2
Date: Wed Jul 10, 2013 8:54 pm ((PDT))
Hear, here!
:>}
From: "" <>
To:
Sent: Wednesday, July 10, 2013 7:19 PM
Subject: [Nature Recordists] Re: Digital Compression - was New SSM
=C2=A0
>> 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
|