| |
Here it is time to update my notes on Telinga.
Under the heading of "Telinga Systems" you have the choice of a "Telinga Modular" (dish, handle, blimp etc.) or a "Telinga Pro-X" which is the Modular with included Telinga "Stereo MK3 Omnidirectional Microphone". So, Telinga still offers their dish with an included mic. How does the MK3 compare with the previous Schoeps MK4? Well, I do not really know. The Telinga page does not provide MK3 Specifications other than to say that it has an Equivalent Noise Level of 12 dB(A). This level is reduced to 2-4 dB(A) with the complete system. Furthermore the MK3 is a microphone array of 8 elements. They get their "stereo" effect by separating the mic elements into two groups of 4 separated by a plate so each group "sees" one side of the dish. The stereo effect comes from recording the groups separately onto two tracks while all 8 elements feed a mono output from the entire dish. As far as the self noise reduction to 2-4 dB, it makes sense that the self noise is lowered by combining all elements into a single channel.
What about the MK3 sensitivity? What about the "complete system" sensitivity? Unfortunately NO information is provided for these critical parameters. I rather suspect that is because the answer would not please the field recordist. Additionally, the complete setup photo for the Pro-X shows the microphone pointing outward rather than facing the dish. Without a good MK3 polar chart I can only suspect high-frequency loss due to this configuration. You pay all that money for the dish with its "free gain" especially at higher frequencies, only to give it up with an improper design. If and until Telinga comes clean on the sensitivity (especially) and polar response of their MK3 I cannot recommend it.
Curiously, the Telinga Modular page DOES include an interesting Polar response chart. I am assuming it is for the MK3 in combination with the Telinga dish but that is not stated. As the Telinga Modular is not offered with an included microphone I really do not know with what mic that polar chart is for. The page for the Telinga Pro-X which IS offered with the MK3 does NOT provide the polar chart. So, all very ambiguous and confusing. (By the way, the Telinga Modular Manual pdf still retains the Schoeps/Telinga polar chart. Time to update that as well.)
Taking a look at the offered microphones I find the following specs:
If you are looking for a Telinga system I must recommend the version with the Sennheiser mic. Sennheiser mics are RF-Biased and moisture/humidity resistant. The 8020 is an omni with fairly good sensitivity at -30 dB (at 1 kHz). Boost that by 12 dB dish gain (generous 80% efficiency) and you have a "complete system" having -18 dB sensitivity. (Somewhat higher than a long gun, 13 dB less than the Wildtronics [-5 dB]). That will still set you back $2,710. Saving some cash to purchase one of the other mics on offer will result in significant lessening of your system sensitivity. I would also caution you to look into the question of facing outward with an omni versus facing the parabola a cardioid. An outward-facing cardioid should never be tried as it will certainly reject the dish reflected signal.
One final thought. BOTH Telinga and Wildtronics are offering "stereo" channels to their lineups. This seems to me to be a "sound quality" issue and as such is an intangible and unmeasurable parameter. I am personally a "data guy" and not an audiophile. I hanker for an accurate recording to document the bird in the focus. I am not seeking or even wanting the "ambience outside the focus". It may be ambience to the marketers, it is just noise to me.
KJS 06/2026
ADDENDUM:
Since I brought up earlier the question of "ambience" and sound quality I need to rant a bit about a review of the Telinga MK3 I read by one Gavin Vella. He comes across as an expert and therefor authoritative. Yet when I read his words I am frankly a bit stunned. Lets start with a fun quote: "Telinga is where I invested my money, because the sound quality was very comparable to the some of the classic branded companies like Sennhieser and Schoeps". Sound Quality, it is his bottom line. It is intangible, it is unmeasurable. Name dropping major microphone manufactures is also total BS, how can he even that back up? Besause "sound quality" is unmeasurable, he cannot, (which of course, is the point).
How about quote: "I could write a whole blog on recording stereo inside a parabola, but in short, it’s a much more natural experience". He backs his thesis up with over 90 recordings! Such a natural experience. How does this help? Has he even tried recording with other dishes? How can one conclude that the mic under review is any better than any other? I strongly suspect that he has not listened to, nor "experienced" any competitor product, how does this help?
In these pages I have gone out of my way to present measurable, verifiable data on a wide variety of recording products, often presenting comparison charts showing parameters together on two or more products in order to allow an honest comparison. Audiophile pages exclaiming the ethereal pleasures of the sound experience and quality, whatever they are, drive me nuts. Yes, I own certain equipment on these pages but I challenge anyone to find where I may have gushed over my experiences or cited un-measureables or non-data in support of a product. If you wish to plunk down one or two grand on equipment based on "audio quality", whatever that is, then be my guest. A fool and his money are soon parted...
One last rant concerning a glowing recommendation by "Acoustic Nature". Having consulted their site on numerous occasions I must conclude they are part of the industry marketing world. They are not here to help you, they are NOT your friends. I am to the point where if they recommend it, do NOT buy it. Really.