... although they may think after being bewildered by the range, price and
technicality of equipment that a notebook, pen and some simple unfettered
listening might suffice :)
On Mon, Nov 5, 2012 at 7:21 PM, Peter Shute <> wrote:
> Klas's original, reworded question was '"What characterizes "all the othe=
r
> recordings on Soundcloud, that
> people say are so good"?', and this was in relation to people describing
> the recordings they'd like to make when they request advice on buying
> equipment.
>
> I can guarantee none of them are thinking about written descriptions of
> sounds.
>
> I assume most people mean that they don't want it to sound like the
> recordings they made on their phone or their old cassette recorder. They
> want it to sound clear and natural. They know about background hiss and
> wind noise, but don't know what to buy to eliminate them to their
> satisfaction.
>
> And most importantly, they don't know what is the least they can spend to
> achieve it - it's relatively easy to do if one spends a lot of money, so
> long as one doesn't buy inappropriate equipment, but it's harder to find
> the cheapest way. Do I need this $1000 recorder, or will this $300 Sony
> they're all talking about do the job? Do I need a Sennheiser microphone, =
or
> will I be happy with these $10 capsules some on the list are using?
>
> Perhaps it's not so hard for those in the sound industry when they decide
> to try nature recording for the first time, but it's very hard for us who
> have no experience with any equipment at all.
>
> Peter Shute
>
> ________________________________
> From:
> On Behalf Of grummyaa
> Sent: Tuesday, 6 November 2012 1:53 AM
> To:
> Subject: [Nature Recordists] Re: What is a good nature sound recording?
>
>
>
> I know I'm the odd man out, but words on a page will never come even clos=
e
> emotionally for me to what sound is capable of. Especially if you conside=
r
> my fianc=E9 is a writer. I understand how important the written word is, =
not
> dissing it at all. That's what I'm using right now, but for me it just
> doesn't do it. I have yet to have a piece of writing bring me to tears th=
e
> way a piece of music or beautiful recording is capable of. I fully
> understand that I'm the opposite of the norm there though. I find the
> written word pretty useful when I'm learning how to use something. I
> appreciate poetry and artistic use of language but to me the same words c=
an
> have different meaning or feeling based on how it is read. For example th=
e
> same lyrics sung from different performers can either be moving or make m=
e
> skip to the next track.
>
> Not knowing what a bunting sounds like (perhaps I'd recognize if I heard)=
,
> saying it sounds like "drops of water in sunlight" is a beautiful poetic
> image, but after reading that phrase I still don't have a clue what it
> sounds like my self. It is nice to know that whatever it sounds like is
> very beautiful to Mr. Hudson. There is value in that knowledge in that no=
w
> I'd like to hear for myself what was he found so moving. As I would like =
to
> experience it also. But as far as actually sharing with me what a bunting
> sounds like I'm no closer to it. I got a better description of the
> potential surroundings of where he might have heard the bunting than the
> actual sound it's self. That said, if I heard a close recording of one in=
a
> treated studio or chamber I may enjoy his description more than what I he=
ar
> in a dry close recording of the animal. For me his poetic image reminds m=
e
> of how lovely sound sights and smells can be in nature. But in order to
> share with me that particular sound of the bunting in it's natural habita=
t
> he would need to start getting more scientific and specific with his
> wording and less poetic. Then it becomes informative to the sound of the
> bird but also starts to feel more cold and analytical. where as an nice
> audio recording could do it all. It could be incredibly detailed yet
> magnificently poetic and beautiful.
>
> Don't mean to step on toes or insult anyone. I'm pretty sure this is a
> flaw in myself. My fianc=E9 and many others I love and respect are fully
> entertained by writing and books. They just don't seem to cut it for me. =
I
> honestly wish they could, but they can't take me FULLY to another time an=
d
> space to the same degree sound can. I love what sound can do for me. I on=
ly
> wish words on a page could do as much, perhaps I should read more and try
> harder but I honestly would rather listen record and play.
>
> --- In <mailto:
> naturerecordists%40yahoogroups.com>, umashankar <> wrote:
> >
> > the last fifteen years, when I teach students sound recording, I tell
> them sound recording was not invented 100 or 120 years ago. writing is th=
e
> earliest form of sound recording. it records only a small range of the
> sounds we hear, but it is the most important (or meaningful)
> >
> > umashankar
> >
> >
> >
> > >________________________________
> > > From: Tony Whitehead <>
> > >To: <mailto:
> naturerecordists%40yahoogroups.com>
> > >Sent: Monday, November 5, 2012 12:02 PM
> > >Subject: Re: [Nature Recordists] What is a good nature sound recording=
?
> > >
> > >Yes ... and I enjoy sound recording ...
> > >
> > >... but sounds can be shared just as well through words. A good
> recording
> > >does't have to be audio?
> > >
> > >Here for example is W H Hudson's 1900 recording of a corn bunting
> singing
> > >(in "Nature in Downland")
> > >
> > >"The common bunting's little outburst of confused or splintered notes,
> is
> > >when heard (by me) at the same time mentally seen as a handful of clea=
r
> > >water thrown up and breaking into sparkling drops in the sunlight."
> > >
> > >just a thought
> > >
> > >Tony
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >On Mon, Nov 5, 2012 at 12:42 AM, Klas Strandberg <> wrote:
> > >
> > >> **
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> Isn't that wonderful, Tony?
> > >> And, may I add, with the same headphones being able to hear it again=
,
> > >> years later? And for others to share?
> > >>
> > >> Thanks Bernie.
> > >> I needed that. (Even if it can be one of those wonderful American
> > >> ironies which I never will understand, before it's too late...:-))
> > >>
> > >> Klas.
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> -04, you wrote:
> > >> >I sometimes wonder if the reason I record is to give me a reason to
> > >> listen.
> > >> >
> > >> >I know I shouldn't need a reason but, for example, today I recorded
> the
> > >> >quiet interior of a rural English church.
> > >> >
> > >> >As I let the recording progress inside, I sat outside and simply
> listened.
> > >> >I heard the blackbird's evening chorus. I heard redwings and
> fieldfare
> > >> >overhead, fresh in from the east. I heard the distant rumble of mai=
n
> road
> > >> >linking Exeter to Plymouth. I heard dogs bark and footsteps. Cows,
> crows
> > >> >and jays. I listened as the breeze picked up and moved slender
> baldes of
> > >> >grass between gravestones. And the rustle of leaves and the rain on
> my
> > >> >jacket. And dusk spread.
> > >> >
> > >> >It almost doesn't matter what I recorded (30 mins of near silence)
> ... it
> > >> >was a good recording for me.
> > >> >
> > >> >Tony
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >> >On Sun, Nov 4, 2012 at 8:38 PM, Bernie Krause <
> > >> >wrote:
> > >> >
> > >> > > **
> > >>
> > >> > >
> > >> > >
> > >> > > Hear! Hear!, Klas. Great observation.
> > >> > >
> > >> > > Bernie
> > >> > >
> > >> > >
> > >> > > On Nov 3, 2012, at 3:15 PM, Klas Strandberg wrote:
> > >> > >
> > >> > > > Dan, Bernie and all
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > > For 40 years I have been promoting the use of parabols, well
> aware of
> > >> > > > that parabols twist "reality" and create illusions. I have bee=
n
> > >> > > > fighting a war against "purists", telling me what a terrible
> person
> > >> > > > I was.
> > >> > > > But "we" won that war, Dan, Bernie and all. And myself. It
> ended 20
> > >> > > > years ago.
> > >> > > > Today I hear no voices at all, not anywhere, being "purist"
> about
> > >> > > > flat frequency curves or non-editing or anything like it.
> > >> > > > "Every recording is an illusion".
> > >> > > > Yeah? Who claims differently nowadays? Where is this massive
> global
> > >> > > > commercial sound production industry, aiming for "purity" and
> > >> > > > forbidding us poor nature sound recordists to switch a filter
> "on"?
> > >> > > > I don't see the threat.
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > > I do see, however, a need for "quality" discussions.
> > >> > > > I like words like "sonels" and "splashing," because such words
> give
> > >> > > > us ways to describe the quality of a recording. I would like a
> long
> > >> > > > list of such new words together with sound examples.
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > > Why is that considered so wrong?
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > > Klas.
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > > At 16:59 2012-11-03, you wrote:
> > >> > > >>> If all the above sounds like "manipulation", that started
> with the
> > >> > > >>> choice, placement and aiming of mics, recording level, and
> > >> decinding
> > >> > > >>> when to push the record button.
> > >> > > >>
> > >> > > >> Ansel Adams made a lot of adjustments in his negatives when h=
e
> > >> > > >> printed them.
> > >> > > >>
> > >> > > >>> I've got weeks of rubbish recordings, but the ones that go
> out are
> > >> > > >>> those which, to my mind, represent the wildlife in this area=
.
> It is
> > >> > > >>> the end result which matters.
> > >> > > >>
> > >> > > >> It's an art of illusion.
> > >> > > >>
> > >> > > >>> BTW I've just put a stereo file on Soundcloud asking what is
> wrong
> > >> > > >>> with it:
> > >> > > >>> http://soundcloud.com/stowford/wren-and-stream-stereo-check
> > >> > > >>
> > >> > > >> Out of phase?
> > >> > > >>
> > >> > > >> -Dan
> > >> > > >>
> > >> > > >>
> > >> > > >> ------------------------------------
> > >> > > >>
> > >> > > >> "While a picture is worth a thousand words, a
> > >> > > >> sound is worth a thousand pictures." R. Murray Schafer via
> Bernie
> > >> > > >> Krause.
> > >> > > >>
> > >> > > >> Yahoo! Groups Links
> > >> > > >>
> > >> > > >>
> > >> > > >>
> > >> > > > Telinga Microphones, Botarbo,
> > >> > > > S-748 96 Tobo, Sweden.
> > >> > > > Phone & fax int + 295 310 01
> > >> > > > email:
> > >> > > > website: www.telinga.com
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > > ------------------------------------
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > > "While a picture is worth a thousand words, a
> > >> > > > sound is worth a thousand pictures." R. Murray Schafer via
> Bernie
> > >> > > > Krause.
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > > Yahoo! Groups Links
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > >
> > >> > >
> > >> > > Wild Sanctuary
> > >> > > POB 536
> > >> > > Glen Ellen, CA 95442
> > >> > > 707-996-6677
> > >> > > http://www.wildsanctuary.com/
> > >> > >
> > >> > > Google Earth zooms: http://earth.wildsanctuary.com/
> > >> > > SKYPE: biophony
> > >> > > FaceBook:
> > >> > > http://www.facebook.com/TheGreatAnimalOrchestra
> > >> > > http://www.facebook.com/BernieKrauseAuthor
> > >> > > Twitter:
> > >> > > http://www.twitter.com/berniekrause
> > >> > > YouTube:
> > >> > > https://www.youtube.com/BernieKrauseTV
> > >> > >
> > >> > >
> > >> > >
> > >> > >
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >> >------------------------------------
> > >> >
> > >> >"While a picture is worth a thousand words, a
> > >> >sound is worth a thousand pictures." R. Murray Schafer via Bernie
> Krause.
> > >> >
> > >> >Yahoo! Groups Links
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >> Telinga Microphones, Botarbo,
> > >> S-748 96 Tobo, Sweden.
> > >> Phone & fax int + 295 310 01
> > >> email:
> > >> website: www.telinga.com
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >------------------------------------
> > >
> > >"While a picture is worth a thousand words, a
> > >sound is worth a thousand pictures." R. Murray Schafer via Bernie
> Krause.
> > >
> > >Yahoo! Groups Links
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> "While a picture is worth a thousand words, a
> sound is worth a thousand pictures." R. Murray Schafer via Bernie Krause.
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
|