But isn't that just bad editing? The section that's being looped is probabl=
y of good quality, or they wouldn't have used it.
I wonder how many people have ever realised it's being repeated. Did you sp=
ot it just by listening, or by looking at the waveform?
Peter Shute
From: O=
n Behalf Of rock_scallop
Sent: Tuesday, 6 November 2012 5:44 AM
To:
Subject: Re: [Nature Recordists] What is a good nature sound recording?
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
|