> Does it need equalizing?
Marc,
Overall a very nice recording. On listening the LF rumble was almost
all on the "M" signal - on the rich "S" it was almost entirely absent
which would suggested that it was not part of the wildlife soundscape,
but I may be wrong. I dont know what your array was like, but unless
it was huge, I would not expect to hear much stereo at the rumble
frequencies anyway.
How you shape a recording like this is a matter of your own artistic
judgement. If the LF is important to the live subject matter, leave it
in but in this case is didn't seem to "fit" but I don't know the
circumstances.
> When compared with a number of other nature soundscapes I have
> listened to, my recordings seem to have strong high frequency sounds
> and low noise, but less ooomph in the mid to low range. Would this
> be as a result of my parallel boundary setup? Would a SASS change
> these dynamics?
On a power spectrum, the LF was 20dB higher than the wildlife sounds,
so that suggests an imbalance either in the mics or in the ambience. A
critical test for any mic or rig is to record the human voice because
we know a lot about what that sound like. Do a "walkaround" talking,
and see if the voice quality changes. Compare it with a straight mono
recording. That's also a test for a SASS.
I tried some equalisation with a few dBs boost between 150 and 250 Hz
as the audiogram was a bit thin there, and rolled off below that at
6dB/octave. It then sounded more like a natural background although,
as I said, it was mono. The judgement is whether losing the LF with a
gentle roll-off below 250hZ enhances the subject matter (which is
splendid) or not and that is your judgement to make. Only you know
what the original sounded like.
The background/foreground LF balance changed at the edit at 00:40 sec
in and again at 01:10. The HF is very busy but is rendered well in
stereo and I wouldn't tinker with that except to say that before I
listened to it, I raised the FLAC recording by 12dB.
The only other recording I've listend to so far is the Elephant
Crossing and stand by for criticism. :-) Both fade-ins were far too
slow for my liking. Once I start to hear the critters, I want to hear
them properly. If you were fading into a wildlife programme, for
instance, it would be a quick linear fade-in one second or less. The
fadeouts are also too slow a goodbye. Once you realise that the track
is ending, end it. This time I would use a log fade (equal dBs), but
don't drag it out.
The other complaint :-) with both tracks is that they were too short,
Just as I was getting into the sounds, they went. With 'Elephant',
there was a natural ambience of river plus wild sounds before the
splashing bit. I would prefer this as a short story: "River in jungle
- what's that? - an elephant - there it goes - leaving behind the
jungle noises playing on." Nice sounds and let us enjoy more of them.
David
David Brinicombe
North Devon, UK
Cogito cogito ergo cogito sum - Ambrose Bierce
"While a picture is worth a thousand words, a
sound is worth a thousand pictures." R. Murray Schafer via Bernie Krause.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups Links
<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/naturerecordists/
<*> Your email settings:
Digest Email | Traditional
<*> To change settings online go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/naturerecordists/join
(Yahoo! ID required)
<*> To change settings via email:
<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
------------------------------------------------------------------------
|