I will agree with that Lang.
Now to determine if I am nuts, which should be a separate thread on
its own, I did a comparison over time.
With the comparison I mentioned in my last post. I took a segment of
each frog call over a about 5 seconds or so. I put the GC on the left
channel and The Telinga on the right channel. Display was averaged
over time, for frequency over volume. Primary energy noted at 3,500
cycles, and was matched the same for each channel. I see that the
Telinga is 6 to 12 db louder from 4,000 to 13,000 cycles. That is my
experience and I do feel I can hear that difference. I also feel that
the GC is closer to reality of what the critter sounded like. I like
the telinga but still do prefer this larger dish and would like to
see a equalizer curve to bring down the highs. Now that I have this
side by side file maybe it is easier to do. I will try.
small downloads this time <100kb
http://home.comcast.net/~richpeet/gcvte.jpg
same just zoomed in:
http://home.comcast.net/~richpeet/gcvte2.jpg
Rich
--- In Lang Elliott <>
wrote:
> Klas:
>
> I too would like to hear answers to your question about
defining "shrill".
> According to my dictionary, "shrill" means "high-pitched and
piercing". In
> other words, shrill sounds can be a little hard on the ears.
>
> An example is the call of the Spring Peeper. Though not extremely
> high-pitched at 3-3.5 kHz, it is extremely piercing. One only has
to walk
> into a chorus and find out. The sound is so piercing that it causes
> distortion in one's ears, probably due to simple overload.
>
> Relative to our discussion of parabolas and the quality of
recordings
> obtained from them, I think "shrill" means that the parabola is
boosting the
> highs (relative to the midrange) and making high pitched songs or
the
> high-pitched portions of songs more obvious.
>
> One notices this when recording the song of the Wood Thrush, where
the
> frequency ranges from around 2.5 kHz upwards to 7-8 kHz. Even when
recorded
> with a microphone having reasonably flat frequency response (such
as my SASS
> unit), it becomes clear that certain parts of certain Wood Thrush
songs have
> shrill components that are a very hard on the ears. When one uses a
parabola
> and records a Wood Thrush in dead-on focus, it is likely that the
shrill
> components of the song will be emphasized even further, which can
really
> cause a listener to cringe if the resulting recording is played at
high
> level.
>
> This argues for using a parabola setup that has a fairly flat
response, at
> least from around 3 kHz upwards to 10 kHz.
>
> Unfortunately, most parabolas don't behave this way. Usually, there
is an
> increase in gain (for on-axis sounds) as the frequency increases.
At least
> up to a certain point. Thus, if we had a hypothetical bird singing
a song
> that ranged from 2 kHz all the way to 10 kHz, a focused parabola
will
> probably emphasize the higher components of the song, sometimes
with a great
> difference in gain involved. The result is a "distorted" or "skewed"
> recording, where there is a distortion of the loudness spectrum (=
loudness
> versus frequency).
>
> Try getting a parabolic recording of a honking Canada Goose. You
will be
> amazed at how it will overemphasize the highs in comparison to the
lows,
> which can be below 1 kHz for this bird. The resultant recording
sounds tinny
> and unnatural. That's why one should use a shotgun mike to record
geese.
> Shotgun mikes are superior when recording broad band sounds because
the
> frequency response is quite flat for on-axis sounds.
>
> So back to "shrill". I think in this discussion it simply refers to
an
> overemphasis of the high end, relative to what one would hear
without using
> a parabola or relative to a recording made with a naked
omnidirectional
> mike.
>
> Lang
>
> > Can sombody, again, define what "shrill" means.
> >
> > Klas.
> >
> > At 22:39 2004-02-25 -0500, you wrote:
> >> From: "Rich Peet" <>
> >>>
> >>> I use a 32" Greg Clark Parabolic. Not in commercial production.
> >>> http://home.comcast.net/~richpeet/rich.jpg
> >>
> >> Could you give us it's other critical dimensions?
> >>
> >>> I am starting to think that not all people do hear the same way.
> >>
> >> I've made that point numerous times, enough so I'm beginning to
wonder
> >> if anyone is listening. Not only do we differ in our physical
ears, but
> >> the sound we "hear" is what our brain produces based on the
signals from
> >> our ears. This is highly influenced by our experience, our
moods, our
> >> attitudes, all previous things we have heard. I simply find it
amazing
> >> that we hear even close to the same thing.
> >>
> >> It
> >>> is true that I was blessed with good very high hearing. As a
kid I
> >>> played games with other kids at night where I would tell them
where a
> >>> bat was going to be comming from because I could hear their echo
> >>> location calls at a distance. Where most people do feel that
the
> >>> Telinga makes a complex sound, sound closer, to me it does not,
and
> >>> simply makes the sound shrill.
> >>
> >> I, too could hear bats fairly easily when I was young. Not any
more. I
> >> do miss hearing things like the sound of bats.
> >>
> >> Sometimes the Telinga produces the nearer effect to me, most
often it
> >> does that. And sometimes it is shrill, at least as I understand
that
> >> term, like the peepers at the Gopher Frog pond which took
considerable
> >> management to record. I'm sure I don't record exactly the same
way you
> >> do, and also sure I don't hear sounds the same way you do. I
don't like
> >> shrill sounds much, and have learned ways to manage the times I
have
> >> that problem with the Telinga.
> >>
> >> Walt
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> "Microphones are not ears,
> >> Loudspeakers are not birds,
> >> A listening room is not nature."
> >> Klas Strandberg
> >> Yahoo! Groups Links
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> > Telinga Microphones, Botarbo,
> > S-748 96 Tobo, Sweden.
> > Phone & fax int + 295 310 01
> > email:
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > "Microphones are not ears,
> > Loudspeakers are not birds,
> > A listening room is not nature."
> > Klas Strandberg
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
|
