Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #41   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Tobiah Tobiah is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 666
Default Recording "Nature" Sounds


recordings to test the old saw, "If a tree falls in the forest and no
one is there to hear it... does it make a sound?"


To me, this has always been obvious. When the tree falls, the
air vibrates, but there is no sound. Sound is an experience
generated by a subjective listener. If you record the air
vibrations, you have not proven that the tree made a sound.
The only sound in this case is that later made by a loudspeaker
in response to the recording, *when sensed* by a listener.



--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

  #42   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Tobiah Tobiah is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 666
Default Recording "Nature" Sounds


So, did you agonize over microphones and low recording levels? That's
the question within the question I asked. What triggered it was that
people seem concerned that there will be something technically wrong
with their nature recording before they even try it, or try using
whatever recording they're able to make with the equipment they have.


I use a software to generate sounds with math, and to manipulate
recorded sounds with math. After playing around with sin and square
waves and noise, additive and subtractive synthesis etc, I realized
that it is still more efficient to record the glorious complexity of
sounds around us, both those generated intentionally by players of
musical instruments as well as those found in the forest and the city,
then it is to try to build up an interesting texture using only math.

After attempting to do this a few times, I quickly found that the
equipment that I had, particularly the mics and pre's, were not up
to the task from the standpoint of S/N.

My questions to the list regarding this subject have been about the
sensitivity and self noise of microphones, and the S/N and gain of
mic pre's. If I can find a portable solution that allows me to record
a "babbling brook" at full signal strength without being able to hear
the electronic hiss, even with the treble pushed up, then I will be able
to handle the other problems, such as other unwanted noises in the area,
optimum mic placement, and EQ problems. I can tweak the sound once I
capture it, but I can't remove preamp hiss.

I'm happy with my NT1-A pair, even though I might rather have omnis
for many outdoor sessions. What concerns me is the preamps, which
always seem to be the weak point in the latest flash recorders.

Tobiah

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

  #43   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
John Smith[_2_] John Smith[_2_] is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 16
Default Recording "Nature" Sounds

Mike Rivers wrote:

So, did you agonize over microphones and low recording levels? That's
the question within the question I asked. What triggered it was that
people seem concerned that there will be something technically wrong
with their nature recording before they even try it, or try using
whatever recording they're able to make with the equipment they have.


That's an interesting question, and I now see where you were coming from.

In my case I am not agonizing over microphones in quite that way. My
agony is that I will spend my money on some thing that will not work
well in a wide area of similar situations. That is because I have to
survive on Soc Sec disability and the small expenditure I am considering
is a large percent of my total monthly income. If there was a nice
pro-audio store nearby, that would not be so much of a problem but I
have to buy mail order with all the hassles that entails. It is
expensive to purchase something that way and have to return it if it
doesn't work out, if they will let you return it at all. At this point I
figure I am going to have to bite the bullet because it seems people who
know what they are talking about do not buy mic's in my price range.
  #44   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Ed Anson Ed Anson is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 33
Default Recording "Nature" Sounds

John Smith wrote:
In my case I am not agonizing over microphones in quite that way. My
agony is that I will spend my money on some thing that will not work
well in a wide area of similar situations. That is because I have to
survive on Soc Sec disability and the small expenditure I am considering
is a large percent of my total monthly income. If there was a nice
pro-audio store nearby, that would not be so much of a problem but I
have to buy mail order with all the hassles that entails. It is
expensive to purchase something that way and have to return it if it
doesn't work out, if they will let you return it at all. At this point I
figure I am going to have to bite the bullet because it seems people who
know what they are talking about do not buy mic's in my price range.


John,

The folks is this group are quite knowledgeable about recording music.
If it's nature recording you want to ask about, check this out:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/naturerecordists/

It's not usenet, and registration is required, but it's free and the
group includes in its number some the world's leading experts on nature
recording. One of the favorite topics of conversation there is how to
get good recordings on a budget. Check out its archives, lurk awhile,
and then ask any questions you still have.

Happy recording.

Ed
  #45   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Tracy Wintermute Tracy Wintermute is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 40
Default Recording "Nature" Sounds

On 19 Mar 2007 04:32:09 -0700, "Mike Rivers"
wrote:


So, did you agonize over microphones and low recording levels?


No, not in the least. In fact, I never even gave it a thought until
folks here started mentioning it a year or so ago. Even at that, I've
generally always attained the results I desired, so nothing has
compelled me to fix that which ain't broken.
As far as levels go, the bugs and stuff give me about the same level
as a room mic on a nylon stringed classical, and the cicadas surpassed
some falsetto backing vocals I've recorded.

That's
the question within the question I asked. What triggered it was that
people seem concerned that there will be something technically wrong
with their nature recording before they even try it, or try using
whatever recording they're able to make with the equipment they have.


I would sort of equate that to questions like "which mic/pre
combination will make me sound like Roger Daltrey?"
The answer being, as you know, "it's the source, of course."
I don't have a problem with folks being obsessed with gear specifics,
but I think that many are missing the point, due to their quest for
instant and effortless qratification... a sign of the times, I
suppose.
In a nutshell; I go outside... if I can hear it, I can record it.

Of course, like anything else in this business, it's always possible
to do something better. But when your goal is to use a sound to convey
the IDEA of location or environment, you don't always need to start
with a pristine recording, and, in fact, if you had one, you would
probably find yourself at least limiting the bandwidth and mixing it
down at a low level so it doesn't take over. It's like taking the
midrange out of a guitar track so that it doesn't get in the way of
the keyboard or vocal.


Well put!

Now, I'm sure some folks are concerned as to what sort of portable
recording device might be preferred, so I should qualify my situation
thusly: I string two or three mic cables together out the back door,
and I'm in the 'wilderness', not needing a portable device. I still
think you could use anything portable of moderate quality and get
results, given a reasonable sound source... unless you're entering
some sort of 'audiophile' contest. If that's the case, you'd have to
pay attention to oxygen content and cable arrows and all sorts of
relevant stuff......

A few years back when the 17 year cicadas were making sweet love, I
recorded several minutes in mono with a 57. Those things (cicadas) are
near deafening here.


I set up my Studio Projects LSD2 (stereo mic) on my back porch and
recorded the buggers. The passing traffic and lawn mowers gave a
perspective of how loud the cicadas really were. Without that
"interference" as a reference, the volume of the playback would be
arbitrary. But you wouldn't want that as part of your "rain forest"
effect.


Perspective is an interesting (to me) topic, and likely worthy of its
own thread at some point in time.

From what I've been hearing/reading, lawn mowers and passing traffic
might just fit right in with "rain forest" noises these days...


====================
Tracy Wintermute

Rushcreek Ranch
====================


  #46   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Mike Rivers Mike Rivers is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 8,744
Default Recording "Nature" Sounds

On Mar 20, 4:01 am, Tracy Wintermute wrote:

So, did you agonize over microphones and low recording levels?


No, not in the least. In fact, I never even gave it a thought until
folks here started mentioning it a year or so ago.


Good for you! Most people figure that their recordings will be noisy
or grainy if they don't crank the input up to hit full scale. Not so,
as you've no doubt recognized, even with gentle sounds.

Now, I'm sure some folks are concerned as to what sort of portable
recording device might be preferred, so I should qualify my situation
thusly: I string two or three mic cables together out the back door,
and I'm in the 'wilderness', not needing a portable device.


Yeah, but what about the guy who lives in an apartment in New York
City? About the most interesting sound he could record that way is
pigeon poop hitting his microphone. g

I still
think you could use anything portable of moderate quality and get
results, given a reasonable sound source... unless you're entering
some sort of 'audiophile' contest.


Of course, particularly if you can use external microphones to get a
little control over placement and off-axis rejection. Most of the hand
held portable recorders that people find attractive (at least in
thought) for this type of recording are designed ot record everything
within reach of the mic, and that only works when you're in a really
"pure" nature environment. Few of us can afford to travel to the rain
forests of Puerto Rico to get some background sound for our songs or
videos. But if you plan a trip like that, you can certainly use a
small portable recorder as your recording device with no serious
compromises. Just about all of them have some sort of external mic
input and record using at least 16-bit, often 24-bit PCM in WAV
format. And the batteries usually last longer than the insect
repellent.

From what I've been hearing/reading, lawn mowers and passing traffic
might just fit right in with "rain forest" noises these days...


Certainly, if your project had a certain flavored political
content.


  #47   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Paul Stamler Paul Stamler is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,614
Default Recording "Nature" Sounds

"Tobiah" wrote in message
.. .

My questions to the list regarding this subject have been about the
sensitivity and self noise of microphones, and the S/N and gain of
mic pre's. If I can find a portable solution that allows me to record
a "babbling brook" at full signal strength without being able to hear
the electronic hiss, even with the treble pushed up, then I will be able
to handle the other problems, such as other unwanted noises in the area,
optimum mic placement, and EQ problems. I can tweak the sound once I
capture it, but I can't remove preamp hiss.

I'm happy with my NT1-A pair, even though I might rather have omnis
for many outdoor sessions. What concerns me is the preamps, which
always seem to be the weak point in the latest flash recorders.


Looking at the specs for the NT1a and accepting them at face value, they
quote a typical sensitivity of 25mV at 94dB-SPL. That's the equivalent
of -29.8dBu. If the self-noise figure is truly 5dB-SPL, ignoring the
A-weighting for the moment, that means the mic's equivalent self-noise
output is -118.8dBu.

If you want the preamp to add no more than 1dB of additional noise to the
mic's self-noise, it needs to have an equivalent input noise figure of about
6dB better than the mic's, or -124.8dBu. That's not an unreasonable figure,
and there are doubtless portable, battery-powered preamps that will do the
job. Or you can build your own; a Jensen JT-115K-E transformer and an
NE5534a opamp will have an equivalent input noise a couple of dB better than
that.

Peace,
Paul


  #48   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Medicine Hat Medicine Hat is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1
Default Recording "Nature" Sounds

On 17 Mar 2007 04:34:15 -0700, "Mike Rivers"
wrote:

It seems that at least once every couple of weeks someone wants to
"record nature sounds" and is asking about a suitable recorder or
microphone. Will a dozen or so of you please explain the fascination
with this to me? What do you record and what do you do with the
recordings?

This is not a simple thing to do if you want accuracy, so I'm assuming
that either you want a natural sound (at a natural volume level) to
use as a sound effect or ambient background, or you want to make
something grotesque out of the sound, perhaps by amplifying it greatly
(making the bumblebee sound as loud as the lead guitar in a mix) or
distort or pitch-shift it.

Or do we have some legitimate naturalists who are indeed collecting
natural sounds for reference or research?

Educate me.


De-lurking with two cents:

My wife and I did some of this kind of recording a couple of years ago
with aim of using the recordings in my wife's clinic (shiatsu,
acupuncture, registered massage therapy).

During treatment many clients find that music helps them relax, but a
few ask for nature sounds. My wife didn't really care for the
commercially available recordings she was able to find so we brought a
couple of microphones and a portable DAT out to the bush and did it
ourselves.

Decent results, though I spent a fair bit of time editing out the
sound of aircraft (and the occasional sneeze). No matter how deep into
the bush I go in Ontario, eventually the sound of aircraft will visit.

- Meds
  #49   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Scott Dorsey Scott Dorsey is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 16,853
Default Recording "Nature" Sounds

Medicine Hat wrote:

Decent results, though I spent a fair bit of time editing out the
sound of aircraft (and the occasional sneeze). No matter how deep into
the bush I go in Ontario, eventually the sound of aircraft will visit.


Yes, but they change a lot. And the sound of DC-3s and Twin Otters is
a whole lot more interesting than that of 757s.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
  #51   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Richard Crowley Richard Crowley is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4,172
Default Recording "Nature" Sounds

"Jay Kadis" wrote ...
(Scott Dorsey) wrote:
Medicine Hat wrote:

Decent results, though I spent a fair bit of time editing out the
sound of aircraft (and the occasional sneeze). No matter how deep
into
the bush I go in Ontario, eventually the sound of aircraft will
visit.


Yes, but they change a lot. And the sound of DC-3s and Twin Otters
is
a whole lot more interesting than that of 757s.
--scott


Don't you find it depressing that there's no place left on earth
devoid
of aircraft sounds?


Consider the possibility that the earth is larger than you think.

  #52   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Jay Kadis Jay Kadis is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 273
Default Recording "Nature" Sounds

In article ,
"Richard Crowley" wrote:

"Jay Kadis" wrote ...
(Scott Dorsey) wrote:
Medicine Hat wrote:

Decent results, though I spent a fair bit of time editing out the
sound of aircraft (and the occasional sneeze). No matter how deep
into
the bush I go in Ontario, eventually the sound of aircraft will
visit.

Yes, but they change a lot. And the sound of DC-3s and Twin Otters
is
a whole lot more interesting than that of 757s.
--scott


Don't you find it depressing that there's no place left on earth
devoid
of aircraft sounds?


Consider the possibility that the earth is larger than you think.


Consider the possibility that the earth isn't as large as you think.

Bernie Krause gave a talk here a couple of years back and that was his
conclusion. He would know if anyone would.

-Jay

--
x------- Jay Kadis ------- x ---- Jay's Attic Studio ----x
x Lecturer, Audio Engineer x Dexter Records x
x CCRMA, Stanford University x http://www.offbeats.com/ x
x---------- http://ccrma.stanford.edu/~jay/ ------------x
  #53   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
DC DC is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 364
Default Recording "Nature" Sounds

Jay Kadis wrote:

Consider the possibility that the earth isn't as large as you think.

Bernie Krause gave a talk here a couple of years back and that was his
conclusion. He would know if anyone would.



I used to sell him recording equipment. I didn't realize he was that
famous in that field.
  #54   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Gidney N. Cloyd Gidney N. Cloyd is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 12
Default Recording "Nature" Sounds

Richard Crowley wrote:

Don't you find it depressing that there's no place left on earth devoid
of aircraft sounds?


Consider the possibility that the earth is larger than you think.


If you go down deep enough, the aircraft are down pretty far in the mix.
  #55   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Jay Kadis Jay Kadis is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 273
Default Recording "Nature" Sounds

In article ,
DC wrote:

Jay Kadis wrote:

Consider the possibility that the earth isn't as large as you think.

Bernie Krause gave a talk here a couple of years back and that was his
conclusion. He would know if anyone would.



I used to sell him recording equipment. I didn't realize he was that
famous in that field.


www.wildsanctuary.com

-Jay

--
x------- Jay Kadis ------- x ---- Jay's Attic Studio ----x
x Lecturer, Audio Engineer x Dexter Records x
x CCRMA, Stanford University x http://www.offbeats.com/ x
x---------- http://ccrma.stanford.edu/~jay/ ------------x


  #56   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
DC DC is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 364
Default Recording "Nature" Sounds

Jay Kadis wrote:

I used to sell him recording equipment. I didn't realize he was that
famous in that field.



www.wildsanctuary.com



Thank you. That's what he called his company back then. The internets
weren't that big at the time. : )
  #57   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
hank alrich hank alrich is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4,736
Default Recording "Nature" Sounds

Richard Crowley wrote:

"Jay Kadis" wrote ...
(Scott Dorsey) wrote:
Medicine Hat wrote:

Decent results, though I spent a fair bit of time editing out the
sound of aircraft (and the occasional sneeze). No matter how deep
into
the bush I go in Ontario, eventually the sound of aircraft will
visit.

Yes, but they change a lot. And the sound of DC-3s and Twin Otters
is
a whole lot more interesting than that of 757s.
--scott


Don't you find it depressing that there's no place left on earth
devoid
of aircraft sounds?


Consider the possibility that the earth is larger than you think.


Consider the possiblity that he's correct. Friends who have traveled to
very far places have reported this "feature".

--
ha
Iraq is Arabic for Vietnam
  #59   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Tracy Wintermute Tracy Wintermute is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 40
Default Recording "Nature" Sounds

On 20 Mar 2007 04:43:36 -0700, "Mike Rivers"
wrote:

Yeah, but what about the guy who lives in an apartment in New York
City? About the most interesting sound he could record that way is
pigeon poop hitting his microphone. g


One man's pigeon poop is another man's wilderness.... (?!?)

And the batteries usually last longer than the insect
repellent.


That kind of puts something my ex once said into perspective.


From what I've been hearing/reading, lawn mowers and passing traffic
might just fit right in with "rain forest" noises these days...


Certainly, if your project had a certain flavored political
content.


Shhhhhh! Let's not get THIS crowd started on THAT.


====================
Tracy Wintermute

Rushcreek Ranch
====================
  #60   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Tracy Wintermute Tracy Wintermute is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 40
Default Recording "Nature" Sounds



"My wife's pussy is so big..."

"HOW BIG IS IT???"

"My wife's pussy is so big, that
No matter how deep into
the bush I go in Ontario, eventually the sound of aircraft will visit.

"

(Sorry Meds, absolutely no offense intended. I just had an
uncontrollable urge to be a smartass.)


====================
Tracy Wintermute

Rushcreek Ranch
====================


  #61   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Paul Stamler Paul Stamler is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,614
Default Recording "Nature" Sounds

"hank alrich" wrote in message
...
Don't you find it depressing that there's no place left on earth
devoid
of aircraft sounds?


Consider the possibility that the earth is larger than you think.


Consider the possiblity that he's correct. Friends who have traveled to
very far places have reported this "feature".


Actually a lot of the planet is devoid of aircraft sound. Just dive into the
ocean and go a few miles down.

Seriously, though, while it's true there aren't any places on land free from
airplane noises, there are some where they show up very seldom. If, for
example, you fly to the south pole, once the plane that dropped you off
leaves, you won't hear another one for several days.

Of course, babbling brooks are in somewhat short supply.

Peace,
Paul


  #62   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Arny Krueger Arny Krueger is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 17,262
Default Recording "Nature" Sounds

"Paul Stamler" wrote in message


Seriously, though, while it's true there aren't any
places on land free from airplane noises, there are some
where they show up very seldom. If, for example, you fly
to the south pole, once the plane that dropped you off
leaves, you won't hear another one for several days.


IME you don't have to go too far to get the number of planes you hear down
to just one or two a day.

A few hundred miles into Canada north of the midwest, for example.

Of course, babbling brooks are in somewhat short supply.


Same places are generally full of either those, or lapping waves.


  #63   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Daniel Mandic Daniel Mandic is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 100
Default Recording "Nature" Sounds

Jay Kadis wrote:

Don't you find it depressing that there's no place left on earth
devoid of aircraft sounds?

-Jay




Hi Jay!


Not even that. Astronomers wail about the belonging prob. Many Pictures
(looong shutter) with vapour trails visible...



Kind regards,

Daniel Mandic
  #64   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Daniel Mandic Daniel Mandic is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 100
Default Recording "Nature" Sounds

Paul Stamler wrote:

Seriously, though, while it's true there aren't any places on land
free from airplane noises, there are some where they show up very
seldom. If, for example, you fly to the south pole, once the plane
that dropped you off leaves, you won't hear another one for several
days.

Of course, babbling brooks are in somewhat short supply.

Peace,
Paul


Hi Paul!


O.k., but you need always a plane as well, to go to places with a lower
airplane frequency :-) (a parodoxon, IMO)

What is the purpose of a plane, in today modern Internet times?
A ship is enough, IMO, for serious world-trade. Everything could be
managed (parcels, persons etc.) anticipatory, loading the ship and then
easy go... (if I would ever visit America, I would surely take the
ship. "The way is the destination")

There is not much usage of modern technic, regarding transport
facilities.

The best is a shipping company (don't know the name anymore), where
Captains change to other ships, while in full run. With a small
craft-boat beside the big transporter. Blatant, IMO. I have not ordered
that behavior, nor would I like to do so. (a dangerous and unnecessary
action)



Best regards,

Daniel Mandic
  #65   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Don Pearce Don Pearce is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,726
Default Recording "Nature" Sounds

On 22 Mar 2007 10:41:24 GMT, "Daniel Mandic"
wrote:

Jay Kadis wrote:

Don't you find it depressing that there's no place left on earth
devoid of aircraft sounds?

-Jay




Hi Jay!


Not even that. Astronomers wail about the belonging prob. Many Pictures
(looong shutter) with vapour trails visible...



Kind regards,

Daniel Mandic


That problem is even worse for them with satellites. It is now
essentially impossible to take a long exposure photo without a
satellite cruising through it.

As for music, though, one of the most famous venues in London for
early music is a church which in recording circles is called St.
Jude's-Under-the-Flightpath.

d

--
Pearce Consulting
http://www.pearce.uk.com


  #66   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Scott Dorsey Scott Dorsey is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 16,853
Default Recording "Nature" Sounds

Don Pearce wrote:

That problem is even worse for them with satellites. It is now
essentially impossible to take a long exposure photo without a
satellite cruising through it.


Easily solved with observatory on the moon.
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
  #70   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Mike Rivers Mike Rivers is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 8,744
Default Recording "Nature" Sounds

On Mar 22, 9:59 am, (Scott Dorsey) wrote:

Easily solved with observatory on the moon.


For large values of "easily" of course.



  #71   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Don Pearce Don Pearce is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,726
Default Recording "Nature" Sounds

On 22 Mar 2007 09:38:33 -0700, "Mike Rivers"
wrote:

On Mar 22, 9:59 am, (Scott Dorsey) wrote:

Easily solved with observatory on the moon.


For large values of "easily" of course.


Unfortunately there is plenty of crap floating round the moon these
days. And unlike that orbiting the earth, it isn't going to decay and
burn up - it is there for keeps.

d

--
Pearce Consulting
http://www.pearce.uk.com
  #72   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Romeo Rondeau Romeo Rondeau is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 484
Default Recording "Nature" Sounds

Don Pearce wrote:
On Thu, 22 Mar 2007 08:57:47 -0700, Jay Kadis
wrote:

In article ,
(Scott Dorsey) wrote:

Jay Kadis wrote:
In article ,
(Scott Dorsey) wrote:

Medicine Hat wrote:
Decent results, though I spent a fair bit of time editing out the
sound of aircraft (and the occasional sneeze). No matter how deep into
the bush I go in Ontario, eventually the sound of aircraft will visit.
Yes, but they change a lot. And the sound of DC-3s and Twin Otters is
a whole lot more interesting than that of 757s.
Don't you find it depressing that there's no place left on earth devoid
of aircraft sounds?
I dunno, I get paid to record aircraft sounds so I might be biased on
the subject. But the notion that there is no place free of human activity
on the earth seems to me like a good reason to better fund the space program.
--scott

My friend's father ran a label that recorded the Reno air race for many
years. I grew up around airplanes. In the days after 9/11 I could sit
in the yard and hear no aircraft. It was very obvious something was
missing.

At least sonic pollution won't be a problem on the moon.


I was supposed to fly out from London on 9/12 to stay with friends in
Tahoe and go to the air races. Never have got to see them yet...


I was at the Fort Worth Stockyards on the day that the planes started
flying again after 9/11. It was strange watching all the people look up
into the sky. After not hearing planes for sometime, actually hearing
the plane was strange, they all just stared. Very surreal.
  #73   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Daniel Mandic Daniel Mandic is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 100
Default Recording "Nature" Sounds

Don Pearce wrote:

That problem is even worse for them with satellites. It is now
essentially impossible to take a long exposure photo without a
satellite cruising through it.


Yeah, that's the actual space-exploration. Up to the satellites and
then back to Earth. :-(

As for music, though, one of the most famous venues in London for
early music is a church which in recording circles is called St.
Jude's-Under-the-Flightpath.


You got me :-). I am an enthusiast of old tone-lenghts, like Longa,
Brevis, Semi-Brevis and so on.


d



Best regards,

Daniel Mandic
  #74   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
glitchless glitchless is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 17
Default Recording "Nature" Sounds


Educate me.


I've done a ton of kids recordings and used lots of nature sounds to
augment them. There are inner city kids who haven't a clue what real
animals sound like. I've also done lots of folk recordings where the
story line is about a ship wreck or whaling or a walk in the woods and
added some ambient sounds to these.
I live in a wooded area and have setup my mics to capture the lovely
dawn chorus that is right outside my door. This has also been added to
s few recordings. I love collecting sounds and have found many free
ones on the net, but it is true that they are often short low volume
and quality and sometimes have human noise in the background.
Paul

  #75   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
glitchless glitchless is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 17
Default Recording "Nature" Sounds



My wife and I did some of this kind of recording a couple of years ago
with aim of using the recordings in my wife's clinic (shiatsu,
acupuncture, registered massage therapy).


I did a recording of sound effects, for my wife whose a Minister in
training for a story told during a service. It was a walk through the
woods to a brook and then waterfall and back into the woods.
I've also added this sort of thing onto a couple of storytelling CDs.



  #76   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Don Pearce Don Pearce is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,726
Default Recording "Nature" Sounds

On Sat, 24 Mar 2007 13:42:52 -0600, Romeo Rondeau
wrote:

Daniel Mandic wrote:
Don Pearce wrote:

That problem is even worse for them with satellites. It is now
essentially impossible to take a long exposure photo without a
satellite cruising through it.


Yeah, that's the actual space-exploration. Up to the satellites and
then back to Earth. :-(


You gotta start somewhere, space exploration is still in it's infancy.


In its infancy? It has had its day - it's finished.

d

--
Pearce Consulting
http://www.pearce.uk.com
  #77   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Romeo Rondeau Romeo Rondeau is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 484
Default Recording "Nature" Sounds

Daniel Mandic wrote:
Don Pearce wrote:

That problem is even worse for them with satellites. It is now
essentially impossible to take a long exposure photo without a
satellite cruising through it.


Yeah, that's the actual space-exploration. Up to the satellites and
then back to Earth. :-(


You gotta start somewhere, space exploration is still in it's infancy.
  #78   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
hank alrich hank alrich is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4,736
Default Recording "Nature" Sounds

Romeo Rondeau wrote:

Daniel Mandic wrote:
Don Pearce wrote:

That problem is even worse for them with satellites. It is now
essentially impossible to take a long exposure photo without a
satellite cruising through it.


Yeah, that's the actual space-exploration. Up to the satellites and
then back to Earth. :-(


You gotta start somewhere, space exploration is still in it's infancy.


And if we don't get our **** together right down here on the planet,
that's where space exploration will stay.

--
ha
Iraq is Arabic for Vietnam
  #79   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Romeo Rondeau Romeo Rondeau is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 484
Default Recording "Nature" Sounds

Don Pearce wrote:
On Sat, 24 Mar 2007 13:42:52 -0600, Romeo Rondeau
wrote:

Daniel Mandic wrote:
Don Pearce wrote:

That problem is even worse for them with satellites. It is now
essentially impossible to take a long exposure photo without a
satellite cruising through it.
Yeah, that's the actual space-exploration. Up to the satellites and
then back to Earth. :-(

You gotta start somewhere, space exploration is still in it's infancy.


In its infancy? It has had its day - it's finished.


What? How can you say that when we send up probes like crazy? It ain't
finished.
  #80   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Richard Crowley Richard Crowley is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4,172
Default Recording "Nature" Sounds

"Don Pearce" wrote ...
Romeo Rondeau wrote:

Daniel Mandic wrote:
Don Pearce wrote:

That problem is even worse for them with satellites. It is now
essentially impossible to take a long exposure photo without a
satellite cruising through it.

Yeah, that's the actual space-exploration. Up to the satellites and
then back to Earth. :-(


You gotta start somewhere, space exploration is still in it's infancy.


In its infancy? It has had its day - it's finished.


You can't be serious.
We can only percieve ~3% of what is in the universe.
And it may not even be *that* much.

Reply
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules

Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
More crazy rants from Robert Morein aka "Dr. Richard Graham"aka "Wackjob Bob" Robert Morein Vacuum Tubes 1 November 4th 06 08:01 PM
"AKAI", "KURZWEIL", "ROLAND", DVDs and CDs [email protected] Audio Opinions 0 January 31st 06 10:08 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 01:48 PM.

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 AudioBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.
 

About Us

"It's about Audio and hi-fi"