Hello everyone, my name is Marcus Buick and I am new to this list. I am an=
audio engineer by day, and a psychoacoustician by night. I found my way he=
re
through joining the ASA, then Dan Dugan=E2=80=99s website, so, thank you Da=
n! I collect
transducers and have been an active recordist since 1985. That being said,=
I
wanted to address some discussions on this board.
While I have recorded nature soundfields in the past, I would not consider=
myself a nature recordist, yet. My day job consists of recording talking h=
eads,
music and dialog for various applications (CD, DVD, TV/radio/Web Bcast=E2=
=80=99s, &
SFX)
The single most important choice when making a great (and accurate) recordi=
ng is
microphone placement. Nobody I have met is able to discern microphone bran=
d
difference once more than two or three microphones are mixed. I do underst=
and
though, when recording roaming Buffalo rutting, mic placement may be of
secondary, or further, concern.
Of course it is imperative that the performance be of acceptable usage.
[Well in theory the upper harmonics do re-enforce the lower ones, which are=
in
the capabilities of a lot of ears. ~James]
I remember reading (I think it was an AES white paper) about Japanese
researchers who concluded that the pinna (outer ear) was semi-responsible f=
or
detecting ultra-sonics (above 20kHz) that provided localization cues for so=
unds
originating in 3 dimensional environments.
[A dish is fine for zeroing in on a distant source. But by doing that you'=
ve by
default attenuated more local sounds and to some extent colored the sound b=
efore
it ever hits the microphone. If you want a recording that sounds exactly l=
ike
the subject, that might not be the way to go. ~James]
Exactly James. The problem with dishes is the extreme coloration they give=
to
both the microphone and the original sound source. Ultimately one ends up =
using
EQ and dynamics (compression) to try and bring the sound back to what it
originally sounded like.
[Specs are at best a very general guide, easily manipulated by marketing
departments, & reveal nothing about sound quality. ~Scott]
I am totally with Scott on this one. While my TLM103=E2=80=99s have a self=
noise of
7dBA, I would use my cmc6xt-lin=E2=80=99s (self noise 17dBA) 99 times out o=
f 100. While
I don=E2=80=99t want to discuss details like Alising Intermodulation Distor=
tion of mics
extending to 40kHz, I will say that in extensive tests between my 4006=E2=
=80=99s and
cmc6xt-lin=E2=80=99s w/MK2 capsules I find the Schoeps to be more pleasant =
to listen to
(of ambient capture) for MY ears.
[My hearing's only good to around 13K, how about yours? ~Dan]
I can hear 16kHz if it is gained up beyond reason. I=E2=80=99m only effect=
ive to 14kHz,
maybe 15kHz in the right environment. I am a 41 year old male.
I buy the gear I can afford which record sounds that are lifelike to me. I=
purchased Schoeps because my Sennheisers weren=E2=80=99t capturing the subt=
lety I
needed. I spent the money for Grace preamps when my Mackie pre=E2=80=99s w=
ere too
noisy. This gear makes me money in my profession, but it=E2=80=99s probabl=
y not
practical for the general hobbyist. Purchase only what makes your ears/bra=
in
happy.
Thank you for the opportunity to contribute to this exceedingly worthwhile=
forum. I look forward to plenty of lively discussions and recordings.
|