Hi John,
I never said that Michael's recording was not relevant to this group. Micha=
el presented his recording to the group not as a nature sound recording but=
as a recording of a barn roof. Chris posed his (now retracted) perspective=
that it was not a nature sound recording. Michael dismissed Chris by sayin=
g that at least his recording is better than all the tech "crap" talk. My =
statement that it is not a nature sound recording, along with all I am writ=
ing now, might as well be retracted too, because this is all too knit-picky=
to put any more thought into.
John Hartog
--- In "jtudor2005" <> wrote:
>
>
>
> --- In "hartogj" <hartogj_1999@> wrote:
> >
> > Hi Michael,
> > A recording of metal roof is a stretch for a nature recording.
> >
> > John Hartog
> >
>
> Isn't this why the other 'Nature Recording' forum was started. To allow t=
his one to spread it's net a little wider.
>
> Remember all the curfuffle about a splinter group only wanting to talk 'P=
ure' nature recording, rather than the other things that this group talked =
about.
>
> And to jog the memory, here is the description of what THIS group is abou=
t.
>
> 'This moderated group is interested in techniques, issues and general dis=
cussion of recording natural sounds. Topics include, but aren't limited to =
recording techniques and equipment, recording venues and discussions of var=
ious animal vocalizations and communication. Other natural sounds, such as =
water, weather and wind-generated sounds are valid topics.'
>
> In that context, I think ambient sounds (including rain on a roof) have a=
relevant place in THIS particular group. And I'm not sure how you could re=
ally disagree with that.
>
|