Barb Beck wrote:
> Look, he is trying for a learning CD. I do not have the greatest equipm=
ent
> (stuck with tape because of Cornells great advice) and my recordings are
> not the greatest but often it is the background outdoor NATURAL noise tha=
t
> is far more than any tape hiss etc. The goal here is to get something ou=
t
> for people to learn to identify the critters from. I record a lot in are=
as
> with aspen. I am not sure those trees even need a slight breeze to make
> noise - I am totally convinced that the leaves rustle when it is dead sti=
ll
> 8~) and if the leaves are not making the noise your recordings sound like
> they were made in the rain (tent catipiller outbreaks) Actually I prefer
> recordings that have not been overly processed making the recording "soun=
d"
> great but the bird not sound natural - particularly when high frequency
> stuff is removed. On the prairies you have the wind factor except
> (sometimes) for a short time in the early morning. Our boreal forest has=
a
> very high number of breeding birds and everything happens at once. My
> biggest prolem is somewhat isolating the bird. Often removing other spec=
ies
> really ruins the recording.
>
> Get out there, record the dialects in your area. Get a convenient sound
> editor and go from there.
I agree, this is not rocket science, a basic sound editor will get you
started. Where you go from there depends on your own particular
philosophy. Working the computer part is just like the field part, you
need to jump in and do it, gain experience. From that experience you can
add to your computer software as necessary.
If trying to do it cheaply, a little research on software options is
worthwhile. The rock bottom stuff may not be the way to go for the
process, but the studio stuff may be overkill and a half. Somewhere in
between will be the least expensive over the long haul. Software you can
grow into, or has a good upgrade path is not a bad way to go.
For most nature recordists multichannel setups are simply not necessary.
We record in mono or stereo, one or two channels. And don't do much
mixing. Why pay for all that capability? Look for good software for mono
or stereo.
I recommend Peak primarily because of it's good waveform display. It
makes it easy to find a exact point in a recording to have that display
out there all the time. It has a set of basic tools that work well too.
And it has a less expensive form that's pretty capable and is upgradable
to the full package. It has been a bit weak on filters, though that's
changing. It will do all the basic stuff and you will find the work easy.
And definitely, you have to learn a light touch on things like
filtering. I'm not sure I completely agree on keeping everything in on
ID clips, maybe because frogs often come in multispecies groups,
compared to birds that are generally easier to get the species you want
as the clear singer. For the frog cd it was decided to try and eliminate
all other species if possible. Without changing the calls wanted. But,
for the chorus material very little filtering was done.
I agree there always is some noise in the environment that's perfectly
natural, from the rustle of aspen to the insects down here.
I also believe that a learning CD should be listenable as much as
possible. I've listened to quite a few such CD's for frogs in the last
year as we decided on ours. The quality varies from really good to
awful. We should try for the really good, which is not easy.
Remember, not all that many years ago tape was the only way. It worked
then, and can do good work. Yes, we have some better recorders now, but
regardless of the recorder you have, the goal should be to get the best
the equipment can do.
Walt
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
|