> setting centered at 827 Hz. Is it just me, or do our elk sound like
> they are underwater once the hiss is removed? This may be something I
> am going to have to live with, because it seems at this point that I
> can either have background hiss or aquatic elk :)
Fwiw, I'd say about 80% of the digital-sounding "aquatic" artifacts I
hear I also hear in the original MP3 you sent me(!); I don't hear
*too* much added distortion from the noise reduction process (though
there is some). Btw if you can send me an uncompressed minute at full
fidelity I'd be curious if I can get results that are less
"aquatic"... :)
...but to answer one of your questions, your source recording does
have a quite low signal/noise ration relative to what I shoot for (and
can regularly get) -- you should be able to get a "cleaner" source
recording pretty easily with a good mix of practice (e.g. proximity to
sound source, recording without other noise sources around) and
still-inexpensive gear.
By way of comparison, here's another elk recording made by [group
participant] Lady Raven using an older MD recorder and a relatively
"noisy" Sony ECM957 consumer stereo mic:
http://www.quietamerican.org/download/other/elk.mp3
This is a great recording, and the total gear cost for those things
used today would be < $300 I'd guess.
best,
aaron
PS I am grateful she lent me this recording for the "one-minute
vacation" for October 13, 2003; see:
http://www.quietamerican.org/vacation_2.html
--
www.quietamerican.org
83% happy
9% disgusted
6% fearful
2% angry
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
|