thanks for your comments - I will take your suggestions on board - they were
If I get time to resample the tracks and make them longer I will. I have
countless tracks in the pipeline - time to edit and process is my main
challenge at the moment!
I have just put a new track (from Australia) on today which is a bit longer
than the other ones -
Hope you enjoy!
--- In "Avocet" <> wrote:
> > Does it need equalizing?
> 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
> > 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 Brinicombe
> North Devon, UK
> Cogito cogito ergo cogito sum - Ambrose Bierce