walt wrote:
>And one of the big reasons why we spend on fancy gear is so we will have
>to do less post processing to get the result we want. That's part of the
>value of those expensive mics, a huge lot of time we won't be working on
>the recording later. In fact it's probably the sort of reason why we are
>not all recording with a $1 capsule stuck on the end of a stick with
>chewing gum. We like the work part of this to be easier.
excerpted from this string:
>Rob Danielson wrote:
>
> How
>> about this: gear choices allow one to record with less or more
>> approximation and choices in post can be towards more faithful or
>> less faithful reproduction? Circumstance, attitude and
>> science/technology. Aren't the differences we perceive in recordings
>> best tested by communicability than by sonogram?
>
>I would certainly agree, no recording technique, equipment etc will give
>you exactly the sound that was there. I think I have stated this a
>number of times in the past.
>
>And one of the big reasons why we spend on fancy gear is so we will have
>to do less post processing to get the result we want. That's part of the
>value of those expensive mics, a huge lot of time we won't be working on
>the recording later. In fact it's probably the sort of reason why we are
>not all recording with a $1 capsule stuck on the end of a stick with
>chewing gum. We like the work part of this to be easier.
>
>We will still end up working on the recordings, of course, for other
>reasons. For instance, I'm in the middle of driving myself nuts trying
>to get a nice clear 20 second clip of each of Georgia's species of frogs
>to go into the ID part of the CD in the works. Very little of that is
>removing unwanted general noise, or adjusting the call itself. In most
>cases it's trying to remove as many of the calls of other types of
>animals as possible. A "perfect" MKH recording that contained 6 species
>of frogs and several species of insects might be near impossible to use.
>It would be nice if I had perfect recordings of each species by itself
>in the 800 plus site recordings I have, but that's not reality. Maybe by
>the time I die....
>
>I'm going to be glad to move into making clips for the chorus part of
>the CD. Far less to have to try and get out, if anything. Just trucks,
>cars, airplanes, trains, irrigation pumps, barking dogs, cows......
>
>Certainly communicability is a very important consideration in our
>recordings. My recommendation of using a sonogram while doing filtering
>and other processing is that it will help that process, not hinder it.
>More than half the frogs I've processed have multifrequency calls. Our
>ears hear it like it's a single call, but the sonogram shows all those
>parts of the call, even the faint parts. It makes it a lot easier to
>know that if you intrude above, say 400hz with a Eastern Spadefoot call
>that you will be hitting the low part of his call. And even more of a
>problem is the upper part, if removed it only makes a slight difference
>in the call by ear, and those unfamiliar with the call would probably
>not notice. But somewhere down the road someone is going to say it does
>not sound right. In my case, with the two recordings I've managed of
>this elusive species the sonogram tells me this upper part also overlaps
>calls of other species in the recording I'd love to remove. I work both
>listening and sonograms to juggle such things.
>
>If we go entirely to what we can hear by ear, I expect no more arguments
>against minidisc based on they might remove something we don't hear :-)
>
>Sonograms are also part of learning about these calls, and other sounds
>too. They tell us a great deal about how the call is built by the
>animal. Details that are hard to pick out by ear.
>
>There is one other reason why I use sonograms. My old ears do not hear
>high pitched sounds well. If I went by what I hear, younger ears are
>going to complain. I can not accurately filter the upper half of the
>audio band by ear. But I certainly can see on a sonogram what happened.
>
>Nature recording grew out of Scientific recording. It really first began
>to be noticed by the general public only recently with the publication
>of whale sounds being the first big push. We now have folks moving into
>nature recording with no connection to science whatsoever. Many of these
>come from the world of music recording, and bring their traditions with
>them. There is nothing at all wrong with this, or the interest in nature
>recordings as pure entertainment. But there is a problem if we then end
>up attempting to make nature recording conform to just those traditions.
>Nature recording will use what's useful out of that, of course, but it's
>got it's own unique set of problems and goals. This will be reflected in
>how we go about our craft. Like the use of sonograms, which many music
>recordists seem to find so strange, and are so natural for a scientist
>like me. I find some of the tests they do equally strange as they are
>really tests of how well your analog tape recorder is doing, or
>something like that. I was around when many of those tests were first
>popularized.
>
>Walt
>
Very true about lower noise/flater mics requiring less post work.
Curious though, I was much less capable of making effective
adjustments before practicing on many many files made with cheap
mics. One of the reasons I follow the nat list is the passion for
accuracy in field recordings. I enjoy recordings that provoke a sense
of document, of listenability and certain approaches to
composition/manipulation. Thanks to everyone's candidness and,
perhaps indirectly, I feel am I gathering more scientific and
subjective understanding about how these attitudes overlap.
Rob
= = =
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
|