[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [microsound] Re: microsound Digest 19 Apr 2003 23:05:19 -0000 Issue 888
- To: microsound <microsound@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: Re: [microsound] Re: microsound Digest 19 Apr 2003 23:05:19 -0000 Issue 888
- From: Aaron Ximm <ghede@xxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sun, 20 Apr 2003 13:55:17 -0700 (PDT)
> If you wan't to do be able to do EQ on your recordings don't use MD.
> Minidiscs reduce the amount of data is by removing 'inaudible' bands of
> frequencies. However, it's very audible if you try to do EQ on your
> minidisc recordings.
FWIW my experience with my own recordings is that applying FFT or EQ (as I
do almost all the time) is fine. I do not find that bumping up any given
frequency band 'reveals' compression.
I can generally detect MD artifacts in (a) low level near-white noise
background ambiance (eg, rushing water noise recorded at a low level
relative to some foreground sound), and (b) when doing time/pitch domain
transformations, particularly radical varispeed manipulations (eg, 2 or
more octaves).
Incidentally I'm speaking of hearing positive artifacts, not 'negative'
ones caused by the absence of something I might otherwise hear. In my own
work the former bother me a lot more than the latter. (Although I've used
some of the artifacts as elements in composition before ~ why not?)
But of course YMMV, I'd be the first to admit that my ears are not as
golden as I might wish. I'm a proponent of MD because its convenience
changed my life, but not particularly 'religious' about it; if you're
reading this and are considering adopting it as a medium for collecting
sound for your own work, the obvious thing to do is give it a try and see
whether any of the real or perceived limitations of it bother you...
best
aaron
ghede@xxxxxxxx
http://www.quietamerican.org
------------------------------