kontroletti1969 wrote:
> Hello everyone!
> I wondered whether anyone could recommend how I to get the best out
> of your recording. I have access to Cool Edit Pro and can transfer
> the recordings via the HHB Portadisc. So far I have managed to
> transfer the audio and burn to a CD. When I hear some of the
> recordings posted here, I notice that they are so much louder and
> crisper than mine. I wondered whether I could improve the sound of
> my recordings or wether the recordings are just not "improvable".
> Nonetheless, I really would like to learn how to use Cool Edit Pro
> and about sound recording and sound editing in general. Your
> recommendations are highly appreciated.
> Regards,
> Lars
The sound you get is a result of the entire system. From the mic all the
way through whatever sound processing you do. Start with the mic you are
using. Is it a good mic with the sound style you want? And is it
appropriate for the task at hand. Far too many try to record things too
far away for the mic they are using. Check out how you are setting
levels. For digital you want to make sure you don't clip, so have to
always have a pad. I would say most of what you are hearing in other's
recordings are a result of their use of the equipment they have rather
than software manipulation. Nature recording has kind of a tradition of
getting the recording in the field and not manipulating it.
Only once you have a recording that's as good as you can get do you get
into filtering and so on. Most filtering will remove the crispness
rather than improve it. In general filtering has to be applied lightly.
If ambiance is desired very little filtering can be done without being
noticeable. Much more severe filtering can be used, for instance, to
bring out a individual call for ID.
I use macs and Peak and SparkXL, so can't give specific instructions for
Cool Edit. In general you filter to remove parts of the frequency range
containing unwanted sounds, or parts of the dynamic range (generally to
remove some faint unwanted sound), or you may do removal and
replacement, for instance by substituting a bit of quiet sound section
for a spot where some unwanted call occurs. There are also noise filters
that, by one method or another remove some of the underlying noise, they
definitely cannot be applied very strongly. I find it's highly valuable
to check the results by sonogram, where you can see what was removed.
It's very easy to trim part of the call you want, a sonogram helps to
avoid that. This is why I use SparkXL for most of my filtering, it's got
the ability to set up the entire stack of filters and stick a sonogram
in to check, and then adjust while playing and watching the sonogram.
I would say one of the first things to learn in software manipulation is
interpreting sonograms. The math involved in sonograms does not give a
perfect picture, and you need to learn to sort reality from artifact.
Loudness is not the kind of goal so many think it is. True
representation of most ambiance and calls would not be all that loud.
Definitely don't get into the kind of distorted dynamic range
compression common in music. A sound compressor is generally the last
tool to consider in nature recording, and is only extremely rarely
needed, and then only sparingly.
Walt
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
|