Posted by: "Syd Curtis"
> You apparently feel the advice to be unnecessary; and there I differ from
> you.
I agree with you completely, it's needed more than ever here. We have
far too many people in here who hardly seem to get out in nature.
Klas' words don't say you can't attempt to make a perfect recording.
They just say that however perfect you think it is, there is the
potential to do better, get a recording that is even more like nature.
Though you will never arrive at the perfect recording. If that disturbs
you, maybe you need to look at yourself, investigate your ego.
> This mailing list is (was?) about recording the sounds of nature. Certainly
> that warrants some discussion of equipment for doing so, but just how
> relevant is it to get the absolute maximum in fidelity under
> laboratory/studio conditions, when natural sound in the world at large
> changes as soon as it leaves the source? And changes very substantially
> once you get any significant distance away, and even more so if there are
> any obstacles, trees for example, to reflect/refract sound waves.
With the direction this group has been evolving I've come to view it as
only marginally about actual nature recording. It's become, and has the
reputation of a technical equipment group. That is a part of nature
recording, but only a part, and should not be the dominant part. Even as
a technical equipment group, I'm offended by the lack of scientific
method in all that.
> There will always be persons just starting out in recording, and they are
> unlikely to appreciate in advance just how sound changes with distance. It
> is far from immediately obvious, for example, that the higher the
> frequencey, the greater the attenuation with distance. For them, Klas's
> advice is pertinent.
It's more than just distance. The equipment, and the way we finally
listen to our recordings also only make a imperfect representation. And
to top it all off, our own hearing is a interpretation of what our ears
mechanically picked up. Our emotions, our beliefs about different
equipment, how much we like or dislike the animal we are recording all
change what our mind "hears". (and it's that interpretation of various
minds about what the ears "heard" that is the house of cards here about
equipment evaluation) A simple reminder seems all too appropriate, at
least some will understand the wisdom.
It's a problem that experts in this group object to good advice for
beginners.
Walt
|