Daniel:
If you already have a Telinga parabola, then you should consider the Teling=
a
Stereo DAT Microphone.
I wouldn't use two different mikes if you're building your own stereo
parabola. I'm not the best person to recommend inexpensive mikes. I've only
used MKH series Senheisser mikes for a number of years.
Lang
Hi everyone,
Hope you all had a good holiday and lots of Easter Eggs!
Walt, thanks a lot for your great explanation about the purposes of
stereo recordings with a parabola. It made me very interested on trying
this out, but... As usual, I'm on a short budget...
My question is, if I already own a Sennheiser ME 62 mic, is it
mandatory that I get another of the same mic in order to set up a
reasonable stereo recording device (meaning another K6 power module,
etc)? Or could I get something cheaper and do the necessary adjustments
to make it work fine? If so, considering that the new mic could be less
sensitive than the ME62 that I already own, how do I overcome the audio
differences? Is there any device I could use to normalize the L/R
volume input while recording, for example, or can this be done
afterwards with Cool Edit Pro (or similar) with satisfactory results??
Or, still, could I buy a pair of cheaper mics and leave the ME 62 aside
only for occasional monoaural recordings??
What are your two cents??
Thanks a lot once again.
Cheers,
Daniel De Granville
Pantanal, Brazil
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Sun, 11 Apr 2004 12:12:09 -0400
> From: Walter Knapp <>
> Subject: Re: mics for parabola - why stereo?
>
> It has been pointed out to me that when I wrote: "I record virtually
> exclusively stereo." that this might seem a little confusing in the
> context of using a parabolic mic. It would seem on the face of it
that
> stereo goes counter to the primary purpose of a parabolic, which is
to
> focus on a distant caller. I'll try to elaborate.
>
> Actually the purpose of the parabolic is to provide the clearest
> experience of the distant caller, which is almost the same as the
above,
> but not quite. A very sharp mono focus may not be the clearest
experience.
>
> It's certainly true that the technical purpose of a parabolic is to
> focus on some particular sound from a distance. But, no mic system,
> including a parabolic is all that sharp a focus and lots of off axis
> stuff and closer and more distant stuff is in the recording. If the
> recording is in mono, your intended subject and all other sounds
picked
> up will be focused in listening on one spot, usually perceived as
being
> in the center of your head. You have no cues to separate the wanted
call
> from the rest. Stereo can provide the cues.
>
> Stereo in a parabolic is really not a distant stereo field, the
stereo
> part tends to be more local ambiance, particularly at the edges. The
> stereo from a parabolic is somewhat a compromise, though it does
> resemble how we actually hear a distant subject. But, that's enough
to
> give us the cues we need. The field will expand from a point to a
> soundstage where we can focus on something in a particular direction.
> Our brains will filter the other stuff. And if the other stuff is
also
> natural sounds it will also provide a context for the call we are
> listening to. If it's a airplane flying over, that will be put in
it's
> proper place. And so on.
>
> I mostly record frogs, and a lot of it is documentation for
scientific
> survey. Even for science, stereo is a very big help. Fainter calls
are
> far easier to pick out from the general din, the separation of the
> animals is a little more evident. You can shift your listening from
> caller to caller to make out details, or interactions. As we do
> naturally when listening in person. Even if recording a single
calling
> individual, which is more common in recording birds, having the
caller
> in a stereo soundfield will give a lot better recording.
>
> If you record in mono, in a environment where there is unwanted
noise,
> or even wanted other sounds, it's all piled on top the call. It takes
> very little unwanted noise to make the recording sound bad. In
contrast,
> if the noise is off in proper perspective in stereo it has to be a
lot
> more intrusive to bother the listener. You know that airplane is
distant
> and up in the sky away from the caller. Like it or not, we are pretty
> used to a lot of those sounds in the background yet still enjoy the
> calls we hear. By recording in stereo we can get pretty good
recordings
> in more places than we can in mono. We are relying on our own
personal
> intelligent processor to "filter out" unwanted sounds. That makes
stereo
> valuable for recordings intended for just listening enjoyment with no
> scientific purpose.
>
> Anyway, that's why I record virtually exclusively in stereo. It's
more
> expensive (two mics, etc.), and takes more learning to do well, but
the
> results are worth it. It matches our own personal two mic stereo
system.
>
> Walt
>
"Microphones are not ears,
Loudspeakers are not birds,
A listening room is not nature."
Klas Strandberg
Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ADVERTISEMENT
Yahoo! Groups Links
To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/naturerecordists/
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
<=3DUnsubscribe>
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service
<http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/> .
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
|