Bear with me if I ramble a bit, Robin.
Curiosity about "Phonography" as a term. To me it sounds more like
art than nature so I looked it up:
Wiki says "Phonography, is an alternate name for Field recording" and
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Field_recording> adds:
"Field recording is the term used for any recording produced outside
of a recording studio.
Field recordings can be either of two varieties. Field recording of
natural sounds, also called Phonography (a term chosen to illustrate
its similarities to photography), was originally employed as a
documentary adjunct to research work in the field and foley work for
film. With the availability of high-quality portable recording
equipment, it has subsequently become an evocative art in itself.
Both processed and natural phonographic recordings (such as the
Environments series) are available.
Field recordings can also refer to on-site recordings of musicians,
such as those pioneered by John Lomax, Nonesuch Records and Vanguard
Records, where the use of a recording studio for these recordings is
impractical."
So, my live music recording in non-studio locations is phonography,
but not nature recording (unless perhaps outdoors with birds singing
along?).
Even "pure phonography" is not specifically nature sounds. It is an
interesting term of art!
But whether nature sounds, music recording, or documenting humans in
nature, I try to filter unwanted low frequesncies at the source,
either the mic's filter or the preamp/recorder's input or both... One
reason I like the SD filters available.
Just musing.
<L>
On Mar 26, 2009, at 2:44 AM, Robin Parmar wrote:
Makes good sense to me. I generally do this early in the mix process,
since summing tracks with high energy low frequency sound can reduce
your headroom and play havoc with other processing (compression
etc.). Of course here I'm thinking most of electroacoustic recordings
or soundscape composition rather than pure phonography, where mixing
and processing would generally be more minimal.
-- robin
|