From: "Roger C Boughton" <>
>
> Dear All,
>
> While I do not disagree with Walt re "good enough". I have to point out =
that there is a great need for somebody out there to maintain the best stan=
dards that it is possible to obtain.
>
> If this means investing in equipment, so be it, as long as it is done wis=
ely and the person doing the investment has the skill to use it.
>
> Accepting a lower than possible standard is an individual thing. If you =
are happy with the lower standard, well ok, but in this world where there s=
eems to be a continual "dumming down " of quality for ease of use, it is go=
od to know that there is someone out there striving to get the very best qu=
ality recordings.
>
> As for proving that quality over the internet, well forget it !! unless =
that is you have the system that can download a decent length 24/96 BWAV fi=
le quickly.
>
> Roger C Boughton
Do not equate "good enough" with "poor quality" or "not maintaining
standards". My "good enough" may far exceed the quality standards
demonstrated by most of this group. And is not a set target. In fact
it's a whole set of targets for different purposes. I have a "good
enough" for recording a bat detector. But that differs from my "good
enough" for recording a swamp full of frogs for scientific research (and
that one has sub categories depending on the purpose of the research),
and that all differs from "good enough" for listening for enjoyment with
my Sony MDR-V900 headphones. And that differs from "good enough" for
playing the recording with the magnaplane speakers in my stereo system.
And that differs from producing a ID clip to teach someone the call of a
given species of frog. On whatever equipment they might use.
Nor does "good enough" preclude the trial of and investing in new
equipment. It does say that buying for some spec that has no practical
value is inappropriate. That is, if anything, just a form of technical
snobbery, becoming more and more common. Obviously in a group devoted to
technical oneupmanship, "good enough" is the very best, and a new very
best the next minute to buy. The playing of that game is a variation of
potlatch. I seriously question the value of advancing the field into
useless spec following. It's a hobby of little practical value.
For science the pressing need is more eyes and ears. It's for getting
more folks out in the field recording. Promoting the continual
"upgrading" and expensive equipment above what is needed is a serious
detriment to the efforts of some of us to entice new people into the field.
I'm the guy that people keep grumping about or making cutting remarks
for spending money on MKH mics. Which as you noted people will never
fully appreciate from samples put on the internet. I did not buy such
mics to make folks grump, I could care less about such things. And I
don't do potlatch. I bought those mics to make "good enough" nature
recordings.
Walt
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
|