I wonder if I might ask a completely naive, unschooled, inexperienced quest=
ion. Why edit at all?
I have been going on the assumption -- which may be totally wrong, but I do=
n't know why it is wrong -- that the "best" representation of a sound or a =
soundscape would be the original recording, unedited, unmixed, unequalized.=
I have assumed that any attempts to make it sound more like what it "reall=
y" sounded like to me would just muddy the waters for anyone else.
Are our sound reproduction systems so inadequate that they routinely fail t=
o reproduce what our recorders record? Or is it that even our best recorder=
s and microphone arrays are inadequate? Obviously there is a lot of "editin=
g" that occurs through the selection and placement of microphones and the i=
nherent limitations of microphone arrays, and if that does not turn out qui=
te right one might be inclined to compensate for that in post-production. W=
here are the other flaws? Is it that our sound reproduction equipment is tu=
ned to pop music and so we have to re-tune our nature sound recordings to a=
dapt to that equipment? There is so much here I do not understand!
My goal in getting into nature recording is to convey something of my sonic=
experience of a place - the love I feel for natural soundscapes and the in=
ner sense of a place that the soundscape uniquely invokes - to people who w=
ill probably never go to those places, or to people who hear these things a=
round them all the time but never pay any attention to them. Increasingly I=
also want to document the rapid changes (losses) in the natural systems wi=
th which I am most familiar. Some recordings I have heard (very few of mine=
) are almost as marvelous as being there. That is what I aspire to, to put =
the listener into that space as far as the technology (and my wallet) and t=
he variations of individual ears and brains allow. I imagine that is a comm=
on intention for nature recordists.
Being very new at this, I am not even close to achieving that goal. I tend =
to think that is because I lack recording equipment that even remotely appr=
oaches the frequency response, the dynamic range, the self-noise, and espec=
ially the imaging ability (left, right and front, back) of my ear-brain lis=
tening system. But I have managed to believe that if I did have the best po=
ssible equipment (in part defined by the recording circumstances), then the=
battle would basically be as well won as can be. I have never even conside=
red that I would have to edit those recordings, assuming that any such furt=
her manipulation would only take the listener farther from the original exp=
erience than the recording has already done. Am I wrong about that?
I have certainly never imagined that I would need a neutral editing studio.=
That puts the whole thing totally out of reach and I might as well give it=
up before I waste any more money. I might as well just continue to share t=
he rather inadequate recordings that I am currently able to afford to produ=
ce.
This is why the "mixing using headphones" thread has been of interest to me=
. Not as an argument, but as a conversation of relevance to an amateur, one=
who does it for the love of it, and wants to do as well as possible, but l=
acks and will probably always lack the funds to buy the very best microphon=
es and certainly to build a state-of-the-art editing facility.
And thank you, Tony for your thoughts. Makes sense to me. I record and shar=
e because we always want to share what we love, and because getting the rec=
ording out is so much easier than bringing all those people in. In my case =
recordings also make it possible to blend with music in performance, which =
is certainly adding more layers of personal context, but seems to be effect=
ive in communicating my love for the sonic world and what it means to me. W=
hat else can we hope to do?
John
John Crockett
Westminster, Vermont
Let us live in harmony with the Earth
And all creatures
That our lives may be a blessing.
--- In Dan Dugan <> wrote:
>
> > I stick to my point that attempting to build a neutral, acoustically tu=
ned space might assist you in your process but it doesn't & can't guarantee=
that the end result will be 'better' or will communicate in some certain w=
ay to listeners.
>
> No guarantee, but a carefully arranged and tuned monitoring environment w=
ill give you the best chance at producing a product with legs--one that wil=
l sound good on many different systems.
>
> I think this is a debate between solipsism and professionalism.
>
> > Sound might be able to be explained by science but our response & conne=
ction to it isn't.
>
> As Scotty said, "I canna' change the laws of physics, captain."
>
> -Dan
>
|