I have equipment value here in my studio totaling about $60.000 including
mics, does this make my equipment average? you equate Good enough with poor
quality, sure go out and chase the best (as they say) for the next
generation of tools but in the meantime, you tell me what is different to
the human ear and what we can perceive!
Are the old recordings of say the Beatles any worse than say Britney Spears=
?
Listen to these on an FM radio and I=92m afraid the comments come over as t=
his
is musical garbage, not the quality of the recording. I used to go and get
what was put to me as the latest recorder and in the end find it was just a=
s
good as what I had already got most of the time now, I go out with my Sharp
MD-DR7, I have recording samples all over the world and on various
compellations, its as good as it gets.
< I find it truly ironic that this post has the heading =B3MiniDisk data
transfer
> and bat recordings=B2>
I hit the reply button; I wasn=92t looking at the title of the string!!
* If good enough is good enough, then fine for you, but leave the
people who
> want and need
> newer and better tools alone to accomplish their works.>
I would never stop them chasing their goal but it gets a bit boring when al=
l
that you want to talk about is the very latest recorder and bit rates, it
seems that this group at times is an advertisement board for retailers.
Martyn
http://www.naturesound.org <http://www.naturesound.org/>
_____=20
From: Andrew Lackey
Sent: Saturday, January 24, 2004 10:46 PM
To: Nature Recordist
Subject: Re: [Nature Recordists] Minidisk data transfer and bat recordings
> This topic bubbles up everyone once in a while in my circles....and I say
> NEVER
> turn your back on technology. Master the techniques and the tools, and
> eventually
> the creativity and innovation in your works will help shape the next
> generation of tools.
> Its the cycle of human accomplish from fire to the wheel to the printing
press
> to the...
>
> If good enough is good enough, then fine for you, but leave the people wh=
o
> want and need
> newer and better tools alone to accomplish their works.
>
> I find it truly ironic that this post has the heading =B3MiniDisk data
transfer
> and bat recordings=B2
>
> It=B9s been reported that bats make sound well over 120khz. And since yo=
u
need
> twice the sample
> rate to capture a frequency....then, oh damn, 192k sample rate only gets
us up
> to 96k. I guess we=B9ll
> have to wait until the next generation of records to truly capture those
> =B3nature sounds=B2. I guess 192 will do
> for now.
>
> a different view
> andy
>
>
>
>
>
> Walt you say
>
> <I work on the concept of "good enough". It's all fine and dandy to waste
> lots of money chasing perfect if it amuses you, but what really counts
> is "good enough". If it will get the job done well, why spend extra?
>
> This seems to be something that is all too frequently ignored. People
> agonize over fluff and trivia. Make huge tempests in teapots. They spend
> huge sums of money on it. And they try to drag others into the game.
> It's well worth being practical and asking what level is "good enough">
>
>=20
>
> This is something that hits close to the heart with me Walt. So many
people
> in this group worry about the latest recorder and what it can do that the
> other can't, blah, blah blah.. The thing is, what you already have is
often
> good enough! To find a recorder better than say a Portadisk would be very
> hard indeed, and if you have one, why bother about going out to buy
> something else untried and tested to give results that nobody in the grou=
p
> really hear!
>
> Apart from the very few, nobody really posts any good recording sound
bytes,
> I try to put up as many examples as I can but as far as a group goes,
apart
> from maybe 4 or 5 people here, do you really record nature sounds or are
you
> to wrapped in the latest technology?
>
> I have maybe 4 or 5 very decent recorders and each one is as capable of
> delivering a good recording. Why bother in getting a new $2000 recorder?
>
> Challenge to the group.
>
>=20
>
> Lets hear what you have and let others listen to what is already out
there.
>
> Now, if you want to talk about mics, then that is a different question!
>
>=20
>
> _____=20
>
> From: Walter Knapp
> Sent: Saturday, January 24, 2004 3:50 PM
> To:
> Subject: Re: [Nature Recordists] Minidisk data transfer and bat recording=
s
>
>=20
>
> From: "Graham M Smith" <>
>> >
>> > Bruce,
>> >
>> >
>>>> >>> Short answer: the quality of the analog section and the accuracy o=
f
the
>>>> >>> digital one.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > So I might get away with the lower cost option for what I am doing. It
>> > certainly seems worth trying out a couple of options before deciding
which
>> > to use. Bearing in mind that I am going to need up to 20 of them.
>
> I work on the concept of "good enough". It's all fine and dandy to waste
> lots of money chasing perfect if it amuses you, but what really counts
> is "good enough". If it will get the job done well, why spend extra?
>
> This seems to be something that is all too frequently ignored. People
> agonize over fluff and trivia. Make huge tempests in teapots. They spend
> huge sums of money on it. And they try to drag others into the game.
> It's well worth being practical and asking what level is "good enough"
>
> In recording perfect is unobtainable, in fact compared to the original
> sound at the mic the very best is very crude. And each person's opinion
> about what they hear if at the mic location would be different. I work
> on "good enough".
>
> Think about all the folks making that so called perfect recording. Just
> so someone can play it on a boombox with speakers half dead from being
> played too loud. Or $5 headphones. Or make a crude sonogram of it. Or
> play it on what passes for a good home stereo these days. "good enough"
> for your audience has a certain meaning.
>
> Now, I've found that my "good enough" or "barely acceptable" magically
> turns into things like "excellent" when handed off to the listeners.
> Should I spend the money or time to get it to where I call it
> "excellent"? Something I'll probably never do about my stuff no matter
> how much I like it.
>
> This is particularly true in science, where funds are always limited.
> "good enough" is what you are after. At least according to this scientist=
.
>
> Walt
>
>
>
>
>
>
> _____=20
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
> * To visit your group on the web, go to:
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/naturerecordists/
>=20=20
> * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
>
> <=3DUnsubscrib=
e>
>=20=20
> * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo!
> <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/> Terms of Service.
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
> * To visit your group on the web, go to:
> * http://groups.yahoo.com/group/naturerecordists/
> *=20
> * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> *
> <=3DUnsubscrib=
e>
> *=20
> * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service
> <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/> .
>
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
_____=20
Yahoo! Groups Links
* To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/naturerecordists/
=20
* To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
<=3DUnsubscribe>=
=20
* Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo!
<http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/> Terms of Service.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
|