Klas Strandberg wrote:
>
> Audio seems to trigger fantasy and emotional memories better than pictures.
> We see what we see and it is mostly very clear to us what it is. But when we
> hear something, we are free to fantasize as much as we want.
>
> Sound can be used to make people relax, almost to a hypnotic level. Sounds
> of waves and distant birds, for example. But I don't know of any picture use
> with the same effect. (Except some blinking light, which may develop
> epilephtical attacks.)
>
> Personally, when I listen to a recording I have made, I remember very well
> what the place looked like, the weather, the smells and other
> circumstancies. I also remember what I felt like, excited or whatever. (Or
> perhaps I just THINK that I remember well...? Hm.) Well, no picturess can
> give me that.
> I wonder if this is true in general, or true for some individuals only?
Both sounds and smells do this for most everyone. Because so much of
what we get from either is from our own brains and stored experiences. A
picture is so much like what we store in that sense that we have less to
fill in. The sounds I've recorded can bring back the visual for me
easily. A photo won't bring back the sounds as easily.
> Our hearing is very accurate. Back in 1984 I made a binaural stereo
> recording of ambience 1/ about a foot outside my balcony, 2/ on the balkony
> rim and 3/ a feet inside the balcony rim. I asked my wife to listen to the
> recordings with headphones and tell me which was which. No problem.
There's a lot of downplaying of human senses, but we are really well equipped.
> I often hear wildlife recordings far too much filtered. Worst case, you even
> hear artifacts. I often find digital filters on audio software far too
> drastical.
A lot of learning to use filters well is learning to use a very light
hand. It's not a case where if a little is good more will be better.
Most use far too heavy a hand on the filters. Probably because they are
listening as much to their memory of the original as to the recording. I
try always to be holding the original up to compare against what I've
got, have a standard to limit what I do.
The other thing I've found over the years is there are filters and
filters. Many are not worth messing with, including some that are very
expensive. All noise filters are definitely not created the same.
How much filtering to use will also vary with purpose. Getting a clear
call for someone to learn the call is a different story from getting the
same call for enjoyable listening. In the first case we run into the
most filtering on the hard to get calls. We will have little opportunity
to get a recording and must make do with what we can get. And the
listener is also aware of what's the priority there.
I think that listening or ambiance type recordings are the hardest ones
to get. They allow the least freedom to manipulate after recording, so
require the most effort to get to start with.
Walt
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
|