Sorry David, but when you write: "Yes, agreed, and that is why I use
MKH series mics. ".... it just shows that I have not been able to
make myself understood.
What I wanted to point out was that mic output (V/Pa) too often is
disregarded in the chats about
recorder input noise. It has nothing to do with the excellency of MKH.
The debate in England about parabol fans vs. parabol haters is what
has been wonky since late Richard Margouschi and his Atherstone reflector.
I remember a visit I made in Atherstone (1982??) and Richard, with
frustration, expressed his mind and said: "I don't understand all
those people saying that you can't travel with a parabolic reflector"
and packed it down in seconds in a suitcase, with briefs and socks
around and said "what is the problem?"
The Telinga was criticized in the most peculiar ways and described as
"this new transparent, sexy reflector".
The arguing was so low and irrelevant that I was dragged down into it
and replied that if transparency was a problem, one could always
paint it Atherstone shit brown.
Then Krister Mild won the very prestigious BTO annual sound recording
competition with a Telinga recording of displaying Black Woodpeckers.
He said he never told the jury that it was made with a Telinga, which
And this "debate" went on for years and years and I am sorry if I get
"defensive" when I read "wonky". It not only triggers my
post-traumatic mind from those days, but - more important - I think
it is wrong.
I have been claiming for years, kind of, that "each technique has
it's own purpose" and that M/S probably is "the best" for
louspeakers, certainly for film and TV sound (which it is made for!)
- that binaurals are "the best" if you want this "all around and
spacy" sound with headphones and parabols "the best" if you want to
spot a certain individual far away."
That kind of thinking is what I am willing to "defend".
. At 19:32 2011-06-04, you wrote:
> > 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.
>In the context of advising a newcomer to field recording, I would not
>recommend a parabola as a first mic. Parabolas have their place and
>can do things a gunmic can't do but what they don't have is a flat
>frequency response which is what a beginner should start with, even is
>they modify the response after recording, particularly at the bass
>I'm writing an article on the acoustics of reflector microphones and
>I'll show it you you when it is readable. A key point is that you are
>recording a diffraction pattern, not an optical type focus.
> > 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.
>Yes, agreed, and that is why I use MKH series mics. The 416 had a spec
>of 21dB excess noise over thermal noise weighted CCIR 468-3. This is
>the noise you can hear but you can't compare this in any way with
>different noise quotes and different weightings, especially ones
>measured with the capsule disconnected. In fact the only noise figure
>which counts is the one measured by your ears in your typical
>environment. The 21dB '468 weighted' mic I quoted is one of the
>quietist that you will find.
>To come to the defence of parabolic microphones, the gain they give at
>the higher frequencies means the that the effective excess noise over
>thermal noise mic hiss figure as recorded is very low.
>North Devon, UK
>Cogito cogito ergo cogito sum - Ambrose Bierce
>"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