• Welcome to BirdForum, the internet's largest birding community with thousands of members from all over the world. The forums are dedicated to wild birds, birding, binoculars and equipment and all that goes with it.

    Please register for an account to take part in the discussions in the forum, post your pictures in the gallery and more.
ZEISS DTI thermal imaging cameras. For more discoveries at night, and during the day.

I don't understand why the recording device matters? (1 Viewer)

Steelflight

Well-known member
I don't understand why it would matter much on the recorder that I used if I am using a shotgun mic that collects sounds from 500 feet away. As long as I am picking up the sounds with the shotgun mic, won't it record fine onto any old digital voice recorder? I asked a guy about this at an audio store that sold mics and he said he didn't think it would matter much... just the sound quality might be a little worse, but in terms of sound magnitude it would be almost the same.
 
I believe that many digital recorders save space by only recording sounds within the normal range of human hearing. This means that if you record a call it will sound perfect to you, but the bird may hear it completely differently. This also means that it is of no use for making sonagrams. I believe that there are some new digital recorders that do not compress the sounds in this way, but I don't know which ones. Maybe someone else can help here, as I am pretty interested in buying one myself.

Tom
 
Steelflight said:
I don't understand why it would matter much on the recorder that I used if I am using a shotgun mic that collects sounds from 500 feet away. As long as I am picking up the sounds with the shotgun mic, won't it record fine onto any old digital voice recorder? I asked a guy about this at an audio store that sold mics and he said he didn't think it would matter much... just the sound quality might be a little worse, but in terms of sound magnitude it would be almost the same.

Some things can't be put into words. You gotta hear them. I went out yesterday lunchtime and recorded some long-tailed tits with my HiMD and simultaneously with my Olympus VN-120PC digital voicerecorder. Same birds, same distance.

http://www.suffolkbirds.co.uk/article/69/use-no-voicerecorders

I don't actually tell you which recording is which on that page, but basically if you can't tell which is the voice recorder and which is the proper recording I don't think that bird recording is for you ;) These little guys were about ten feet from me. Listen to the papery tone colour of the birds and the harsh distortion on the blackbird on the voice recorder version. Compare that with the lovely trilling sound that these little birds have on the other recording. Long-tailed tits tend to go around in flocks, and on the MD recording even though it is in mono you can hear the perspective of the near and far birds signalling to each other to keep the flock together.

The voice recorder is designed for a loud sound (you) speaking into the mic at close range - a couple of feet. Okay, so you are going to stick a parabolic mic in front which will help a bit. I'm not trying to rain on your parade for the hell of it, and I'm all for people going out there with whatever they have already got. There's a lot of fun and much challenge to be had going out recording the sounds of the natural world.

But one thing that does put newcomers off is spending a wad on kit that isn't up to the task and not getting decent results. They usually give up and come to the conclusion this isn't for them. Which is why I recorded that segment, so at least you can make your choice knowing beforehand what you will do to the sound.

You may listen to the recording and decide that the papery travesty of the long-tails is good enough for you to recognize your owls, but at least you won't go into the project expecting your recording to sound much like the birds in real life :)

Before you buy a DVR, if you go that way, you should check the maximum recording time, which often isn't that long. They desgined to make notes in a meeting, and mine for instance has a max recording time of 45 minutes in high-quality mode. The low quality mode is absolutely worthless even for speech - I think it's only there so Olympus could claim two hours of recording on the spec.
 
tomjenner said:
This also means that it is of no use for making sonagrams. I believe that there are some new digital recorders that do not compress the sounds in this way, but I don't know which ones. Maybe someone else can help here, as I am pretty interested in buying one myself.
Tom

Anything that can record uncompressed wavs will be okay - the cheapest is HiMD

http://www.wildlife-sound.org/equipment/himd/index.html

and in theory CF recorders like the M-Audio microtrack but low-end CF recorders tend to have noisy input stages making them unsuitable for nature sound recording unless you use an outboard preamp.

Voice recorders compress the sound using ADPCM, basically storing the difference between successive samples. They also only store up to 4kHz, and have automatic gain control. Pretty much everything going against you for getting clear recordings.
 
I'll also throw in my usual plug for the iRiver H120 HDD MP3/WAVE player/recorder (or any one of several equivalents).

20GB HDD, wave input recording, phantom power for cheap electrets... and about £200 ish. Virtually unlimited recording time ! AND you get the bonus of it being able to store all of your commercial CDs of birdsong for ID purposes "on the fly" (oops, sorry, bad pun) ;)

I used to run a music recording studio, and used MD for a while for mobile stuff. Then we moved up to CDRW, then finally direct to HD in a laptop. If I had had my iRiver available then, I may well have used it in preference to all others, it really is that good.

I'd be interested to hear what comparisons Ermine may have made between HDD wave file and HiMD recordings ...
 
g8ina said:
I'd be interested to hear what comparisons Ermine may have made between HDD wave file and HiMD recordings ...

It'll be the same as far as the recording format is concerned. Unlike the old MDs you were using, hiMD can record uncompressed PCM 16-bit 44.1kHz. Exactly the same format as is on CD. Which is why it's such dead good value - you can pick up a used HiMD on ebay for under a ton.

The other variable is what the mic preamps on the iriver are like. I have measured the preamps of HiMD and they are up to the job even with good mics like the Sennheiser MKH series. I haven't tested the iriver, but Rob Danielson't tests with the M-Audio Microtrack indicate that isn't fit for this purpose, so we can't just assume all modern recorders are okay in that respect.
 
Warning! This thread is more than 18 years ago old.
It's likely that no further discussion is required, in which case we recommend starting a new thread. If however you feel your response is required you can still do so.

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top