ATRAC compression. If you can hear the
artifact, it's almost certainly due to another source. In blind tests
where ATRAC is truly the only difference even the detractors can do no
better than chance guessing as to which is ATRAC. I've been doing
sonograms on sound recorded with minidisc for many years. I've looked
for each reported artifact in the recordings, they are almost never
there, or due to something else. The only fairly consistent signature to
be found is that the highest frequency sounds will have the quieter
portions of them attenuated some. Say the sounds that are 40-50 dB below
the main sounds at those frequencies. For ATRAC 4 this was stuff above
16-17khz, with the newer versions it's up around 19-20 khz or higher.
Completely inaudible, it's usually some of the self noise from the mics
or electronics that's being lost.
ATRAC does not really compress and then decompress the same samples. It
really tosses 100% of the samples after writing instructions to the
decoder as to how to reproduce them. It also uses bit offsets to improve
the dynamic range. It also stores at variable bit depth. Because of this
current ATRAC is like 24bit in what it stores, something that audio CD
cannot match, audio CD does not do bit offsetting or variable bit depth.
As a result the Portadisc is spec'd with a dynamic range in excess of
120 dB instead of the 96 dB of audio CD or regular DAT, which are
limited by standards that prevent this improvement. The formats in newer
recorders are also fixed, usually to some standard that's much the same
as audio CD. The higher bit depth recorders are, of course less of a
problem in this regard. For nature recording the higher bit depth and
greater sampling rate recorders are pretty much not going to show much
gain for what you will pay, however. It's important that your computer
software do it's math on the sound at greater bit depth, far less
important to have that bit depth in the recording itself.
> Also, I know little about the types and styles of
> microphones to do the type of recording mentioned
> above. Any advice you might have in this area would
> be greatly appreciated. Perhaps someone could
> recommend a good learning book, website, journal,
> and/or magazine that deals directly with educating
> folks who are just getting into this sort of thing.
The type of nature recording you describe is generally called ambiance
or soundscapes. It requires somewhat different technique than recording
individual calls. It's tough in many ways as you pretty much have to get
it when you record, a call can often be filtered out of unwanted noise,
a entire soundscape can hardly be filtered at all.
To my mind recording soundscapes is best done in stereo at least. There
are a number of techniques, true stereo is not just randomly hanging two
mics out there as many do. The major techniques are fairly well worked
out, though recording stereo in natural environments is not as fixed a
thing as it is with music. The environment itself creates considerable
uncertainty.
To know what mics you will need you first must think about what you will
record. Not so much the exact subjects, but the size and shape of the
area that's your sound source. Different mic setups will pick out
different parts of the area best.
In nature recording we are usually recording at a distance, something
that's puts heavy demands on the qualities of the mics. To record the
most distant sound sources possible it's usually necessary to record
with a parabolic mic. The parabolic reflector provides considerable gain
without adding noise. Here, in commercial mics, there is one choice that
stands well above the others. This is the Telinga, the current model
being the Pro V. There are different mic elements, including the "DAT
Stereo" one, which records in stereo. You can think of it's stereo field
as kind of pear shaped, the center reaching well out, the sides more
local. Here's a link to the Telinga site:
http://www.bahnhof.se./~telinga/index.html
And to Doug's site, he's US rep:
http://www.naturesongs.com/Telinga.html
If funds are limited, parabolic mics can be homemade fairly cheaply in
mono. Most inexpensive parabolics, and even some expensive ones have
considerable flaws. Here's a page I put up on such a concept mic:
http://frogrecordist.home.mindspring.com/docs/quickparabolic.html
Next down in mics as far as distance limits are the shotgun mics. These
were mostly originally designed for recording dialog on movie or TV
sets. We use them for recording much more distant subjects. Since a
shotgun mic attenuates noise from off axis but provides no special
amount of gain on axis, it's necessary to use considerable
amplification. Since the amplification also amplifies the mics self
noise, it's necessary to use mics with very low self noise, which limits
us to a few mics, mostly expensive. Stereo can be had from a pair of
shotgun mics. It will be a fairly narrow pickup field, how narrow
depends on the model of mic.
From shotguns you grade on down into unidirectional mics and to omni's.
Most of these can only be used for fairly close work, 50-100' being a
upper limit with amplification, unless the sound source is loud. Again,
because of the amplification it's necessary to go for the quietest mics
with the best sensitivity.
With all these mics there are stereo techniques. Not just pairs of
matched mics, but also techniques like Mid-Side ( M/S ) stereo, which
decodes it's stereo from a regular style mid mic and a figure 8 side
mic. Anything from shotguns on down can be the mid mic with differences
in the field you will get. Here's a link to some photos of a M/S setup I
have:
http://frogrecordist.home.mindspring.com/docs/ms_mkh30+60.html
Note the MKH-60 is a short shotgun type, I also have a M/S setup that's
based on a MKH-40 cardioid for the mid. These M/S setups require
decoding to produce stereo, which can be done in a few mic pre's. I have
a Sound Devices MP2 pre which can do this, and plugins for my sound
software that do this. M/S stereo setups are more compact than most
other stereo methods, making them easier to use in the field.
At one end stereo grades into binaural mics (and then on into surround
sound). The small "binaural" mic setups sold for concert tapers are
mostly not much use in nature recording, though some use them for close
work. Their design is focused on a loud sound environment. The binaural
heads are used by a few in nature recording. A mic that will attract
less attention than those is the SASS mic we have discussed on this
group. The original SASS does not use high quality mic elements and is
less useful than a modified SASS. Here's a link to the two versions I
made recently:
http://frogrecordist.home.mindspring.com/docs/sass_mkh110.html
The SASS mic setups like this work fairly evenly from a very wide field,
similar to our own natural field.
Sennheiser is a name to note in mics other than parabolics. Nature
recordists tend to stick with them because they are tough out in the
environment in addition to being high quality mics. Many high quality
mics cannot stand, particularly, humidity and quit fairly quickly under
field conditions. Sennheiser's keep going. The less expensive series is
the ME series using a K6 powering module. The top ones, and much more
expensive are the MKH mics. These are phantom powered in most current
models, although there are T power versions too. And some older MKH have
unique powering (like the MKH-110's, which are also unique in having a
frequency response that goes down to 1hz).
There are other brands of mics that may work. It is often very hard to
find out how they will survive in the field without trying them. Again,
good mics are expensive, which tends to limit the experimenting.
Wind protection and shock absorbing suspensions are also a important
part of outdoor recording. The foam "windscreens" are really little more
than pop filters to handle nearby singers, or dust protectors. Real wind
protection is more complex. Commercially it's vastly overpriced, a
problem that results in all kinds of substitutes. Buying new it can cost
as much or more than the mic to protect it from wind and suspend it
using a Rycote setup. Even with the best wind protection, nothing stops
the sound of the wind in the environment itself, so if that is not
wanted, sometimes the best method can be to wait for a calm time.
Two books I'd recommend:
"Wild Soundscapes - Discovering the Voice of the Natural World" by
Bernie Krause. This is about the type of recording you are interested in.
"The New Stereo Soundbook" second edition by Ron Streicher & F. Alton
Everest They have their own website:
http://www.stereosoundbook.com/
Especially good for learning about stereo as it avoids burying you in
math, doing it with pictures and diagrams as much as possible. Gives a
lot of detail necessary to understanding stereo recording. A lot about
how the stereo perception is created and sustained, how we think and
react. It's not about specific models of mics, although some data
identifies the mics used. It's about the techniques. It's not about
nature recording, nothing specific about that will be found. But it's
also not tied so strongly to music either. If you will be recording in
stereo you will find it a very useful reference.
There is a considerable library of books on recording and microphone
techniques. Nearly all of it is about recording music in controlled
environments, which is quite a different game. There are bits and pieces
of useful stuff to be found, however, it's not that different. Do note
the techniques where each instrument is mic'd separately with many
channels mixed is really not practical in the field. Expect to record
mostly with one relatively portable mic setup at a time. Mostly best to
plan on hand held setups and no more than two channels.
In additon there is lots in the internet which can be found through the
searchers. And reading the archives of this group can turn up a useful
idea or two...
Walt
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
|