Martyn Stewart wrote:
> There is at times too much analysis to the instruments we use in the
> field, I agree you need to know most of the fundamentals but what I
> always do and continue to do is test whatever I use in the field,
> sometimes you can get flooded with all the benchmarks, sonograms, blah,
> blah, blah. When I take recording gear out with me, I make sure I have
> all my mics at my disposal. Most of the time I will test the
> environment through all mics with headphones on to get what I=92m looking
> for, I have recorded some lovely owl, grouse, low tone humming birds,
> doves and frogs with my Telinga Science and yet at times through my
> MKH-110 & AT4071A I couldn=92t even get the sound right of a barred Owl
> in the trees 40=92 away=85=85. At the end of the day it=92s as Walt alway=
s
> says, it=92s the recording that matters=94 figures can sometimes flood th=
e
> issue and become obscured by what we know & hear
Over the years I've seen that there seem to be two types of recordists.
Those like you and me that try it all on everything and take the best we
get out in the field. And those that go off and try and select by
theory. And only try according to what the theory says. I personally
believe that trying all you have will get you more good recordings.
I'm carrying 6 mic setups on my trips right now. And each and every one
records different. That is the result of many factors.
I don't mind, as I did for a while on the last trip, just listening for
a extended period through each one in turn. Study the view of the world
each gives.
The very best analysis source is the subjects we record.
Walt
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
|