John Hartog wrote:
> ...how separated in the natural time line can two sections of
> recording be before an invisible crossfade becomes deceptive?
>
> For albums, I usually address the issue by inserting a new track at
> each crossfade and labeling each track with the date and time. Though
> I may have chopped out several circles of a circling fly and also the
> second close-up merganser burp (that sounded to human) on one album
> without mention.
My background is music recording and tight, information-packed radio
program production, so my definition of "deceptive" might be very
different than someone else's. To me, if a natural soundscape
presentation is labeled as an untouched document, then invisible
crossfades would, of course, be deceptive -- otherwise not. However,
when I edit nature recordings I worry a lot about accidentally breaking
up natural rhythms that I'm not yet totally savvy to, but that more
experienced folks will notice. So I study the surrounding context very
carefully for clues and usually ask experts to point out any obvious
blunders.
Curt Olson
|