> I think the biggest problem you'll face is knowing whether or not
you
> have made a good recording. There doesn't seem to be a huge
amount of
> 'field recordings for the sake of field recording' available on
the net.
> Perhaps all list members should be required to upload
several
> files with notes of kit used, and what they think is good or bad
about
> the recording...
I suppose the term 'good recording' is open to interpretation -
professionals might seek those which are clear enough to be used for
demonstration or archival purposes, but I am aiming for those which
are interesting from an aesthetic point of view. As for commercially
available recordings, I have been very impressed by the work of
Chris Watson (released as CDs on Touch Records), but I believe his
were achieved with the most expensive equipment available. I suppose
one of the most difficult things to record well is the sound of
weather, and he has captured wind recordings from storms, gales, and
even tornadoes which have a very clear sound quality.
>No, you won't be able to isolate the sound of a sparrow at 500
>yards from the Piccadilly Circus traffic, but you have
>perfect microphones for recording the traffic itself.
Haha - motor traffic is really the ubiquitous noise in cities, and
it gets monotonous, but there are plenty of potential sound sources
in the Piccadilly area. I am interested in attempting to capture the
ambience of resonant acoustic spaces, such as churches, and the
underpasses of the tube system (that's why discrete equipment is
preferable when trapped among disgruntled commuters). Also, the sort
of modern 'nature sounds' of the urban environment that most people
would be at pains to block out, such as air conditioners, buzzing
lighting, and other autonomous electrical/mechanical processes.
Weather is of course a much more challenging prospect, but it is a
field which interests me.
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
|