naturerecordists
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: recording rig advice

Subject: Re: recording rig advice
From: "Walter Knapp" waltknapp
Date: Mon Aug 21, 2006 9:05 am (PDT)
Posted by: "Bruce Wilson"

> I use two free mics like you mention. It's true, you have many more optio=
ns
> for placement and control of the stereo field. But set up and moving them=
 is
> a total pain! Also, there are many times I don't want the entire stereo
> field. If the source is in one direction, the (relatively) narrow field o=
f
> the MS setup helps isolate the sound of interest. True, sometimes I'll us=
e
> Blumlein or XY to get an entire room (or canyon, or cavern), or ORTF when=
 I
> want a 180 degree soundscape, but when I want one sound it's always MS.
>
> So I go for two separate mics because I rarely want just a single sound. =
My
> recording mirrors my photography-I shoot rocks and trees, and I listen to=

> rocks and trees, things which tend to still be there in the five minutes =
it
> takes to set up. The many who try for animals and birds are FAR better of=
f
> with a portable, fast-in-the-field MS set.

There are several important points here:

First off, there is no ideal mic for every situation. Ideally you have
several setups and choose based on what you find in the field. This is
the route I've taken and choose primarily based on the 3d space I'm
trying to capture. The SASS is my "wide angle lens" being capable of
capturing a very wide field. Though it can record for a fair distance in
the right situation (get that truck from miles away, for instance), it's
primarily what I consider a mic for the immediate environment. The M/S
MKH-30/40 & MKH-80/80 are best at not quite so wide as the SASS, but
still immediate environment. The M/S MKH-60/30 starts to extend the
reach a bit with greater sensitivity and directionality of the MKH-60.
And due to the directionality of the MKH-60 is best at fairly narrow
fields. And then finally, for the most reach and narrowest field I use
the Telinga stereo. It's my "long telephoto lens".

A second point, for nature recording portability is a issue to keep in
mind. Not just the fast aiming of a hand held rig, but the ability to
cart the gear in one go through brush, swamps, whatever, while having it
ready to go. In stereo there are many mic arrangements that don't fit
this well, too widely separated for hand holding, thus requiring a array
of mic supports to be carted out and set up.

The third point, there is no right way, each of us has a different idea
of what we are recording. In a sense we are artists creating a sonic
picture of nature. The picture we want to communicate. We don't even
hear the same soundfield the same. I've been out recording with bird
folks and they hear only the birds, while I hear the frogs. That's a
extreme example, but there are much finer differences in what we hear.
And this also changes with time as our hearing ages and the frequency
distribution of our hearing sensitivity changes. Our brain also takes
into account our attitudes and emotions before and modifies what we hear
to match. This is one reason why you should probably not choose a mic
you dislike, your brain will make everything it records sound bad
because you dislike it. Just as with a mic you really like you will
overlook it's faults and not hear them.

Walt





<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>
Admin

The University of NSW School of Computer and Engineering takes no responsibility for the contents of this archive. It is purely a compilation of material sent by many people to the naturerecordists mailing list. It has not been checked for accuracy nor its content verified in any way. If you wish to get material removed from the archive or have other queries about the archive e-mail Andrew Taylor at this address: andrewt@cse.unsw.EDU.AU