Subject: | Telinga Stereo-DAT compared with Twin Science? |
---|---|
From: | "David Ellsworth" davidells |
Date: | Wed Apr 11, 2007 12:15 pm ((PDT)) |
When I bought my Telinga, I chose the stereo version because I think stereo adds depth and immersion to a recording, especially if it is combined with video. And, if I'm monitoring the recording, it allows me some vestige of directionality in my hearing, so I can still have some idea whether a bird off to the side is to my left or my right. I'm pleased with it in these regards. However, I am left to wonder if the Twin Science does a better job of separating the subject from the background, i.e. if one of its microphones has a higher "subject pickup" to "background pickup" ratio, compared to the Stereo-DAT. Does anyone know? Has anyone directly compared them in a noisy setting? And why is it called "Twin Science", anyhow? (The "twin" is obvious, but why "science"?) |
<Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread> |
---|---|---|
|
Previous by Date: | Re: Need to replace Telinga PRO5W with a PRO6, Klas Strandberg |
---|---|
Next by Date: | Re: Telinga Stereo-DAT compared with Twin Science?, Klas Strandberg |
Previous by Thread: | Need to replace Telinga PRO5W with a PRO6, David Ellsworth |
Next by Thread: | Re: Telinga Stereo-DAT compared with Twin Science?, Klas Strandberg |
Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |
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