Dear NatureRecordists,
So, I am putting together a new recording setup, and was wondering
what do people use to hold their microphone(s)? All that I am able to
find (on the web) is studio gear, not really appropriate for sticking
in the mud out here on Sherman Island. Do you make your own, or is
something more appropriate for the outdoors available? I'm not above
cobbling something together if I have to, but thought I might ask the
list, see what other people are doing.
Thanks,
Mark
~~~~
Hi Mark ---
My set up isn't as fancy as what most people use, I imagine.
If I'm not hand-holding a parabola, I'm making a binaural or an A-B
stereo recording.
I use standard PVC pipe and rubber-band devices to hold the microphones,
with optional foam that fits over the microphone and optional
cage-and-fabric that fits over the PVC and microphone assembly.
I bolt or clamp the PVC holders to a strip of wood about 4 feet long.
It, in turn, is attached to the top of a tripod that would otherwise be
used to a spotting score. Wood sags but is much better than the metal
bar I used originally. This set up lets me adjust the inter-microphone
distance as much as I feel I need and also provides support for the mic
cables --- by clamping them to the wooden strip and/or tripod.
As I use only omni microphones (since I only have 2 microphones) the
home-made mounts and home-made wind protections have been sufficient. I
hardly, if ever, have handling/mount noise and no wind noise as
long as it isn't too windy ;-)
In short, I'd suggest you try some homemade stuff and see how it works
before investing in other stuff. Certainly the ergonomics of the
commercial mounts are far superior, but I've never experienced an actual
need for them.
Cheers!
Steve P
Mark,
I like to use a tripod. Although it's designed to hold a camera, with
an adapter it can work as a microphone stand. It's very portable (mine
has a sling) and also very stable (on any terrain) once set up.
Ed
On Dec 1, 2006, at 5:09 PM, Mark Fischer wrote:
>
> Dear NatureRecordists,
>
> So, I am putting together a new recording setup, and was wondering
> what do people use to hold their microphone(s)? All that I am able to
> find (on the web) is studio gear, not really appropriate for sticking
> in the mud out here on Sherman Island. Do you make your own, or is
> something more appropriate for the outdoors available? I'm not above
> cobbling something together if I have to, but thought I might ask the
> list, see what other people are doing.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Mark
> ~~~~
>
>
>
>
> "Microphones are not ears,
> Loudspeakers are not birds,
> A listening room is not nature."
> Klas Strandberg
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
Hello,
This email message is a notification to let you know that
a file has been uploaded to the Files area of the naturerecordists
group.
File : /Member Files/R0030159-GHO.mp3
Uploaded by : scw1217 <scw1217@...>
Description : Great Horned Owls Calling - Suzanne
You can access this file at the URL:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/naturerecordists/files/Member%20Files/R0030159-GHO\
.mp3
To learn more about file sharing for your group, please visit:
http://help.yahoo.com/help/us/groups/files
Regards,
scw1217 <scw1217@...>
I added (after much trouble) a sound file I recorded in 2004 using a
digital camera. There was a pair of Great Horned Owls behind my house
in a section of oak trees calling back and forth to each other. I
apologize in advance for my barking dog. I tried to edit most of her
barking out, except where the owl was calling. If you turn your
volume waaaay up, you will hear owl #2 calling in response.
Suzanne
This is the file I just added. Look for it as a .wav though. I could
not get the in-camera wav to convert to mp3 properly. It is in the
Files/Member Files folder.
Suzanne
--- In naturerecordists@yahoogroups.com,
naturerecordists@yahoogroups.com wrote:
>
>
> Hello,
>
> This email message is a notification to let you know that
> a file has been uploaded to the Files area of the naturerecordists
> group.
>
> File : /Member Files/R0030159-GHO.mp3
> Uploaded by : scw1217 <scw1217@...>
> Description : Great Horned Owls Calling - Suzanne
>
> You can access this file at the URL:
>
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/naturerecordists/files/Member%20Files/R0030159-GHO\
.mp3
>
> To learn more about file sharing for your group, please visit:
> http://help.yahoo.com/help/us/groups/files
>
> Regards,
>
> scw1217 <scw1217@...>
>
--- In naturerecordists@yahoogroups.com, "oryoki2000" <oryoki@...>
wrote:
>
> I came across a detailed review of the Tascam HD-P2 Compactflash
field
> recorder ($1000) in DV.com, an online magazine for digital video
> enthusiasts. The reviewer's conclusion is that the Tascam HD-P2 is
> "the best low-price field recorder we've tested."
As far as I know, that has been accepted within the film community
since late last December when the HD-P2 came onto the market. At the
time, it was more attractive financially than the Fostex, and Sound
Devices had not even announced the 702.
Between December and May, I tried all three recorders. If one is on a
budget, the Tascam is very attractive. The only reason that I didn't
buy it is that I had a feeling that Sound Devices was on the verge of
offering a two track recorder. Indeed I asked them, and got a
response that was so neutral that I was pretty sure that it was about
to happen. In March or so, when they did, I had a chance to try the
702, and it took about two seconds to make a decision. This is a
company that actually communicates with its customers, and that does
real upgrades to its products.
Meanwhile, I gather that Fostex has a new recorder coming out, which
may leapfrog the Tascam.
"Rory" wrote:
> ...I gather that Fostex has a new recorder coming
> out which may leapfrog the Tascam HD-P2.
I think you're referring to the Fostex FR-2LE,
a more compact version of the FR-2. It's due to
be shipped in January, although its release has
been delayed twice already.
The new FR-2LE will certainly be less expensive than
the Tascam, but the decline in the dollar's value
in the last few days may push the price higher
than the $500 that B&H Photo-Video was asking
for pre-orders last Fall.
The FR-2LE looks to be a competitor to the Marantz
PMD660 rather than the Tascam HD-P2. Both the
FR-2LE and PMD660 lack time code input,
digital input and digital output.
The FR2-LE can record at 24/96, while the PMD660 is
limited to 24/48. It's likely that the FR-2LE's
preamp will be quieter than the PMD660's as well.
There's a discussion of the FR-2LE by this group at
http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/naturerecordists/message/23553
--oryoki
Hi Mark,
Here are two pictures of my recording setup. Very simple and inexpensive except
for the Bogan Tripod.
http://www.wingsofnature.com/about/index.htmlhttp://www.wingsofnature.com/about/jim.jpg
Jim
Jim Morgan
Prescott, Arizona USA
http://www.wingsofnature.com
----- Original Message -----
From: Mark Fischer
To: naturerecordists@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Friday, December 01, 2006 3:09 PM
Subject: [Nature Recordists] microphone stands in the field
Dear NatureRecordists,
So, I am putting together a new recording setup, and was wondering
what do people use to hold their microphone(s)? All that I am able to
find (on the web) is studio gear, not really appropriate for sticking
in the mud out here on Sherman Island. Do you make your own, or is
something more appropriate for the outdoors available? I'm not above
cobbling something together if I have to, but thought I might ask the
list, see what other people are doing.
Thanks,
Mark
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Interesting.
In my view, it is really important to evaluate these recorders on the
basis of whether one needs, or doesn't need, time code. That decision
has a lot of consequences for how one evaluates them, both in terms
of features and cost. Personally, I find that many of the discussions
about the relative merits of these recorders don't take that
distinction into account.
For example, the Fostex, Tascam and Sound Devices 702T have different
capabilities out of the box when it comes to time code. Indeed, the
Fostex requires an additional module. For someone who wants time
code, my personal view is that the Fostex is a complete non-starter,
unless the cost has been reduced significantly in the last ten months.
If one doesn't need time code, the evaluation is quite different.
Now I am going to express a personal opinion. When the Tascam came
out last December, and I was offered one for US$850, the best
decision that I made was to wait for three or four months to see
whether Sound Devices was coming out with a two-track recorder. It
cost me more than twice as much (actually closer to three times that
much, given that I wanted time code), but for me, it was worth every
penny. That said, if I was on a tighter budget, the Tascam would look
very attractive.
Cheers
P.S. When I decided to add some comments, I deleted my post and added
them that way. Is it possible to edit these posts?
At let me add, that if I had a choice between a Fostex FR-2 without
the time code module, a Tascam HD-P2 (which has time code built in,
but which may require, depending on the camera, additional gear to
make it function properly), and a non-time code Sound Devices 702,
the choice would come down to my budget for other things that I think
are more important. In particular, the choice would depend on how
much I had left after I paid for what is really important, which is a
microphone or microphones and support gear.
Cheers
When not using duct "duck" tape or a real of tie wrap.
I use light tripod mic stands. Mine say AKG on them but are the same
and similar price to this one linked. I have found that it does ok
wedged in cargo car top rails and driven around with a 10 lb load on
them. I use them with and without the boom arm. When you remove the
boom arm you have to electrical tape a bottom pad to the extension
pole so it does not rattle. That is hard to explain but will be self
evident if you remove the boom arm.
http://www.zzounds.com/item--MUP7701B
Rich Peet
--- In naturerecordists@yahoogroups.com, "Mark Fischer"
<aguasonic@...> wrote:
>
>
> Dear NatureRecordists,
>
> So, I am putting together a new recording setup, and was wondering
> what do people use to hold their microphone(s)? All that I am able to
> find (on the web) is studio gear, not really appropriate for sticking
> in the mud out here on Sherman Island. Do you make your own, or is
> something more appropriate for the outdoors available? I'm not above
> cobbling something together if I have to, but thought I might ask the
> list, see what other people are doing.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Mark
> ~~~~
>
All of the devices being talked about are very, very good. Sound Devices is
certainly the Rolls-Royce but at least in part one purchases a Rolls to be seen
in it. A little true for Sound Devices also. It's the required calling-card for
field recording in film, music and video. Also true that you make the money back
with one good job. ROI is important in business.
For those not in that situation, the question becomes more complicated. Do I
need capacity and features that I'm unlikely to ever use just in case I should
need it? That's a more personal decision.
I add the caveat that it certainly seems, and this is clearly opinion, high-end
unified professional recorder are at the edge of extinction. Media is becoming
so cheap and A/D-D/A circuits so good that the only real distinction will be in
the pre-amps. At that point your recorder is your IPOD clone or a $10 option one
adds to a preamp.
Spend money on microphones. I'm having a Sennheiser 416 refurbished as I write
and that was purchased in the early eighties, Worked great with 3/4" video tape,
cassette tapes, DAT, mini-disk, and now a laptop. Will still work great in 10
years no matter what is receiving the signal.
----- Original Message -----
From: Rory
To: naturerecordists@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Saturday, December 02, 2006 12:08 AM
Subject: [Nature Recordists] Re: [gear] Fostex FR2-LE
At let me add, that if I had a choice between a Fostex FR-2 without
the time code module, a Tascam HD-P2 (which has time code built in,
but which may require, depending on the camera, additional gear to
make it function properly), and a non-time code Sound Devices 702,
the choice would come down to my budget for other things that I think
are more important. In particular, the choice would depend on how
much I had left after I paid for what is really important, which is a
microphone or microphones and support gear.
Cheers
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
I use a cheap camera tripod with the attachment gear hacked off. I slip
a length of 3/4" Schedule 40 PVC over it and secure with a screw. To
that I attach mic rigs with simple PVC couplers. Very light weight.
Here's the best photo I have of the tripod:
http://www.trackseventeen.com/images/mic_arrays/183_wedge_110d.jpg
Here's a closer view of a mic rig mounted to it:
http://www.trackseventeen.com/images/mic_arrays/3032_parallel06.jpg
Sometimes I prefer a simple monopod of the same PVC material. Cheap and
easy if you don't mind holding on to it all day.
Curt Olson
Mark Fischer wrote:
> So, I am putting together a new recording setup, and was wondering if
> I could ask, what do you use to hold your microphone(s)? All that I am
> able to find (on the web) is studio gear, not really appropriate for
> sticking in the mud out here on Sherman Island. Do you make your own,
> or is something more appropriate for the outdoors available? I'm not
> above cobbling something together if I have to, but thought I might
> ask the list, see what other people are doing.
You must be readfing them on the website - each message goes out as
email and is not editeblt or retractable. Google your name and you'lll
find some old stuff that will never go away!
<L>
Lou Judson • Intuitive Audio
415-883-2689
On Dec 1, 2006, at 8:46 PM, Rory wrote:
> P.S. When I decided to add some comments, I deleted my post and added
> them that way. Is it possible to edit these posts?
Rich, as a professional live sound guy I MUST say that the On Stage
brand you link to is not as good as the K&M or AKG brand - which
actually cost less. K&M has heavier metal bases and better quality
parts. If a newbie is looking fo a regualr mic stand, search around for
K&M and they will last the rest of your life. I'd had to throw away
numerous On Stage stand at various clubs I've worked in, they just
don't hold up. One like the one you link is $64.95 from K&M I think. On
Stage os liuke Behringer in a way.
Mic stand advice: I find it helps a huge amount to use a squirt of
Tri-Flow lub ricant in the threads of every part of a mic stand that
screws or tightens. By lubing the threads, it is easier to get tight
enough to hold its place, and wear less.
<L>
Lou Judson • Intuitive Audio
415-883-2689
On Dec 1, 2006, at 10:22 PM, Rich Peet wrote:
> I use light tripod mic stands. Mine say AKG on them but are the same
> and similar price to this one linked. I have found that it does ok
> wedged in cargo car top rails and driven around with a 10 lb load on
> them. I use them with and without the boom arm. When you remove the
> boom arm you have to electrical tape a bottom pad to the extension
> pole so it does not rattle. That is hard to explain but will be self
> evident if you remove the boom arm.
>
> http://www.zzounds.com/item--MUP7701B
>
> Rich Peet
Posted by: "Mark Fischer"
>
> So, I am putting together a new recording setup, and was wondering if
> I could ask, what do you use to hold your microphone(s)? All that I am
> able to find (on the web) is studio gear, not really appropriate for
> sticking in the mud out here on Sherman Island. Do you make your own,
> or is something more appropriate for the outdoors available? I'm not
> above cobbling something together if I have to, but thought I might
> ask the list, see what other people are doing.
I use several different stands when I'm not hand holding the mics.
First off I use a tall light stand for high work (17'):
http://wwknapp.home.mindspring.com/tall.tripod.1.jpghttp://wwknapp.home.mindspring.com/tall.tripod.2.jpg
Light stands are heavier duty than mic stands. This stand would require
weighting if it was windy, particularly with the parabolic. Light
breezes are not a problem, however. I often set up this stand with the
SASS/MKH-20 overnight when I'm camping in the truck.
I machined a small adapter block to clamp onto the standard light stand
coupling that attaches the mic. You can see that adapter block on my M/S
page:
http://frogrecordist.home.mindspring.com/docs/ms_setups.html
I also have a clamp on stainless steel mast of 4' height that I can
clamp onto the roof bars. That's my own machined couplings mounted in
the tubing and those go into a standard studio clamp. The top of the
mast fits the same coupling as the one I use on the light stand.
For shorter stands I have a couple standard photography tripods, Bogen
3021B Pro and a Unilock System Major 16 along. Either will hold a mic
just fine. The Unilock is made for field conditions and can even be set
up in a fair depth of water. Again, a thread converter is necessary for
the mics. The standard mic stand thread is unique to mics, 5/8" X 27tpi
so very often conversion is needed. I managed to get taps and dies in
the custom sizes, so can make my own converters. Most of my mic setups
will fit a 3/8" thread, which is easier to find.
Walt
--- In naturerecordists@yahoogroups.com, "Rory" <Rory.Edge@...> wrote:
> What do you want to record?
Hi Rory,
First off- thanks to all who responded. Living proof that, powerful as
it is, Google isn't the answer to everything.
Well, my needs are pretty simple. Curiously enough, winter is the
songiest (is that a word?) of the seasons here in the Delta, lots of
migrants from up north; but it's also the rainy season, hence the need
to avoid nice studio gear.
I think what I am going to go with is a boom to take care of the
microphone attaching needs; but then use a camera tripod as has been
suggested to take care of the uneven ground requirements. The highest
I need to get is over the tops of reeds, maybe six or seven feet, so
the combination of 5 feet of tripod and 3 feet of boom should do just
fine.
Thank you all for the very helpful advice,
Mark
~~~~
winter songs in the south are often partials and whispers. Come visit
us and look me up when you want to capture those birds on breeding
grounds. I am at the top of the Miss. Our winter birds are neat too as
they come down for the warmth.
Rich
mn
--- In naturerecordists@yahoogroups.com, "Mark Fischer" <aguasonic@...>
wrote:
>
>
> --- In naturerecordists@yahoogroups.com, "Rory" <Rory.Edge@> wrote:
> > What do you want to record?
>
. Curiously enough, winter is the
> songiest (is that a word?) of the seasons here in the Delta, lots of
> migrants from up north; but it's also the rainy season, hence the need
> to avoid nice studio gear.
>
Dear Colleague,
Now that we have the technology available to record natural sounds, we can
preserve our soundscapes, which parallels the century old tradition of
paintings and photographs. Cave art captured an image of ancient
environments. Only now can we do the same for aural environments. However,
recording a soundscape, which includes spatial acoustics as well as natural
sounds is not trivial or even possible. Those that have been recording music
in concert halls during the last century are well aware that spatial
acoustics is extremely important and extremely difficult to record.
What we experience when we walk through a forest listening to the sounds of
birds includes nature's acoustic geography. Forests have there own unique
reverberation, including sonic turbulence, thermal inversion sound channels,
diffused reflections, and so on.
During my 5 years of research into auditory spatial awareness, which is
discussed in my book Spaces Speak, Are You Listening? Experiencing Aural
Architecture, I considered the importance of the aural properties of spaces
within which the sound source and listener exist. There is strong, but
speculative, evidence that most species are very aware of nature's aural
architecture.
My book established the foundation for cultural earcons but I need help in
advancing the discussion. Additional information about the book can be found
at the MIT Press web site:
http://mitpress.mit.edu/catalog/item/default.asp?ttype=2&tid=10947 and I
will send a copy of the Introduction and Table of Contents to anyone who
requests them.
I would be delighted to open a dialog on how those who are recording natural
sounds are dealing with the issue of natural acoustics.
Barry Blesser (former MIT Prof)
bblesser@...
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Welcome to the group Barry:
Your book sounds very interesting: I will have to read it when I get
the chance.
What do you mean by "Only now can we do the same for aural environments"?
If there was a spot in a cave where the soundscape was such as to
reveal some important acoustic information regarding the surrounding
environment, then maybe that would be a great place to draw something
on the wall to communicate "listen here" to future passersby. I'm
sure cave artists, even many thousands of years ago, figured out ways
to get important messages regarding the acoustics of a space across to
their contemporaries.
John Hartog
--- In naturerecordists@yahoogroups.com, "Barry Blesser"
<bblesser@...> wrote:
>
> Dear Colleague,
>
> Now that we have the technology available to record natural sounds,
we can
> preserve our soundscapes, which parallels the century old tradition of
> paintings and photographs. Cave art captured an image of ancient
> environments. Only now can we do the same for aural environments.
However,
> recording a soundscape, which includes spatial acoustics as well as
natural
> sounds is not trivial or even possible. Those that have been
recording music
> in concert halls during the last century are well aware that spatial
> acoustics is extremely important and extremely difficult to record.
>
> What we experience when we walk through a forest listening to the
sounds of
> birds includes nature's acoustic geography. Forests have there own
unique
> reverberation, including sonic turbulence, thermal inversion sound
channels,
> diffused reflections, and so on.
>
> During my 5 years of research into auditory spatial awareness, which is
> discussed in my book Spaces Speak, Are You Listening? Experiencing Aural
> Architecture, I considered the importance of the aural properties of
spaces
> within which the sound source and listener exist. There is strong, but
> speculative, evidence that most species are very aware of nature's aural
> architecture.
>
> My book established the foundation for cultural earcons but I need
help in
> advancing the discussion. Additional information about the book can
be found
> at the MIT Press web site:
> http://mitpress.mit.edu/catalog/item/default.asp?ttype=2&tid=10947 and I
> will send a copy of the Introduction and Table of Contents to anyone who
> requests them.
>
> I would be delighted to open a dialog on how those who are recording
natural
> sounds are dealing with the issue of natural acoustics.
>
> Barry Blesser (former MIT Prof)
> bblesser@...
>
>
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
Hi Mark,
I'm glad that I asked the question. I've done this kind of thing both
handheld and on a support. The support can be a monopod, if you are
prepared to hold it, or a tripod. Personally, my supports are made of
carbon fiber (cheap for a monopod, not cheap for a tripod). Carbon is
lightweight, it doesn't get cold in the the winter and it doesn't
mind getting wet. I don't use a boom, although I have one for other
reasons, but rather a stereo bar.
On the chance that you aren't familiar with photo tripods, there are
two main brands, Gitzo and Bogen/Manfrotto. I happen to use Gitzo,
but if you can, try out both. The main difference has to do with how
the locking mechanism for extensions works, which is a question of
personal preference.
Good luck.
Welcome, Barry.
In this forum, you are "preachin' to the choir" on the subject of an
acoustic geography of sound. Some of our members, perhaps most
notably Bernie Krause, have been working for 20? 30? years and more to
improve our understanding of the characteristic soundscape of a
natural environment, and the potential for consequences when that
soundscape is altered. I'm sure you know of Bernie's pioneering work
with the National Park Service to help protect the auditory
environment in the parks.
Thanks for mentioning the concept of a "cultural earcon." If I
remember correctly, the notion of an "earcon" arose as a means to talk
about the auditory component of human-computer interaction. For
example, the Trash Can icon symbolizes in a visual way that files
placed here will be destroyed. The "paper crunching" sound that
occurs when a file is placed on the Trash Can icon is an "earcon" that
reinforces the destructive potential of the Trash.
I think a "cultural earcon" must be a sound that people come to
associate with some state or condition through exposure to the sound.
Examples might be the high-low sound that the sirens on European
emergency vehicles make. To a European, the sound has come to mean
"alert - make way." To a visitor from another part of the world, the
sound would convey the "alert" message, but perhaps not the "make way"
component, a cultural difference. Please correct me if your use of
the term "cultural earcon" is different.
A "cultural earcon" that carries a more emotional message is the
"duh-duh -- duh-duh" sound accompanying the approach of the shark in
the movie, "Jaws." To millions, this sound has come to elicit a sense
of fearful foreboding. The sound is now mimiced by people in any
potentially frightening situation, even when it has nothing to do with
water or sharks. To people who haven't seen the movie (there must be
a few somewhere), this meaning is not available.
I think I would take issue with your statement that "only now can we
capture" the sounds of a natural environment, in the way that a cave
painting might capture some elements of one's visual experience. I'd
offer than pre-verbal language probably mimiced natural sounds to
convey meaning, and that the chants of some present-day indigenous
peoples includes natural sounds and rhythms. Our recording equipment
can reproduce sounds more accurately than in the past, but that
doesn't mean that before now there was no way to capture and utilize
natural sounds as auditory symbols, and to transmit those "earcons" to
others.
Quite a high percentage of messages here deal with the nuts and bolts
of audio field recording (I plead guilty as charged.) Don't let that
discourage you from posting on the subjects you care about. Here
you'll find a very broad spectrum of experience from a world-wide
group of researchers and field recording enthusiasts.
--oryoki
ps. You told us about your life in academia and your book-writing to
help introduce yourself, right? Just checking.
Hi All,
Nice little 7 minute vignette on the venerable Gordon Hempton dovetails
somewhat into this discussion of natures acoustics..
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9AFG9B8gDrk
Best,
Mark
--
Every seed is awakened and so is all animal life. It is through this
mysterious power that we too have our being and we therefore yield to our
animal neighbours the same right as ourselves, to inhabit this land. -
Sitting Bull
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Hi Barry and welcome to the list. I'm pretty well convinced that
humans and many animals have the ability to "image" the space around
them functionally if not very accurately. The most impressive
evidence for me has come from spending some time with sight impaired
friends as they hear their way through spaces. In the wild, creatures
navigate very well through pitch blackness and use local resonances
to magnify their calls. Technically, its my opinion that current
sound recording systems are challenged to record acoustic details on
the order that animals can perceive, but these are some of the topics
we discuss from time to time. I'll take a look at your sample chapter
and table of contents on the link you provided. Rob D.
At 7:33 PM -0500 12/2/06, Barry Blesser wrote:
>Dear Colleague,
>
>Now that we have the technology available to record natural sounds, we can
>preserve our soundscapes, which parallels the century old tradition of
>paintings and photographs. Cave art captured an image of ancient
>environments. Only now can we do the same for aural environments. However,
>recording a soundscape, which includes spatial acoustics as well as natural
>sounds is not trivial or even possible. Those that have been recording music
>in concert halls during the last century are well aware that spatial
>acoustics is extremely important and extremely difficult to record.
>
>What we experience when we walk through a forest listening to the sounds of
>birds includes nature's acoustic geography. Forests have there own unique
>reverberation, including sonic turbulence, thermal inversion sound channels,
>diffused reflections, and so on.
>
>During my 5 years of research into auditory spatial awareness, which is
>discussed in my book Spaces Speak, Are You Listening? Experiencing Aural
>Architecture, I considered the importance of the aural properties of spaces
>within which the sound source and listener exist. There is strong, but
>speculative, evidence that most species are very aware of nature's aural
>architecture.
>
>My book established the foundation for cultural earcons but I need help in
>advancing the discussion. Additional information about the book can be found
>at the MIT Press web site:
>http://mitpress.mit.edu/catalog/item/default.asp?ttype=2&tid=10947 and I
>will send a copy of the Introduction and Table of Contents to anyone who
>requests them.
>
>I would be delighted to open a dialog on how those who are recording natural
>sounds are dealing with the issue of natural acoustics.
>
>Barry Blesser (former MIT Prof)
>bblesser@...
--
Rob Danielson
Peck School of the Arts
University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee
http://www.uwm.edu/~type/audio-art-tech-gallery/
--- In naturerecordists@yahoogroups.com, "oryoki2000" <oryoki@...> wrote:
> I think a "cultural earcon" must be a sound that people come to
> associate with some state or condition through exposure to the sound.
> Examples might be the high-low sound that the sirens on European
> emergency vehicles make. To a European, the sound has come to mean
> "alert - make way." To a visitor from another part of the world, the
> sound would convey the "alert" message, but perhaps not the "make way"
> component, a cultural difference.
By chance, last Thursday,I recorded the "high low" sound as I was
doing a first field trial of my DIY triple capsule boundary mic (some
5 months after building it!). The sound is towards the end of the
siren.mp3 file:
http://uk.geocities.com/g0sbw@btinternet.com/siren.mp3
The recording was made on a busy London road, Green Lanes, in the
Finsbury Park area. The road runs from left to right and at its
closest is 40 yards away from the mic. At 11 o'clock are a group of
people practising rock climbing on the stone walls of a tall Victorian
water pumping station. This point is about 80 yards away.
The emergency vehicle can be heard approaching but then switches off
its sirens, apparently making good progress with flashing lights
alone, until just level with the mic position. It then gives a burst
of warning noise to clear its way through a set of traffic lights. A
lot of distortion in the recording at this point. The triplets are
very sensitive. The minidisc recorder was set to high sensitivity but
the record level was only 8.
The triplet mic was used to record a very different environment
yesterday. This is an area of salt marsh in north east Essex. The
geese.mp3 file is a snippet from the recording
http://uk.geocities.com/g0sbw@btinternet.com/geese.mp3
Relatively, this location is a lot quieter than the London street.
The mp3 has some 300 Brent Geese coming back to their overnight
quarters after a day of foraging in the nearby farmland.
Unfortunately it also has a noisy fishing boat also returning to its
mooring.
This sounds a little under recorded with the record level set to 10
and the mic sensitivity high.
Seems I need more experience to get the best out of this mic.
Photos of the mic are:
http://uk.geocities.com/g0sbw@btinternet.com/p8310077.jpghttp://uk.geocities.com/g0sbw@btinternet.com/p8310078.jpghttp://uk.geocities.com/g0sbw@btinternet.com/p8310079.jpghttp://uk.geocities.com/g0sbw@btinternet.com/p8310080.jpg
Cheers
Tom Robinson
Welcome to the list, Barry.
In both my books ("Into a Wild Sanctuary," and "Wild Soundscapes,") I
give examples from different perspectives of an experience of a
Jivaro hunt in the Amazon Basin.
The biophony of the equatorial rainforest is experienced by both
human and non-human critters who live (partially) by intrinsic
knowledge of the soundscape. This is expressed as a series of
amoeba-shaped areas defined by subtle changes in both acoustic
charactistics of the habitat (anechoic or reverberant) and by the
vocal critters within those territories that express themselves
within a range of dynamic equilibrium. The acoustic DE is dependent
upon what critters are vocalizing under what conditions. This is
obviously complex, but folks and animals who live in these
environments, know and understand these phenomena.
Example: One night, while visiting the Jivaro, I was invited by the
men to go on an evening hunt. W/o lights of any kind, w/o being able
to see above the thick forest canopy to be guided by stars, they
marched through the forest guided only by the biophony, using it as
an aural GPS. Furthermore, from the subtle changes in the biophony,
they were able to tell what creature(s) was/were ahead (or lateral
to) of them, whether it/they was/were worth following and chasing
down. Louis Sarno reports the same experience having lived and worked
for 20 years with the Ba'Aka Pygmies in the Dzanga-Sangha rainforest
of the Central African Republic and has published on that phenomenon,
also.
So, yes, we certainly have the capability of very much more subtle
listening and attention to our acoustic world. Problem is, we're too
damned noisy and distracted by the visual to notice.
Would love to see your intro. Please send it off list.
Bernie Krause
>
>At 7:33 PM -0500 12/2/06, Barry Blesser wrote:
>>Dear Colleague,
>>
>>Now that we have the technology available to record natural sounds, we can
>>preserve our soundscapes, which parallels the century old tradition of
>>paintings and photographs. Cave art captured an image of ancient
>>environments. Only now can we do the same for aural environments. However,
>>recording a soundscape, which includes spatial acoustics as well as natural
>>sounds is not trivial or even possible. Those that have been recording music
>>in concert halls during the last century are well aware that spatial
>>acoustics is extremely important and extremely difficult to record.
>>
>>What we experience when we walk through a forest listening to the sounds of
>>birds includes nature's acoustic geography. Forests have there own unique
>>reverberation, including sonic turbulence, thermal inversion sound channels,
>>diffused reflections, and so on.
>>
>>During my 5 years of research into auditory spatial awareness, which is
>>discussed in my book Spaces Speak, Are You Listening? Experiencing Aural
>>Architecture, I considered the importance of the aural properties of spaces
>>within which the sound source and listener exist. There is strong, but
>>speculative, evidence that most species are very aware of nature's aural
>>architecture.
>>
>>My book established the foundation for cultural earcons but I need help in
>>advancing the discussion. Additional information about the book can be found
>>at the MIT Press web site:
>>http://mitpress.mit.edu/catalog/item/default.asp?ttype=2&tid=10947 and I
>>will send a copy of the Introduction and Table of Contents to anyone who
>>requests them.
>>
>>I would be delighted to open a dialog on how those who are recording natural
>>sounds are dealing with the issue of natural acoustics.
>>
>>Barry Blesser (former MIT Prof)
>>bblesser@...
>
>
>--
>Rob Danielson
>Peck School of the Arts
>University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee
>http://www.uwm.edu/~type/audio-art-tech-gallery/
>
>
>
>"Microphones are not ears,
>Loudspeakers are not birds,
>A listening room is not nature."
>Klas Strandberg
>Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
--
Wild Sanctuary
P. O. Box 536
Glen Ellen, CA 95442
t. 707-996-6677
f. 707-996-0280
http://www.wildsanctuary.com
Posted by: "Mark Fischer" aguasonic@... aguasonic
> I think what I am going to go with is a boom to take care of the
> microphone attaching needs; but then use a camera tripod as has been
> suggested to take care of the uneven ground requirements. The highest
> I need to get is over the tops of reeds, maybe six or seven feet, so
> the combination of 5 feet of tripod and 3 feet of boom should do just
> fine.
The higher you get the less cluttered the signal. Near the ground you
are recording a mix of lots of reflections as well as the direct signal.
And there are lots of things absorbing the sound too. Plus, vegetation
like reeds makes new noises if there is any breeze so the farther away
from them you are the better, and one way to get farther is to go up. In
my recording frogs having the mic high means the closer frogs are not so
likely to overwhelm the recording. It's not just a matter of being line
of sight. That's why I often use the tall tripod setup. I know that the
clarity of what I record improves the higher I get the mic. Currently my
high tripod gets me up 17 feet. And I keep looking for ways to go
higher, most of the options I run into for even higher are expensive or
complex to set up, but I keep looking. I may eventually build something
taller.
Another advantage of going high is with a directional mic. By putting
the mic high and pointing down at your subject you can cut out some of
the distant noise sources, or at least weaken them. Of course being
under and pointing up works the same, except that picks up airplanes
better. I first got the idea of going high from Klas, who mentioned it
as a technique with the Telinga for isolating sound sources. Only once I
got the mic up there did I realize just how much the clarity could be
improved.
Note even if not going high that choice of location has a lot of effect
on your recording. Always be aware of reflecting and absorbing surfaces
in your soundfield.
If you are organizing a support you want it stable enough that it can be
unattended for at least a little while. While support for a microphone
does not have to be as stable as for a camera, it should be reasonably
sturdy. Of course a support that waves the mic around will change what
it picks up as it waves, not helpful if it's a directional mic. You want
a mic stand that's easy to set up too.
The tall tripods I use (I got two of them off one ebay auction) were not
at all expensive. Follow auctions for light stands and you can get them
fairly low priced. While not specifically designed for outdoor use I
don't worry too much about damaging them as they are fairly easy to
replace. Probably the biggest downfall of the stands I have is they are
designed for a flat floor so I have to get creative for slopes. One of
these days I'll design a modification of one of them for this.
Just a few considerations.
Walt
Send Email
