Just me jumping in the fire again. Yup, there are all kinds of
problems and each is a problem. Dem critters don't stage well.
Yes you are correct that the stereo image of a barrier mic type stereo
image within a dish gives a mono target and stereo image for off
target objects.
That is not your only way to configure it though. It all depends on
what you want for an end file. I still am uncomfortable with a
barrier within a dish because each mic sees only 1/2 of the dish.
I still like the separated mics without barriers that pick up a good
but different focal point that is next to but not a true "stereo"
image. What I get is either a good separate channel within a few
degrees of the original or a sound source that can be used for
"reverse phase" noise cancellation. Either result I find more useful
for what I do.
The recent duck file was just a single mic because of the difficulty
in recording I kept that part simple.
I will pass on figure 8 mics within a dish. But then, I pass on card
mics as well.
Recommendation:
Play, I currently use 5 different configurations of two omni mics
within a parabolic dependent on what I am trying to accomplish.
Using a 32" dish.
Rich Peet
--- In umashankar <> wrote:
>
> there is actually a bigger problem with stereo images and narrow
sound stages. i am uncomfortable with ms microphones where the m part
of the microphone is a shotgun. i had recently done some stereo-ish
recordings with a telinga and the results again suggest it really is
mono centre and a stereo ambience field not quite coherent with the
centre (for a visual analogy, it is like a wide and unfocussed view
with a sharply focused central circle).
>
> long ago i used a pair of mkh 805s with a barely 10 degree angle
between them, and that felt a little more satisfactory. but perhaps
the focused centre and widish stereo image is not such a bad idea.
>
> umashankar
>
>
> ----- Original Message ----
> From: Antonio Celis <>
> To:
> Sent: Friday, April 13, 2007 8:46:55 PM
> Subject: RE: [Nature Recordists] Re: Telinga Stereo-DAT compared
with Twin Science?
>
>
> Hi Chris,
>
> I'm intrigued of how the MS rig works in a reflector. Just trying to
think nad
> learn in how parabolas work....focal points (focus)in parabolas,
phase-shift
> phenomena? (as Klas mentioned), acoustical filtering (frequency
cut-off),
> etc...can you explain how well and MS works in a reflector or talk
about your
> experiences with this type of rig?
>
> What is the combination used? 30 and 40/50/60?
>
> Thanks
>
> Tony Celis
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --- Chris Owens <> escribi=F3:
>
> > I'm intrigued as well. I use one regularly, as do a few other
members of the
> > WSRS (Wildlife Sound Recording Society). There are users of the
Telinga
> > systems as well as those who use an MS rig in reflector.
> >
> > Chris.
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From:
> > On Behalf Of stoatwizard
> > Sent: 13 April 2007 13:17
> > To:
> > Subject: [Nature Recordists] Re: Telinga Stereo-DAT compared with Twin
> > Science?
> >
> > --- In Klas Strandberg <telinga@>
> > wrote:
> >
> > Hi, Klas
> >
> > > And still, in England, there is a group of people who frenetically
> > > deny that stereo is at all possible in a dish.
> >
> > I'm intrigued - who are these guys ;) As an English user of the
Stereo
> > Datmic it still seems to work on my patch...
> >
> > Richard
> >
Still ready to get rid of the quote tag that is an insult about what I do.
|