naturerecordists
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: Getting Started / Equipment Recommendations

Subject: Re: Getting Started / Equipment Recommendations
From: "John Crockett" naturalcontemplative
Date: Thu Jan 3, 2013 5:50 am ((PST))
Hi Frank,

There are many very knowledgeable and generous folks on this list from whom=
 you will learn a great deal. Welcome to it!

David and Dan's questions are very important: what do you want to record an=
d how much can you spend? In the end you'll want several microphone setups =
for different purposes. But where are you beginning?

I wonder if you might find it helpful to hear how I progressed and where I =
am now. I knew next to nothing when I began about 10 years ago, and now alt=
hough I have added to my knowledge, perhaps I know a little bit less than n=
othing because the field of possibilities has expanded so!

Do ask questions and become familiar with the particular demands of nature =
recoding before you buy a recorder or microphones. For instance, I think yo=
u'll find that the Zoom recorders are not ideal for most nature recording a=
s they have fairly noisy preamps for external microphones. There are better=
 choices.

My first microphone was homemade from two very cheap, low-sensitivity, high=
 noise Radio Shack electret condenser capsules (cat # 270-090) and a small =
triangle of mahogany. I had no idea what I was doing. Horribly hissy. I cou=
ld not stand listening to those recordings for more than a few minutes. Reg=
rettable because the soundscapes I was recording then were irreproducible. =
I've simply never heard the like again in 10 years.

I was interested in recording soundscapes in stereo, so my next microphone =
was the Rode NT4, bought on eBay for a very reasonable price. I was sorely =
disappointed in the noise level of this microphone, until I discovered on t=
his list that the cable contained a -12dB pad that was killing the signal o=
utput. I removed the pad from the cable, and now I use this microphone ofte=
n. It works well for me for capturing a stereo soundscape in which there is=
 also a focal point to the recording, something in the center of the image =
that I want emphasized.

Then it seemed to me that I wanted something more sensitive to "get in clos=
er" to certain animal vocalizations, so I bought a used Sennheiser ME66 sho=
tgun microphone. This is a solid performer, but at this point I do not use =
it very often. Two of these together make a nice lower-noise alternative to=
 the NT4, but for me the convenience of the NT4 package means I am more lik=
ely to use it. This matters. The best mic in the world is no good if it sit=
s at home. How willing you are to haul gear around is a factor to consider.

Then I really wanted close-up, finely detailed recordings of birds, especia=
lly the woodcocks who are among the first arrivals to our fields in the spr=
ing, so I built a very inexpensive (<$100) parabolic microphone from a plas=
tic dish (eBay again!) and EM172 microphone capsules from Frogloggers.com. =
For my purposes this works very well, although it is cumbersome to carry ar=
ound. It doesn't roll up the way the superior Telinga dish does. But it sou=
nds pretty good. One lesson I learned is that parabolas do not work very we=
ll with low frequencies. Fantastic for birds. Nearly useless for grey seals=
, one of my main subjects, who vocalize at around 500 Hz.

Then I decided that I was interested in recording a variety of whole sounds=
capes, not just those with focal animals, and the Rode stereo microphone wa=
s too focused, lacking the spaciousness that I have heard in so many excell=
ent nature recordings. So I built a very, very inexpensive soundscape micro=
phone, again using EM172 capsules, and based on the boundary array designs =
of Rob Danielson (his PBB2N in particular). I love this microphone array. I=
t is rugged, It is fairly small, It is cheap and easy to make, and it works=
 with a wide variety of relatively inexpensive portable recorders. The EM17=
2s have a pretty decent signal/noise ratio, especially when used in a bound=
ary array, and so far have worked very well for me.

Caught by the allure of ever-quieter microphones, I bought a pair of Audio-=
Techinca AT3032 microphones, which are very low noise, but I have yet to us=
e them effectively because I do not have the budget for one of the high-end=
 recorders/preamps that they require. That was wasted money, so far. Used S=
ound Devices MixPre preamps, or the popular Fostex FR2-LE recorder, are oft=
en available used for around half the cost of a new one, but still beyond m=
y reach at the moment.

For the past 6 or 7 years I have been using a Sony MZRH1 Hi-MD recorder for=
 all my recordings (before that I had a used Sony MZ-R70 minidisc recorder)=
. This little unit has served me very well. It has very quiet preamps. Its =
only flaws, in my opinion are a cumbersome menu system and an excess of mec=
hanical noise as the disk spins up and down every few minutes. These are lo=
ng discontinued.

I just graduated to an Olympus LS-11, which is a very nice flash memory rec=
order, sadly no longer in production in the U.S. The other recorder that is=
 often spoken of highly is the Sony PCM-M10. For me it was a tossup between=
 the PCM-M10 and the LS-11, and the LS-11 won on price (refurbished, for un=
der $200, again on eBay. Without eBay I'd probably still be recording with =
that crummy little Radio Shack homemade mic, the only thing that was availa=
ble to me locally in 2003!. Amazing to think how things have changed in the=
se 10 years.).

You'll want to acquaint yourself with Raimund's list of recorder preamp noi=
se levels:

http://www.avisoft.com/recordertests.htm

The quieter recorders are at the top of the list. But as David pointed out,=
 a sensitive mic, like the ME66, does not need a super quiet recorder pream=
p. Anything above about EIN -116 will work for the ME66 and the EM172s. You=
'll see that the Zoom recorders are not so good, however. I own the Zoom H2=
, but never use it for nature recording with an external mic, although the =
built-in mics are about as good as any of the other built-ins. I use it to =
record our concerts and for capturing musical ideas.

One thing to note is that the built-in microphones on any recorder, no matt=
er how expensive, are not that good compared to a decent external microphon=
e. Good for catching a spontaneous recording where the signal is strong, bu=
t not so good for recording really quiet soundscapes.

This summer I was recording grey seals in the Bay of Fundy, and I had the p=
arabola, and the ME66, and the Rode NT4 stereo mic. I did not have the soun=
dscape array with me because I have not fully worked out the wind protectio=
n on it and it was very windy. I have purchased (you know where) a Rode Bli=
mp for the NT4. Works great.

As it turned out, the NT4 was my best microphone in that situation, where I=
 thought either the parabola or the ME66 would carry the day. It seems most=
 of the signal was not coming directly from the source (seals over a mile f=
rom shore), but reflected off the water and the rocks around me. The more d=
irectional microphones missed most of the signal; it is lost in the sound o=
f wind and waves. The NT4 captured much more and those are the recordings I=
 am using.

I would say that in all I have spent a little more than $1200, spread over =
about 10 years.

If I were starting now with a limited budget I would probably get a PCM-M10=
 and the Rode NT4 with blimp. Without full wind protection, the NT4 is almo=
st useless outside. Even though the NT4 is not the quietest nor the most se=
nsitive, nor does it have the most exciting stereo image, it is a handy pac=
kage, and I grab it more often than anything else for that reason, and I am=
 happy with the results.

This is of course just one person's experience, driven by limited budget an=
d particular needs. There is better pro gear than I have mentioned here, if=
 you have the budget for it.

It's worth noting that most of my recordings are played through two loudspe=
akers in a PA system, and the NT4's paired cardioid mic capsules work well =
for that purpose. For private listening with headphones, I'd rather listen =
to the boundary array. Check out Rob Danielson's and Curt Olson's and Vicki=
 Powys's web sites. Many ideas for inexpensive DIY soundscape microphone ar=
rays. Also the DIY boundary mic blog at

http://diystereoboundarymics.blogspot.com/

best wishes,

John

John Crockett
Westminster, Vermont

www.naturalcontemplative.com

Let us live in harmony with Earth
And all creatures
That our lives may be a blessing.

--- In  Frank MacDonell  wrote:
>
> Looking for some advice regarding equipment to get started. My research
> indicates a shotgun mic with a balloon cover and a digital recorder like
> Zoom HN2 would be a good way to start. Your comments are most welcome.
> Thanks in advance for your time.
>
> --
> Frank KD8FIP
>








<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>
Admin

The University of NSW School of Computer and Engineering takes no responsibility for the contents of this archive. It is purely a compilation of material sent by many people to the naturerecordists mailing list. It has not been checked for accuracy nor its content verified in any way. If you wish to get material removed from the archive or have other queries about the archive e-mail Andrew Taylor at this address: andrewt@cse.unsw.EDU.AU