I'm sure there have already been discussions around these kinds of question=
s already on this group but it's interesting so:
1) just to clarify again, I myself am not interested in amplifying an envir=
onment in the way Martyn describes. In working with room acoustics (as a so=
und source rather than a colouring to other sounds in the space) the issue =
of gain levels / mic choice / recorder pre's is somewhat different though a=
s it is not about capturing a 'reality' that is available to our naked ears=
.
2) imo it is impossible to capture what you hear with your naked ears in an=
yway other than what you yourself perceive it - it isn't 'reality' for anyo=
ne else. for one thing we re-process sound continually & recording devices =
don't. As you say Martyn, mics aren't ears & they can never capture what we=
hear. Furthermore no two humans hear in the same way due to all kinds of d=
ifferences in biology etc. I wouldn't want to start a 'heated' discussion =
here but I came to thinking quite some years ago that this is why there are=
some recordings that veer towards the 'new age' - they have been made to f=
it a general idea of what the environment in question sounds like. I have a=
lot of respect for recordists who offer up soundscapes that communicate a =
sense of place but it's always been a very hard thing to do, especially if =
you're dealing with straight nature recording.
3) & to clarify again after that - I have my own way of working & my own th=
oughts about all these issues but despite what i've said here I don't alway=
s think its helpful to get too tied up in discussions on the philosophy of =
what we do, simply because that too is (& should always be) personal. It ca=
n be interesting of course though.
4) back to the issue: perhaps we are talking at cross-purposes or i'm missi=
ng something, but what i'm getting at is that there must be some microphone=
s which deliver a stronger signal than others & therefore one doesn't need =
to use as much gain & nor do the microphones artificially amplify the envir=
onment - they just deliver the signal at a higher strength than other mics.=
Mics all have different output levels, even if quite a lot of the usual su=
spects tend to try to fit into a narrow range.
ta,
Jez
--- In Martyn Stewart <> wrote:
>
> What I basically mean is that if the sound source is in the very far dist=
ance, I prefer to record the ambient sound that I actually hear around me i=
ncluding distant sounds naturally, I think to try and amplify something in =
the distance makes the listening environment false. By jacking up the gain =
you bring a whole host of noises that are not natural to the actual soundsc=
ape. My headphones should reflect what I'm listening too without them and s=
o should the actual recording. I hear only too often noisy soundscapes beca=
use the gain was increased too much. Microphones are not ears and they do n=
ot discriminate so trying to capture what is real is my objective always.
>
> Martyn
>
> Martyn Stewart
> .........................................
> www.naturesound.org
> www.soundofcritters.com
> .........................................
> 425-898-0462
>
>
> Sent from my iPad
>
> On Apr 19, 2012, at 11:24 AM, "hartogj" <> wrote:
>
> > >In 40 plus years of working in sound,
> > >I have never really understood the need
> > >to amplify the sound of tranquility
> > >to what it actually sounds like in reality.
> >
> > Hi Martyn,
> > Is this because your main objective is species recordings more so than =
the ambient backgrounds of the soundscapes?
> >
> > John Hartog
> > rockscallop.org
> >
> >
>
>
>
|