<<That's what a lot of us have been saying. In the perspective of the
overall sound quality in Nature Recording it approaches a tempest in a
teapot. Note carefully, I said Nature Recording, recording in a studio
or concert hall of music and such like is a different set of techniques
and goals>>
One uses the tool appropriate to the task, but in the final analysis,
periodic & aperiodic compressions & rarefactions of air pressure are
transduced into a time-varying voltage & eventually translated into a
series of pulse waves representing a binary approximation of the
original acoustic event. The system of translations is indifferent to
the acoustic origination of the air pressure disturbance and treats a
Stradivarius violin, a cicada, an orchestra, a wolf, ocean waves,
news reporters & wind turbines equally. The "client" may be
different, but getting the air pressure variations into the form of
zeroes & ones is all the same process.
<<and applying what music recordists do to what Nature Recording
should do, or even claiming that being expert in music recording makes
you more knowledgeable in Nature Recording is very questionable.>>
I initially thought this comment may have been directed at me, but
since I've never made any such claim, I'll let whoever stated that
music recording expertise made one more knowledgeable in nature
recording respond to this.
Scott Fraser
|