At 3:26 PM +0000 5/24/07, geopaul7 wrote:
>In descending order of importance, these
>elements affect the quality of a nature sound
>recording: They have non-linear abilities to affect quality.=A0
>
>1. Fieldcraft: This is the concept of using
>one's natural history and ecological knowledge
>to be in the right sonic place at the right
>time. Do you know your subject? Can you get
>close? Have you chosen a place where there is
>little or no machine noise? Will you scare
>your subject away? Do you know the likely
>singal to noise ratio? Have you chosen an
>interesing subject? Do you have a good ear?
>Are you tuned into the biophony?=A0=A0
>"Fieldcraft" is taken from Knapp, 2007. All
>great nature recordists are masters in this area.
>
>2. Technique: The ability to use one's given
>equipment and technology to make a
>technically fine recording. Are you using your
>equipment correctly? Do you have the
>gains and other settings adjusted for maximum
>effect? Are you using the right equipment
>for the conditions? Is there handling or human noise? Etc.
>
>3. Microphone. This is, from what I have
>gathered, normally the limiting factor, and the
>sonically and representationally defining
>factor, in your equipment. Quality, type,
>timbre.
>
>4. Preamp.
>
>5. Recording Device.
>
>Some would fold 4 into 5, but if you stay
>separate there are five: Fieldcraft, technique,
>microphone, preamp, recorder. Accordingly, when
>we discuss digital recording devices,
>we discuss something that may be 1/50th to
>1/100th as important as discussing where
>and when to go to record nature, and something
>that is not nearly so important as
>microphones.
>
>This is being offered as a good natured
>suggestion to prioritize the importance of
>topics,
>without taking away the extremely fun "gear
>talk," that comes from our archetypal
>appreciation for tools.=A0
>
>GP
>
>
Impressive list of factors and potential
decisions, George. Your ranking seems about
right to me.
Of course, great, quality recordings mean
different things to different people, but being
in the right place at the right time from
experience and knowledge is a huge factor,.. like
70-80%. We all enjoy hearing tips from
naturalists and aspiring naturalists about this.
Somewhere in 1 in 2,,.. I'd maybe add something
about mic positioning and spatial imaging. On a
larger scale, these include adjustments for the
locations of living species as well as more
stationary geological and biological forms
(plants rocks, ground etc) that affect sound
transmission, abatement and reflection. On a
smaller scale, adjustments to the mic rig such as
height, pitch, spacing, shock-mounting, etc that
affect stereo imaging. Recordists who "wait-out"
subjects might pay more attention to large scale
positioning than recordists who "seek-out" their
subjects.
In 3-4,. I would agree that mic quality is the
most common technically limiting factor but there
can be some exceptions.
Rob D.
|