Mark Strong wrote:
> > The
> > Telinga has the added advantage of offering a stereo-parabolic option,
> > which sounds quite good!
> Now, this I'm not understanding. You got a single parabolic reflector
> collecting sound from a distance and focusing it on a single point. I would
> think that there is zero stereo imaging at this point and can not see how
> putting two microphone elements there somehow gives you stereo. I would think
> for stereo with parabolics, you would need two parabolics aimed in a stereo
> array or at angles as in the SASS you mentioned ?
The simple response, is it does work. You get quite considerable stereo
out of a telinga with the DAT stereo mic. If you look at the white
papers on their site, there's some info on how the design works in a
couple white papers.
The trick is they employ a center barrier so each mic sees only part of
I became a believer with the first few recordings.
Note, the stereo version of a Telinga is not as precise a directivity as
the mono dual-science mic. And the stereo is not really of the center
subject, but the surrounding field. The center subject will be almost
mono. My opinion so far is that the stereo field is of closer and closer
things as you listen out to the edges. Until you get something thats out
at the edge of the field, where the mics are almost functioning like non
parabolics. Much of my recording is done from the side of roads where I
may have occasional passing vehicles. These give the classic stereo run
across the field, though the volume does not peak as high as they pass
directly behind due to the shielding effect of the parabola. (naturally,
these are annoyances that have to be edited out)
It's definitely different recording with a stereo parabolic. If you pan
around while recording "hunting" things, your audience may get dizzy.
Since, in my work, I'm trying to get every species of frog that's
calling from a site, panning is a standard part of my routine to bring
out each species. It can be done with a stereo parabolic, just slower
and longer pans, not waving back and forth. Also, since I'm recording in
the dark where visual sighting is of no use, the stereo in the
headphones helps to tell me which direction to pan.
> Correct, but there are also cheap mic elements with the self noise/noise floor
> figures we want, following them with a high quality pre amp circuit such as is
> commercially available from Benchmark Systems, is also very important as there
> is self noise in pre amps as well.
In comparison to shotguns, the other way to achieve better gain and thus
stay higher above the noise floor is to use a parabolic. The parabolic
provides gain without amplifying built in mic noise, since the "gain"
comes before the mic even converts the sound to electricity.
The other reason I prefer parabolics is that I'm often recording a
mixture of species. I not only want the ones yelling by the hundreds,
but the single quieter one. The parabolic gives better ability to
isolate these. I sometimes use parabolics as close as 20' or even less
for exactly this reason. Were that single quieter one calling out by
itself, a shotgun would probably do fine.