Doug Von Gausig wrote:
> Now I don't deny for a second that there are differences, as there are
> differences in digital vs analog transfers, 32-bit vs 16-bit editing, etc=
> etc. But I want to impress upon those who are just getting into this
> pursuit that the differences in your recordings will rely less upon wheth=
> you have the right sampling rate and the best possible D/A converters tha=
> they will on your recording technique in the field. That's where you can=
> make a huge difference.
> Your choice of mics, like a photographer's choice of lenses, where you
> position yourself, and your experience in the field will make all the
> difference in the world. All of the worry about sampling rates and analog=
> vs digital transfer may mean something to you in the distant future, but=
> for now worry about the things that you can easily affect - your recordin=
> My 2=A2.
With which I completely agree. The focus should be at the front end. How
many folks dithering over fine points of transferring sound into their
computer will be recording with mics that justify such dithering? Or a
good enough recorder? Or have the experience to use them? Or even get
out and record? Or listen with headphones or speakers that will show any
difference? Or have hearing still good enough to tell?
Everyone, get out there in the field and do some recording! Reading this
group lately you would often think it's a bunch of lab folks who never
go outside. Choosing equipment by endless "tests" in the lab. Rejecting
equipment without ever using it in the field on the basis of dubious
logic and often inappropriate tests. You want to know how equipment will
perform, get out there and get some experience recording your favorite
animal. A new piece of equipment is a occasion to get out in the field.
My field gear is kept ready to go at all times, and I use it frequently.
That's how you get good recordings. The entire process from then on to
produce a quality CD from them is mere trivia by comparison.
This is not a branch of computing. It, in fact can be done entirely
without computers. Though they can make it a bit easier AFTER you have
gotten that good recording. And computers introduce that endless upgrade
system that makes equipment obsolete and no longer supported practically
before you can get it out of the store. The more nature recording is
computerized, the greater the danger to our pocketbooks. And the less
field recording seems to get done.
I have spent over 12 hours out in the field this week alone, mostly in
the middle of the night. And it's a slow week, I'm trying to catch up on
some chores around the house and get a little riding time on my new
trike. I'll be out with a batch of beginners to frogcalls Saturday
evening, trying to suck in as many as I can to the joys of recording.
Anyone else been out?