> choice - compressed or uncompressed - I am very curious as to why we
> would not take every opportunity to leave our recordings in the best
> possible state for future generations. If it's not totally essential
> to compromise, then why do it?
>
> let's be logical and take all these as givens. The only issue is:
> what am I leaving for future listeners, reseachers, whoever? It
> as we cannot predict how our recordings might be used, why not at
> least ensure that they are not compromised. I don't see how we can
> achieve that using MiniDisc.
>
> species we are capturing may not be around forever. If we are going
> to spend considerable time and money doing it, and possibly never
> getting a second chance, let's do it right.
I agree with your sentiments, however there is one complicating factor --
whether a given recording gets made at all. I read you as implying that
all factors other than media are invariant; I would suggest that in some
circumstances -- particularly those that I myself often record under --
the differences between (say) DAT and MD are such that I *can* record with
the latter but could not if I were only using the former.
This may sound unlikely, but I do most of my recording -- granted, not as
a nature recordist first and foremost -- while traveling long term, and
at times "in the wild" for extended periods, without access to batteries
or means of recharging them, or blank media -- in which case I am limited
to what I can carry. In some circumstances I have gone more than a month
without access to supplies. In these cases, the fact that I could record
for hours off a single AA battery using my MD became the key factor in
what I was able to record. That, and the fact that I could easily (and
stealthily) carry dozens of blank disks.
Intended as a footnote, not a criticism.
Best regards,
aaron
http://www.quietamerican.org
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
|