naturerecordists
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: recording rig advice

Subject: Re: recording rig advice
From: "Walter Knapp" waltknapp
Date: Fri Aug 25, 2006 11:27 am (PDT)
Posted by: "cfmspencer"

> Walt, can you share what software you prefer?
> does it run on a Mac, and, if not, can you
> recommend an equivalent software that runs on a Mac?

You will have a hard time coming up with what I use even though it's
Mac. This is because it's discontinued software.

I use Bias' Peak for routine simple sound processing. For any kind of
serious filtering of soundfiles I'll use TC Works' SparkXL. This has the
advantage of a nice system of setting up sets of filters to run
simultaneously. And includes a pretty good sonogram that can be put
anywhere in the filter set to monitor. Routinely I'll have that at the
end after all the filtering and monitor what the filters are doing that
way. (as well as listening)

It's SparkXL that's discontinued, TC Works decided to drop the entire
product line. I have found that I can run the filter set system fairly
well as a plugin in Peak, though Peak sometimes chokes on it.

For sonograms for my website I generally use the Sonograms that
Soundhack can produce. By using it's dynamic range filtering I can get
clean looking sonograms that are easy for even the novice to understand.

Because SparkXL was discontinued I'm looking for a replacement sonogram.
In fact a replacement for the entire program for when I have heavy duty
filtering to do. Most sonograms either don't resolve details well
enough, or simply don't do a good job of displaying them. For a realtime
sonogram it takes a lot of processing to keep up, often the display part
is compromised to cut the processing load.

>>> Nature recording is a field of it's own...
>>> I work at things like getting a clearly
>>> defined echo from each treetrunk of the forest.
>
>
> Can you share how you 'work' at capturing such
> details as defined echos from each treetrunk?
>
> this seems beyond my skills, even in my dreams.
>
> perhaps this is as much an ability to 'hear' (borne
> from experience) as anything else?

Indeed, this sort of detail can be heard, you can learn to hear it by
experience. Half of the learning is just in being aware of the potential
and listening. Pick a quiet environment with a simple arrangement of
large tree trunks and listen. Late in the middle of the night is often
the best time for hearing this. Best picked out with the calls of a
single caller. Say a owl calling periodically.

Once you start hearing the details, you will find that they are
everywhere. Blind people are very good at this, I'm not up to navigating
by it yet. But to me already echos are not undefined blurs, but
individual reflecting objects.

It was when I started putting my mics up on a tall tripod that I began
to get clear enough recordings to start to see the potential of
capturing the detail. The problem with most recording is that close to
the ground you get too many echos. By getting out of this "ground
clutter" you can pick up the details of the echos from more distant
objects better. I've got a long ways to go before I'll be satisfied with
what I'm getting.

Since echos like this are faint it's necessary to have good mics that
don't color the recording. The SASS/MKH-20 is the one I use the most
this way. Though I can hear some of the detail with any of my mics. When
you start comparing mics to the details you are hearing you will also
get a different perspective to evaluate stereo in recordings.

Walt





<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>
Admin

The University of NSW School of Computer and Engineering takes no responsibility for the contents of this archive. It is purely a compilation of material sent by many people to the naturerecordists mailing list. It has not been checked for accuracy nor its content verified in any way. If you wish to get material removed from the archive or have other queries about the archive e-mail Andrew Taylor at this address: andrewt@cse.unsw.EDU.AU