When David wrote "fetch", it became "reach out" in my mind, or
"looking out", which has not so much with self noise to do, just as
he says. Reach out, or look out, is to me more like what the SASS and
other binaural mic's are doing. Another way that I use to describe
it, is "acoustical presence filter", as such a mic sort of recreates
"as it sounds over there".
I have never found a good word for what directional mic's like 816's
are doing, except "attenuating surrounding sounds". They are
certainly not supposed to "recreate" anything "over there"
but rather diminish what is around. A totally obvious use of
directional mic's, and what they originally was made for, is killing
room acoustics.
Klas
At 23:46 2013-03-12, you wrote:
>Thanks Klaus,
>Yes,"transparency" works well in my statement rewritten now as:
>I include noise (microphone self-noise and recorder input noise) as
>a factor in perspective, because it affects the perceived
>transparency of a soundscape.
>
>This in effect limits the size of the practical area of high
>resolution surrounding the microphone. The microphone polar paterns
>and array configurations affect the shape of this area. What do we
>call this practical area of high resolution?
>
>When David first mentioned "fetch" at first I thought that is what
>he meant. Emotionally perhaps,I was thinking of the wind at sea -
>and the fetch as distance or the area over which the wind blows to
>create an ocean swell. So "fetch" could work well to describe
>distances and area of soundscape recording.
>
>John Hartog
>
>
>--- In Klas Strandberg <> wro=
te:
> >
> > John, I think I usually use "transparency" for what you mean. I then
> > mean a combination of stereo picture and low noise.
> > In my experience, microphones have different "transparencies"
> > depending on the sound. Usually, I find a low noise M/S to be most
> > transparent, but not always.
> > This is difficult to talk about, as most of us do not only mean
> > different things with words, but also have different emotional logics
> > about it.
> >
> > Klas
> >
> >
> > At 18:14 2013-03-12, you wrote:
> > >David,
> > >I finally understand what you mean by fetch now:)
> > >It is not how I would use the term, but fine.
> > >I include noise as a factor in perspective, because it affects the
> > >perceived soundscape, but that is also just me.
> > >
> > >John Hartog
> > >
> > >--- In "Avocet" <brini@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > John,
> > > >
> > > > Apologies for labouring the point again but "fetch" is all about
> > > > acoustic perspective, not noise.
> > > >
> > > > > narrow angled stereo using two cardioid Rode NT1A's with self-noi=
se
> > > > > of 5dB;
> > > >
> > > > No useable mic has an excess noise over thermal of 5dB. This figure=
is
> > > > claimed as a world record by B&K for one of their special
> > > > instrumentation mics.
> > > >
> > > > Ill-defined noise figures are misleading. Sennheiser quote around 2=
3dB
> > > > ITU-R468 weighting which many other mics can't get near.
> > > >
> > > > I'd take the mic hiss down using my algorithm on Audacity unless it
> > > > sounded like part of the soundscape.
> > > >
> > > > Now for the wildlife answer. :-)
> > > >
> > > > > Let's say we are recording from the center of a meadow surrounded=
by
> > > > > trees and it is dawn on a spring morning and we are interested in=
a
> > > > > particular sound we can faintly hear in the distance.
> > > >
> > > > What you don't quote is the acoustic background noise in the setup
> > > > like tree noise. Unless it is considerably lower than the faint sou=
nd,
> > > > you won't get much anyway. If it is faint to the ears, it will be
> > > > fainter to any mic.
> > > >
> > > > None of this is what you are asking - so -
> > > >
> > > > If the sound is faint to the ears it will be fainter to any mic rig=
.
> > > > What a good fetch gives is a closer perspective against the ambient
> > > > sounds and reverberation - if that is what the recordist wants.
> > > >
> > > > What I would do is to listen to all three rigs and choose what soun=
ds
> > > > best. I would probably choose the Jeklin simply because it used
> > > > Sennheiser mics which would survive rain. :-) Second would be the
> > > > crossed cardioids which will have a similar perspective at bird
> > > > frequencies, and avoid the hypercardiod with its annoying rear lobe
> > > > picking up tree noise from the rear. Two with two rear lobes would =
be
> > > > needed for stereo of course. If I could baffle off the rear
> > > > lobes, it may be useable, but the only hope of getting a "specimen"
> > > > recording would be with a rifle mic like the MKH-816 in mono.
> > > >
> > > > The intervening trees would probably disperse the call. I spent a
> > > > summer trying to get a clean woodpecker drumming in my woodland on =
150
> > > > metre cables. I could fetch it in at a reasonable level with rifle
> > > > mics, but the reverb from the trees muddled the drumming. I got the
> > > > blighter last year when it drummed on a tree across my car park at =
60
> > > > metres using the fetch of my 416's.
> > > > http://www.stowford.org/recordings.htm#woodpeckerbeech
> > > >
> > > > David
> > > >
> > > > David Brinicombe
> > > > 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 Krau=
se.
> > >
> > >Yahoo! Groups Links
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > Telinga Microphones, Botarbo,
> > S-748 96 Tobo, Sweden.
> > Phone & fax int + 295 310 01
> > email:
> > website: www.telinga.com
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>------------------------------------
>
>"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
email:
website: www.telinga.com
|