>The parabola is no solution to off-axis sounds and it has a very wonky
>frequency response as well. The best you can get for rejection is the
>?Sennheiser MKH-816 which beats everything but is large and heavy and
>costs more than twice the MKH-418 unless you go for the near
>equivalent on eBay - the MKH-815. I use a pair of 816's for distant
That is not right. Above the frequency when the dish starts to
amplifies, it gets more and more directional.
And it has not a "wonky" frequency response, but a frequency response
of a parabol, which is a very good freq. response for certain purposes.
I also read, on and on, the advice to get a Sony machine in favor of
Olympus and Zoom if one wants to keep the noise down.
I think it is time to refresh the reasoning about recorder self
noise, mic self noise and mic output voltage.
To simplify the description of these relationships, let me make a
statement: There is not ONE modern (naturesound) microphone sold
today, which has so low output signal, that it is the recorder noise
that gets disturbing.
Which means: IF you connect a modern microphone to a modern recorder,
this microphone will provide such a powerful output signal, that it
is the microphone noise that will be disturbing.
Which means: Using the modern microphones sold today, one can ignore
the specs of recorder input noise.
Rob?? Raimund? Others? Please help explain.
>"While a picture is worth a thousand words, a
>sound is worth a thousand pictures." R. Murray Schafer via Bernie Krause.
>Yahoo! Groups Links
Telinga Microphones, Botarbo,
S-748 96 Tobo, Sweden.
Phone & fax int + 295 310 01