omichalis
Date: Sat Jul 31, 2010 5:12 pm ((PDT))
let aside I would have noticed it if there were excrements around me while =
swimming.. ;-)
m
On 01 =CE=91=CF=85=CE=B3 2010, at 3:04 =CF=80.=CE=BC., Marinos Koutsomichal=
is wrote:
> indeed,
>
> but I bet they don' t use sewages there - I don' t know how they call thi=
s system in english - they most probably use sth like buried tanks which th=
ey have emptied when full.. It' s a common thing in small villages like tha=
t
>
> m
>
> On 01 =CE=91=CF=85=CE=B3 2010, at 2:54 =CF=80.=CE=BC., hartogj wrote:
>
> > My guess was based on your "Pin in the map" location which shows it on =
the beach in an agriculture and vacation village about a third of a mile fr=
om the main group of buildings on the main stretch of road.
> > The pics linked on Google Earth surrounding the location have me yearni=
ng for travel.
> >
> > John Hartog
> >
> > --- In Marinos Koutsomichalis <marino=
> wrote:
> > >
> > > absolutely not.. this place is not exactly civilized.. it' s an isola=
ted beach - there is not chance there is no sewing system around for lots o=
f kilometers..
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > On 01 =C3=8E`=C3=8F=E2=88=91=C3=8E=E2=80=9C 2010, at 1:38 =C3=8F=E2=
=80=A2.=C3=8E=CF=80., hartogj wrote:
> > >
> > > >
> > > > Maybe you were near a sewer outlet pipe. Could be sounds from a pum=
p.
> > > >
> > > > John Hartog
> > > >
> > > > --- In Marinos Koutsomichalis <ma=
rinos@> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > well,
> > > > >
> > > > > whatever it is, I like it - and that' s what matters probably..
> > > > >
> > > > > but I still, I tend to believe that it has to be sth buried in th=
e sand,
> > > > >
> > > > > This beach is pretty isolated - there' s not much going on there =
- Just a couple of houses and a tavern, or sth like that. No radio stations=
, cables or people using mobile phones.. Well, in our century electromagnet=
ic radiation could be everywhere, of course.. There is a military airport s=
omewhere in the greater area, indeed, but we are talking about a distance o=
f more than 10 kms. It' s highly unlikely that their radar would cause such=
a sound underwater..
> > > > >
> > > > > The most logical thing to me is that some kind of crustacean or s=
ea-worm lived there or sth else. (it' s not flattering to record radar soun=
ds in a beach anyway..)
> > > > >
> > > > > just for the record - The hydros were a set of dolphinEar Pros, I=
bought them second hand from a guy that bought them together for a never-t=
o-be-realised-project - so probably they are of the same set - plugged into=
a marantz PMD661 recorder.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > On 31 =C3=83=E2=81=84=C3=A2=E2=89=A5=C2=A2=C3=83=E2=81=84=C3=82=
=C2=BF=C3=83=E2=88=82=C3=A2=E2=80=A2=C5=93=C3=83=E2=81=84=C3=82=C2=BB 2010,=
at 5:59 =C3=83=E2=81=84=C3=82=CF=80.=C3=83=E2=81=84=C3=82=CF=80., James Sh=
atto wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > > --- On Sat, 7/31/10, Marinos Koutsomichalis <marinos@>
> > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > From: Marinos Koutsomichalis <marinos@>
> > > > > > > Subject: Re: [Nature Recordists] what is this creature/sound =
?
> > > > > > > To:
> > > > > > > Date: Saturday, July 31, 2010, 12:33 AM
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > There are some military radars within the greater area,
> > > > > > > but in a distance of several km, if that was the case,
> > > > > > > the other mic should pick that kinds of sounds I think.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Not necessarily. If you didn't buy them as a matched pair. Manu=
factured as part of the same lot with the same materials. Like if you bough=
t them used from two different sources at different times. The mics could b=
e different enough to respond differently. It could be things other than th=
e mics as well. Are you using the same brand of cable with the same connect=
ors, of about the same age? And various other possibilities with the field =
recorder and stuff.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I've thought about building a faraday type cage for my field re=
corder and preamps. Which would double as a rain shelter. While I'm mostly =
immune to most cell phone handshakes and stuff like that, I have picked up =
a radio station at least once. There was visual contact with the transmissi=
on tower, just a couple of blocks away. Lowering the elevation of the mics =
helped. Tucking the field recorder under the aluminum bleachers I was sitti=
ng on helped. Even making sure that the 1/4" adapter on the 1/8" tip of my =
headphones was secure helped. While it didn't remove the sound from the rec=
ordings in it's entirety, it did achieve a balance where the radio station =
station can only be heard when using studio monitors and at a volume that w=
asn't pleasant to listen at in the first place.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Although the monitoring environment at the time of capture made=
it seem much worse than it actually ended up being. The odd thing was that=
I almost didn't bring the headphones to monitor with on that occasion. Now=
I always bring them regardless. Even if you trust your gear, you never kno=
w what you're recording at the time of capture unless you monitor what you'=
re recording. Having that immediate feedback lets you know that it's there,=
and otherwise makes you search for the source. If you go back after the fa=
ct and it was a military aircraft carrier at sea, it might not be there any=
more. And you'll never be able to replicate the problem. And always wonder =
what that was. If it is the mics you might be able to identify if it was ju=
st a loose connection or something else easily preventable. And otherwise c=
orrect the problem on site and get a flawless recording.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > It could have also been a bird standing over your mic making no=
ise. Or baby turtles buried in the sand near by hatching. Without a visual =
record or being there to investigate, we may never know.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > - James
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>
>
|