Thanks Steve for those comments.
Phil
----- Original Message ----
From: Steve Pelikan <>
To:
Sent: Sunday, 4 February, 2007 4:33:44 AM
Subject: Re: [Nature Recordists] Recording recommendations?
Phil:
Congratulations --- nice recording! Thanks for sharing it. For
suggestions on how to improve equipment, technique, and individual
recordings, you've come to the right place ---- there are a lot of
experts here that are very generous with their insights.
Here's a reaction inspired by your clip that comes in the form of a long
rant related the importance of having clear intentions for a recording.
It might solicit useful comments and corrections from others, and then
I'll have learned something new.
Probably every person has his/her own reasons for making a recording and
the final determination of its quality or value depends primarily how
well it serves the recordist's intended purpose.
Most of the recordings I make, for example, are intended to tell me
something about their subject. I'm interested in the singing behaviour
of birds and so often want, more than anything else, a recording that
allows me to make the measurements I want of a song or call. This
requires strong signal, lack of distracting signals, a moderate lack of
microphone hiss, etc. For that sort of recording, stereo isn't very
important and neither is ultra high quality equipment.
Recording levels are very important, though. In my (admittedly limited)
experience it is far easier to ruin a recording by having the gain set a
bit too high rather than a bit too low. Especially if you're interested
in recording simple subjects, like a bird or two, I suggest that after a
while you'll probably come up with a few rules that handle most
situations (such and such a mic sensitivity and record level setting for
birds at more than 20 meters with no airplanes or nearby autos). Trial
and error led to my rules and they're basically designed to avoid
clipping (too high a record level) if something (un)lucky happens ---
Perhaps the bird will turn and directly face the microphone while
singing or fly right overhead while calling --- the sort of thing one
hates to miss out on.
Your recording would suit my purposes pretty well! For a single bird
singing I often try to get closer (or more signal relative to background
sounds) but for several birds at the same time, I'd say you've hit it
about right. An example of a 2-bird recording I'm happy with is at
http://homepages. uc.edu/~pelikas/ tuti-altercation .mp3 It is of a
territorial dispute between two Titmice. It was made with an ME62
microphone in a parabola connected to an old MD recorder. The only
processing I do on these sorts of recordings to get them ready for
casual listening is to attenuate low frequencies a bit. Like you, many
of my nearby sites have airplanes and auto traffic that become less
intrusive with a little filtering.
I'm getting interested in learning to make recordings that are better
representations of the place they were made rather than simple bird song
recordings. Then, things like a more careful analysis of the sound field
and placement of microphone(s) , more elaborate post-recording
processing, multiple channel recordings, and low-noise equipment all
come into play. Several mentors assure me that I've mentioned these
factors roughly in the order of decreasing importance.
If you haven't done so, I'd encourage you to get some headphones so you
can better hear what your recorder is hearing. Anything that'll exclude
most of the surrounding noises and let you concentrate on your recording
will help --- not one of those little "mp3-player- light-foam" jobs. I've
found that the ability to listen carefully before starting a recording
contributes more than anything else to getting what I want/intend and
thus to my satisfaction with the process and with the final product.
Steve P
=09
=09
=09=09
New Yahoo! Mail is the ultimate force in competitive emailing. Find out mor=
e at the Yahoo! Mail Championships. Plus: play games and win prizes.
http://uk.rd.yahoo.com/evt=3D44106/*http://mail.yahoo.net/uk
|