Field recording

llllllll

#386

Any suggestions on the best t-bar for these new LOM Usi mounts?

Ideally it can be something compact for transport and also so that it could mount on those smaller moldable tripods that are so handy for field recording.

Any wisdom would be appreciated :slight_smile:


#387

Would something like this work?

I’ve got one of these at the minute, which I hope might do the job before I drop an order in:

Would appreciate any thoughts too


#388

Yeah, just be careful about the threadings. There’s a bunch of different standards, so if the Usi holder does use a different one than the bar, you need adapters.


#389

From the images the threading seems to be male, which is the same as those mentioned by @muncky and so those would not work without a female/female adaptor.


#390

I’m finding this to be quite useful, even if I still need to work out a couple adapters - and also because it allows me to put another mic in the middle or a Jecklin Disk in the middle:

https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/503258-REG/Manfrotto_154B_154_Triple_Microphone_Holder.html


#391

LOM sites says that the Usi mounts can be used with Rycote windshields but that some disassembly is required for it to work.
Does anyone have an idea which of Rycotes windshields this would work with?


#392

what this means is that the lyres provided in the Usi mounts are compatible with the Rycote windshield systems. All their systems feature a bar in which you screw the relevant lyres for your mic. This bar also serves as a support on which you slide/fix the windshield itself.
The differences between lyres are the diameter of the mic clip and the softness/rigidity of the suspension.
So in this case when buying the Usi mount you get the appropriate lyres for their mics, mounted on a threaded support. Should you want to mount the mics in a Rycote system, you already have the lyres, just need to unscrew them from their original holder and put them in the new system.
Otherwise, they recommend these wind protection (size 4) on their wiki.


#393

thank you, ermina. That helps me understand it much better. Appreciated.
:smile:


#394

The BBC have made an archive of 16000+ sound effect+field recordings available (and downloadable in .wav format).

I’ve no doubt there will be some gems lurking here!

http://bbcsfx.acropolis.org.uk/

… plus the background image is :sunglasses:


#395

Regarding the recent BBC release:

I looked at the license they offer, and it didn’t look amenable to musical use, even non-commercial. Since the BBC page invited “queries regarding usage” I wrote to them.

They replied that the BBC library was already available under a license that would allow musical use. The library is $5,000, available at:

They do offer a smaller “historical” collection, that appears to be about the same size as the recent release, for only $1,200.


#396

BBC just shared a library of 16,016 freely available sounds effects. it contains a crazy variety of samples - the first page has a doll saying ‘mama,’ a waterfall, a parrot talking, a [really pleasant] surface grinder, and a rifle firing, among others.

http://bbcsfx.acropolis.org.uk/

i have no idea how i’m going to make use of it, but given the general interest in field recording and cool sampling modules around here i thought it would be worth sharing. maybe i’ll plug a bunch of this stuff into w/ in the next couple days?


#397

I thought this sounded nice, but the usage license seems restrictive.


#398

@mzero mentioned elsewhere that the BBC has a license for musicians. $4,999:

or there’s a smaller “historical” set for $1,199.

The library linked in the OP is only for non-commercial use. That means you can’t make a track with it and post it on Soundcloud (because advertising).


#399

oh geez, i figured that sort of thing would be fine since the track would be freely available.

well nevermind then, the clipper ship recording was pretty pleasant but probably not worth $4,999


#400

I suspect they’ve not thought this all the way through. Or maybe it’s a don’t ask, don’t tell situation. Feels fumbled to me, because I see musicians all over the internet getting excited about it.


#401

Looks like BBC might have just clarified this in a comment on CDM.


#402

heh - not really much clarification there: Kirn writes a whole post explaining why the license terms make the concept of “non-commercial” murky(1), and the BBC clarifies by reiterating “just not commercialised works”.

1: For example: Is putting your track on Soundcloud or Spotify “commercialised”? I’ll get streaming revenue (if in fractions of a penny) from both, and both have ads. This seems to violate the license.


#403

I read the article before the correction was added, at which point there was no indication that derivative works of any form were allowed. Fair point re Soundcloud (I didn’t realise there was any revenue stream on that platform), or Spotify.