I have been using an AT822 for a little short of two years now as my
first and only mic. I have mostly recorded natural soundscapes in
Connecticut - amphibians, insects, birds, water, etc. Successfully
recorded to both minidisc and DAT. While I don't have much
experience with many other mics, self noise with the AT822 is always
an issue when recording in quiet environments. For this reason, I am
currently in the process of upgrading my mic. With that out of the
way, I'm very satisfied with most of my final CDs produced for
personal listening. The mic works well for me with reasonably loud
soundscapes and soundscapes containing content which blends with or
masks the mic self noise (i.e. water, wind, background of frogs or
insects, etc.).
Without noise reduction in the computer, most recordings made with
the AT822 are intolerable to my ears.
Search the Naturerecordists archive for "AT822", we have had a number
of conversations on this mic. My personal impressions from the group
is that this is a noisy mic when compared to Sennheiser's MKH and K6
modular series mics and the Telinga products. But it's probably
better than most of the binaural setups and definitely better than
the Radio Shack sort of thirty dollar mics. Some of the group's
members have given excellent advice to new recordists in the past -
for most people, it's probably better to try and borrow equipment or
purchase an inexpensive setup to start to see how much they enjoy it
before spending large $$$ on gear. The "hiss" from the mic is one
variable that can be reduced to a degree for a price. It's important
to consider your subject matter, quality needs and budget when
sorting out the gear dilemma. Be cautious before drawing conclusions
on mic recommendations. There is no such thing as a "best mic" for
nature recording. "Best" is a matter of application and many people
on this list have multiple "best" mics in their arsenal depending on
the recording situation. Also be aware that most of the general mic
experience out there is based on music recording where the sound
sources are loud, close and indoors - nature recording introduce a
whole different set of challenges and equipment demands.
If your not already familiar, check the web for stereo recording
techniques. There is a lot of information out there describing some
eight or ten different methods of mic placement and coverage. As you
noted that your coming from mono, pay particular attention to the
difference between stereo based on "difference in amplitude"
and "difference in time of arrival". The AT822 being an XY mic is
completely compatible for later conversion to mono as it only
generates difference in amplitude signals between the two channels.
The AT822's credits are it's relatively low cost of around $230, and
it's ease use as it's quick and easy to setup being a Stereo XY mic.
It yields very natural sounding results. It's limitation in the
context of my subject matter, is solely it's performance in terms of
self noise and sensitivity. Be conscious of the fact that some of
the mics favored amongst this group require phantom power (typically
48VDC) which requires an external power supply when used with the
typical consumer portable minidisc recorders. Many people in this
group use pro-minidisc recorders with both phantom power and digital
audio outputs - neither of which are ever found on the $100 recorders.
Finally, how I'm satisfied with my final results... Post recording
processing in the computer is always required. From what I
understand, a better mic translates to less need for noise
reduction. I must confess, I'm a obsessive perfectionist. I'm
trying to produce a listening experience void of "the hand of man"
including the mic itself. While I don't artificially "create" an
environment by mixing (at least not yet), I readily cut or filter to
remove segments of things like aircraft and barking dogs. Hence, my
final result is not a "perfect" scientific representation of the
environment. It's sometimes noted, that as soon as you select and
position your mic, you have already "edited" what the listener will
later hear. It takes some time to learn the basics of computer sound
editing, but I have found it can make a huge difference in the final
result.
BTW, I also use the AT822 with a homemade parabola with decent
results. I find expanding the image width (stereo separation) during
the editing process enhances the feeling of space. A benefit of the
parabola is that the impact of mic noise is measurably reduced by
improving the signal to noise of the overall system through
mechanical amplification.
Brian Bystrek
--- In Brian McWilliams
<> wrote:
>
> It's time to move from mono recordings to stereo for
> strictly outdoor field recording but I'm hesitating
> because I'm not quite sure which way to go. I have no
> experience with a soldering iron, so that may shape
> your answer.
>
> Has anyone had any experience with the Rode NT4 or
> Audio Technica AT822 in the field? If so, what were
> your experiences?
>
> Would you recommend either as a "cheap" stereo mic for
> field recording?
>
> Thanks,
>
> Brian
>
>
> __________________________________
> Do you Yahoo!?
> The New Yahoo! Search - Faster. Easier. Bingo.
> http://search.yahoo.com
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
|