Rob Danielson wrote:
> 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.
I figure those who go straight to good mics miss out on all the fun. I
agree, it's trying to get the poorer stuff to work that really teaches
you about post processing. As well as giving you a reason to work on
your recording technique. And bringing into focus needed processing
tools. I sometimes feel like I'm trying to do brain surgery with a spoon
and a hammer.
I also envy the bird recordists. Only one bird calling at a time to be
tweaked out of the recording mush is more like the norm. Try dealing
with both the mush, and hundreds calling, of many different species.
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.
I've certainly found the group constantly stimulating. You really never
know what will turn up next. It never seems to stagnate for long.
Walt
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
|