At 21:16 2007-04-11, you wrote:
>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.
Yes, sometimes, but it doesn't mean that you get a "better" recording.
Personally I think you are right: The "spacier" stereo is worth more
than the "isolation" of the ambience which you somewhat get with the
inwards facing cardioid in Twin Science.
> 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"?)
Only because scientists want mono for their sonograms.
But the label of Telinga products should be changed, really. The
Stereo DATmic, for example. "DAT" is now an outgoing format.
Klas.
>"Microphones are not ears,
>Loudspeakers are not birds,
>A listening room is not nature."
>Klas Strandberg
>Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
Telinga Microphones, Botarbo,
S-748 96 Tobo, Sweden.
Phone & fax int + 295 310 01
email:
website: www.telinga.com
|