> 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 tr=
ansfer
> 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 peop=
le
> 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 oft=
en
> 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 byt=
es,
> I try to put up as many examples as I can but as far as a group goes, apa=
rt
> 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 ther=
e.
>
> 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 w=
hich
>> > 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]
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
|