Lang Elliott wrote:
> Hey Gang:
>
> One more suggestion concerning the stereo parabolic mp3 file I've posted =
at
> www.naturesound.com/plover.mp3
>
> If you can open the stereo file into a sound editing program, then listen=
to
> it first in stereo using headphones, paying special attention to when the
> two plovers call at the same time. Then convert the file to monaural and
> listen again. You'll be amazed at the difference. The "pleasure coefficie=
nt"
> drops enormously. Furthermore, you will not be able to clearly distinguis=
h
> the two plovers when they call together.
>
> I'm a total convert to using stereo parabolic recording, based entirely o=
n
> the pleasing recordings I've obtained. Arguments pale in comparison to th=
e
> nice results I've obtained. Stereo parabolic recordings are a pleasure to
> listen to back in the studio. They provide a whole new aesthetic dimensio=
n
> to using a parabola.
I've been saying that for quite a while. I'm not interested in mono if I
can get stereo. Even for scientific recordings.
Since I've been recording for a scientific survey, I've also gotten
comments from other scientists who have recently finished verifying my
ID's. They have universally found the Stereo helps in finding everything.
Which leaves things like sonograms. I get just fine sonograms out of the
Telinga. But, then my sonogram setup I use now allows me to select
either channel or mixed to mono.
Though not of the listening quality of Lang's, there is a Original
Telinga Pro V with DATstereo sound clip and a mixed to mono sound clip
from it on my homemade parabolic page near the bottom:
http://frogrecordist.home.mindspring.com/docs/quickparabolic.html
The frogs in that are easy ones to pick out compared to a lot of the
sites I record.
Walt
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
|