Subject: | 6. Re: What is a good nature sound recording? |
---|---|
From: | "rock_scallop" rock_scallop |
Date: | Mon Nov 5, 2012 10:44 am ((PST)) |
While defining a "good" nature sound recording is difficult for me because = so much of that is widely variable and subjectively personal, there are thi= ngs that do make for a "bad" nature recording. The worst for me are longer = (hour or so) recordings marketed mainly for relaxation that sound fine on i= nitial casual review, but eventually on subsequent deeper review become obv= iously composed of repeated short tracks looped together. What makes that bad is not inherently the repeating of material - as I have= had clients request for that specifically. But what makes it bad is the de= ception in marketing where the customer is led to think they are getting an= hour of material when in actuality it is merely only ten minutes - just re= peated. What makes a good recording? - an honest recording. John Hartog rockscallop.org |
<Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread> |
---|---|---|
|
Previous by Date: | 5. Re: What is a good nature sound recording?, Gordon Hempton |
---|---|
Next by Date: | 7. Re: What is a good nature sound recording?, Peter Shute |
Previous by Thread: | 5. Re: What is a good nature sound recording?, Gordon Hempton |
Next by Thread: | 7. Re: What is a good nature sound recording?, Peter Shute |
Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |
The University of NSW School of Computer and Engineering takes no responsibility for the contents of this archive. It is purely a compilation of material sent by many people to the naturerecordists mailing list. It has not been checked for accuracy nor its content verified in any way. If you wish to get material removed from the archive or have other queries about the archive e-mail Andrew Taylor at this address: andrewt@cse.unsw.EDU.AU