<<The cicada is loud enough that anything I did in audacity probably makes
little difference, but I would appreciate comments about the recording.
Does it sound strange in some way I don't recognise? I used compression
because some people said my last recording was "not loud enough".>>
Compression does a lot more than just make the file louder. It primarily al=
ters the internal dynamic relationships in the scene. Depending on your set=
tings, this can change the basic nature of the cicada's sound, both dynamic=
ally as well as timbrally. It also changes the foreground/background relati=
onship. Unless you are very familiar & experienced with the subtle applicat=
ion of compression, I would avoid it for any nature recording. I use compre=
ssion on a daily basis in my professional music recording business, but I c=
an't really picture any circumstances where I would want to compress a nat=
ure recording. (Speaking of normal broadband compression here, not multiban=
d dynamics processing, which I doubt Audacity provides.) I would recommend =
volume automation or simple normalizing, if you feel the overall volume nee=
ds to come up. Generally I find cicadas quite loud as is & don't mind avera=
ge levels down around -15dBFS or lower for these raucous insects.
<< I used the equaliser to de-emphasise everything under the cicada's ~2KHz=
signal
(which also got rid of a tiny bit of wind noise).>>
I hear the cicada as rather isolated from its surroundings. I find that hea=
vy filtering of lower frequency ambience, even though the primary focal poi=
nt may be a high pitched bird or insect many octaves above the filtering, t=
ends to render the scene rather artificial. It's a touchy point because nob=
ody wants to hear traffic mixed in with nature, yet a highpass filter which=
eliminates the traffic tends to divorce the primary subject from a sense o=
f reality, i.e. there is still a sense that, minus the traffic, there is mi=
ssing low frequency information.
That said, it IS a beautiful insect song.
Scott Fraser
|