Thanks for the opportunity to share impressions
Matt! You might try running "master" as an
archive search. There are some very long strings
on the subject of EQ within the context of
mastering for a known product in post production.
I prefer the original of the two because the two
primary elements preserved in the recording (a
machine-oriented drone and the thrush) retain
more overall relation and tonal balance. The
dish, or some other factor, has attenuated most
of the lower-end energy of the original setting.
Lows are critical for space because they
establish the sound horizon-- sounds that are
distant relative to those that are close. The
last time i did a crude test, about 70% of the
energy, even in my remote location recordings,
was under 700Hz, much of that under 125Hz.
Perhaps using more low-end roll-off in your
equalization further challenged a quest for more
balance. (There are others more familiar with
dishes who can talk about the way they shape the
low-end-- or another subject you can search in
the archive.
Recordings like this one can be very effective
mixed into a full range ambient stereo "bed."
Once you have a recording of an actual space and
understand its strengths, then its easier to
experiment with EQ and simple time delays and
simple reverb patches to get reflections that are
consistent with the acoustics of the space.
Without spatial cues to start with, its very hard
for me to figure out what the heck I'm even
trying to do! Yes, posting presents issues of
subjectively, but if recording can be considered
an "art," it might stem from the ability to
capture enough cues in the field to be able to
build upon them consistently through the whole
process. Rob D.
At 8:57 PM -0800 5/29/06, Matt Goff wrote:
>I finally got around to building a handle for the Telinga dish and pair of=
=A0
>Shure 183 mics that I purchased some months ago. Thanks to all the=A0
>various folks on this list for the help along the way (including those=A0
>with webpages with diagrams for the handle; I did not follow the plans=A0
>exactly, but I got something workable which I will try to photograph and=
=A0
>document on-line sometime soon).
>
>So for the last couple of evenings I went out with the dish and did some=
=A0
>recording of Swainson's Thrushes singing around my house. The neighbors=
=A0
>and boat traffic were not entirely cooperative, but I did manage to get a=
=A0
>few verses without obvious talking or boat engine noise. However, I did=
=A0
>record in a location where there was a steady fairly quiet, but audible=A0
>hum (mostly from pumps that run constantly to supply water to a=A0
>wetlab/aquarium just down the hill from where we live).
>
>I work on a pretty tight budget for sound stuff, so I am using Audacity to=
=A0
>do whatever processing I need to, for now.
>
>My ears are fairly untrained so I am wondering what kinds of things I=A0
>should listen for to determine if I am overdoing the processing.
>I have put up two versions of a clip from my recent recordings at
>http://www.sitkanature.org/temp_photo/05-27thrush.html
>
>One of them is the original version, the second is a filtered version=A0
>where I did both high and low pass filters (though I am not sure exactly=
=A0
>how those work, I kind of understand what's happening) and amplified the=
=A0
>result somewhat.
>
>Thanks for the help,
>
>Matt Goff
>
>
>
>"Microphones are not ears,
>Loudspeakers are not birds,
>A listening room is not nature."
>Klas Strandberg
>Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
--
Rob Danielson
Peck School of the Arts
University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee
http://www.uwm.edu/~type/audio-art-tech-gallery/
|