--- In "Dave J" <>
wrote:
> I think the consensus opinion here is that you can get started with
a
> mididisc recorder and a microphone. What I would like to hear is a
> gallery of similar recordings that showcase the audible differences
> between a cheap setup and the more expensive setups.
The minidisc is the key to the current popularity of nature recording.
This has been true for many years. It provides a inexpensive route to
reasonable quality recordings in a single, easy to transport device.
One problem with any kind of comparison recording set is that the
results are quite variable depending on the site recorded. If one
consistently records only louder sounds and is not too worried about
the quieter ambiance, then a fairly inexpensive microphone and a
consumer grade minidisc works well. But, as the sounds recorded get
quieter, or you are more interested in recording ambiance, the demands
on equipment go up rapidly.
In other words, your equipment is a limitation on the variety of
things you can record. You spend more to be able to record in a
greater variety of situations. You also spend more to make recording
itself easier.
My own recommendation agrees with the note above. A consumer minidisc
recorder and a mic is a good starting point. Since recording
individual calls is a significant goal in this case, the mic I'd
recommend is a parabolic. The Telinga would be ideal, it's a much
better choice than the larger dishes due to the mobility. Large dishes
are limiting as to their positioning and do not provide enough
improvement (if any) to justify the problems. Unfortunately, the
Telinga is not cheap, outside the price range most beginners are
willing to commit. Other cheaper parabolics are so poor in comparison
that the 2nd choice is to make a homemade parabolic using a telinga
reflector. It is most likely this homemade will be a mono mic, stereo
adds cost.
It's much more difficult to come up with a mic suitable for quiet
ambiance at beginner prices. This is compounded as ambiance demands
stereo, which is two mics.
> Simply listening to an expert's recordings does not allow you to
guess
> whether the higher audio quality is due to the expert's 1. recording
> technique, 2. $$$ equipment, or 3. post-processing.
As I noted above, the site conditions and your expectations are
paramont in choice of equipment. Certainly the first two choices you
give have a lot to do with your results. I contend that
post-processing is overrated as a method of getting high quality
recordings. The quality of a recording is pretty much determined at
the time of recording. That, in fact, is one of the significant
differences between beginners and experts, experts tend to know they
have to get the recording correct originally, beginners tend to try
and fix it afterwards. The best thing you can do to improve your
recordings is spend time out recording.
Walt
>From the Bush
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
|