Raimund Specht wrote:
> My comment did not aim to you personally at all (but I have heard
> several fairytales from musicians and other sound engineers and we
> should therefore be very critical when listening to such theories).
> Sometimes it is very difficult to fully understand the things going
> on in our equipment. Therefore, we should be careful with our
> explanations for these effects. I also agree, that everybody is free
> to use the equipment, that works best for a specific purpose (from
> his or her personal point of view), regardless of the theory...
In many ways a person used to recording sound indoors and such like is
almost a beginner if they move to nature recording. Lots of rules that
work well in studios may or may not work outdoors. And even if they do,
they may not be the best way to go about it. Nature recording pays
attention to a different set of mic specs from other parts of sound
recording. Or at least has a different priority.
Nature recording is wide open for new techniques to be discovered. And
I'm not sure it will ever reach the level of lockstep that music seems
to have. It's much harder to write the mic book that tells the setup to
record each situation.
Nature recording also has less money to spend, which changes how you do
things.
The requirement of portability as in packing it on your body also
restricts what we do. It does little good to compare portable gear to
studio gear for us.
And I definitely agree, it's hard to describe what's going on, even if
we know.
Walt
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
|