Hi, I have a question for this knowledgeable group. I'm attempting to capture some coyote barks and howls using my old Zoom H2 recorder. The problem I'm having is that these animals are probably at least 1/2 mi
away. I have captured some howls last evening, but the sound is not
much above the background noise and has been difficult to filter so far.
Unfortunately, they are located on private properly and I wouldn't be
able to get any closer. What could I do on my end? Thank you.
On 30/11/2021 17:57, Jake T wrote:
Hi, I have a question for this knowledgeable group. I'm attempting to
capture some coyote barks and howls using my old Zoom H2 recorder. The
problem I'm having is that these animals are probably at least 1/2 mi
away. I have captured some howls last evening, but the sound is not
much above the background noise and has been difficult to filter so far.
 Unfortunately, they are located on private properly and I wouldn't be
able to get any closer. What could I do on my end? Thank you.
If you can get them in the exact centre of the sound stage on the H2, it
may be worth trying software designed to remove the central information,
as if preparing a karaoke track, then mixing the original dry version
and the wet version, but, and this is the fun bit, invert the phase of
one of them. Enable 24 bit recording, of course, preferably at high
sample rate.
This will result in the off centre information cancelling out to a
degree, while leaving the central information intact but at a reduced amplitude. I have used this trick to pull a vocal out of a Decca Tree
mix when the vocal mic failed embarrassingly mid take. (It was, of
course, the best performance...)
Also, using the H2, I have had some success in removing room noise by
using all four channels, and subtracting the rear information from the
front information (Invert one and mix them together). This may help
remove some of the local sound. Alternatively, point the open end of a portable vocal booth at the source and mount the H2 as normal, pointing
at the source to reduce local input.
A parabolic setup may also help, but the frequencies you want may be too
low for a carryable parabola to be flat enough in its frequency response.
<Grin> The rich movie sound mob can afford a decent shotgun mic. About
five to ten thousand should cover it. Then you need a decent recorder.
Hi, I have a question for this knowledgeable group. I'm attempting to >capture some coyote barks and howls using my old Zoom H2 recorder. The >problem I'm having is that these animals are probably at least 1/2 mi
away. I have captured some howls last evening, but the sound is not
much above the background noise and has been difficult to filter so far.
Unfortunately, they are located on private properly and I wouldn't be
able to get any closer. What could I do on my end? Thank you.
Hi, I have a question for this knowledgeable group. I'm attempting to capture some coyote barks and howls using my old Zoom H2 recorder. The problem I'm having is that these animals are probably at least 1/2 mi
away. I have captured some howls last evening, but the sound is not
much above the background noise and has been difficult to filter so far.
Unfortunately, they are located on private properly and I wouldn't be
able to get any closer. What could I do on my end? Thank you.
On Tue, 30 Nov 2021 12:57:31 -0500, Jake T <jaketbone@steak.com>
wrote:
Hi, I have a question for this knowledgeable group. I'm attempting to >>capture some coyote barks and howls using my old Zoom H2 recorder. The >>problem I'm having is that these animals are probably at least 1/2 mi
away. I have captured some howls last evening, but the sound is not
much above the background noise and has been difficult to filter so far.
Unfortunately, they are located on private properly and I wouldn't be >>able to get any closer. What could I do on my end? Thank you.
Coyote howls probably occupy a fairly limited frequency range. Use
lowpass and highpass filters to just let through the howls. That
should improve the signal to noise ratio a lot.
If you can find some really clean recording of a coyote you can
examine that to see what you need to allow through.
d
Hi, I have a question for this knowledgeable group. I'm attempting to
capture some coyote barks and howls using my old Zoom H2 recorder. The problem I'm having is that these animals are probably at least 1/2 mi
away. I have captured some howls last evening, but the sound is not
much above the background noise and has been difficult to filter so far. Unfortunately, they are located on private properly and I wouldn't be
able to get any closer. What could I do on my end? Thank you.
Jake T <jaketbone@steak.com> wrote:
Hi, I have a question for this knowledgeable group. I'm attempting to
capture some coyote barks and howls using my old Zoom H2 recorder. The
problem I'm having is that these animals are probably at least 1/2 mi
away. I have captured some howls last evening, but the sound is not
much above the background noise and has been difficult to filter so far.
Unfortunately, they are located on private properly and I wouldn't be
able to get any closer. What could I do on my end? Thank you.
What is causing the background noise?
If it is ambience such as traffic, wind in the trees etc. that can only
be overcome by improving the signal-to-noise ratio. You can either
decrease the noise or move nearer to the wanted sounds. As you say you can't do the latter, you need to consider how you could do the former.
A very directional microphone, such as a parabolic reflector might help;
or you may be able to position the mic behind a large feature, such as a hillock or building, that blocks the noise. As the source of the sound
is distant, you might get an improvement by putting the mic on the top
of a high pole (well shielded aginst wind).
If the noise is coming from the mics themselves, plug in a separate mic
which has a lower noise level. Usually a large diaphragm type would be better because it suffers less from Brownian noise of the air molecules
and gives a larger signal into its head amplifier. Two widely-spaced
mics may help in stereo as the local noise will seem more distributed
and the distant sounds will be more directional (and easier for the ear
to identify).
The best results will be obtained by getting a good signal to start
with, mucking about with software afterwards should only be done as a
last resort and will often be disappointing.
On 11/30/21 3:19 PM, Liz Tuddenham wrote:[...]
If it is ambience such as traffic, wind in the trees etc. that can only
be overcome by improving the signal-to-noise ratio. You can either decrease the noise or move nearer to the wanted sounds. As you say you can't do the latter, you need to consider how you could do the former.
All of the above. There is a lot of airplane traffic here and one
night, the howls were completely disrupted by the noise.
I used to have a parabolic microphone, but unfortunately sold it years
ago. I am considering the high pole idea, have plenty of ways to get it
up above the rooftops.
I did manage some usable results this last time though with sort of
sound modeling and using a good recording applied to my noisy one. Not perfect, but I could actually use it if I can't improve it any.
One other thing I'm thinking of trying is using a good coyote howl
recording with high S/N ratio a
On Tue, 30 Nov 2021 20:34:58 GMT, sp...@spam.com (Don Pearce) wrote:
On Tue, 30 Nov 2021 12:57:31 -0500, Jake T <jake...@steak.com>
wrote:
Hi, I have a question for this knowledgeable group. I'm attempting to >>capture some coyote barks and howls using my old Zoom H2 recorder. The >>problem I'm having is that these animals are probably at least 1/2 mi >>away. I have captured some howls last evening, but the sound is not
much above the background noise and has been difficult to filter so far.
Unfortunately, they are located on private properly and I wouldn't be >>able to get any closer. What could I do on my end? Thank you.
Coyote howls probably occupy a fairly limited frequency range. Use
lowpass and highpass filters to just let through the howls. That
should improve the signal to noise ratio a lot.
If you can find some really clean recording of a coyote you can
examine that to see what you need to allow through.
dOK - I've done the job for you. Save about 500Hz to 5kHz and you will
have all of the howl.
d
--
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus
There's an old rule of thumb that says "For best *perceived* spectral balance, the LF x HF cutoffs should equal 600,000." Eg 50-12,000 Hz. 40-15000 Hz, etc. Here, if 500 Hz is LF then HF = 1200 Hz should "sound better".
Another point to bear in mind here is that while they are surprisingly
good considering the intended use of the machine, the H2 mics are not
the most sensitive in the world, and at low levels, there is self noise
in the mics and preamps to consider.
There's an old rule of thumb that says "For best *perceived* spectral balance, the LF x HF cutoffs should equal 600,000." Eg 50-12,000 Hz. 40-15000 Hz, etc. Here, if 500 Hz is LF then HF = 1200 Hz should "sound better".
John Williamson wrote:
===================
Another point to bear in mind here is that while they are surprisingly
good considering the intended use of the machine, the H2 mics are not
the most sensitive in the world, and at low levels, there is self noise
in the mics and preamps to consider.
** Rarely the main noise source when recording outdoors.
The OP has indicated his issue IS with ambient noise sources including aircraft.
My earlier post was not purely in jest.
Folk trying to do the impossible with sound gear is nothing new.
..... Phil
On Wed, 1 Dec 2021 10:23:08 -0800 (PST), "Roy W. Rising" <rwrising@dslextreme.com> wrote:
There's an old rule of thumb that says "For best *perceived* spectral balance, the LF x HF cutoffs should equal 600,000." Eg 50-12,000 Hz. 40-15000 Hz, etc. Here, if 500 Hz is LF then HF = 1200 Hz should "sound better".
That may or may not be a rule in general recording, but we are dealing
with a specific source with a very limited frequency spectrum. There
is absolutely no point in preserving anything outside that spectrum as
it will be unwanted. There is something to be said for adding in
broadband pink noise at low level. It should not be high enough to
interfere with the howls, but it will add a more comfortable, less telephone-like background against which to hear them.
Also, depending on the nature of the background, there may be some
percentage in active noise reduction. A Coyote's howl is sufficiently different from the wind, cars and planes that there could be some
success in this approach. Just don't expect anything approaching
studio quality.
d
Another point to bear in mind here is that while they are surprisingly
good considering the intended use of the machine, the H2 mics are not
the most sensitive in the world, and at low levels, there is self noise >> in the mics and preamps to consider.
** Rarely the main noise source when recording outdoors.
The OP has indicated his issue IS with ambient noise sources including aircraft.
My earlier post was not purely in jest.
Folk trying to do the impossible with sound gear is nothing new.
I’m surprised that nobody yet has suggested wrapping the H2 with a nice juicy steak. That should cure the distance problem.
On Wed, 1 Dec 2021 10:23:08 -0800 (PST), "Roy W. Rising" <rwrising@dslextreme.com> wrote:
There's an old rule of thumb that says "For best *perceived* spectral balance, the LF x HF cutoffs should equal 600,000." Eg 50-12,000 Hz. 40-15000 Hz, etc. Here, if 500 Hz is LF then HF = 1200 Hz should "sound better".
That may or may not be a rule in general recording, but we are dealing
with a specific source with a very limited frequency spectrum. There
is absolutely no point in preserving anything outside that spectrum as
it will be unwanted. There is something to be said for adding in
broadband pink noise at low level. It should not be high enough to
interfere with the howls, but it will add a more comfortable, less telephone-like background against which to hear them.
Also, depending on the nature of the background, there may be some
percentage in active noise reduction. A Coyote's howl is sufficiently different from the wind, cars and planes that there could be some
success in this approach. Just don't expect anything approaching
studio quality.
d
Ralph Barone wrote:
================
I’m surprised that nobody yet has suggested wrapping the H2 with a nice
Another point to bear in mind here is that while they are surprisingly >>>> good considering the intended use of the machine, the H2 mics are not
the most sensitive in the world, and at low levels, there is self noise >>>> in the mics and preamps to consider.
** Rarely the main noise source when recording outdoors.
The OP has indicated his issue IS with ambient noise sources including aircraft.
My earlier post was not purely in jest.
Folk trying to do the impossible with sound gear is nothing new.
juicy steak. That should cure the distance problem.
** But then all you will hear is: gurrrrr, num, num, num, num...
...... Phil
All these ambient factors are present in real life for hearing a distant coyote (or whatever) howl.
So is it meant to be realistic - or is what is really wanted is a
close-miked coyote howl ?
On 01/12/2021 20:16, Don Pearce wrote:
On Wed, 1 Dec 2021 10:23:08 -0800 (PST), "Roy W. Rising"<Grin> All these options should keep the OP busy for a while. I'd love
<rwrising@dslextreme.com> wrote:
There's an old rule of thumb that says "For best *perceived* spectral
balance, the LF x HF cutoffs should equal 600,000." Eg 50-12,000 Hz.
40-15000 Hz, etc. Here, if 500 Hz is LF then HF = 1200 Hz should
"sound better".
That may or may not be a rule in general recording, but we are dealing
with a specific source with a very limited frequency spectrum. There
is absolutely no point in preserving anything outside that spectrum as
it will be unwanted. There is something to be said for adding in
broadband pink noise at low level. It should not be high enough to
interfere with the howls, but it will add a more comfortable, less
telephone-like background against which to hear them.
Also, depending on the nature of the background, there may be some
percentage in active noise reduction. A Coyote's howl is sufficiently
different from the wind, cars and planes that there could be some
success in this approach. Just don't expect anything approaching
studio quality.
d
to hear what he ends up with.
geoff wrote:________
==========
All these ambient factors are present in real life for hearing a distant coyote (or whatever) howl.
So is it meant to be realistic - or is what is really wanted is a close-miked coyote howl ?
** Like this ?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YtsZoIe3Czk
Sounds clipped to me.
.... Phil
On Wednesday, December 1, 2021 at 5:24:44 PM UTC-5, palli...@gmail.com wrote:
geoff wrote:________
==========
** Like this ?
All these ambient factors are present in real life for hearing a distant >>> coyote (or whatever) howl.
So is it meant to be realistic - or is what is really wanted is a
close-miked coyote howl ?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YtsZoIe3Czk
Sounds clipped to me.
.... Phil
Clipping's all the rage here in 2021! Where have you been? :D
On 2/12/2021 9:16 am, Don Pearce wrote:
On Wed, 1 Dec 2021 10:23:08 -0800 (PST), "Roy W. Rising"
<rwrising@dslextreme.com> wrote:
There's an old rule of thumb that says "For best *perceived* spectral
balance, the LF x HF cutoffs should equal 600,000."Â Eg 50-12,000 Hz.
40-15000 Hz, etc. Here, if 500 Hz is LF then HF = 1200 Hz should
"sound better".
That may or may not be a rule in general recording, but we are dealing
with a specific source with a very limited frequency spectrum. There
is absolutely no point in preserving anything outside that spectrum as
it will be unwanted. There is something to be said for adding in
broadband pink noise at low level. It should not be high enough to
interfere with the howls, but it will add a more comfortable, less
telephone-like background against which to hear them.
Also, depending on the nature of the background, there may be some
percentage in active noise reduction. A Coyote's howl is sufficiently
different from the wind, cars and planes that there could be some
success in this approach. Just don't expect anything approaching
studio quality.
d
All these ambient factors are present in real life for hearing a distant coyote (or whatever) howl.
So is it meant to be realistic - or is what is really wanted is a close-miked coyote howl ?
geoff
On 11/30/21 9:57 AM, Jake T wrote:
Hi, I have a question for this knowledgeable group. I'm attempting
to capture some coyote barks and howls using my old Zoom H2 recorder.
What have you come up with so far? Are you able to post a recording
to soundcloud or something?
Hi, I have a question for this knowledgeable group. I'm attempting
to capture some coyote barks and howls using my old Zoom H2 recorder.
Hi, I have a question for this knowledgeable group. I'm attempting to capture some coyote barks and howls using my old Zoom H2 recorder. The problem I'm having is that these animals are probably at least 1/2 mi away. I have captured some howls last evening, but the sound is not
much above the background noise and has been difficult to filter so far.
 Unfortunately, they are located on private properly and I wouldn't be able to get any closer. What could I do on my end? Thank you.
So, last night didn't reveal any coyotes. I had the umbrella pointed
towards the general wooded area where I heard them prior. However, it
did rain during the night and was overcast. I notice that they are
often silent on those types of nights anyhow.
In daylight today, did some testing. I am finding gain, quite
significant at higher frequencies and not so much as you get lower. I
also was able to more precisely refine the focal point while listening
to some distant sounds. As for what has the most gain: wind, rustling >leaves, and birds. I can see tree branches moving say, a couple of
hundred yards away. When I point the dish in that direction and rotate
a bit, the wind noise will peak. Another notable gain increase was from
some leaves rustling in a tree in my backyard, again barely audible by
ear but the mic brought them right in once aligned. I can hear sounds >peaking as I hone in on target sounds, so I know it's working.
I did go over all recordings from last night. There is a lot less
background noise. Nearby flying planes still manage to get through
although with a bit less amplitude as well as anyone starting a pick up
truck in the neighborhood. Overall, I think it shows promise. I think
I will use the wind noise coming from the wooded area to hopefully get a >closer alignment the next time I use it.
On 11/30/21 12:57 PM, Jake T wrote:
Hi, I have a question for this knowledgeable group. I'm attempting to
capture some coyote barks and howls using my old Zoom H2 recorder. The
problem I'm having is that these animals are probably at least 1/2 mi
away. I have captured some howls last evening, but the sound is not
much above the background noise and has been difficult to filter so far.
 Unfortunately, they are located on private properly and I wouldn't be
able to get any closer. What could I do on my end? Thank you.
Well, looks like I was wrong about the tests. This makeshift umbrella I >covered with aluminum tape I believe is still too transparent. Although
it is reflecting and concentrating some of the sound, I still find a lot >coming in from the rear side. So, either the single layered aluminum
tape coating isn't enough, or....
Maybe I should switch out the H2 for a small electret. Right now, I
just have the H2 slid in place on the umbrella rod and held there by
rubber bands. Maybe the area it captures is too wide or too far off
center. I just do this sort of stuff as a hobby, but I may have a chest >electret I could just plug into the H2. It would certainly narrow the
sound capture area over the large amount of area being captured by the
H2. Thoughts?
Clipping's all the rage here in 2021! Where have you been? :D
Maybe I should switch out the H2 for a small electret. Right now, I just have the H2 slid in place on the umbrella rod and held there by rubber bands. Maybe the area it captures is too wide or too far off center.
John Williamson wrote:
===================
Another point to bear in mind here is that while they are surprisingly
good considering the intended use of the machine, the H2 mics are not
the most sensitive in the world, and at low levels, there is self noise
in the mics and preamps to consider.
** Rarely the main noise source when recording outdoors.
The OP has indicated his issue IS with ambient noise sources including aircraft.
My earlier post was not purely in jest.
Folk trying to do the impossible with sound gear is nothing new.
..... Phil
Maybe I should switch out the H2 for a small electret. Right now, I
just have the H2 slid in place on the umbrella rod and held there by
rubber bands. Maybe the area it captures is too wide or too far off
center.
I think you'd want to use the front mics, and position the front of the device, (the LCD) toward the center of
your umbrella. I mention this because it would be natural to align the unit horizontally along the rod when
using rubber bands.
I messed around with an H2 for a while, and ultimately found that it was
too noisy
for outdoor recordings. Not sure whether this is due to the preamps or
mics, or both.
I eventually went with a Tascam HD-P2 that I use with Rode NT1-A's. Now you're looking
at some money, but if that setup has any problems, adding noise to the recording is not
one of them. Maybe you could get by with a decent mic/preamp along with the H2.
Toby
On 12/3/21 10:48 AM, Tobiah wrote:
Maybe I should switch out the H2 for a small electret. Right now, I
just have the H2 slid in place on the umbrella rod and held there by
rubber bands. Maybe the area it captures is too wide or too far off
center.
I think you'd want to use the front mics, and position the front of
the device, (the LCD) toward the center of
your umbrella. I mention this because it would be natural to align
the unit horizontally along the rod when
using rubber bands.
I messed around with an H2 for a while, and ultimately found that it
was too noisy
for outdoor recordings. Not sure whether this is due to the preamps or
mics, or both.
I eventually went with a Tascam HD-P2 that I use with Rode NT1-A's.
Now you're looking
at some money, but if that setup has any problems, adding noise to the
recording is not
one of them. Maybe you could get by with a decent mic/preamp along
with the H2.
Toby
Ok, finally managed a comparative audio sample. This time, I held the
H2 with LCD toward umbrella center. The audio was the sound of a
mechanical light timer that was about 15 feet away from the umbrella.
 The first half is with the umbrella; the second half is not, just the front of the H2 facing the same direction as the timer. I used no compression, AGC, or limiting and the gain was set at maximum:
https://sndup.net/4x29
Unfortunately, I can't tell if this is good performance or bad performance. I can barely hear the timer without any help from where I
was standing.
On Tuesday, November 30, 2021 at 9:57:36 AM UTC-8, Jake T wrote:Unwieldy, it's totally useless on a football sideline. "Parabs" quickly became the tool of choice there. Several collapsible parabolic light reflectors are out there, starting around $40. I'd like to try a supercardioid mic with its element at the
Hi, I have a question for this knowledgeable group. I'm attempting to
capture some coyote barks and howls using my old Zoom H2 recorder. The
problem I'm having is that these animals are probably at least 1/2 mi
away. I have captured some howls last evening, but the sound is not
much above the background noise and has been difficult to filter so far.
Unfortunately, they are located on private properly and I wouldn't be
able to get any closer. What could I do on my end? Thank you.
I've been enjoying the adventure this thread reflects. (pun likely) If I were in a delightfully rural place like Jake T's, I would enjoy optimizing the recording of nature's sounds. I have a 7' long EV 643, the most directional mic there is (I think.)
I wonder if this kind of parab would outperform the EV 643. The best way to compare two pickups of a single source is to record them simultaneously on a two-track unit. A/B listening on a single speaker quickly reveals which is preferred. So, Jake,If you have a suitable mic and would like to try something better than rain gear, I'll pick a reflector and have it shipped to your address. Lemme know. rwrising@dslextreme.com. No, I can't ship the 643, but ... .
~ Roy W. Rising "If you notice the sound, it's wrong."
Hi, I have a question for this knowledgeable group. I'm attempting to capture some coyote barks and howls using my old Zoom H2 recorder. The problem I'm having is that these animals are probably at least 1/2 mi
away. I have captured some howls last evening, but the sound is not
much above the background noise and has been difficult to filter so far. Unfortunately, they are located on private properly and I wouldn't be
able to get any closer. What could I do on my end? Thank you.
On Tuesday, November 30, 2021 at 9:57:36 AM UTC-8, Jake T wrote:Unwieldy, it's totally useless on a football sideline. "Parabs" quickly became the tool of choice there. Several collapsible parabolic light reflectors are out there, starting around $40. I'd like to try a supercardioid mic with its element at the
Hi, I have a question for this knowledgeable group. I'm attempting to
capture some coyote barks and howls using my old Zoom H2 recorder. The
problem I'm having is that these animals are probably at least 1/2 mi
away. I have captured some howls last evening, but the sound is not
much above the background noise and has been difficult to filter so far.
Unfortunately, they are located on private properly and I wouldn't be
able to get any closer. What could I do on my end? Thank you.
I've been enjoying the adventure this thread reflects. (pun likely) If I were in a delightfully rural place like Jake T's, I would enjoy optimizing the recording of nature's sounds. I have a 7' long EV 643, the most directional mic there is (I think.)
I wonder if this kind of parab would outperform the EV 643. The best way to compare two pickups of a single source is to record them simultaneously on a two-track unit. A/B listening on a single speaker quickly reveals which is preferred. So, Jake,If you have a suitable mic and would like to try something better than rain gear, I'll pick a reflector and have it shipped to your address. Lemme know. rwrising@dslextreme.com. No, I can't ship the 643, but ... .
~ Roy W. Rising "If you notice the sound, it's wrong."
On Sat, 4 Dec 2021 11:24:54 -0800 (PST), "Roy W. Rising" <rwri...@dslextreme.com> wrote:Unwieldy, it's totally useless on a football sideline. "Parabs" quickly became the tool of choice there. Several collapsible parabolic light reflectors are out there, starting around $40. I'd like to try a supercardioid mic with its element at the focal
On Tuesday, November 30, 2021 at 9:57:36 AM UTC-8, Jake T wrote:
Hi, I have a question for this knowledgeable group. I'm attempting to
capture some coyote barks and howls using my old Zoom H2 recorder. The
problem I'm having is that these animals are probably at least 1/2 mi
away. I have captured some howls last evening, but the sound is not
much above the background noise and has been difficult to filter so far. >> Unfortunately, they are located on private properly and I wouldn't be
able to get any closer. What could I do on my end? Thank you.
I've been enjoying the adventure this thread reflects. (pun likely) If I were in a delightfully rural place like Jake T's, I would enjoy optimizing the recording of nature's sounds. I have a 7' long EV 643, the most directional mic there is (I think.)
you have a suitable mic and would like to try something better than rain gear, I'll pick a reflector and have it shipped to your address. Lemme know. rwri...@dslextreme.com. No, I can't ship the 643, but ... .I wonder if this kind of parab would outperform the EV 643. The best way to compare two pickups of a single source is to record them simultaneously on a two-track unit. A/B listening on a single speaker quickly reveals which is preferred. So, Jake, If
~ Roy W. Rising "If you notice the sound, it's wrong."A hypercardioid may be too narrow in the main lobe to make use of the
full diameter of the reflector. A good compromise would be about 3dB
down at the reflector edge.
d
--
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus
On 12/4/21 2:24 PM, Roy W. Rising wrote:Unwieldy, it's totally useless on a football sideline. "Parabs" quickly became the tool of choice there. Several collapsible parabolic light reflectors are out there, starting around $40. I'd like to try a supercardioid mic with its element at the focal
On Tuesday, November 30, 2021 at 9:57:36 AM UTC-8, Jake T wrote:
Hi, I have a question for this knowledgeable group. I'm attempting to
capture some coyote barks and howls using my old Zoom H2 recorder. The
problem I'm having is that these animals are probably at least 1/2 mi
away. I have captured some howls last evening, but the sound is not
much above the background noise and has been difficult to filter so far. >> Unfortunately, they are located on private properly and I wouldn't be
able to get any closer. What could I do on my end? Thank you.
I've been enjoying the adventure this thread reflects. (pun likely) If I were in a delightfully rural place like Jake T's, I would enjoy optimizing the recording of nature's sounds. I have a 7' long EV 643, the most directional mic there is (I think.)
If you have a suitable mic and would like to try something better than rain gear, I'll pick a reflector and have it shipped to your address. Lemme know. rwri...@dslextreme.com. No, I can't ship the 643, but ... .I wonder if this kind of parab would outperform the EV 643. The best way to compare two pickups of a single source is to record them simultaneously on a two-track unit. A/B listening on a single speaker quickly reveals which is preferred. So, Jake,
~ Roy W. Rising "If you notice the sound, it's wrong."
I've been considering trying out what's called a "beauty dish" which is aluminum and looks parabolic, although I don't know if they truly are,
but I certainly see lots of them above 24" diameter and not too
expensive. My only concern is that, being aluminum, they might taint
the sound (perhaps making the sound "tinny").
I've been considering trying out what's called a "beauty dish" which is aluminum and looks parabolic, although I don't know if they truly are,
but I certainly see lots of them above 24" diameter and not too
expensive. My only concern is that, being aluminum, they might taint
the sound (perhaps making the sound "tinny").
On 04/12/2021 20:09, Jake T wrote:
I've been considering trying out what's called a "beauty dish" which is
aluminum and looks parabolic, although I don't know if they truly are,
but I certainly see lots of them above 24" diameter and not too
expensive. My only concern is that, being aluminum, they might taint
the sound (perhaps making the sound "tinny").
Spray some insulation foam on the back to damp them and make them more
rigid?
On Sun, 5 Dec 2021 09:08:33 +0000, John Williamson <johnwilliamson@btinternet.com> wrote:
On 04/12/2021 20:09, Jake T wrote:
I've been considering trying out what's called a "beauty dish" which is
aluminum and looks parabolic, although I don't know if they truly are,
but I certainly see lots of them above 24" diameter and not too
expensive. My only concern is that, being aluminum, they might taint
the sound (perhaps making the sound "tinny").
Spray some insulation foam on the back to damp them and make them more
rigid?
Best answer to all this is an old satellite dish - solid metal, not
mesh. The LNB mount is where the microphone goes and all you need is
to sink a pole into the ground to mount it on.
d
On 12/5/2021 2:54 AM, Jake T wrote:
So after several days of tinkering around with the umbrella, waiting
for the right timing (the coyotes I'm listening for don't seem to
howl on cloudy or inclement nights), and trying to navigate around
the neighborly noises, I finally achieved a workable result:
Wow that's not too bad at all given your distance. I still think
an appreciable amount of the hiss is coming from the H2 internals.
Toby
So after several days of tinkering around with the umbrella, waiting
for the right timing (the coyotes I'm listening for don't seem to
howl on cloudy or inclement nights), and trying to navigate around
the neighborly noises, I finally achieved a workable result:
On 12/5/2021 2:54 AM, Jake T wrote:
So after several days of tinkering around with the umbrella, waiting
for the right timing (the coyotes I'm listening for don't seem to
howl on cloudy or inclement nights), and trying to navigate around
the neighborly noises, I finally achieved a workable result:
Wow that's not too bad at all given your distance. I still think
an appreciable amount of the hiss is coming from the H2 internals.
Toby
Thanks. They aren't nearly as far away as I thought, more like 500 feet
not half a mi as I guessed originally. If I get a night of no cars or
TV's, I'll get further improvement for sure.
On Sun, 5 Dec 2021 11:39:01 -0500, Jake T <jaketbone@steak.com> wrote:
Thanks. They aren't nearly as far away as I thought, more like 500 feet
not half a mi as I guessed originally. If I get a night of no cars or
TV's, I'll get further improvement for sure.
I hesitate to suggest, but how much would you have to pay for 500ft of
mic cable?
On Sun, 5 Dec 2021 11:39:01 -0500, Jake T <jaketbone@steak.com> wrote:
Thanks. They aren't nearly as far away as I thought, more like 500 feet
not half a mi as I guessed originally. If I get a night of no cars or
TV's, I'll get further improvement for sure.
I hesitate to suggest, but how much would you have to pay for 500ft of
mic cable?
d
On 12/5/21 1:39 PM, Don Pearce wrote:
On Sun, 5 Dec 2021 11:39:01 -0500, Jake T <jaketbone@steak.com> wrote:
Thanks. They aren't nearly as far away as I thought, more like 500 feet >>> not half a mi as I guessed originally. If I get a night of no cars or
TV's, I'll get further improvement for sure.
I hesitate to suggest, but how much would you have to pay for 500ft of
mic cable?
d
Actually, they seem to be behind where the local neighborhood
groundskeeper parks his mowing equipment. I might ask him if I could
couple the H2 to the back of the fence protecting the equipment. That
would put me a LOT closer. I use a lithium ion pack with the H2 that
could power it for several days, of course the SD would be used up by >morning. I had to use something other than the AA's because with them,
I only have power for about 6 hours.
On Sun, 5 Dec 2021 07:50:33 -0800, Tobiah <toby@tobiah.org> wrote:
On 12/5/2021 2:54 AM, Jake T wrote:
So after several days of tinkering around with the umbrella, waiting
for the right timing (the coyotes I'm listening for don't seem to
howl on cloudy or inclement nights), and trying to navigate around
the neighborly noises, I finally achieved a workable result:
Wow that's not too bad at all given your distance. I still think
an appreciable amount of the hiss is coming from the H2 internals.
Toby
I would be surprised if the H2's own hiss came even close to an
outdoor noise level.
d
On 12/5/2021 8:05 AM, Don Pearce wrote:
On Sun, 5 Dec 2021 07:50:33 -0800, Tobiah <toby@tobiah.org> wrote:
On 12/5/2021 2:54 AM, Jake T wrote:
So after several days of tinkering around with the umbrella, waiting
for the right timing (the coyotes I'm listening for don't seem to
howl on cloudy or inclement nights), and trying to navigate around
the neighborly noises, I finally achieved a workable result:
Wow that's not too bad at all given your distance. I still think
an appreciable amount of the hiss is coming from the H2 internals.
Toby
I would be surprised if the H2's own hiss came even close to an
outdoor noise level.
d
The white noise I hear is so uniform and constant that it
makes me think of the preamp noise I've heard from the H2.
I get that there is a ton of ambient noise, but I'll bet the
H2 is at or near full gain, and it just doesn't have the
preamps and/or maybe the mics to run that way without stomping
over the content a bit with some hiss.
On Sun, 5 Dec 2021 16:38:51 -0800, Tobiah <toby@tobiah.org> wrote:
On 12/5/2021 8:05 AM, Don Pearce wrote:I just had a listen, and you are right. There's a lot of electronic
On Sun, 5 Dec 2021 07:50:33 -0800, Tobiah <toby@tobiah.org> wrote:
On 12/5/2021 2:54 AM, Jake T wrote:
So after several days of tinkering around with the umbrella, waiting >>>>> for the right timing (the coyotes I'm listening for don't seem to
howl on cloudy or inclement nights), and trying to navigate around
the neighborly noises, I finally achieved a workable result:
Wow that's not too bad at all given your distance. I still think
an appreciable amount of the hiss is coming from the H2 internals.
Toby
I would be surprised if the H2's own hiss came even close to an
outdoor noise level.
d
The white noise I hear is so uniform and constant that it
makes me think of the preamp noise I've heard from the H2.
I get that there is a ton of ambient noise, but I'll bet the
H2 is at or near full gain, and it just doesn't have the
preamps and/or maybe the mics to run that way without stomping
over the content a bit with some hiss.
hiss in there.
But I don't understand why I'm seeing a stereo signal. Only one
microphone from the pair can be pointed into the reflector and it is
clear that both are getting about the same amount of signal. And as I
can hear a stereo sound filed I'm going to say that the reflector is >contributing essentially nothing to this recording.
d
Well, looks like I was wrong about the tests. This makeshift umbrella I covered with aluminum tape I believe is still too transparent. Although
it is reflecting and concentrating some of the sound, I still find a lot coming in from the rear side. So, either the single layered aluminum
tape coating isn't enough, or....
Maybe I should switch out the H2 for a small electret.
But I don't understand why I'm seeing a stereo signal. Only one
microphone from the pair can be pointed into the reflector and it is
clear that both are getting about the same amount of signal. And as I
can hear a stereo sound filed I'm going to say that the reflector is contributing essentially nothing to this recording.
On Mon, 06 Dec 2021 10:22:18 GMT, spam@spam.com (Don Pearce) wrote:
On Sun, 5 Dec 2021 16:38:51 -0800, Tobiah <toby@tobiah.org> wrote:
On 12/5/2021 8:05 AM, Don Pearce wrote:I just had a listen, and you are right. There's a lot of electronic
On Sun, 5 Dec 2021 07:50:33 -0800, Tobiah <toby@tobiah.org> wrote:
On 12/5/2021 2:54 AM, Jake T wrote:
So after several days of tinkering around with the umbrella, waiting >>>>>> for the right timing (the coyotes I'm listening for don't seem to
howl on cloudy or inclement nights), and trying to navigate around >>>>>> the neighborly noises, I finally achieved a workable result:
Wow that's not too bad at all given your distance. I still think
an appreciable amount of the hiss is coming from the H2 internals.
Toby
I would be surprised if the H2's own hiss came even close to an
outdoor noise level.
d
The white noise I hear is so uniform and constant that it
makes me think of the preamp noise I've heard from the H2.
I get that there is a ton of ambient noise, but I'll bet the
H2 is at or near full gain, and it just doesn't have the
preamps and/or maybe the mics to run that way without stomping
over the content a bit with some hiss.
hiss in there.
But I don't understand why I'm seeing a stereo signal. Only one
microphone from the pair can be pointed into the reflector and it is
clear that both are getting about the same amount of signal. And as I
can hear a stereo sound filed I'm going to say that the reflector is
contributing essentially nothing to this recording.
d
Typo - stereo sound field
d
But I don't understand why I'm seeing a stereo signal. Only one
microphone from the pair can be pointed into the reflector and it is
clear that both are getting about the same amount of signal. And as I
can hear a stereo sound filed I'm going to say that the reflector is contributing essentially nothing to this recording.
But I don't understand why I'm seeing a stereo signal. Only one
microphone from the pair can be pointed into the reflector and it is
clear that both are getting about the same amount of signal. And as I
can hear a stereo sound filed I'm going to say that the reflector is
contributing essentially nothing to this recording.
The H2 has a stereo pair on the front and another on the back. The pair
on the LCD side is supposed to be a 90 degree pickup pattern while it's
said to be 120 degrees on the back. Jake, which are you using?
On Mon, 6 Dec 2021 08:56:42 -0800, Tobiah <toby@tobiah.org> wrote:
But I don't understand why I'm seeing a stereo signal. Only one
microphone from the pair can be pointed into the reflector and it is
clear that both are getting about the same amount of signal. And as I
can hear a stereo sound filed I'm going to say that the reflector is
contributing essentially nothing to this recording.
The H2 has a stereo pair on the front and another on the back. The pair
on the LCD side is supposed to be a 90 degree pickup pattern while it's
said to be 120 degrees on the back. Jake, which are you using?
I know all about the H2. But to make a reflector work you need one
microphone pointing into it, not two microphones aimed off to the
sides. Doing that results in virtually zero gain and directivity.
d
Hi, I have a question for this knowledgeable group. I'm attempting to capture some coyote barks and howls using my old Zoom H2 recorder. The problem I'm having is that these animals are probably at least 1/2 mi away. I have captured some howls last evening, but the sound is not
much above the background noise and has been difficult to filter so far.
 Unfortunately, they are located on private properly and I wouldn't be able to get any closer. What could I do on my end? Thank you.
On 12/6/21 2:16 PM, Don Pearce wrote:
On Mon, 6 Dec 2021 08:56:42 -0800, Tobiah <toby@tobiah.org> wrote:
But I don't understand why I'm seeing a stereo signal. Only one
microphone from the pair can be pointed into the reflector and it is
clear that both are getting about the same amount of signal. And as I
can hear a stereo sound filed I'm going to say that the reflector is
contributing essentially nothing to this recording.
The H2 has a stereo pair on the front and another on the back. The pair >> on the LCD side is supposed to be a 90 degree pickup pattern while it's
said to be 120 degrees on the back. Jake, which are you using?
I know all about the H2. But to make a reflector work you need one microphone pointing into it, not two microphones aimed off to the
sides. Doing that results in virtually zero gain and directivity.
d
I don't know, Don, it seems to work for me. Last night, I was
attempting another capture even though it was cloudy (the coyotes tend
not to howl if cloudy or inclement). Where I have the dish pointed
right now is between two houses (one has a driveway), the best I can
get. As i was monitoring, one neighbor came out and stood around his
car. He began to talk on his cell. Unintentionally of course, I could
hear both him and everything the person he was talking to said. He was
a good 100 feet away. By ear, I could hear him but not make out
anything the cell person was saying.
I was having trouble late last week when it did seem like I wasn't doing
any better with the dish. Someone had suggested reorienting the H2 vertically instead of horizontally like I had it and a world of
difference. I admit there probably isn't ideal gain, especially since
the umbrella is far from a true parabola, but it has a made a difference
for me with this set up. Birds, especially are amplified many times!
On 12/6/21 2:16 PM, Don Pearce wrote:
On Mon, 6 Dec 2021 08:56:42 -0800, Tobiah <toby@tobiah.org> wrote:
But I don't understand why I'm seeing a stereo signal. Only one
microphone from the pair can be pointed into the reflector and it is
clear that both are getting about the same amount of signal. And as I
can hear a stereo sound filed I'm going to say that the reflector is
contributing essentially nothing to this recording.
The H2 has a stereo pair on the front and another on the back. The pair >>> on the LCD side is supposed to be a 90 degree pickup pattern while it's
said to be 120 degrees on the back. Jake, which are you using?
I know all about the H2. But to make a reflector work you need one
microphone pointing into it, not two microphones aimed off to the
sides. Doing that results in virtually zero gain and directivity.
d
I don't know, Don, it seems to work for me. Last night, I was
attempting another capture even though it was cloudy (the coyotes tend
not to howl if cloudy or inclement). Where I have the dish pointed
right now is between two houses (one has a driveway), the best I can
get. As i was monitoring, one neighbor came out and stood around his
car. He began to talk on his cell. Unintentionally of course, I could
hear both him and everything the person he was talking to said. He was
a good 100 feet away. By ear, I could hear him but not make out
anything the cell person was saying.
I was having trouble late last week when it did seem like I wasn't doing
any better with the dish. Someone had suggested reorienting the H2 >vertically instead of horizontally like I had it and a world of
difference. I admit there probably isn't ideal gain, especially since
the umbrella is far from a true parabola, but it has a made a difference
for me with this set up. Birds, especially are amplified many times!
On Mon, 6 Dec 2021 15:16:24 -0500, Jake T <jaketbone@steak.com> wrote:
On 12/6/21 2:16 PM, Don Pearce wrote:
On Mon, 6 Dec 2021 08:56:42 -0800, Tobiah <toby@tobiah.org> wrote:
But I don't understand why I'm seeing a stereo signal. Only one
microphone from the pair can be pointed into the reflector and it is >>>>> clear that both are getting about the same amount of signal. And as I >>>>> can hear a stereo sound filed I'm going to say that the reflector is >>>>> contributing essentially nothing to this recording.
The H2 has a stereo pair on the front and another on the back. The pair >>>> on the LCD side is supposed to be a 90 degree pickup pattern while it's >>>> said to be 120 degrees on the back. Jake, which are you using?
I know all about the H2. But to make a reflector work you need one
microphone pointing into it, not two microphones aimed off to the
sides. Doing that results in virtually zero gain and directivity.
d
I don't know, Don, it seems to work for me. Last night, I was
attempting another capture even though it was cloudy (the coyotes tend
not to howl if cloudy or inclement). Where I have the dish pointed
right now is between two houses (one has a driveway), the best I can
get. As i was monitoring, one neighbor came out and stood around his
car. He began to talk on his cell. Unintentionally of course, I could
hear both him and everything the person he was talking to said. He was
a good 100 feet away. By ear, I could hear him but not make out
anything the cell person was saying.
I was having trouble late last week when it did seem like I wasn't doing
any better with the dish. Someone had suggested reorienting the H2
vertically instead of horizontally like I had it and a world of
difference. I admit there probably isn't ideal gain, especially since
the umbrella is far from a true parabola, but it has a made a difference
for me with this set up. Birds, especially are amplified many times!
I think it's time for a more objective experiment. Set up things your
normal way and record for a minute or so. Make sure you have disabled
any automatic gain control. Then turn the H2 round so it is facing the coyotes, not the umbrella. Furl the umbrella if you can, but don't let anything else move. Now record another minute.
If you could do that and post the result, that would be great.
d
On 12/7/21 4:51 AM, Don Pearce wrote:
On Mon, 6 Dec 2021 15:16:24 -0500, Jake T <jaketbone@steak.com> wrote:
On 12/6/21 2:16 PM, Don Pearce wrote:
On Mon, 6 Dec 2021 08:56:42 -0800, Tobiah <toby@tobiah.org> wrote:
But I don't understand why I'm seeing a stereo signal. Only one
microphone from the pair can be pointed into the reflector and it is >>>>>> clear that both are getting about the same amount of signal. And as I >>>>>> can hear a stereo sound filed I'm going to say that the reflector is >>>>>> contributing essentially nothing to this recording.
The H2 has a stereo pair on the front and another on the back. The pair >>>>> on the LCD side is supposed to be a 90 degree pickup pattern while it's >>>>> said to be 120 degrees on the back. Jake, which are you using?
I know all about the H2. But to make a reflector work you need one
microphone pointing into it, not two microphones aimed off to the
sides. Doing that results in virtually zero gain and directivity.
d
I don't know, Don, it seems to work for me. Last night, I was
attempting another capture even though it was cloudy (the coyotes tend
not to howl if cloudy or inclement). Where I have the dish pointed
right now is between two houses (one has a driveway), the best I can
get. As i was monitoring, one neighbor came out and stood around his
car. He began to talk on his cell. Unintentionally of course, I could
hear both him and everything the person he was talking to said. He was
a good 100 feet away. By ear, I could hear him but not make out
anything the cell person was saying.
I was having trouble late last week when it did seem like I wasn't doing >>> any better with the dish. Someone had suggested reorienting the H2
vertically instead of horizontally like I had it and a world of
difference. I admit there probably isn't ideal gain, especially since
the umbrella is far from a true parabola, but it has a made a difference >>> for me with this set up. Birds, especially are amplified many times!
I think it's time for a more objective experiment. Set up things your
normal way and record for a minute or so. Make sure you have disabled
any automatic gain control. Then turn the H2 round so it is facing the
coyotes, not the umbrella. Furl the umbrella if you can, but don't let
anything else move. Now record another minute.
If you could do that and post the result, that would be great.
d
Ok, just to be sure I'm reading this right, you want me to do testing
first with the H2 mics facing into the umbrella as I have been doing,
then with the H2 mics facing away from the umbrella? Since the coyotes
only sound off once a night and only for about a minute, I could set up
the frequency sweep and do it sometime today if the weather cooperates
or tomorrow.
On Tue, 7 Dec 2021 07:00:53 -0500, Jake T <jaketbone@steak.com> wrote:
On 12/7/21 4:51 AM, Don Pearce wrote:
On Mon, 6 Dec 2021 15:16:24 -0500, Jake T <jaketbone@steak.com> wrote:
On 12/6/21 2:16 PM, Don Pearce wrote:
On Mon, 6 Dec 2021 08:56:42 -0800, Tobiah <toby@tobiah.org> wrote:
But I don't understand why I'm seeing a stereo signal. Only one
microphone from the pair can be pointed into the reflector and it is >>>>>>> clear that both are getting about the same amount of signal. And as I >>>>>>> can hear a stereo sound filed I'm going to say that the reflector is >>>>>>> contributing essentially nothing to this recording.
The H2 has a stereo pair on the front and another on the back. The pair >>>>>> on the LCD side is supposed to be a 90 degree pickup pattern while it's >>>>>> said to be 120 degrees on the back. Jake, which are you using?
I know all about the H2. But to make a reflector work you need one
microphone pointing into it, not two microphones aimed off to the
sides. Doing that results in virtually zero gain and directivity.
d
I don't know, Don, it seems to work for me. Last night, I was
attempting another capture even though it was cloudy (the coyotes tend >>>> not to howl if cloudy or inclement). Where I have the dish pointed
right now is between two houses (one has a driveway), the best I can
get. As i was monitoring, one neighbor came out and stood around his
car. He began to talk on his cell. Unintentionally of course, I could >>>> hear both him and everything the person he was talking to said. He was >>>> a good 100 feet away. By ear, I could hear him but not make out
anything the cell person was saying.
I was having trouble late last week when it did seem like I wasn't doing >>>> any better with the dish. Someone had suggested reorienting the H2
vertically instead of horizontally like I had it and a world of
difference. I admit there probably isn't ideal gain, especially since >>>> the umbrella is far from a true parabola, but it has a made a difference >>>> for me with this set up. Birds, especially are amplified many times!
I think it's time for a more objective experiment. Set up things your
normal way and record for a minute or so. Make sure you have disabled
any automatic gain control. Then turn the H2 round so it is facing the
coyotes, not the umbrella. Furl the umbrella if you can, but don't let
anything else move. Now record another minute.
If you could do that and post the result, that would be great.
d
Ok, just to be sure I'm reading this right, you want me to do testing
first with the H2 mics facing into the umbrella as I have been doing,
then with the H2 mics facing away from the umbrella? Since the coyotes
only sound off once a night and only for about a minute, I could set up
the frequency sweep and do it sometime today if the weather cooperates
or tomorrow.
That's it. - I don't know what frequency sweep you are talking about
though. The idea of this experiment is to make two recordings, one
with the umbrella and one without. Obviously for the one without, the
H2 needs to be facing the coyotes. No problem with doing this on
successive nights. Disabling automatic gain is vital though, as is
making sure the level setting is identical both times - maybe just max
it.
d
Ok, just to be sure I'm reading this right, you want me to do testing
first with the H2 mics facing into the umbrella as I have been doing,
then with the H2 mics facing away from the umbrella? Since the coyotes
only sound off once a night and only for about a minute, I could set up
the frequency sweep and do it sometime today if the weather cooperates
or tomorrow.
That's it. - I don't know what frequency sweep you are talking about
though. The idea of this experiment is to make two recordings, one
with the umbrella and one without. Obviously for the one without, the
H2 needs to be facing the coyotes. No problem with doing this on
successive nights. Disabling automatic gain is vital though, as is
making sure the level setting is identical both times - maybe just max
it.
d
The frequency sweep would come from an oscillator placed 100 feet or so
away and sweeping from around 200 Hz to 10 Khz. I'll try the experiment >today, but I doubt the wind's going to cooperate but will get to it when
I can. I could try it indoors, but I don't think I can achieve enough >distance as I live in a small rancher so the most I could achieve would
be 15 feet or so.
On Mon, 6 Dec 2021 08:56:42 -0800, Tobiah <toby@tobiah.org> wrote:
But I don't understand why I'm seeing a stereo signal. Only one
microphone from the pair can be pointed into the reflector and it is
clear that both are getting about the same amount of signal. And as I
can hear a stereo sound filed I'm going to say that the reflector is
contributing essentially nothing to this recording.
The H2 has a stereo pair on the front and another on the back. The pair
on the LCD side is supposed to be a 90 degree pickup pattern while it's
said to be 120 degrees on the back. Jake, which are you using?
I know all about the H2. But to make a reflector work you need one
microphone pointing into it, not two microphones aimed off to the
sides. Doing that results in virtually zero gain and directivity.
d
On Tue, 7 Dec 2021 07:00:53 -0500, Jake T <jake...@steak.com> wrote:_________________________
On 12/7/21 4:51 AM, Don Pearce wrote:
On Mon, 6 Dec 2021 15:16:24 -0500, Jake T <jake...@steak.com> wrote:
On 12/6/21 2:16 PM, Don Pearce wrote:
On Mon, 6 Dec 2021 08:56:42 -0800, Tobiah <to...@tobiah.org> wrote:
But I don't understand why I'm seeing a stereo signal. Only one
microphone from the pair can be pointed into the reflector and it is >>>>>> clear that both are getting about the same amount of signal. And as I >>>>>> can hear a stereo sound filed I'm going to say that the reflector is >>>>>> contributing essentially nothing to this recording.
The H2 has a stereo pair on the front and another on the back. The pair >>>>> on the LCD side is supposed to be a 90 degree pickup pattern while it's >>>>> said to be 120 degrees on the back. Jake, which are you using?
I know all about the H2. But to make a reflector work you need one
microphone pointing into it, not two microphones aimed off to the
sides. Doing that results in virtually zero gain and directivity.
d
I don't know, Don, it seems to work for me. Last night, I was
attempting another capture even though it was cloudy (the coyotes tend >>> not to howl if cloudy or inclement). Where I have the dish pointed
right now is between two houses (one has a driveway), the best I can
get. As i was monitoring, one neighbor came out and stood around his
car. He began to talk on his cell. Unintentionally of course, I could
hear both him and everything the person he was talking to said. He was >>> a good 100 feet away. By ear, I could hear him but not make out
anything the cell person was saying.
I was having trouble late last week when it did seem like I wasn't doing >>> any better with the dish. Someone had suggested reorienting the H2
vertically instead of horizontally like I had it and a world of
difference. I admit there probably isn't ideal gain, especially since
the umbrella is far from a true parabola, but it has a made a difference >>> for me with this set up. Birds, especially are amplified many times!
I think it's time for a more objective experiment. Set up things your
normal way and record for a minute or so. Make sure you have disabled
any automatic gain control. Then turn the H2 round so it is facing the
coyotes, not the umbrella. Furl the umbrella if you can, but don't let
anything else move. Now record another minute.
If you could do that and post the result, that would be great.
d
Ok, just to be sure I'm reading this right, you want me to do testingThat's it. - I don't know what frequency sweep you are talking about
first with the H2 mics facing into the umbrella as I have been doing,
then with the H2 mics facing away from the umbrella? Since the coyotes
only sound off once a night and only for about a minute, I could set up
the frequency sweep and do it sometime today if the weather cooperates
or tomorrow.
though. The idea of this experiment is to make two recordings, one
with the umbrella and one without. Obviously for the one without, the
H2 needs to be facing the coyotes. No problem with doing this on
successive nights. Disabling automatic gain is vital though, as is
making sure the level setting is identical both times - maybe just max
it.
d
--
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus
That's the worst thing to do
On 07/12/2021 19:48, Chris K-Man wrote:
"maybe just max it."
In this case, "maxing it" refers to setting the gain of the recorder >preamplifiers at maximum to make the best of a very low level signal.
That's the worst thing to do
What would also help slightly would be to make the recordings on a cold
night to minimise thermal and Brownian motion noise.
Maximising the gain of the pre-amps reduces the amount of noise being >amplified when editing the result.
I really said max the gain as n easy way of making sure it hadn't
changed between runs.
d
I don't think you necessarily need just one mic
pointed toward the center of the parabola. Think
about a parabolic reflector used in a flashlight.
The source of light goes out in all directions from the bulb, but
any light that hits the parabola bounces off in the same unified
direction.
In the OP's case, if the recorder were mounted on its side with the mics aimed at the subject
John Williamson wrote:
===================
** Huh ? That is plain nuts.
In this case, "maxing it" refers to setting the gain of the recorder
preamplifiers at maximum to make the best of a very low level signal.
What would also help slightly would be to make the recordings on a cold
night to minimise thermal and Brownian motion noise.
..... Phil
In this case, "maxing it" refers to setting the gain of the recorder preamplifiers at maximum to make the best of a very low level signal.
What would also help slightly would be to make the recordings on a cold
night to minimise thermal and Brownian motion noise.
On 07/12/2021 20:03, Don Pearce wrote:________
I really said max the gain as n easy way of making sure it hadn't
changed between runs.
d
That too, but the k-man got the wrong end of the stick as usual.
--
Tciao for Now!
John
John Williamson wrote:
===================
** Huh ? That is plain nuts.
In this case, "maxing it" refers to setting the gain of the recorder
preamplifiers at maximum to make the best of a very low level signal.
What would also help slightly would be to make the recordings on a cold
night to minimise thermal and Brownian motion noise.
It might not be very effective until you hit liquid Nitrogen range, but the physics is there.
On Tuesday, December 7, 2021 at 3:06:01 PM UTC-5, John Williamson wrote:
On 07/12/2021 20:03, Don Pearce wrote:________
I really said max the gain as n easy way of making sure it hadn'tThat too, but the k-man got the wrong end of the stick as usual.
changed between runs.
d
--
Tciao for Now!
John
Instead of being critical, explain things.
Mxing the pre-amp gains works, until an unexpected local loud
noise overloads things.
On 07/12/2021 23:16, Chris K-Man wrote:______
On Tuesday, December 7, 2021 at 3:06:01 PM UTC-5, John Williamson wrote:
On 07/12/2021 20:03, Don Pearce wrote:________
I really said max the gain as n easy way of making sure it hadn'tThat too, but the k-man got the wrong end of the stick as usual.
changed between runs.
d
--
Tciao for Now!
John
Instead of being critical, explain things.
Mxing the pre-amp gains works, until an unexpected local loud
noise overloads things.
Read my post, It explains what is being done very clearly.
--
Tciao for Now!
John.
So turning up the recorder's pre-amp gain is not the
same as turning up recording levels? I've never seen
a recorder where such can be done
On Tue, 7 Dec 2021 08:08:53 -0500, Jake T <jaketbone@steak.com> wrote:
Ok, just to be sure I'm reading this right, you want me to do testing
first with the H2 mics facing into the umbrella as I have been doing,
then with the H2 mics facing away from the umbrella? Since the coyotes >>>> only sound off once a night and only for about a minute, I could set up >>>> the frequency sweep and do it sometime today if the weather cooperates >>>> or tomorrow.
That's it. - I don't know what frequency sweep you are talking about
though. The idea of this experiment is to make two recordings, one
with the umbrella and one without. Obviously for the one without, the
H2 needs to be facing the coyotes. No problem with doing this on
successive nights. Disabling automatic gain is vital though, as is
making sure the level setting is identical both times - maybe just max
it.
d
The frequency sweep would come from an oscillator placed 100 feet or so
away and sweeping from around 200 Hz to 10 Khz. I'll try the experiment
today, but I doubt the wind's going to cooperate but will get to it when
I can. I could try it indoors, but I don't think I can achieve enough
distance as I live in a small rancher so the most I could achieve would
be 15 feet or so.
Got you. No, do it outside - indoors won't work because of all the reflections off the walls. The swept oscillator is a good idea.
d
3) Speaking of file size, I notice a new file is created every 2.1 GB
during continuous recording. It's not a problem, but just wondering why
that is?
On Tue, 7 Dec 2021 08:08:53 -0500, Jake T <jaketbone@steak.com> wrote:
Ok, just to be sure I'm reading this right, you want me to do testing
first with the H2 mics facing into the umbrella as I have been doing,
then with the H2 mics facing away from the umbrella? Since the coyotes >>>> only sound off once a night and only for about a minute, I could set up >>>> the frequency sweep and do it sometime today if the weather cooperates >>>> or tomorrow.
That's it. - I don't know what frequency sweep you are talking about
though. The idea of this experiment is to make two recordings, one
with the umbrella and one without. Obviously for the one without, the
H2 needs to be facing the coyotes. No problem with doing this on
successive nights. Disabling automatic gain is vital though, as is
making sure the level setting is identical both times - maybe just max
it.
d
The frequency sweep would come from an oscillator placed 100 feet or so
away and sweeping from around 200 Hz to 10 Khz. I'll try the experiment
today, but I doubt the wind's going to cooperate but will get to it when
I can. I could try it indoors, but I don't think I can achieve enough
distance as I live in a small rancher so the most I could achieve would
be 15 feet or so.
Got you. No, do it outside - indoors won't work because of all the reflections off the walls. The swept oscillator is a good idea.
d
On 12/7/21 8:46 AM, Don Pearce wrote:
On Tue, 7 Dec 2021 08:08:53 -0500, Jake T <jaketbone@steak.com> wrote:
Ok, just to be sure I'm reading this right, you want me to do testing >>>>> first with the H2 mics facing into the umbrella as I have been doing, >>>>> then with the H2 mics facing away from the umbrella? Since the coyotes >>>>> only sound off once a night and only for about a minute, I could set up >>>>> the frequency sweep and do it sometime today if the weather cooperates >>>>> or tomorrow.
That's it. - I don't know what frequency sweep you are talking about
though. The idea of this experiment is to make two recordings, one
with the umbrella and one without. Obviously for the one without, the
H2 needs to be facing the coyotes. No problem with doing this on
successive nights. Disabling automatic gain is vital though, as is
making sure the level setting is identical both times - maybe just max >>>> it.
d
The frequency sweep would come from an oscillator placed 100 feet or so
away and sweeping from around 200 Hz to 10 Khz. I'll try the experiment >>> today, but I doubt the wind's going to cooperate but will get to it when >>> I can. I could try it indoors, but I don't think I can achieve enough
distance as I live in a small rancher so the most I could achieve would
be 15 feet or so.
Got you. No, do it outside - indoors won't work because of all the
reflections off the walls. The swept oscillator is a good idea.
d
Ok, here's the comparison. No compression, limiting, or AGC, gain set
3/4 max. Outdoors, oscillator was about 100 feet away.
http://sndup.net/qhyq
On Wed, 8 Dec 2021 15:24:07 -0500, Jake T <jaketbone@steak.com> wrote:
On 12/7/21 8:46 AM, Don Pearce wrote:
On Tue, 7 Dec 2021 08:08:53 -0500, Jake T <jaketbone@steak.com> wrote:
Ok, just to be sure I'm reading this right, you want me to do testing >>>>>> first with the H2 mics facing into the umbrella as I have been doing, >>>>>> then with the H2 mics facing away from the umbrella? Since the coyotes >>>>>> only sound off once a night and only for about a minute, I could set up >>>>>> the frequency sweep and do it sometime today if the weather cooperates >>>>>> or tomorrow.
That's it. - I don't know what frequency sweep you are talking about >>>>> though. The idea of this experiment is to make two recordings, one
with the umbrella and one without. Obviously for the one without, the >>>>> H2 needs to be facing the coyotes. No problem with doing this on
successive nights. Disabling automatic gain is vital though, as is
making sure the level setting is identical both times - maybe just max >>>>> it.
d
The frequency sweep would come from an oscillator placed 100 feet or so >>>> away and sweeping from around 200 Hz to 10 Khz. I'll try the experiment >>>> today, but I doubt the wind's going to cooperate but will get to it when >>>> I can. I could try it indoors, but I don't think I can achieve enough >>>> distance as I live in a small rancher so the most I could achieve would >>>> be 15 feet or so.
Got you. No, do it outside - indoors won't work because of all the
reflections off the walls. The swept oscillator is a good idea.
d
Ok, here's the comparison. No compression, limiting, or AGC, gain set
3/4 max. Outdoors, oscillator was about 100 feet away.
http://sndup.net/qhyq
Well, congratulations! The umbrella was doing the business.
Definitely best pointing into the umbrella, and worst with no
umbrella. I'm surprised it made such an easily identifiable
difference.
d
Here's just over half a minute of coyote howls from last night. To my surprise, about 45 minutes after sunset.
http://sndup.net/5kjc
Last night's session did not go all that well. When I went out to bring
in everything this AM, I found that the umbrella had toppled over. My
gut instinct told me that I should have brought everything in last night
when I noticed the winds picking up. Most of the audio files were
corrupted also when power was evidently lost between the H2 and the
lithium battery. However, to my surprise, VLC media player was able to repair the damaged WAV files. Lesson learned.
Here's just over half a minute of coyote howls from last night. To my >surprise, about 45 minutes after sunset.
http://sndup.net/5kjc
Last night's session did not go all that well. When I went out to bring
in everything this AM, I found that the umbrella had toppled over. My
gut instinct told me that I should have brought everything in last night
when I noticed the winds picking up. Most of the audio files were
corrupted also when power was evidently lost between the H2 and the
lithium battery. However, to my surprise, VLC media player was able to >repair the damaged WAV files. Lesson learned.
Jake T <jaketbone@steak.com> said...news:sot1vh$4hn$1@dont-email.me:
Here's just over half a minute of coyote howls from last night. To my
surprise, about 45 minutes after sunset.
http://sndup.net/5kjc
Last night's session did not go all that well. When I went out to bring
in everything this AM, I found that the umbrella had toppled over. My
gut instinct told me that I should have brought everything in last night
when I noticed the winds picking up. Most of the audio files were
corrupted also when power was evidently lost between the H2 and the
lithium battery. However, to my surprise, VLC media player was able to
repair the damaged WAV files. Lesson learned.
Good job, that sounded great !
david
On 12/9/21 9:31 AM, david gourley wrote:
Jake T <jaketbone@steak.com> said...news:sot1vh$4hn$1@dont-email.me:
Here's just over half a minute of coyote howls from last night. To my
surprise, about 45 minutes after sunset.
   http://sndup.net/5kjc
Last night's session did not go all that well. When I went out to bring >>> in everything this AM, I found that the umbrella had toppled over. My >>> gut instinct told me that I should have brought everything in last night >>> when I noticed the winds picking up. Most of the audio files were
corrupted also when power was evidently lost between the H2 and the
lithium battery. However, to my surprise, VLC media player was able to >>> repair the damaged WAV files. Lesson learned.
Good job, that sounded great !
david
Thanks, guys. I kept a little noise in there as I never like to
eliminate it all unless it comes naturally :).
http://sndup.net/q286
As someone else mentioned, the coyote frequencies are fairly narrow with >limited harmonics, still though some must be present. It's a good thing
for the narrow range, otherwise it would be much harder to filter.
On Thu, 9 Dec 2021 11:53:55 -0500, Jake T <jaketbone@steak.com> wrote:
http://sndup.net/q286
As someone else mentioned, the coyote frequencies are fairly narrow with
limited harmonics, still though some must be present. It's a good thing
for the narrow range, otherwise it would be much harder to filter.
Yes, that was me. I also mentioned that the response of a dish rises
at 6dB per octave, so you should apply a reverse of that over the band
of interest. I just tried that on your file, and it sounded good. I
don't know if it sounded right - we don't have too many coyotes in
central London.
d
Last one, the chickadees:
So clean for the H2. What was
your post processing scheme?
On 12/9/21 2:29 PM, Tobiah wrote:
Last one, the chickadees:
So clean for the H2. What was
your post processing scheme?
Well, I used Adobe Audition. Grabbed a noise print, then applied to the
NR algorithm. I adjusted the EQ in the box to take out more noise above and below the coyotes. I also added a noise gate to better mask the
slight amount of artifacts remaining. On top of that was some general
EQ to compensate for some slight loss using the foam cover. Then, if I found harshness, I did a little more EQ to compensate. I don't have anything like Izotope Neutron, so basically eyeball compare a good EQ spectra with mine and then tweak. Works ok, but sometimes I miss it. I then remix the result with some clean noise from the remaining file.
It's tough because I no longer have any decent studio monitors. I have
a cheap $30 "stereo", but nowhere near a monitor quality. I can get by
by tweaking out the bass and increasing the treble of the stereo, which
gets me somewhat closer. I can then listen on the laptop which, again,
has it's own woes but give me an idea. I used to have a pretty good car setup I'd listen to mixes on too. If this were music instead of a
single frequency, I'd be throwing together the car set up once again.
Most of these samples have had a jet passing overhead while the howls
were occurring. If I couldn't sample enough of the jet immediately
within/ surrounding the howls, I tried to find a similar jet of roughly
the same amplitude later on in the file (or before), and then tweak it.
 Jets aren't too bad because they pretty much stay below about 300 Hz.
 A passenger car or truck on the road passing by if a different story, however, with more broadband noise.
Last one, the chickadees:
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 296 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 67:52:33 |
| Calls: | 6,654 |
| Files: | 12,200 |
| Messages: | 5,332,028 |