Hi David
I appreciate your advice. Being a novice with sounds, I adopted the RAW/JPG=
logic of photography and recorded at highest resolution to not take any ch=
ance :-) But I think I will check it out for myself, as you suggest.
Regarding external mic - as I said before, I have since purchased a Rode NT=
4 for stereo recordings but unfortunately monsoon has set in here in easter=
n India and birds aren't as vocal now. So Mr NT4, since coming to my ho=
me, has got a chance to record some rains only.
What is your opinion on NT4? I find it very capable when recorded from real=
ly close to the source.
Sudipto
--- On Sat, 6/15/13, wrote:
> From:
> Subject: [Nature Recordists] Re: A tropical orchard in spring - bit ra=
tes
> To:
> Date: Saturday, June 15, 2013, 4:58 PM
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> =C2=A0
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > Regarding recording resolution, unless I am
> going to a remote place without any back up storage I think
> it is best to record at the maximum possible resolution. One
> never knows how technology will improve in future and we
> might be able to do wonders with our recordings. But I agree
> that indeed it does take up a lot of space.
>
>
>
> Sudipto,
>
>
>
> It's me again. Digital recording is as good as any audio
> recording ever
>
> needs to be. The question is how good does it need to be for
> outdoor
>
> recording?
>
>
>
> You can check this yourself in a place with a quiet and
> constant background
>
> sound. Record it at the same level setting but changing one
> parameter at a
>
> time, back and forward, such as bit depth or sample rate. If
> you can hear a
>
> clear difference, use the higher quality setting, if not,
> save your file
>
> space. Practice wins over theory every time.
>
>
>
> David Brinnicombe
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
|