Hi John,
I for one don't do any processing / editing - other than, on some projects =
I will top & tail a recording (usually to remove the sound of me stepping b=
ack from & approaching the mic / recorder for example) & this indeed is how=
a lot of folks like to approach field recording.
I think this particular conversation has (& i'm one of the guilty parties) =
been sidetracked into assumptions on intent, creative application & aspects=
of personal approach which while valid & interesting are perhaps not best =
discussed this way.
'inexperienced' - I think, for me, one of the best things about field recor=
ding is that no matter how much or how long you've been doing it for you're=
always 'new' to the listening at each place at each time & its a democrati=
c & individual act. One can learn about technique & bits of kit inside out =
but an essential aspect of field recording is accepting & enjoying the fact=
that out input is at best a collaboration with or observation of something=
beyond our control.
--- In "John Crockett" <> wrote:
>
> I wonder if I might ask a completely naive, unschooled, inexperienced que=
stion. Why edit at all?
>
> I have been going on the assumption -- which may be totally wrong, but I =
don't know why it is wrong -- that the "best" representation of a sound or =
a soundscape would be the original recording, unedited, unmixed, unequalize=
d. I have assumed that any attempts to make it sound more like what it "rea=
lly" sounded like to me would just muddy the waters for anyone else.
>
> Are our sound reproduction systems so inadequate that they routinely fail=
to reproduce what our recorders record? Or is it that even our best record=
ers and microphone arrays are inadequate? Obviously there is a lot of "edit=
ing" that occurs through the selection and placement of microphones and the=
inherent limitations of microphone arrays, and if that does not turn out q=
uite right one might be inclined to compensate for that in post-production.=
Where are the other flaws? Is it that our sound reproduction equipment is =
tuned to pop music and so we have to re-tune our nature sound recordings to=
adapt 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 son=
ic experience of a place - the love I feel for natural soundscapes and the =
inner sense of a place that the soundscape uniquely invokes - to people who=
will probably never go to those places, or to people who hear these things=
around 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 =
with which I am most familiar. Some recordings I have heard (very few of mi=
ne) are almost as marvelous as being there. That is what I aspire to, to pu=
t the listener into that space as far as the technology (and my wallet) and=
the variations of individual ears and brains allow. I imagine that is a co=
mmon intention for nature recordists.
>
> Being very new at this, I am not even close to achieving that goal. I ten=
d to think that is because I lack recording equipment that even remotely ap=
proaches the frequency response, the dynamic range, the self-noise, and esp=
ecially the imaging ability (left, right and front, back) of my ear-brain l=
istening system. But I have managed to believe that if I did have the best =
possible equipment (in part defined by the recording circumstances), then t=
he battle would basically be as well won as can be. I have never even consi=
dered that I would have to edit those recordings, assuming that any such fu=
rther manipulation would only take the listener farther from the original e=
xperience than the recording has already done. Am I wrong about that?
>
> I have certainly never imagined that I would need a neutral editing studi=
o. 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=
the rather inadequate recordings that I am currently able to afford to pro=
duce.
>
> 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, o=
ne who does it for the love of it, and wants to do as well as possible, but=
lacks and will probably always lack the funds to buy the very best microph=
ones 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 sh=
are because we always want to share what we love, and because getting the r=
ecording out is so much easier than bringing all those people in. In my cas=
e recordings also make it possible to blend with music in performance, whic=
h is certainly adding more layers of personal context, but seems to be effe=
ctive in communicating my love for the sonic world and what it means to me.=
What 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 <dan@> wrote:
> >
> > > I stick to my point that attempting to build a neutral, acoustically =
tuned space might assist you in your process but it doesn't & can't guarant=
ee that the end result will be 'better' or will communicate in some certain=
way to listeners.
> >
> > No guarantee, but a carefully arranged and tuned monitoring environment=
will give you the best chance at producing a product with legs--one that w=
ill 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 & con=
nection to it isn't.
> >
> > As Scotty said, "I canna' change the laws of physics, captain."
> >
> > -Dan
> >
>
|