At 07:52 2007-04-12, you wrote:
>Posted by: "David Ellsworth"
> >
> > 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"?)
>
>When I bought my Telinga I bought both mics. At the time I was recording
>mostly for science and thought that the Twin Science would be better for
>that and that the stereo mic would be for "entertainment" recordings.
>
>At first I did use both and compared. It quickly became clear that the
>stereo was best for localizing as well. Even though there are two mics
>in the twin science you will hear them localized in the middle of your
>head, no stereo field to separate anything. The differential between the
>front facing and rear facing mics in the twin science is simply not near
>as good at this. So, my twin science mic is hardly used anymore. When I
>want to separate callers from the ambiance the stereo field does that
>pretty effectively. We are hard wired to analyze individual sounds out
>of a stereo field.
>
>I still record a lot for science, but all my mic setups are stereo. They
>are carefully chosen for their ability to produce accurate stereo
>production along with other reasons. About all I record in mono is a
>hydrophone, and I keep thinking about working on doing stereo there too.
>
>Note it is correct that science has been slow to see the advantages of
>stereo. I routinely do real time sonograms on my recordings. My sonogram
>software can be set to only one of the channels or to a mixture of both.
>It's not necessary to record in mono to do sonograms.
Walt, there is still nearly impossible to talk about a stereo mic
with a person employed at a scientific institution. Mono is a "must".
And still, in England, there is a group of people who frenetically
deny that stereo is at all possible in a dish.
But there is also a kind of logic behind the Twin Science: A
researcher often work with one species at a time. If you start by
finding out the most suitable way to record it and which mic /
channel from Twin Science to use and where to put the mic into the
parabol, - you (may) get more comparable recordings.
The Stereo mic is a bit more unpredictable.
Film sound is another niche for Twin Science. They often want the
sound to be as clinical and pure as possible, and then mix it into a
stereo background.
If I look back 40 years, I find a very special reason why recordists
wanted to make "clinical" recordings: It was difficult! By making
recordings with no noise, no ambience, very "close up" you could do
what only a few others could do. And if there was low modulation
noise, tape noise and low wov and flutter, e.t.c. - you could also
show that you could afford using a Nagra.
Personally, I don't want to listen to any more recordings of that
kind. The only bird I want totally clean is the Robin, often because
(here) the Robin is totally alone in reality, filling the night with
his astonishing figures, some guys better than others. Or the Blyths
Warbler, which has so very special sounds that I really want them as
clear and close as possible.
>A lot depends on your final use of the recording. I record frogs which
>often call in groups, and multiple species per site, calling at a
>variety of sound levels. Mono will not separate those at all well. If I
>was recording only individuals as is more the case with birds then maybe
>mono would be ok. Or if you are only doing measurements off the
>recording and never trying to analyze them by listening then mono might
>be ok, and in the case of some polar patterns could even have advantages.
>
>Oh, on model, I'm currently running the Telinga Pro6 handle with phantom
>power from the portadisc or SDMP2 preamp. The same handle could be
>battery powered, as the contacts do come out in the handle connector,
>but I prefer to avoid that, extra batteries to tend. I started with a
>handle with the battery internal, but really did not care for that as
>batteries are a shorter lived component. It was also extra to keep track
>of to keep it charged.
There are still Telingas from 1982 running on the original built in
General Electric 110mAh NiCad accus! Then something happened between
1990 and 2005: Small accus from East got poorer and poorer, often
started leaking for no reason and 110mAh often meant 60-70.
The worst ones were the first generation of NiMHy, even the Varta ones.
As it seems now, we might be back at the same high reliability as 20
years ago. (I hope...)
Since three years I use a 110mAh battery which doesn't leak, to my
knowledge, and which can be brutally "aged" by heating up and
draining, without noticeable errors.
And you don't need to keep track on the charge, unless you have your
Telinga placed away from you. When you hear that the output signal
drop, you can connect an outside battery and run the mic and charge
it at the same time.
The weak link are the wires coming out, but they will work well for
many years if you are careful not pulling them.
Should you forget to switch the PRO5W off, and it is all dead when
you need to use it, you should get full function back within a few seconds.
It is very easy to check if the internal accu is working as it should:
1/ Run the handle / mic until it dies completely.
2/ Connect a nine volt battery for 10 - 30 sec, just enough to get
full function back.
3/ Disconnect the outside battery.
The internal battery should now supply the handle / mic with power
for some 10 - 20 sec, then die again. But now you know that it takes
charge. Connect the outside battery for 15 - 20 hours.
If the handle stops working at the same instant as you disconnect the
outside battery, then you need to replace the accu. Until you have
time to do that, you can run it all from the outside battery.
Best wishes,
Klas.
>Walt
>
>
>"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
|