> Rob D. wrote:
>
> > 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.
> Walt wrote:
> 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.
As another "newbie" both to this group and to nature recording, I
would be very much interested in such a list... Why not start it ? After
all, many list members seem to agree that the choice of a microphone really
does matter a lot.
Perhaps we could do it in 3 steps :
(1) we could start asking list members what microphones they used,
an idea of how often they used them, along with a short description of the
situations in which they used them, and their initial comments and,
(2) one member could be in charge of collecting all comments in a
simple text document, sorting them by microphone, and with little or no
editing (each comment being accompanied by the name of its author)... The
document could easily be made available as a web page.
(3) later on, the document could be kept up-to-date and could
include additional information such as availability, prices, etc.
Perhaps there is no need to make it a typical discussion right from
the beginning, but rather a collection of experiences and of personal
evaluations of these experiences. I am sure this would lead to an
interesting discussion...
=09
With all the expertise around, the final product should be
particularly interesting for many readers -- certainly the "newbies"...
Dominique Laloux
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
|