Hi Tedg,
There are a number of ways to do it, but basically get your mics closer and=
your body further away.
John Hartog
--- In "tgos3" <> wrote:
>
> Hi All
>
> Like a bunch of other folks here, I was inpired by the Sony M10 price dro=
p at B&H to buy one, while saving up for a SD702. I have used R-R and MD f=
or nature recording in the past. I once used a Tandberg 9241 and Teac 3340s=
to record hummingbirds and progressively bounce tracks and slow them down =
so they sounded like parrots. Kinda tedious but fun.
> Now it's pretty luxurious to have such a tiny bit bucket available.
>
> I'm recording some Cope's Gray Treefrogs (Hyla chrysoscelis) in my back y=
ard. I have to stay about 40 feet from them or they shut up when they hear=
me moving around, so far. Maybe I'll get more skillful, or they will get =
braver.
>
> I'm using a Sound Devices MP-2 into the M10, and at the moment a couple o=
f Oktava Mk012 cardioid mikes, whose self noise (it says here) is about 10d=
B. Nevertheless, it takes full gain on the MP-2, and full gain on the M10 =
to get any decent level (around -20 to -15 on the playback meters in Audaci=
ty)
>
> I end up normalizing to -3dB, but am left with a fair amount of noise, so=
me of it environmental, but some of it electronic. I have used the denoisi=
ng algorithm in Audacity, which does a good job, although it leaves behind =
some inevitable spacemonkeys through its effects on noises above the thresh=
old of the noise spectrum sample.
>
> I'm in a mildly urban environment (motorbikes and trucks go by a block aw=
ay, last night neighbors had a party outside while I tried to record treefr=
ogs, tonight the municipal July 4 fireworks in the distance sounded like ar=
tillery from a distant war, and made great spacemonkies after denoising)
>
> What do others do, especially those interested in scientific analysis. W=
hen I look at sonograms of the calls, they still look identifiably similar =
to unprocessed, but what are the standards others use? When I listen, ther=
e is a slight change in timbre (post processed calls sound very slightly br=
ighter and sharper edged, but still very identifiable). I'm not doing any =
sophisticated analysis, but I'm interested in how others approach this issu=
e.
>
> The obvious solution is to get closer, and/or buy an MKH30/40 setup, whic=
h I can't afford. I do more music than nature recording, so I'm not so int=
erested in the Roades mikes, since I already have KM84s which I'm not about=
to take outside in the humid Southern summer.
>
> What do the professionals, scientists, and techno-obsessed do about post =
processing?
>
> I've really enjoyed spending many months reading a lot of threads here an=
d in the archives, but I don't recall seeing much discussed about this.
>
> best wishes, and thanks for all I have learned here,
>
> tedg
>
|