Dear Bruce, et al,=0D
=0D
Thanks for replying. =0D
On the name misspelling:=0D
I'm afraid I am responsible for the -s- omission in WildtronicS' name, as I=
may have misspelled it in my first "Hello" post on this forum. My sincere =
apilogies! You're right to seek correction of it as it is important for any=
proud, innovative entrepreneur, to have it's business known properly!=0D
To me, Wildtronics indeed is innovative and poses a refreshing competitive =
alternative to Telinga's well known, may I say state of the art, propositio=
ns. And I much applaud your efforts and approach to help further our field =
with your fresh and well thought-over designs.=0D
Also, as I am new to parabola sound recording, I felt it usefull/appropriat=
e to address my queries to the purchase of a parabola to the forum. As I al=
so did to you. It is to help me judge the two most interesting propositions=
in this field, the Telinga's and the WildtronicS. The lightweightedness pr=
oven fieldworthyness, stowabillity and reputation of the Telinga's vs the f=
lexibillity and "unheared of" noise performance and outputlevel of the Wild=
tronicS. The latter permitting me to bypass relatively noisy preamps of lig=
htweight cheaper recorders whilst maintaining good sound quality. Thus comp=
ensating the weightpenalty a little and adding to the pricecompetitiveness =
of Wildtronics. As the Telinga's sound quality and general qualities are br=
oadly known/acknowledged and I didn't see any other way to interpret the qu=
aliity of your new products than by asking the group on their judgement /ex=
periences.=0D
You as well as Telinga have addressed and informed me and my questions admi=
rably. As I already stated in my first posting.=0D
=0D
I sincerely hope we can continue on that level and with that attitude. =0D
So I look forward to the upbringing of interersting factual and opinionatin=
g new information. Be that new sound recordings, specification comparisons =
et cetera.=0D
=0D
I suspect many of us will be interested in the outcomes of this comparisons=
that to me, can -and should - only have winners!!=0D
=0D
Look forward to read from - and correspond with - all that participate in t=
his forum and on this topic.=0D
=0D
Many thnx in advance for that!=0D
=0D
Gerrit=0D
=0D
=0D
On 17 feb. 2014, at 17:46, wrote:=0D
=0D
> David and list members,=0D
> =0D
> First of all, let us please get the name correct, our company is named Wi=
ldtronics, not Wildtronic. =0D
> =0D
> David, some of our samples were directly recorded with a DSLR camera and =
not an external recorder that had more controls. A couple of birds may have=
peaked because the DSLR's gain couldn't be turned down enough because the =
microphone responded so well to a distant bird. The only processing we did =
was a low cut filter (200hz), and level normalization. These are demonstrat=
ion videos/sounds to show how well the parabolic microphone picks up sounds=
at a given distance and it's general frequency response and are are not in=
tended for scientific analysis. They are also not intended to be perfect re=
cordings of said species.=0D
> =0D
> We stand by our specifications. We quote that the 4dB noise is an equival=
ency. To match the signal to noise performance of our dish microphone syste=
m, you would need to place a 4dB microphone into a standard, 22 inch or so,=
parabolic dish. We list our specifications, what other listed specificatio=
ns are you comparing them to?=0D
> =0D
> The best way to do a comparative test would be to place a signal source, =
of fixed different frequencies, at 50-100 feet, record from both units, and=
measure signal to noise ratio on an analyzer. Make sure both dishes are pe=
rfectly focused, not saturating, using a very low noise recorder in a very =
quiet environment.=0D
> =0D
> David, I will give your peanut can idea a try when I get a chance on both=
our mono dish and on our stereo microphones. I have been busy making a num=
ber of options to further improve the microphones. It should be noted that =
our stereo microphones are on separate channels than the mono channel, thre=
e channels in total on our mono-stereo microphone. Our amplified mono-stere=
o unit has a built-in mixer to combine the channels in any proportion. =0D
> =0D
> If anyone has questions, I would be happy to answer them.=0D
> =0D
> Bruce Rutkoski=0D
> Owner=0D
> www.wildtronics.com=0D
> www.natureguystudio.com=0D
> =0D
> =0D
> =0D
> =0D
> =0D
|