Re distance vs strength
Someone's probably already pointed this out, but it seems to me there's
another obvious effect of distance - which is that some frequencies get
absorbed. So if you amplify a call recorded at a couple of hundred yards to
the same volume as one recorded 50 yards away they aren't the same -
richness, vibrancy and subtlety are lost in the more distant call. Basicall=
y
I guess the sound that reaches you has got holes in it!
On a rather different point I agree with Klas:
>I would say that a recordist has to find "the best" distance. It doesn't a=
t
>all mean as close as possible. Especially not when using a parabol.
Earlier this year I was lucky to find a Nightingale singing in almost
perfectly quiet night conditions and made recordings (using one of Klas's
wonderful parabols) at several distances between 400 yards - where the dish
was just picking up the song - down to about 70 yards. The last seemed to b=
e
ideal as the song coming direct from the bird was a lot stronger than the
echo from the trees but both were in good balance, giving a clean,
full-throated sound with a nice hint of ambience. I didn't try going closer=
,
but the way the sound developed as I was approaching this incredible
songster made me feel that if I did I'd just get a "down-your-throat"
recording with little of the ambience that makes the 70-yard recording so
magical. At greater distances the echo was prominent, giving quite a
different if interesting effect but with the fullness of the bird's voice
lost. One suspects that Klas's instinct is right in another way - it seems
that many birds' voices are meant to be heard with echo or other effects of
distance. Interesting that (to give an example from here in England) one
bird, the Little Owl, seems to have alarm calls that are designed to produc=
e
a whacking great echo however close you are. Anyway, a dish has the
advantage that it tends to keep you at about the right distance as many
birds' calls and songs simply become unpleasantly loud if you go too close.
Re Dana's posting:
>From: "Dana Blackmer" <>
>Subject: Using a Telinga Stereo DAT Mic without parabola
>I am considering buying a Telinga stereo DAT mic and parabola to go
>with my newly purchased HHb Portadisc. I know that, with good
>technique, I can get good species-specific recordings, but I want to
>be able to get ambiance recordings as well. I do not yet own any
>mics.=20
>Since I have to limit myself to $2000 USD or less for mics, would
>using the Telinga stereo DAT mic without the parabola be a good choice
>for ambiance? Have others done this? What other options might you
>consider?
I got exactly this setup earlier this year and can heartily recommend the
Telinga DAT plus (or minus) dish setup. IMHO Klas's stroke of genius was to
put a good stereo mic into a dish. The result is all the ambience you could
want whether you use it with the dish or without. With the dish pointed at =
a
bird the amplified song merges almost imperceptibly with quieter song,
echoes and other ambient noises from all around - whatever the physics of
the thing they're picked up in a very pleasing way if you're a fan of
"atmospheric" as opposed to "dry" recording. In fact often you can hardly
tell you're using a dish. The downside is that it has little effect in
eliminating unwanted noises like traffic or airplanes - which are recorded
in all their horrible glory - in fact they are amplified wherever they are
in relation to the axis of the dish. My (bitter!) experience is that it's
essential to find **absolutely** quiet places or times to record. Imagine
doing that in Kent.
Without the dish the Telinga is a wonderful mic for space and ambience. Eg
for dawn choruses I fix it so it's pointing vertically up (as I understand
it the capsules point sideways from the long axis of the barrel, so I do
this in the naive hope of getting a more or less 360=B0 recording in the pl=
ane
perpendicular to the barrel - ie horizontally around me). Stereo separation
is excellent. There are two more big pluses here - the Telinga is
beautifully silent, and it's got huge gain (amplification). Put on your
monitoring headphones and you immediately realise you're using a powerful
beast. What these things together mean is that you can put it out on a
tripod on what seems a quiet morning and as long as there are at least some
birds around you get a convincing recording. With unaided ears you hear
maybe half a dozen birds, but the Telinga reaches out and picks up many
times that. If it's a half-good chorus the results can be impressive. Peopl=
e
would think you'd been in an aviary at breakfast time. It's magic - I alway=
s
feel it's a bit of a cheat!
If you do get the Telinga it'd be a false economy to go without the dish.
It's the least expensive item and greatly extends what you can do. I'd
strongly recommend getting the tripod adapter too as (1) it eliminates
handling noise altogether and (2) having the mic on a tripod is just much
more relaxing. The anti-wind dish cover isn't so necessary as the mic shrug=
s
off anything less than a light breeze. I'd guess it's ok up to 25-30 km/h.
The cover does provide some protection against rain of course.
My only grouse about the Telinga is that it's overbright and unsubtle as yo=
u
go up in the treble range - eg (European) Robin song is where you really
start to hear this. Klas says this is the inevitable tradeoff in tweaking
the mic for silence and gain (hope I've got him right there). Well, that's
little problem as these two characteristics are well worth the price (tho b=
e
prepared for Swedish VAT at 25% if you're an EC citizen!). So my dream one
day is to get sweet Sennheisers to do the dishless recordings. But for both
dish and dishless work Klas's gear is thoroughly recommendable. I always
feel a buzz of excitement when I take it out.
One last comment in an overlong posting. For six months last year I
struggled with some much cheaper microphones and a couple of jukeboxes
(music thingies with a hard disk). The mics have a self-noise of about 20 d=
B
(ie just audible) and the jukeboxes played up. At the end of the year, afte=
r
logging all the hundreds of hours of recordings, I was in despair at how
many were spoiled by unwanted noise from almost every conceivable source an=
d
vowed to get equipment that wouldn't let me down almost whatever the cost.
Dana says she hasn't any mics, so I guess she hasn't been through this
experience. Lucky, lucky. I could never recommend starting with cheap
equipment unless it's to find out whether you really want to stay with the
hobby. If you know you're committed, this bruised greenhorn says start with
the best you can possibly afford. The Telinga should do it Dana.
Romilly
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
|