Hi David,
Try experimenting with parametric EQ between 125Hz and 500hz when you
get a chance (rather than LF roll-off). Let us know what you think.
Often, the most objectionable sounds are in this region where the
waves interact with the local acoustic to create "muddiness" for mics
and speakers-in-rooms that our ear-brains easily "cut-through" in the
field.
We wouldn't think of playing down the role of the first three octaves
of an experience with music. Maybe there is a lesson to learn from
our reaction to our recordings? In my observations it seems that the
animals can more easily and decidedly distinguish danger from
non-danger than I. They make a decision and move on. Humans linger
in indecision. Could it be _our_ "alarm" that we are attempting to
eliminate with filtering? Some of us spend a lot of time wondering
about how other animals are "taking it," but its very possible that
we humans are having a much more difficult time. I'm not a biologist,
but isn't 200 years a pretty short period of time to adjust to an
ever increasing crescendo? (This is something I've started to think
about in trying to write a review for Gordon Hempton's book. Maybe we
humans need to stop lingering and scream, "Hey! This-Is-Dangerous. We
must do something about it!!!! Go into animal mode and make cuts
more powerful than EQ)
I like to think when I EQ that I'm trying to find a balance in the
presence of the sound elements that is similar to that I heard on
location. We're only working with one recording, one image of a very
broad spectrum of frequencies that are filling the spaces we record.
By making modest dents and accentuations in the spectrum with
parametric EQ, problems with the gear and louder play playback levels
can be lessened. When I make a "hole" in the spectrum with too much
filtering or chop off an end, it redefines, actually limits, the
amount of "balance" that is possible in the experience. I don't mean
to suggest there's anything really important about this technique per
se, but in a way, we all are talking about making the "right"
reaction. Rob D.
=3D =3D =3D
At 12:57 PM +0000 4/6/09, David Michael wrote:
>Hi Steve
>
>I also like to record soundscapes. From a scientific perspective, it
>is interesting to leave in all the frequencies that you can pick up
>with your equipment, but "microphones are not ears" as they say.
>
>If the recording is intended for general entertainment, and not
>science, then I find that filtering out the lowest part of the
>spectrum makes for a nicer listening experience. My personal rule of
>thumb when running this highpass filter is to not chop out the
>biology. So a filter that removes everything below 200Hz will cut
>out alot of traffic and airplane sounds but may not be appropriate
>for a Bullfrog chorus.
>
>Best
>David
>
>--- In
><naturerecordists%40yahoogroups.com>=
m,
>"Steve Pelikan" <> wrote:
>>
>> Friends:
>>
>> This is a subject that has been touched on often but never
>>discussed explicitly (in my memory) and that is low frequency
>>filtering of "ambient" recordings.
>>
>> I've started to get interested in making stereo recordings of
>>entire "sound scapes" --- meaning whatever is there --- and am in
>>the process of deciding how I'll treat such recordings --- so I'd
>>appreciate other people's opinions.
>>
>> My understanding of the 'elevated' low Hz 'noise' in most settings
>>is that most of it (that I experience) is low Hz man made noise
>>that carries a long way because of its wave length ( Hi Hz
>>interacts with "stuff" and disappears rather quickly with distance).
>>
>> When I'm out to document things I record w/o filters. This is in
>>the eastern US where there's lots of manmade sound. When I want
>>something that "sounds nice" I use (or process with) a low Hz
>>filter (10 dB to 20 db/ octave starting at 160 -600 Hz, say).
>>
>> I've heard "professional" recording with _nothing_ below 200 Hz
>> and they sound goofy to me. I've been tempted to filter recordings
>>more heavily but realized that it (for eg) might eliminate low Hz
>>thumps of a woodpecker on a rotten stump.
> >
>> How do you al think about this issue? What do you do?
>>
>> Sometimes I put on a low Hz filter so I can set the overall record
>>level higher (buy headroom by eliminating something under 100 Hz).
>>Sometimes I really miss the low Hz stuff.
>>
>> Sorry for this elementary and ambiguous posting/question but it
>>think there is room for some discussion on this topic. In the end
>>we all need to listen carefully and do what sounds best for a
>>particular setting, but I'm curious if there is a general
>>understanding about this matter.
>>
>> Cheers! (and Good Recording! which others have used and seems a
>>superior salutation)
>>
>> Steve P
>>
>
>
>
--
|