>This is a mail I wrote to Syd. It is my general opinion and I think
>it is what I want to express to all members of this list:
>Hi Syd!
>
>I am honored that you ask me for my points of views.
>
>But I cannot. Mingling into the debate, as it has been, means taking
>one little fact and weighting it towards another little fact.
>Searching the ideal, which isn't there.
>
>I favor omnis: AS THEY ARE NOT AS SENSITIVE TO HANDLING NOISE AND
>WIND NOISE AS DIRECTIONAL MICROPHONES and can be made reasonably low
>noise, still reliable and reasonably cheap.
>That is my only argument in the matter. Thereby I have no opinion
>about X-Y, shotguns or MS stereo.
>I am absolutely convinced that any directional mic set up has it's
>place and it's use.
>But for "average" use, I am likewise convinced that omnis are
>"best", simply because I know that for general use, inherent noise,
>reliability, handling noise and wind noise are the major problems
>that birders face.
>
>Don't forget: Lots of times you are just very happy getting a
>recording at all!!!!!
>Three - for the world - new species have been discovered using a
>Telinga. That is, a recording, - regardless of quality - have
>triggered an attention from a clever scientist: "This doesn't sound right".
>Then exploring what is "wrong" and finding something new.
>
>Which is best - Canon or Nikon, Mac or PC. I might be considered
>stupid, but my only answer is... it depends...
>
>Some people record 150 species in three months. For documentary
>purposes, or just for fun. Only a few of the recordings can be
>considered "state of the ART" but the recordist couldn't care less.....
>Others spend a whole season recording one single spec to get the
>ultimate recording for a film sequence.
>
>Is "quality" the same for both of them??
>Of course not.
>
>Example: Since this list started, I have never claimed, for example,
>that "parabols are the best".
>Because they are not.
>But they can do things which no other mic's can do. That is true and
>no one can deny it.
>
>In the same way, X-Y stereo is not "best" but fits sometimes better
>than other stereo. Same with MS and multi function rigs.
>It all "depends", I say, and by "quality" one has to integrate the
>personal taste of the recordist. Then like it or not.
>
>Judging my own priorities, I am basically influenced by the problems
>that customers present to me. Here is weight, price, inherent noise,
>noise from wind and handling noise the most common. And, of course,
>- "coming near".
>
>Sometimes people are involved in very special projects. Than I need
>to ask what kind of results they need, at what distance the
>recordings are to be made, how much wind there is and how many
>airplanes and other crap that is present. Are they going to use a
>tripod or not?
>That is: For a special purpose you have to select the proper equipment.
>
>If I visited you, Syd, and you showed me a place where a Lyrebird
>could display - I would try my Telinga with a stereo DATmic on the
>first day. That would be my first "instrument" because I would
>assume that I would get at least some recordings.
>Then - having a number of "reasonably" good recordings, I would
>probably try to set up a number of AB pair omnis, which I could
>switch from using one pair at a time. Then, next day, using a MS
>set-up. And so forth.
>The more I would learn about the Lyrebird and the situation, the
>better recordist I would became.
>Not because I was a microphone expert, but because I learned more
>and more about how a Lyrebird behaves and how I want the recording.
>
>I am not sure that I have answered your questions, but have I not -
>it is not of disrespect.
>I DO find the Quality discussions very difficult and that is why I
>quoted "in my humble experience".
>
>My best wishes,
>
>Klas.
Telinga Microphones, Botarbo,
S-748 96 Tobo, Sweden.
Phone & fax int + 295 310 01
email:
website: www.telinga.com
|