While it is true that "noise free" is not what you hear when you're "out
there", it is also true that when you're "out there" it is often quite easy
for the human mind to "filter out" background noise. This has to do with
being there, feeling the air or the rain or the wind, and seeing the natura=
l
surroundings. Under such conditions, people often do not remember hearing
the jets, the cars, the roosters, and the dogs. But if you make a recording
at such times and let the same persons listen at home, then the background
sounds suddenly become much more apparent and they can be annoying.
This is why it is good to get pristine recordings if at all possible, free
of dogs barking, jets rumbling, and cars whining. Playing such a recording
encourages the listener to become immersed in the sound, much the same as
they would be if they were "out there", where they'd do all their natural
filtering of the noise pollution.
Lang
> Klas Strandberg wrote:
>>
>> Somebody wrote that there is no good way of noise cancelling. I agree.
>> Most noise is broadband. You can improve, but not much more.
>
> I would agree here.
>
> We also might want to think if we are truly recording what's out there
> for people to listen to when we go to great lengths to record these
> "noise free" recordings. That's not what they will find if they go out th=
ere.
>
>>> From 1985
>>
>> I recorded a redwing, not far away from town.
>>
>> When I replayed the recordings I got with the stereo DATmic, people smil=
ed
>> and said: "It's a very nice recording. Such a "cute" bird. And the recor=
ding
>> is very "alive" It is almoset as "being there".
>> Nobody made any spontanious comments on the traffic noise. It was accept=
ed.
>> "Noise is noise", not worth focusing on.
>>
>> Having filtered the traffic noise, it got worse. People said: "It's a pi=
ty
>> with all the traffic noise."
>> When the traffic noise didn't sound like traffic noise any more, because=
of
>> the filtering - it became a "signal" which people focused on.
>>
>> The same recording in mono was a total disaster.
>
> I consider the stereo parabolic to be the biggest advantage when I moved
> from my previous mono parabolic. You then allow people to use the very
> best filter of all, their own internal sound processing. Far more
> capable than any filter we might apply.
>
> I have a recording where a large truck passed a few feet behind me. It's
> stereo, and clearly the truck is not where the frogs are. You can hear
> far more of the frogs in that than you would be able to do if it was a
> mono parabolic.
>
> So, I read these experiments with a extra mic and don't think in terms
> of how to record using one channel for the extra mic and one for the
> mono parabolic. I think in terms of how it might be possible to do this
> with the two stereo channels coming from the parabolic. Because
> switching back to mono would loose more than I might gain.
>
> The use of stereo in nature recording should be considered in our
> methods of dealing with noise.
>
> Walt
>
>
>
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
>
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
|