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">
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 group
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 yo=
u
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.
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
From: Walter Knapp
Sent: Saturday, January 24, 2004 3:50 PM
To:
Subject: Re: [Nature Recordists] Minidisk data transfer and bat recordings
From: "Graham M Smith" <>
>
> Bruce,
>
>
>>> Short answer: the quality of the analog section and the accuracy of 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 whic=
h
> 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
* 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]
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
|