Emil,
Your English is just fine. Far better than my German, I assure you.
Yes, I was referring to a Soundfield microphone. If one is doing nature re=
cording then there is a distinct advantage to only have to pack a single mi=
crophone.
> those mics have a terrible self noise, and second you just have intensity=
stereophony and no time of arrival stereophony
I wouldn't have described the Soundfield microphones as having terrible sel=
f noise. The Soundfield MkV has a specified self noise of 14 dBA (1 dBA be=
tter than the Schoeps Mk4), which is really pretty good for a small diaphra=
gm cardioid.
But the real question is whether you like the results or not. I'll only po=
int out that the intensity stereo output from a coincident microphone setup=
translates to time of arrival differences at the ears. To go on about tha=
t probably will go beyond the technology tolerance of the members of this l=
ist.
Are you considering using the Optimized Cardioid Triangle system of Gunther=
Theile?
Eric
----- Original Message ----
From: emil klotzsch <>
To:
Sent: Thu, April 29, 2010 2:11:36 AM
Subject: Re: [Nature Recordists] sonic61
sorry, my english is not the best, so i have to ask: with single point
miking techniques, you mean those things like the soundfield mic?
if so, i have to say that i don=C2=B4t like those mics so much.
first those mics have a terrible self noise, and second you just have
intensity stereophony and no time of arrival stereophony, which is
specially great for multichannel recordings i think..
so the sonic 61 seems to be the cheapest. but also its not very
flexible.
the a-ray is very flixible, but it costs a lot more..
anyone here in multichannel recording?
i=C2=B4m planning to buy the dr-680 ftom tascam, and maybe if the pre amps =
are so much better, the sd522 as a mixer.
i think i should get the same quality with that setup like with a
sd788 machine.. (a more complicated set up, but the same quality in
sound i hope.)
but thats another thread i will start when i have tested the dr680,
compared to my sd702..
Am 29.04.2010 um 00:57 schrieb Eric Benjamin:
> emil klotzsch <> wrote:
>
> > http://www.sonicsymphonic.com/sonic.html
> > its cheap (around 350=E2=82=AC) compared to its competitors
> > is there another alternative?
>
> There's the S5 from DPA:
> http://www.dpamicrophones.com/en/products.aspx?c=3Ditem&category=3D122&it=
em=3D24272#diagrams
>
> but that one's not cheap!
>
> And the various microphone array positioners from Audio Engineering
> Associates:
> http://www.wesdooley.com/aea/Microphone_Array_Positioners.html
>
> but that wouldn't be cheap either.
>
> It seems to me that Nature Recording is the ideal application for
> surround sound. Have you considered single point miking techniques?
>
> ERic
>
> ----- Original Message ----
> From: emil klotzsch <>
> To:
> Sent: Wed, April 28, 2010 10:04:46 AM
> Subject: [Nature Recordists] sonic61
>
> hi everyone,
>
> has anyone seen this yet?:
> http://www.sonicsymphonic.com/sonic.html
>
> its cheap (around 350=E2=82=AC) compared to its competitors (a-ray from
> ambient..)
>
> is there another alternative?
>
> all the best
> evs
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> "While a picture is worth a thousand words, a
> sound is worth a thousand pictures." R. Murray Schafer via Bernie
> Krause
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
------------------------------------
"While a picture is worth a thousand words, a
sound is worth a thousand pictures." R. Murray Schafer via Bernie Krause
Yahoo! Groups Links
|