i totally aggree with you, any system will have its hassle, limitation,
specifical technique, or high investment involved,
cheers
Claudio Chea
Director de Proyectos
clik>POP<!
p.o. box 9022731
san juan, p.r. 00902-2731
787-466-2249
<>
www.clikpop.com <http://www.clikpop.com>
-----Original Message-----
From: Walter Knapp
Sent: Tuesday, February 19, 2002 1:48 AM
To:
Subject: Re: [Nature Recordists] Sony PC with audio Minidisc and DVD-RW
claudio chea wrote:
>
> be aware that there are limitations with the minidisc format, in terms of
> compression and quality, quality sounds ok (cd like) but you can only get
as
> far as 44.100, which in enviromental sound might loose a lot....
And you don't with any other recording method? The truth is you lose as
much with every method. And, with some methods you may loose a lot more
compared to MD. Like, for instance, cassette or reel to reel, which
tends to be accepted without question. As if it were perfect. Or DAT,
with it's fragile tape and mechanism.
MD just says right up front, and out in the open, that it's not storing
all the samples it creates and some people swoon. The others don't tell
you how much they are losing. The very act of sampling loses. Suppose MD
sampled at 96khz, would it then be ok? Or 1000 khz? There would still be
those with a focus problem. They'd still be telling us how it was not as
good as cassette or whatever.
The major loss compared to the real sound that's out there occurs at the
mic. If you think there is some value in recording at some high sample
rate so as to pick up even higher frequencies, then go back and read the
mic specs on the mic you are using. Then go out and spend $3000 plus on
a MKH 800 to give some reality to higher sampling rates. And forget
shotguns, there are not any for the higher sampling rates. If you want
reach put the MKH 800 in a parabolic, just be sure it's tuned to the
frequencies you wish to sample.
Computers have their processor speed wars which signify virtually
nothing as the real speed is determined by the wetware sitting in front
of the monitor pushing the mouse around and hitting keyboard keys. I
guess sound deserves to have a sampling rate thing to match, though the
real limitation is the wetware there too, both human and other species.
The very best recording system to use is the one that will give you the
least hassles and downtime, so you will actually get out and record with
it. The differences in sound quality between various digital formats are
almost trivial, definitely not worth all the steam they generate. Once
you have accumulated some experience using the format under actual field
conditions and analyzing the data you will know the limitations of your
particular setup somewhat. Theory is near meaningless, especially if the
theorizing ignores the major impacts.
So, lets say it truthfully, shall we? Be aware that there are
limitations with any recording format in terms of quality. No format
gives you the quality of the original sound, regardless of which mic you
use to feed it. All modern digital formats are far better technically
than the analog formats still being used as the standard of good
recording. The major limitation on recorded sound quality is not the
recorder, it's the interface between the sound and the electronics, i.e.
the mic and how it's used. That's a problem thats not only technical,
but a measure of the skill and art of the recordist. And in some cases
sheer luck.
Walt
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
|