Jon Reisenbuechler wrote:
> Nature Recordists,
>
> I am a beginner currently shopping for equipment to record
natural sounds. My primary interest is to record a bird/natural chorus
in a given location. The recording should be similar to the actual
human audio experience. I also need to be able to easily transfer the
recorded chorus to a computer for storage and use as .mp3, .wav or
whatever type of file. Can you offer any advice about the type of
equipment setup I would need to do this? What if I wanted to record
specific sounds too? What options do I have? Also, what are some of
the problems encountered with this type of use? I would appreciate any
information or advice that you could give me. Feel free to respond
directly to me.
As far as a recorder itself, it greatly depends on how much you are
willing to spend. I generally recommend to someone just getting into
nature recording to try it first fairly cheaply. That way if you decide
it's not for you there is not a lot of money used. The inexpensive
choice for buying a recorder is one of the walkman style minidisc
recorders. There is a considerable body of experience in the group that
says that you can get good recordings with these. They are a known
quantity. In choosing a model, you need to check out the features
closely. And check out how you would actually use it, button size and
position, etc. They are tiny, which has it's good and bad points. I
happen to lean toward Sony MD's, with a preference for some of the older
models like the MZ-R30, MZ-R50, MZ-R55, but they are hardly the only
models that work well.
Your actual big problem is microphones. While not completely true, price
is a fair measure of the quality of sound of a microphone. And nature
recording is a very demanding situation for a microphone. The subjects
tend to be far away, the environment is making major changes to the
sound, there are lots of interfering sounds, and you are out in the
weather. And no mic can do it all. What you are asking to do is really
two directions. What you do for mic(s) is dependent on what you can
afford. No matter what level you choose it's going to be some sort of
compromise.
Your wish to record what's the human experience is what we tend to call
ambiance recording. You may have a central caller, but you want the
sound environment of the caller. Since that environment contains highly
variable sound, you can do little to filter out unwanted sounds later.
Your mic has to pick up the sound without coloring it or adding self
noise. It's hard to do this with less expensive mics, though if you are
willing to tolerate some extra noise and so on it can be done. Getting
close helps a great deal.
Recording specific sounds is actually somewhat easier. You simply
identify the sort of distance the caller is and use a appropriate
microphone. Preferably one that picks up from a narrow angle to cut out
other sounds. The sharpest, longest reaching mic is a parabolic mic. It
get's both it's focus and it's extra gain from the reflector, so the
mic's self noise is not increased by this extra gain. This mic can also
be used at fairly close range too, so it's probably the one that a
beginner should start with for recording calls. You will get more
variety of capability out of a parabolic for the money.
The other choice in narrow pickup is a shotgun mic. These mics use a
interference tube to produce the narrow field, but that does nothing to
increase their gain. They pick up the actual center sound about the same
as a plain mic of the same sensitivity. So, to get distance with these
you have to amplify their signal. This also amplifies their own self
noise, so a practical limit is quickly reached where the self noise
overwhelms what you want to record. The only way out is a shotgun with
very low self noise coupled with a mic preamp that's also very low
noise. That combo is expensive compared to the parabolic. And, at best
it won't reach as far as a good parabolic.
Some make a point that the parabolic is a cumbersome large dish to cart
around, vs the stick like shotgun mic. By the time you get a shotgun mic
properly protected from the wind and handling noise it's a fairly fat
stick. And both have a dangling cord to snag things. I find this
difference to only be important if I'm worming through brush. And
generally the cable is the big problem there. And both have their
awkwardness carting them around.
Back to your sounds as humans hear them. We have two ears, we hear in
stereo. So to sound at all like what we hear you are into recording in
stereo. A mono recording will make sound in the center of your head, a
stereo recording makes a soundfield around you, at least ideally. This
means a minimum of two mics. Depending on the setup that can double the
mic cost. Stereo can be recorded with quite a few methods at close
range, but becomes more of a problem at distance. There are methods of
getting stereo from both the shotgun and parabolic systems.
What's probably the best commercial parabolic for nature recordists has
a mic element available that records in stereo. That's the Telinga Pro V
with the DAT Stereo mic element. There's a sample here of a recording
with it off across a large marsh:
http://loscan.home.mindspring.com/SavannahNWR.mp3
And here's a couple of close groups of frogs:
http://loscan.home.mindspring.com/B.Telinga.DATStereo.mp3
http://loscan.home.mindspring.com/S.Telinga.DATStereo.mp3
If you read recent posts in the group you will discover a ongoing
discussion of how to hand make a stereo parabolic. Somewhat
experimental, though some have used stereo parabolics for some time.
Typical recording setup for stereo with shotgun mics set up the two mics
in a crossed pattern called XY stereo. It's also possible to combine a
shotgun mic with a figure 8 mic in the Mid/Side configuration for
stereo. I don't have samples of the XY, but here are some M/S clips of
the same frog groups where the mid mic is a short shotgun mic:
http://loscan.home.mindspring.com/B.MS.MKH30-60.mp3
http://loscan.home.mindspring.com/S.MS.MKH30-60.mp3
Someone else will have to supply clips from their XY shotgun mic setups.
Finally, as you get closer you have some other options. There is the
same XY stereo, but with less narrow pattern mics, there is M/S with
wider mid mic, and there is binaural, where I use a modified SASS mic.
Here's closer type mics M/S:
http://loscan.home.mindspring.com/B.MS.MKH80-80.mp3
http://loscan.home.mindspring.com/S.MS.MKH30-40.mp3
http://loscan.home.mindspring.com/S.MS.MKH80-80.mp3
And here's the SASS system:
http://loscan.home.mindspring.com/B.SASS.MKH110.mp3
http://loscan.home.mindspring.com/B.SASS.MKH20.mp3
http://loscan.home.mindspring.com/S.SASS.MKH110.mp3
http://loscan.home.mindspring.com/S.SASS.MKH20.mp3
Photos of the shotgun version of the M/S are here:
http://frogrecordist.home.mindspring.com/docs/ms_mkh30+60.html
Photos of my modified SASS are here:
http://frogrecordist.home.mindspring.com/docs/sass_mkh-20.html
http://frogrecordist.home.mindspring.com/docs/sass_mkh110.html
Some info on a possible inexpensive homemade mono parabolic here:
http://frogrecordist.home.mindspring.com/docs/quickparabolic.html
Please note that the mic setups shown here are expensive, high end mics,
except for the homemade parabolic page. But the only lower end mic
recordings I have are a few on that homemade parabolic page, and those
don't really show what all it's capable of. The high end mics are the
result of many years as a nature recordist and a deep commitment to it.
I did not start with these mics, I started with a mono instrument mic
and a walkman MD recorder. I built a homemade mono parabolic and
recorded with that for several years before buying my first expensive
mic, which was the Telinga. And even later I added a pro level recorder
to replace my worn MZ-R30's, buying a HHb Portadisc. It is only recently
that I've accumulated the collection of Sennheiser MKH mics after some
money became available to do it.
There are one piece M/S mics and X/Y mics. The high end on these is very
expensive, but there are some lower end ones that are pretty capable for
close recording. Beware of mics designed for concert taping. They are
generally designed for recording loud sounds and only a few have enough
sensitivity or low enough self noise to be used for ambiance.
For starting out go for a reasonable recorder (I recommend minidisc) and
more modest priced mics. Get out and record, and soon enough you will
have a good idea which way you really want to go. Then you can get into
emptying your wallet more effectively. The important thing is to get a
minimal kit and get out and use it. If you have the desire and money, a
walkman MD and a Telinga with DAT Stereo would be a excellent starting
package. But the Telinga is $1200. If you cannot do that much money,
either give up distance and record close with modest priced mics, or
build your parabolic, most likely in mono, though look into the thread
on stereo parabolics. You could also start with a mono shotgun mic like
the Sennheiser ME 66 or 67. Though note these often require some extra
interfacing to work right with a walkman MD. This would give you a
intermediate reach, and adding a 2nd one and building something like
Marty's stereo mount would give you stereo.
It helps to plan out in advance the components of your kit. So the
various setups complement each other. This is hard for a beginner to do
which is why I recommend going with something inexpensive, knowing it
may not have a permanent place in your equipment, while you gain
experience to choose what fit's what you want to do. And give yourself
time to grill all of us on what we like.
Note I've not gotten into the computer end. For working with a walkman
MD you only have a analog line out, so your computer needs a analog
sound input port of CD quality. Then the software depends on your OS.
Digital inputs do improve the sound, but require either a special
transfer deck or using a recorder that has digital outputs. My HHb
Portadisc has digital I/O and I do use digital transfer (realtime audio
transfer). I also use a mac, and my primary editing software is Bias' Peak.
Basic production of CD's or mp3's is pretty easy. But the sky is the
limit for filtering and other soundmangling in a computer. For nature
recording we are generally trying for the most true to life sound, so a
lot of what's available does not help us much, we tend to keep it
simple. It's a separate thing from nature recording to do sound
processing in a computer. Get some recordings and then get into that.
Just realize that you can only fix a few things in the computer.
I'm sure you have realized by now that your simple sounding questions
have complex answers. Keep grilling us.
Walt
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
>From Tue Mar 8 18:23:26 2005
Message: 7
Date: Sun, 2 Mar 2003 10:17:00 -0600
From: "Jon Reisenbuechler" <>
Subject: equipment advice
Nature Recordists,
I am a beginner currently shopping for equipment to record natural sounds.
My primary interest is to record a bird/natural chorus in a given location.
The recording should be similar to the actual human audio experience. I also
need to be able to easily transfer the recorded chorus to a computer for
storage and use as .mp3, .wav or whatever type of file. Can you offer any
advice about the type of equipment setup I would need to do this? What if I
wanted to record specific sounds too? What options do I have? Also, what are
some of the problems encountered with this type of use? I would appreciate any
information or advice that you could give me. Feel free to respond directly to
me.
Thank you in advance,
Jon Reisenbuechler
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
|