When reading this again, I find that I probably sound pecky. I'm not,
just trying to explain something.
Klas.
At 22:07 2007-02-25, you wrote:
>Let me first say a few words (?) on sync sound:
>
>One of the strongest scenes in "The Godfather" is the very
>"effectless" scene where Marlon Brando plays with his grandson. It
>ends with a heart attack and the godfather dies.
>
>When I first saw that scene, I reacted instantly, emotionally. As the
>micmaker I am, I had a quick look at the trees in the background and
>though "this is sync sound"! On the other hand I couldn't believe it!
>Sync sound in a Hollywood production???
>Later I was told that this scene was improvised and that it was
>"easiest way" sound recording, Two mic's on the camera, sort of...
>
>On the other hand, I sometimes see movies with explosions of sounds
>and effects and get all cold and un-interested. A sound producer once
>told me that if you have the correct human sound to a scene where
>someone falls down a skyscraper, the audience would probably vomit by
>instinct and leave. So, therefore, you have to distort the whole
>situation, by adding a typical "film-scream" to the scene.
>
>I think you are quite right, Geoff, when you speculate over my
>stress. Recording the way you have, you loose all "natural"
>background information which you need.
>(Volker also made this observation, but explained it in another way.)
>
>We humans (hunters, animals, as we are) - are terribly dependent on
>such matters! Once, long ago, this fantastic multi-functional feature
>- "interpreting background information" - made us react in a
>lifesaving way, judging where a noise came from and how far away it
>was and how it was moving. Probably a lot more, too, which we never
>observe at a conscious level.
>
>In psychology "we" talk about "perceptual constancy" which means that
>you can see a round wheel from the side, - that is an oval - still
>see it as round. The brain "knows", and compensates.
>But you can also make a strange framework around this wheel, -
>figures and things, - cheating the eye to see an oval. Then, the
>brain gets the wrong data about what is around the wheel, and make a
>wrong conclusion.
>
>Same with a dawn-chorus. If your brain doesn't get the correct
>"audio-perspective," something stressful is going to happen. On a
>totally unconscious level, the healthy brain with good ears (me??!)
>starts to deal with the question "what the f-k is going on here "???
>
>I had a hard time believing that it was humans, singing! On the other
>hand, I visited your web-site, - downloaded a file and got the same
>impression as Volker. So I said "why not"...
>Life is fantastic...
>
>Klas.
>
>
>At 18:22 2007-02-25, you wrote:
> >Volker, I should point out that the audio clips on my website are the
> >actual field recordings of birds, not the audio from the installation
> >at the Baltic, which is produced by humans. There has been no
> >fiddling with time on the field recordings, nor any editing. The
> >tracks have been panned within the stereo field to reflect the
> >position of the mic in our recording space; levels were fairly even
> >across the tracks, except where an individual bird was very close to
> >a mic, then it was lowered.
> >
> >I'm interested that Klas found the one he listened to stressful.
> >There are two factors that might contribute to this.
> >
> >First consider how these recordings were made. An array of 14 mics
> >spaced out over an area of roughly 100m diameter, and placed in
> >positions where we expected birds to sing. In any one sequence only a
> >few birds were close over mics, others would be some distance off.
> >
> >Normally one hears the spacial array of a whole group of singers from
> >a single perspective and the more distant singers will sound more
> >distant and have less high frequency content in the sound that
> >reaches the listener. In this recording it's like having 14 ears on
> >the end of long tentacles, so the multiplicity of individual sound
> >sources are less degraded. This could well contribute an overbearing
> >effect on listening to the recording.
> >
> >But the second factor is simply down to the nature of the dawn
> >chorus. Personally I find the peak of a dawn chorus in a woodland
> >edge/scrub/suburban garden type habitat pretty cacophonous (in our
> >temperate region). Sure it's an impressive phenomenon, but not the
> >best time to appreciate the beauty of the birdsong - that comes
> >later, once the intensity of the first wave is over. Say after 5am.
> >
> >This was one of the aspects we wanted to document accurately - how
> >all the individual parts contribute to the whole in a real world
> >chorus. One of the things we found was that there was more movement
> >than we expected during this first wave (when it's still difficult to
> >see) and birds seemed to sing from different spots than they would
> >later.
> >
> >Our scientific adviser on the project was Peter MacGregor who had
> >also tried recording with a multi-mic array as part of a University
> >of Copenhagen study. They had 6 mics and were researching the use of
> >space by singing blackbirds. He said they found it impossible to work
> >during the dawn chorus since there was just too much going on and
> >soon switched to working with great tits (much simpler song) later in
> >the morning.
> >
> >We're hoping to put together a discussion about all this on radio to
> >coincide with the Bristol airing of the show.
> >
> >What we were agreed on is that the dawn chorus is a more complex
> >phenomenon than is generally given credit, particularly in such
> >densely populated habitats as woodland edge. There is intense
> >competition for acoustic space and it could well be that this is the
> >most stressful period of singing for the birds themselves. So maybe
> >Klas is close to the state of bird!
> >
> >Finally, we ended up using the Brada session for the show, mainly
> >because we had 3 male blackbirds singing synchronously for a few
> >periods within our miced arena. Which was unusually close together.
> >So maybe that also is contributing to the overall competitive and
> >sonic tension. One thing for sure, it's a dense tangle of sound. From
> >my experience in selling CDs of my recordings (stereo), if someone
> >wants some relaxing birdsong to listen to, I tend to steer them away
> >from a literal *dawn* chorus.
> >
> >It might make for a more listenable mix if I treated it more like a
> >symphony and picked one or two soloists and backed off the other
> >channels. In many ways I don't think this is an audio document that
> >bears easy listening, it's more something to investigate.
> >
> >Hope this maybe clarifies a bit what the recordings represent, Geoff.
> >
> >
> >Geoff Sample
> >
> >Wildsong Studios
> >Northumberland, UK
> >
> >
> >http://www.wildsong.co.uk
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >"Microphones are not ears,
> >Loudspeakers are not birds,
> >A listening room is not nature."
> >Klas Strandberg
> >Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> >
>
>Telinga Microphones, Botarbo,
>S-748 96 Tobo, Sweden.
>Phone & fax int + 295 310 01
>email:
>website: www.telinga.com
>
>
>
>
>
>
>"Microphones are not ears,
>Loudspeakers are not birds,
>A listening room is not nature."
>Klas Strandberg
>Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
Telinga Microphones, Botarbo,
S-748 96 Tobo, Sweden.
Phone & fax int + 295 310 01
email:
website: www.telinga.com
|