>Message: 21
> Date: Fri, 12 Jul 2002 16:09:07 +0200
> From: Klas Strandberg <>
>Subject: Re: Re: Re: ATRAC compression
>
>Sorry, but I don't understand this discussion at all. (Except from a
>computer science or mathematical point of wiev).
>
>An analog copy from the MD to the DAT, creates an uncompressed digital DAT
>recording, as if it was made "out there". The only difference is that the MD
>is providing the analog signal, instead of the microphone!
and
> Date: Fri, 12 Jul 2002 16:04:17 -0400
> From: Walter Knapp <>
>Subject: Re: Re: Re: ATRAC compression
>
>
>Good luck Klas. I've been saying this for years and still get the same
>misunderstandings back from people who did not listen. They have gotten
>so wrapped up in what they think happens that they never bother to just
>get one and see if they are right. One of the things I have watched is
I don't think there's any point in contention here. It's just a matter of
the language used. Coming from a music production background, Marvin's
piece made a lot of sense to me. Sometimes I find Klas's and Walt's
explanations beyond my maths or involving physics that I don't understand
(I graduated in Classics). In music I worked as a writer/producer who did
some engineering in my home studio. And I'v been interested in wildlife
ever since I can remember.
When I got hooked into nature recording, it was a full take. I went to
sennheiser to talk about which of their mics would be best for what I
wanted to do. The technical manager made an interesting comment -
designed to niggle me a bit: 'engineers make the best recordists'.
That may be true in the context of a film/TV crew. But as to who makes
the best recordings, I would say both an engineer and a producer can make
great recordings, if they're good at what they do. The engineer's should
be technically good, with hopefully an ear for his subject matter; the
producer aims to capture something special, good performance, something
that communicates, with hopefully adequate technical ability to make a
good recording. The point being that there are two aspects to a sound
recording: the technical quality and the aesthetic and/or bioacoustical
content. I try to keep a balance.
Something that cropped up in a wildlife sound recording competition a few
years ago. One of the winning entries was an 'atmospheric' recording of a
curlew on some mudflats, technically very good. But the species was
misidentified and it was an alarm call of a bird flying off (maybe
disturbed by the recordist?). One of the members questioned whether this
should be a competition winner. What do you think?
Another example. I put together a CD of nightingale recordings a couple
of years ago. As you can imagine, some of the better ones to listen to
were not technically the best recordings. One in particular was a
recording of a nightingale singing in southern England on the night of
19th May 1942, as a group of bombers set out for a raid on Mannheim, in
Germany. As a wildlife recording it suffers badly from mechanical
background noise. But also as a wildlife recording, with documentation of
the context, it is a profoundly moving recording, of which the
nightingale is an integral part.
I've wandered a bit.
-------
But I agree, there seems to be a lot of misconception about MDs and
ATRAC. As I said, I have no problem with it, from what my ears have
heard: I'm gradually learning a bit more about the technology involved
and expect to be using one before too long.
Walt wrote:
>Heck, a lot of that stuff freaks my ears, let alone a encoder. And the
>processing can be going at the sound with a meat axe.
>
snip
>kind of pointless. The point seems to be just who can make the loudest
>sustained noise.
Mmm, a bit like many species of frog/insect/bird? No?
Not that I'm a fan of overcompressed material, but I'm sure many of these
creatures wouldn't think twice about using a compressor, if they could,
to get a little edge on their competitors in broadcasting their message.
Best wishes, Geoff.
Geoff Sample
Northumberland
..............
www.wildsong.co.uk
__________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
|