It plays all over the place, Wayne. Some folks actually believe that
the tech they use reproduces what they hear faithfully. An inveterate
skeptic, I just hold to the thought that some of my recordings may be
better than others (of mine and other folks). But that's a fragile
aesthetic call since 'who's to judge?' and 'what the hell do I know?'
I've lost a month's work because I screwed up in the field. Not a
good recommendation for one who's supposed to be at least competent.
Anyway, if you like what you get, then it's right and go with it. And
the other opinions be damned. Just enjoy what you do and do it as
best you can with what you've got to work with.
Bernie Krause
Wild Sanctuary, Inc.
P. O. Box 536
Glen Ellen, California 95442-0536
Tel: (707) 996-6677
Fax: (707) 996-0280
http://www.wildsanctuary.com
>All this recent talk about pre-amp noise and microphone noise has me
>wondering about coloration in nature recording. Unless people are using
>omni microphones (and recent posting suggest people are using hypers and
>shotguns) then there will be some frequency bumps and drops. This in
>addition to some of the preamps talked about leads me to believe that
>there will be some alteration in the sound. As a very rank amateur in
>this field (although I have done my time in a studio), I'm wondering if
>this matters much or since most people are trying to capture a specific
>species of animal this doesn't play that big of a role. Anyhow, I'm
>curious how all this plays into this field.
>
>Wayne
>
>
>
>
>"Microphones are not ears,
>Loudspeakers are not birds,
>A listening room is not nature."
>Klas Strandberg
>Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
--
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
|