Rob D. wrote:
> Walter wrote:
>>One should note that Crown's PZMs are almost universally fairly noisy
>>mics. Otherwise you might get some things close to the mics. I doubt
>>that you could get 200' of separation covered by the PZM's. Though 20'
>>might be ok. At 200' separation you will be recording two mono circles
>>with little connection to each other, not stereo.
>
>
> Not sure of the benefits of such a narrow definition of "stereo."
> When the mics are close to two different places, the chances of
> capturing something close are increased. Sounds coming from afar
> always integrate the channels into a sense of one place. A goose
> flying/calling about 200' feet away from mics 120' apart can be
> stunning. Scientifically, its okay to write, "two groups of frogs
> 120' feet apart" on the tape cover.
It will be something, but not stereo. Stereo, by definition is producing
a 3 dimensional soundspace. Preserving, in some manner the directional
cues.
Calling anything two channel stereo regardless of it preserving
directional cues leads to a lot of the error in mic design for this.
I do realize that the highly artificial mixes used in music are often
called stereo. In this case the directional cues are provided in post
processing. Done well you can construct a believable soundfield this
way. That soundfield may bear no resemblance to the original.
Yes, you might get directionality from the goose flying over. Though the
signal may not be all that strong.
I have no problem calling it two mono fields containing frogs. That does
not detract from it. I'm more saying that you are not very likely to
produce a continuous soundfield with good directional cues. To many it
will sound like stereo, but try and close your eyes and point to the
callers and you find the problems.
> Recording is a time/space strategy involving living things.
> Absolutely, the Crown PZM's are noisy (23dB noise and ~3dB
> sensitivity). But, for documenting out one's window and getting great
> material to work with, spending $300 on mics one can set outside 24/7
> have pretty good odds against condenser mics one is setting-up and
> removing all the time. Leave it and they will come.
Yes, placed close to the sources these can get some very interesting
material.
>>>http://www.microphonereview.com/miclist.asp?F_Sensitivity=3D&F_Noise=3D&=
F_SPL=3D&F_LLF=3D&F_ULF=3D&order=3DMicrophones.%5BNoise+Level%5D%2C+
>>
>>This table is interesting in what it does not include. Like the MKH-60
>>and MKH-70, both of which would be right up there at the low noise end
>>of the table. The ME mics seem to be missing too.
>>
>>It also does not include the VP88. As I've noted it's a pretty noisy
>>mic. Here's the specs from Shure's pdf on the mic:
>>
>>Self noise: 24dBA
>>Sensitivity (1 kHz, MS mode)
>> Open Circuit Voltage: -66 dB (0.5 mV) Mid. (Side level 1.6 dB
>> higher than Mid level) (0 dB=3D1 V/Pa)
>>
>>Before doing specs or looking at mics you need to evaluate what you
>>might be recording in the next few years.
>
>
> Yes, the list has more studio mikes, but its nice to see so many
> lined-up via noise with spec sheets linked. It really helped me get a
> sense of what low noise/quality really costs.
It is a interesting list as far as it goes. Just has a lot of the common
mics of nature recording missing. One of the things we need to do is
make up our own version more oriented to nature recording mics.
> I'm not sure I was ready to think so far ahead about what I would
> want to record and make a good $1000 + investment until I had
> recorded a few years. Its a very big step for some folks to move
> from recording in the back yard to going down the road and across the
> county. Trying to EQ those noisy sound files has its purpose in the
> big picture if improved listening skills leads to better recordings.
I agree, it's extremely difficult for a beginner in nature recording to
even predict what their recording interests are. Let alone tie that to
the mics. I generally feel someone beginning in this should start in
with the realization that whatever they start with may not suit and have
to be replaced. It may not be a good idea to begin with a high end mic
as long as it's clearly understood where the compromise is.
I'm also pointing out that the choice of mics is tied to the choice of
recordings you want to do. Specs alone won't make a perfect choice.
> There are so many factors that contribute to great recordings, one
> can only try to affect a small number of them. After working with
> low quality gear for 7 years, it was truly thrilling to experience a
> good preamp and good mics. But I still get my most memorable wildlife
> recordings when the MKH's are right up on something and mic noise
> suddenly isn't such a huge factor. Of course I'm glad I use them, but
> they were not absolutely critical in these situations. One could
> argue that I almost really need the low-noise capability when
> recording minimal ambience, but it took me years to be able hear into
> and enjoy recording these spaces.
This is a major division point in nature recording. That of recording a
call vs recording a environment. And, yes, the most critical place to
have the best mics is in the ambiance recordings. Too much is happening
over too wide a range of frequencies to have much chance of filtering.
It's got to come out of the mic pretty much right on. With a single call
you often can do some pretty severe filtering and still have the call.
We go for the quiet high end mics because they give us more situations
that we can get good recordings. Even a pretty low end mic will do fine
under ideal conditions. The low end mic will be more challenging as
well. A high end mic can really spoil you.
> It's fun to try and sense where passions lie, newcomers included. A
> growing number of nature recordists is good for preserving and
> further enjoying the things we care about, including love of process
> and love of low noise. Clearly, newbies can gain from both, the
> former is certainly less costly and sometimes easier for a newcomer
> to talk about.
Yes, and even more fun to watch newcomers as they expand their
interests. Many start in with just very simple goals. But the goals can
expand quickly.
Note I almost bought a VP88 a while back. That it's self noise was not
much better than the Sony ECM-MS957 I already had slowed me down. Then I
finally decided to take the big leap into the MKH mics.
I also like the boundary mic concepts. I only wish that Crown would come
out with a line with higher quality capsules. I think this would make
this mic type a lot more mainstream.
Walt
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
|