naturerecordists
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: Digital Compression - was New SSM

Subject: Re: Digital Compression - was New SSM
From: madl74
Date: Wed Jul 10, 2013 5:19 pm ((PDT))
>> At 96 Kb  /s, I reckon most music is OK, but
>> random sounds are getting tinkly.
>
> Except in special cases I can't bear music recorded at less than 192kbps.=
 128kbps is noticeably poor to me a significant amount of the time, without=
 benefit to comparison streams.

Robin,

My prejudices were showing. :-) Having recorded music on and off for nearly=

three decades professionally, I don't regard the end product comparable to=

live music. Cleaned and polished digital recordings are manipulated to
death. They make a happy noise but are they music? Do we believe that whole=

orchestras hold their breathing until the first note? Have you listened to =
a
rock group with the technology switched off? Which is "real" - live or
processed? :-)

I was the first BBC Film Recordist to take a multitrack rig abroad - to the=

Havana Jazz Festival. The music was a knockout, wild and raw, but I had to=

hand it over for the final mix and it was smoothed out with a "standard
formula mix" and un-jazzed. I actually walked out of one mixing session.

If we started multitracking birdsong and put it all through computerised
mixers, I would feel the same way. It's the ambience, atmosphere and natura=
l
background noises that make wildlife recordings sound "real" and
fascinating.

David Brinicombe








<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>
Admin

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