--- In "Rich Peet" <>
> I will continue to run a no barrier parabolic with omni pair.
> Reasons are simple. A Parabolic is a bad ambient mic so why would you
> want the stereo background when you can use the pair as a noise cancel
> pair and get considerable more reach and lower background noise than a
> separated pair with barrier.
I like your ideas Rich, I expect someday I will experiment with noise
canceling omni pairs - I just have not got there yet.
To the question as to why I would want the stereo background, well I
like stereo, and I have a Telinga dish, and a pair of 183s, so I
thought I would give it a try. Of course I realize there are
tradeoffs: with the barrier I lose some reach or gain in exchange for
nicer ambience and stereo placement of subjects.
Also, as soon as you use a barrier in a
> parabolic the mic is no longer seeing the whole dish, just half.
> Using the telinga dish as the starting point you are really already
> over the edge on how big a parabolic should be for bird song.
It has been mentioned before, by you and others, there is a problem
with not seeing the whole dish. I guess I don't fully understand what
is meant by that. Do you mean I am only utilizing half the available
noise free gain or am I compromising the quality of the sound in other
> --- In "John Hartog"
> <> wrote:
> > > > So in summary a parabolic, split mic, no barrier arrangement
> > can
> > > >out reach a parabolic using a stereo barrier with near spaced
> > mics.
> > > Reach is one of my goals but I also want a more natural
> > > recording.
> > I too have been experimenting with stereo 183s in a dish.
> > First I mounted them spaced about 1" without a barrier, and It
> > actually seemed to produce ok stereo for the subjects (frogs). I
> > posted a clip, and Walt suggested the effect might be more
> > panned mono than stereo, and I think Dan Dugan suggested the
> > background sounds were essentially mono. I listened to it again
> > and noticed the stereo field for the subjects seemed wider than
> > for the background - kind of inside out.
> > Another thing that makes me suspicious about that method is: I
> > was playing with a Telinga dish by reflecting light onto a piece of
> > paper ( a not very scientific experiment,) and I noticed that the
> > focus (at least for the light from that lamp) was not very
> > symmetrical - rather twisted and distorted.
> > I switched to a very simple barrier of mounting the 183s on a
> > tube - again spaced about one inch. This method seems to
> > work ok, the subjects sound nice and the background sounds
> > wider. The only thing is the background sounds get flip-flopped.
> > I think this is because a sound from one side, let's say the right,
> > reflects off the opposite side of the dish and into microphone on
> > the left.
> > Here's a of example using this method (Northern Shovelers - I've
> > posted this once before - 940k):
> > http://www.rockscallop.org/JH_Shovelers.mp3
> > I wanted a system that kept the entire stereo image intact without
> > a flip-flop so I decided to use a barrier large enough to block the
> > sounds from one side from reflecting off the opposite side. I
> > decide on using an old LP, because it is thin, fairly dense, and
> > rigid and about the size I was thinking of. It seems to work well,
> > preserving a wide background image while highlighting the
> > subject, as in this recording (Western Meadowlark - I've posted
> > this once before - 940k):
> > http://www.rockscallop.org/JH_050226_WMeadowlark.mp3
> > This method is also useful for isolating multiple subjects as in
> > this recording of two frogs (Pacific Chorus Frogs - New - 163k)
> > http://www.rockscallop.org/jh-183pblp-050430-pcfrogs.mp3
> > All that being said, I mostly use my 183s without a dish using a
> > tree as a barrier. I got the "tree binaural" idea from someone at a
> > Nature Sounds Society workshop.
> > -John Hartog