Dave wrote:
> Walt,
> I was very impressed with the samples you posted and really appreciate th=
e
> efforts you had to put in to gathering them....thanks! I listened to them=
on
> my nearfield monitors last night and was immediately struck by the
> difference between the parabola capture and the m/s capture. I'm mostly a
> lurker here and might have missed the discussion that led up to your
> posting, but can you tell me how you (and others here on the list) decide
> when to use the dish instead of the m/s rig? The first BIG difference I
> noticed was the enveloping sense of 3-D sound that the m/s rig conveyed. =
The
> imaging and depth of the Telinga was very convincing, but when I listened=
to
> the second of these two selections:
>
>
>>Telinga Pro V with DAT Stereo mic element. Plugged into the HHb
>>Portadisc direct. Input attenuation set at -15dB.
>>http://loscan.home.mindspring.com/S.Telinga.DATStereo.mp3
>>
>>M/S MKH-30/40 with Sennheiser suspension and zeppelin, no furry cover.
>>Powered by and plugged direct into the HHb Portadisc:
>>http://loscan.home.mindspring.com/S.MS.MKH30-40.mp3
>
>
> ....I could close my eyes and the soundfield had extended past the speake=
r
> box and stretched to a point somewhere beyond the outside edges of the
> speaker cabinets. When I heard this effect, it brought up the following
> question: When faced with a sound environment such as this location, how =
do
> you decide which mic configuration to use? Is it mostly a function of
> getting rid of noises that are behind you (which the Telinga seems to blo=
ck
> out)? Or is it a question of "gain"? For instance, can you remember what
> kind of readings you were getting from your meters between these two
> configurations? Finally, being the newbie that I am, I am always struggli=
ng
> with how to set my levels in a quiet environment such as the one you
> recorded. How much activity ARE you seeing on your meters when recording =
a
> setting such as this? Does the Telinga rig automatically increase the gai=
n
> available at the input of the Portadisc?
It is a question of gain and selectivity. The dish will have greater
gain that's not subject to mic noise increase. And it's picking a
narrower field. So, it's used to pick out more distant subjects, or for
more precise separation of nearer ones than can be gotten by any other
mic setup. Yes you might be using it to cut out sounds you did not want.
The Telinga with DAT Stereo provides a modified stereo field. The mics
are picking up some local soundfield to add to what's being fairly
narrowly focused. I prefer this to a dish with a mono mic by a wide
margin. Both of the sample sites had a fairly narrow set of subjects.
Listen to the wildlife refuge recording for how it does where there is
almost a limitless width of sounds to pick up.
http://loscan.home.mindspring.com/SavannahNWR.mp3
In this case there is also quite a distance. Several hundred yards out
contain birds. All over the place. Many would not have been picked up as
well, if at all with the other mics.
As far as settings, the Portadisc has the usual 0-10 markings on it's
Rec Level dial. And I never use the AGC, I set the gain manually. All
these mics were at settings in the 5 - 7 range. But, with the Telinga I
also had switched in a -15dB attenuator to keep it in that range. It was
putting out at least 15dB stronger signal than the others.
I run the Portadisc with the peak hold function on. It still will miss
the sharpest transients even with that, so I aim at having the metering
reaching about -10dB to allow some headroom for those transients. For
these sites the bar was moving up and down about 1/4 of the full
available display length for it. Reading mostly between -10dB and -40dB.
I consider the Telinga my primary workhorse for recording calls. It will
record calls over a much wider range of distances than the others.
The others I consider to be for closer recording. They have much less
reach. Yes, they will pick up stuff from far away, but at much reduced
volume. For each setup you need to develop a visualization of the
soundfield it's designed to capture and compare that to what's in front
of you. I'm fairly new to these mics, and still experimenting to
determine what they will do. That's really how you do it, go out and
record and critically compare what you get with what was there.
You should note that there are only a few on the list who have a M/S
setup. And in addition realize that the soundfield can be adjusted in
the decoding step to all kinds of shapes. And you can always recover the
pure mid mic by mixing to mono. So, from that same recording I could
give you a very narrow soundfield too. I choose to make it fairly wide.
That part is also new to me and I just guessed, setting something that
sounded fairly good.
You should also put on a quality pair of headphones and listen as well.
Particularly the SASS have binaural characteristics. To my mind, with
headphones the SASS have a very wide soundfield. These sites don't show
that as well as others might as the main players are in a fairly narrow
angle at both sites. The 2nd site was wider, but still less than 90
degrees. The SASS has a pickup field of about 3/4 of a circle.
Walt
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
|