Paul, you asked,
> I have wanted to record some soundscapes for a while and have been giving=
it a go recently after reading one of Bernie's books whilst recuperating f=
rom a foot injury. However the results have been disappointing due to the h=
igh noise floor at the gain required. I am using a Sound Devices 633 (whic=
h seems noisier generally than the old 702 which i traded to buy it) and ei=
ther a Schoeps CMIT 5U or a pair of AKG CK91/SE300B's.
>
> It isn't practical at the moment for me to buy different gear just for so=
undscapes, and although I will be able to get 'closer to the action' when m=
y foot is better I think noise will still be a problem, so my question is, =
what is the general consensus on the use of digital noise reduction in natu=
re recordings? I use it extensively on film work and modern NR plugins are=
astonishingly good but they do leave artefacts. Especially on nature recor=
dings where the subtle low level details in a sound are particularly import=
ant. Compared to mic and pre hiss, are noise reduction artefacts the lesser=
of two evils?
>
> Here's a test recording as a demo. The mic was handheld as I couldn't ca=
rry a stand whilst on crutches, but it gives you an idea of the problem: 6=
33 & CMIT 5U High Gain Test - Dawn Chorus <https://soundcloud.com/wailingal=
leycat/633-cmit-5u-high-gain-test-dawn-chorus>
First impression, mono! Would have been nice in stereo. Second impression, =
what hiss problem? Third impression, sounds seriously high-passed, may have=
been necessary in the environment.
Do more!
-Dan
|