naturerecordists
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: Software for frequency measurments

Subject: Re: Software for frequency measurments
From: Klas Strandberg <>
Date: Sun, 06 Jul 2003 17:03:08 +0200
All this what you say if perfectly okay with me. You are still in the hands
of parabolic behaviors, just that your frequency knee is lower down and tha=
t
you get another kind of stereo.

A Swedish film-maker, the late Jan Lindblad, had two 5 meter diameter dishe=
s
mounted on poles at a lake in India.
So??

What I wanted to emphasize is of a more philosophical character:

1/ Many people say: I can't use a parabol because it hasn't a flat frequenc=
y
curve. It distorts reality. It has errors.

1B/ I say: If you don't distort reality, there is only one way of recording
birds as it sound near the bird: That is putting the microphone very close
to it.
If you can't do that, you have to use a parabol. There is no other way.

And hence I conclude: That's not "an error". By definition, I claim, - "an
error" is something you want to eliminate! Who wants to eliminate the gain
of the dish?
That would be stupid. That's all.

This, my reasoning, is a way to straighten out a very old confusion: If it
is so terribly wrong to use a parabol, why do so many people do it? And wha=
t
is it that a parabol does, which people call "an error" but in fact is just
the character they need??

This is in no way a "more of a justification" of "how (the Telinga) parabol
sounds"! It is only a way to try to describe something like "the true value
of a parabolic microphone," or "how should you look at a parabol, to judge
it in a fair way?"


Klas.


At 14:07 2003-07-06 -0000, you wrote:
>> Like so many others, you seem to miss the point with a parabol. A
>parabol is
>> a parabol and it does what it does. It can never be compared with
>an omni or
>> a directional mic. It's another tool. Please read the white papers
>at
>> telinga.com.=20
>>
>> Best wishes,
>>
>> Klas.
>>
>
>I reviewed your white papers and do not feel that I have missed the
>point with how parabolics work.  I find your white paper to be more
>of a justification of why your parabolic sounds like it does than an
>accurate presentation regarding how all parabolics work.
>
>But it is clear over time that we don't have the same values in
>recording with parabolics.  I like larger parabolics and will put up
>with the handling problems. I like stereo from two mics without a
>barrier between the elements.  And I like cheap headphones while
>recording.  IMHO, My results give a more natural sound that extends
>lower in frequency, stereo imaging of "on focus" targets, and easy to
>use field headphones that don't distort and do not disrupt my hearing
>of off target sounds.=20
>
>Rich Peet
>
>
>
>
>
>To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
>
>
>
>
>Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/=

>
>
>
Telinga Microphones, Botarbo,
S-748 96 Tobo, Sweden.
Phone & fax int + 295 310 01
email: 
       



________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>
Admin

The University of NSW School of Computer and Engineering takes no responsibility for the contents of this archive. It is purely a compilation of material sent by many people to the naturerecordists mailing list. It has not been checked for accuracy nor its content verified in any way. If you wish to get material removed from the archive or have other queries about the archive e-mail Andrew Taylor at this address: andrewt@cse.unsw.EDU.AU