--- In "Greg Weddig" <> wrote:
>
> Bravo!
> I really enjoyed listening to the recordings George, they had a nice
> stereo spread over headphones. I'm glad you posted the 2003
> comparison, was it recorded in the same area, MS, was the water higher
> that year or were the mics closer to the water (if you can remember).
>
> I think posting these kinds of comparisons are very important in
> documenting changes in the natural soundscape.
>
>
Thanks Greg and Suzanne and David:
The 2003 recording was recorded on the same stream, but much closer to the =
Colorado
River -- about 1.5 miles downstream in diffent kind of rock (polished gneis=
s as compared
to higher up crumbly shale). Thus, the reverberations of the environment a=
re different.
The population of these amphibians varies from year to year. One year, aft=
er a trip to the
Grand Canyon in May, I heard no frogs. I called the local herp specialist,=
and he said it had
been so dry in the Southwest that not a single Canyon Treefrog had been hea=
rd anywhere
in the state all year.
Accordingly, each year you find different populations in different parts of=
the streams ,and
the biophony of that mini-ecosystem varies yearly.
In 2003, recorded raw S signal. I decoded the MS in the studio with phase i=
nversion--
manually with 3 tracks on a mixer just like it says on the Internet, with t=
he help of local
musician Ron Hoyos. No plug in.
In 2007 I got lazy and decoded onto tape with my MP-2. I can still vary th=
e M to S ratio
with the Direction Plug in from Logic Pro 7.2, but as Greg Simmons indicate=
s, this is not
preferrable because it adds more processing. Always record raw S singal an=
d decode in
the studio. I have learned that. Does it make a difference? Is the decod=
ing in my Mac G5
better or different than the decoding in my MP2?
The other differences are all microphone placement and gain differences. T=
here is a huge
difference in microphone place with MS. Cut 4 from 2007 had the mic pointe=
d directly at
3 singing frogs, with the mic about 5 feet from the singers. Gain was not =
as high as it
should be. But this added "on axis" signal for the middling quality M mic.=
Cut 1 had
higher gain than Cut 4, but was taken with the singers 6 feet from the mic =
but slightly to
the side, for more off axis reception of sound by the mic.
Cut 2 is about 10 yards up the stream from Cuts 1 and 4, with different sin=
gers, but much
closer to a small water fall that was comparitively louder.
Cut 3 was in the same place as Cuts 1 and 4, but with mic pointed down stre=
am.
Finally, the ratio of toads to frogs changes everywhere along the stream. =
I have a
recording from 2003, that I did not post, that is mainly toads, with sligh=
t frogs, and it is
delightful. I posted a new photo of the toads on the website, which I am h=
olding, taken
with my friend's point and shoot. Technology of light and sound is deliver=
ing incredible
quality in small and light weight packages these days.
It is fun discussing the recordings and debriefing. I think the popping is=
some electrical
thing, or some digital artifact. I am having no success editing them out. =
I will continue to
trouble shoot.
George Paul
|