Martyn Stewart wrote:
> What I mean Walt is patching sounds together, obviously if you are
> having different tracks then what you say is correct, but lets say you
> have one track consisting of distant river frogs and close river frogs
> following each other as a single track, it would sound unnatural, a
> little like this (I know this is crude) but you get my drift, most
> nature sound CD's that I have done have been from different locations
> joined as one but all of the same level.
I did this sort of thing on the Georgia frog cd. Part of the intent on
the ID tracks was to show variations. So, each 20 second track contains
calls from a number of sites. I did balance the parts as much as
possible, but they don't always flow due to the nature of the
variations. Which is what you are getting about. It's not so much that
the levels don't work together. And I was not worrying too much about
real smooth transitions. The ID material is very heavily filtered to
bring out just the call of interest as much as possible.
The second part of the CD is some 28 tracks of about a minute each.
worked up so they can be played like one long track. Frogs through the
seasons, it covers the whole calling season. The interface between each
track is a equal power crossfade centered on the track ends. And, of
course the levels have to be even for it to work. I was really surprised
how well it works. Frogs just come and go, but the transitions don't
stand out that much.
Actually on river frogs I have single recordings in which they start out
in the very far distance and get closer and closer until they are nearly
as close as I described. I don't have to invent that one. The big
problem with river frogs is that they call in places and seasons when
huge numbers of insects are calling.
Walt
Walt
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
|