Dan Dugan wrote:
> From: Dan Dugan <>
> Date: Thu, 24 Apr 2003 12:27:48 -0700
>
> I think it's entirely appropriate for threads discussing arcane
> engineering issues and threads on which way to point the microphone
> to co-exist on this forum. If it's above your level, pick up what you
> can, ask questions, or go on to another message. There are always
> people willing to explain to the newcomer.
Much of the discussion - almost all of the engineering discussion - is above
my level. But I like to watch from the sidelines. And after all, clicking
on 'delete' does not take much time or effort, if something does not
interest me.
What I seem to have missed and which would interest me, is how and why
scientific values of nature recordings are going to be compromised by
apparent or real limitations in the recording equipment. Just how are the
recordings going to be used, where such limitations are going to be a
problem, considering what the environment does to the sound by the time it
reaches the mic.
I started recording in 1968, with guidance from the Division of Wildlife
Research of Australia's CSIRO. It was an essential part of a research
project on the vocal behaviour of lyrebirds. I couldn't afford a Nagra as
favoured by CSIRO, but I managed to get satisfactory recordings with an open
reel Uher. And BTW, I tested that same Uher last lyrebird season and 30+
years on it still makes reasonable recordings if used to optimum effect in
the field.
Analysis of the recordings was carried out by CSIRO on a Kay Sonagraph. No
personal computers in those days. The impression I got then (and I've seen
no reason to change it), is that the environmental effects alter the sound
far more than does any short-comings of the equipment if it is of at all
reasonable standard. I recall CSIRO's lyrebird expert telling me that I'd
be able to get quite satisfactory recordings with an analogue cassette
recorder, provided I had a good mic., and of course, provided it was a
recorder with manual level control.
In '74, I took a small (relative to the Uher) National Panasonic cassette
recorder to the top of Mt Barney, because it involved a very steep climb of
about 4000 feet in elevation, and got satisfactory recordings of several
bird species of particular interest to me, (and of a frog, Walter, because
he was there). But I had a Sennheiser Shotgun mic.
I guess that the Kay Sonagraph analysis of the sounds was markedly inferior
to what you good folk are doing now in that direction, but it was good
enough to indicate the very substantial degradation of the sound that
occurred if I was recording from a distance with a parabola (or worse,
without one!). Only when I could get my mic close to a lyrebird, say less
than 2 m for an 'ordinary' mic., maybe 5 m for the shotgun, could I get
'clean' recordings that suggested the sound reaching the mic was pretty much
the same as when it left the bird's beak.
I strongly endorse the advice already given for anyone wanting to start
nature sound recording: get out there and start recording. Priority 1: the
best mic you can afford. Then make sure you have a recording device that
allows manual control of the recording level. Apart from that, the basic
operating system doesn't matter all that much. You'll get a lot of
satisfaction regardless. And you'll find you can improve your recordings
more through experience and technique, than by chasing the ultimate in
recording device.
Cheers
Syd (in Brisbane, Australia)
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
|