It strikes me that quality equipment is only one ingredient of a good
recording. You need other things just as much: first and foremost an
ability to spot an opportunity (quiet or otherwise acoustically
attractive location, subject likely to behave in an interesting way
etc), and an ability to perceive what your subject is likely to do and
when, and how it might move. In addition you need to make the best use
of the possibilities a location offers you, for example setting your
mic in a particular spot to use landscape features (embankment, dyke,
large tree etc) to filter out unwanted sounds from certain directions,
i.e. learn to perceive the sound paths and shadows in a location. And
there's also the question of how close to go without inhibiting the
behavior you want to record or worse still, scaring your subject away!
Take the same equipment and the same situation and there is still a
wide range of different recordings possible. All the above are things
one can work on, getting out into the field and experimenting, and the
challenge is to get the very best results with the equipment one can
afford and the opportunities that come one's way. Trial and error
doesn't cost an arm and a leg, like the latest bit of gear with
slightly better specs than the last! I've been following this list off
and on more or less since the start and only obtained one significant
additional bit of equipment in that time, a SASS with MKH-20s. What a
great idea though - it's given me some fantastic results! Thanks very
much Lang if you're still listening. But for most situations I'm more
dependent on my Telinga, which I try to use as inventively as possible.
Personally I don't see making recordings as purely an attempt to
capture something to reproduce later. I see it as something creative -
you are selecting a finite period from a particular acoustic point of
view, and this point of view is something which you have created by
putting yourself or your equipment there. More often than not the
subject will be aware of the recordist and normally you will want to
minimise your impact, but sometimes you might want to interact,
influence behavior. The playback equipment can change the recording in
any number of ways, and listeners will carry the creative process
further by bringing their own experience and point of view to
interpreting it. A recording cannot reproduce the thing recorded
because it has been taken out of context. As others have already
written the criteria for judging its quality depend on what the
recording is to be used for. If you want to astonish people with the
beauty of something you have heard, you need a different kind of
recording from when you want to show people how to pick out a rare bird
from a flock of commoner ones. What point of view do you want? To put
them on the ledge with the guillemots (murres), or to reproduce an
observer's experience from the clifftop? Or indeed to produce
recordings where certain parameters can be measured accurately?
Equipment is only the first requirement. There's a lot more to do once
you've settled on what gear to use!
cheers,
Magnus Robb
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
>From Tue Mar 8 18:25:50 2005
Message: 7
Date: Sat, 31 Jan 2004 07:58:11 -0000
From: "Roger C Boughton" <>
Subject: Re: Best Possible
Martyn,
Thats exactly correct, you can only get the best out of the best equipment =
when you've gone through the learning curve.
Of course, you can go through that learning curve with the best possible eq=
uipment !!! I'm glad I started with the basic cassette tape recorder in th=
e early 70's, learnt a great deal had to really work at getting a good reco=
rding.
Also agree with Dan a good mic into a basic machine is a much better combin=
ation than a basic mic into a quality machine.
Roger C Boughton
|