Posted by: "Steve Pelikan"
> Most of the recordings I make, for example, are intended to tell me
> something about their subject. I'm interested in the singing behaviour
> of birds and so often want, more than anything else, a recording that
> allows me to make the measurements I want of a song or call. This
> requires strong signal, lack of distracting signals, a moderate lack of
> microphone hiss, etc. For that sort of recording, stereo isn't very
> important and neither is ultra high quality equipment.
Stereo is the best way to make the distracting signals less so while
preserving the natural quality of the sound. I used to do my scientific
recordings in mono, but now will only do them in stereo. Being able to
hear and identify all the callers is much easier when everything in the
recording is not dumped in one point.
While the highest quality equipment is not necessary for such limited
goals, the low quality equipment is not necessarily appropriate either.
Low quality equipment makes your task harder.
> Recording levels are very important, though. In my (admittedly limited)
> experience it is far easier to ruin a recording by having the gain set a=
> bit too high rather than a bit too low.
One should always allow a pad to cover unexpected loud sounds. I average
a pad of 15dB on the meter. But I vary it somewhat depending on the site
and what sounds are around. I don't try and pad for a truck to pass by,
but just let those clip. I'll edit them out once the recording is in the
computer. Digital recording has greater available dynamic range than the
old analog tape. You can easily afford to use some of it for pad,
especially as clipping in digital is so bad.
> I'm getting interested in learning to make recordings that are better
> representations of the place they were made rather than simple bird song=
> recordings. Then, things like a more careful analysis of the sound field=
> and placement of microphone(s), more elaborate post-recording
> processing, multiple channel recordings, and low-noise equipment all
> come into play. Several mentors assure me that I've mentioned these
> factors roughly in the order of decreasing importance.
I would not place post-recording processing so high. Place it last, it's
what you do with a less than perfect recording to make it somewhat
usable. The goal should be a perfect recording right out of the recorder.
It's really at the point when you start to put callers into their sound
environment and record that you start to get seriously into the better
equipment treadmill. I know there are lots of call recordists who say
equipment quality does not matter, but you won't find many ambiance
recordists saying that. Recording single callers with no regard to their
sound environment is easy by comparison. Single callers you can do
severe things to the recording in post processing. But once you are
recording the entire sound environment, your post processing options get
to be very restricted.
Note that post processing does not have to be as severe if you record in
stereo. Your subjects will be located in a specific direction when you
listen to the recording, and interfering sounds will generally be in a
different direction. Your own brain then has all the cues to effectively
filter the recording.
> If you haven't done so, I'd encourage you to get some headphones so you
> can better hear what your recorder is hearing. Anything that'll exclude
> most of the surrounding noises and let you concentrate on your recording=
> will help --- not one of those little "mp3-player-light-foam" jobs. I've=
> found that the ability to listen carefully before starting a recording
> contributes more than anything else to getting what I want/intend and
> thus to my satisfaction with the process and with the final product.
As far as the original question on recording distant subjects, a
parabolic mic is the way to go. The Telinga Stereo mic is what I use for
the most distant recording, it's designed for nature recording. It's
light and easy to use in the field, I prefer that all my mic choices be
hand holdable for rapid aiming. It's directionality can also be used on
closer subjects to pick them out from the general soundfield. It will
record subjects so they sound closer to the mic than they are. This is
more than just gain, but the gain of a parabolic increases with
frequency which compensates for the effect of distance. Distance
attenuates higher frequencies more than lower ones.
I agree on the headphones, get a good set of closed headphones. If you
put them on without anything playing through them you can judge how well
they are cutting out interfering sound. Make sure it's a set you can
wear for hours.
Walt
|