> From: Jeff and Crystal Smith <>
> Subject: Re: Beginner
>
> Hi Walt,
>
> You are right that I don't want the ultimate in performance! I don't have
> that kind of budget, and my odds of winning the lottery are only limited to
> finding a winning ticket on the ground! :-))
I buy a lottery ticket once in a while, just to give me a chance to dream.
> Actually I read the archives and noticed the wide range of opinions. It is
> the same with groups of photographers. My belief is doing is better than
> theorizing. I ask questions as I'm ready to make the plunge. The ME 67 is a
> good start. A consumer MD may be exactly what I need to get started. It
> would be good enough for me to get some experience!
90 percent of it is experience.
> With anything, as you mature with it, you want to improve as well. In
> photography it is more learning and practice. The equipment has little
> effect, once you have professional equipment. Although we spent $20,000 for
> a digital camera, which now can be purchased for $4500. Not a bad investment
> though, it is for our primary business, and it gave us 3 years extra
> experience with digital photography. It improved our work dramatically. We
> have backup equipment that we paid less than $1,000 for on Ebay. This year
> if we continue to receive all these blessings in our business, we will be
> getting two more digital camera's. One of the newer current varities, and
> another "outdated" works perfectly well variety from Ebay!
I'm using a digital (Minolta RD-175) that cost us $5000 many years ago.
They go awfully cheap on ebay. And the replacement equivalent is down to
$1500 or so. I don't make money at photography, but have been a
photographer all my life.
> In sound recording, it is not the same. Improvement does come with learning,
> and getting better and more knowledgable, but you can only get as good a
> recording as your equipment will allow. I'm not doing this full time
> professionally! And if somehow the marriage of our photography and sound
> happened, we would have to be paid enough to make the investment in the
> professional equipment!
Don't think there is all that much difference to sound recording.
Experience can overcome a awful lot of equipment limitations, just like
it can in photography.
> Walt, you also asked a good question, do I want the call or some background
> sounds as well? Right now in my mind I'm thinking the call would over ride
> the background sounds. Although the background sounds may add an ambience.
> I don't know as I never thought of this too much.
Calls are not continuous. If I'm working on a sound clip to teach ID,
I'll filter out as much other sounds as possible. But, if I'm doing it
for listening enjoyment, the environment matters. Best way to find out
where you fit is get out and record. Even then your goals will change.
> I did see the additional expneses of the wind screens! They blew me over in
> their cost. With photography there is a reason you pay some of the prices
> you do for the improvement of quality. The windscreens for the better mic's
> were all similarly priced.
And what's worse is it does not matter what the mic cost. In a really
expensive mic the price of a rycote setup won't be such a high
proportion, but it costs the same to protect the cheap mic. Don't get me
started on how overpriced that stuff is.
This is something you can work on once out recording. See how much you
need. Practice your Diy skills, haunt ebay, whatever. (all my
windscreening was put together from ebay.)
I should warn you that putting a mic on a tripod has problems. The
animals frequently won't stay put. Or some new one starts calling in a
different direction. Following animals is much easier hand held. All my
mics can be tripod mounted, but are not used that way a lot.
> There is no doubt in my mind that I will grow with this. Photography use to
> be my hobby, and now it is my profession. The nature recording is a new
> hobby that I've had a lifetime interest in. It also has some business
> potential as well.
>
> Anyway, today, I'm thinking the ME 67 seems to be the best mic I can afford.
> I do have the equipment to mount the ME67 on my camera tripod to keep
> handling noise down. It would be easy and fast to point in various
> directions.
You are making a far wiser choice than most beginners make. One of the
hardest things to get across to beginners is that mics vary widely. And
how much they matter.
Even if you should decide to move to something else, a quality mic like
the ME 67 can be resold easily. If you bought it off ebay, you may be
able to get even all the money back. Good mics last very long term.
> Walt, I don't understand the earphones leaking sound? I thought I'd use a
> cheaper pair of earphones, is this a Duh?
Price is not as important as the seal you get on your head. There are
some fairly cheap headphones that do fine. I used a pair of Koss closed
style headphones when I first started on frogs. If I remember right
those cost about $30. They did the job, I eventually moved up to the
Sony MDR-V900's I use now because they give me better detail than the
Koss did.
With the systems I'm using now, it's not just the headphones that have
to be not letting sound out. The mics are so sensitive that I have to be
very careful how I breathe or there is this breathing sound in my
recordings.
You'll get aquainted with all kinds of sounds you hardly notice now.
Most of which cannot be fixed by buying different equipment.
> Your comment that I need a starting point is valid and what I'm basing my
> decisions on. A starting point to get things that are needed, and will be
> usable for many years. I think I mentioned planning to upgrade the recorder
> as necessary and affordable. I also can imagine getting a variety of mic's
> as I learn and grow.
When I first committed to doing frog recordings for a survey project, I
decided to make a clean break from what I'd been using (cassette and
inexpensive mics, in particular I wanted to get away from the problems
of magnetic tape). I started with a Sony MZ-R30 MD recorder, and a Shure
unidirectional instrument mic, a serious amount of money for me at the
time. I then moved to a homemade parabolic and worked with that for
several years. Somewhere in here I also got the Sony ECM-MS957 stereo
M/S mic. Then added the Telinga when I decided I was getting serious
enough. By then the Sony was getting worn, so I moved up to the
Portadisc. The portadisc showed the flaws of the ECM-MS957 more than the
Sony did and I was ready to move up. The survey was also officially
ending and I wanted to do more listening recording. I committed to
building up a M/S mic out of MKH mics, and figuring a way to afford a
modified SASS mic, though It was a real money problem. That task took
several years haunting Ebay and scraping up money. My main mic set now
is the Telinga plus the mics I show in the M/S and SASS pages on my website:
http://frogrecordist.home.mindspring.com/docs/my_mod_sass.html
http://frogrecordist.home.mindspring.com/docs/my_ms_setups.html
I also got a Sound Devices MP2 pre as part of my M/S kit, it has a built
in M/S decoder. I don't tend to use it a lot as it's a extra clutter out
in the field. I've just gotten used to working with undecoded M/S signals.
I arrived at that equipment point over a year ago, it took many years.
I'm now in the process of learning how to get the best out of my new
toys. I've still a few more mics I want, and designs I want to
experiment with. But, I can fairly comfortably work on improving my
creativity and worry less about the equipment. That's the next phase for me.
You sound like you will go a long way in nature recording. The right mix
of excitement and practicality. I hope you enjoy the trip as much as I am.
Walt
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
|