Posted by: "Rob Danielson"
> I can't see the resonance associated with better
> mics on any of the real time sonogram plugs I
> use. Wish I could! Rob D.
Is that because it's actually a function of your playback system and
room? Or particular to the state of health of your hearing? Do you
consider either of those to be a accurate representation of everyone
else's hearing and soundroom?
I have no problem spotting the resonance in the site I recorded in
sonograms. Though I'm pretty picky as to the sonogram software I choose.
Lots of sonogram software gives a pretty poor representation of the
actual sound signal. And no sonogram is perfect, you have to learn how
to read what it gives you. It's certainly worlds better than looking at
instantaneous frequency distribution snapshots.
To me a better mic does not produce resonance or mess with the sound but
accurately produces a signal that's a clear and accurate representation
of the sound that arrived at the mic.
A lot of the resonance that's talked about with studio mics is a
function of the recording room interacting with the mic design. The
recording "room" of outdoor sites is rather large with extremely complex
resonance of it's own. To think you are going to get the simple
resonance of the studio outdoors seems a bit simplistic as is choosing
mics based on studio use. Nature recording is a field of it's own, not
some branch of studio recording. I work at things like getting a clearly
defined echo from each treetrunk of the forest. If the mic is adding
resonance it just interferes. The same holds for overprocessing the
recording afterwards. One of the reasons why I don't like unattended
remote recording, I then don't really know what it sounded like out there.
Walt
|