> Are we (in general) listening too loud to nature recordings?
> Just wanting to start a discussion.
Grant,
The playback level is in the hands of the listener - literally - the volume
control knob. We have no control over that, but we can suggest listening at
a lower level.
I record low to keep well clear of peak overload but still at a level where
the ambient sound level swamps the digitising noise. This means bringing up
the level to a "normal" peak level in case the listening system cannot cope.
At the same time I gently trim non-natural sounds like LF, overall peaking
to -6dB which suits most playback devices.
If at this stage, the HF noise degrades the recording, I reject it. The only
exception is where I want a "specimen" recording of something, when I may
use the Audacity noise reduction with an HF only sample. One example was a
distant deer which I wanted to compare with a named recording. The result
was not suitable for distribution.
I know what the HF mic noise sounds like from my mics from under bedclothes
testing. In a flat calm and in snow, this is audible, but it is usually
masked by wind in trees which I am happy to offer as a natural sound.
Using a HPF filtered mic noise sample, you can often lower the residual mic
noise by about 6dBs without affecting the HF in most recordings. The simple
test is to do an A-B comparison to see if it affects any wildlife sounds.
If this sounds like an artificiality, the whole recording and playback
process is artificial, from windshield to loudspeaker cone.
In short, I don't think you can dictate to a listener with a volume control
in their hand, so the next option is to ensure that your fundamental noise
level is higher than the target listener's system noise.
David Brinicombe
|