i like this response.
but still, one wonders if this is what the original sound file sounds
like, or has it been mp3 compressed to death by scientists that
aren't audiophiles?
if the original sound files are this quality, so be it. but i always
like to work with the best possible sounding source material before i
start to screw around w/ it.
g.
On 10-Jan-08, at 12:03 PM, Owen Green wrote:
Can't it be both?
As representations of 'pure' phenomena - and not ones we could ever
directly hear, it's worth noting - the files' limited bandwidth and
dynamic range can be understood as inhibiting.
As representations of an (imperfect) reconstruction of some
phenomena, we hear the results of, e.g., technical ambiguity (in
the construction of a sound from sensor data) and of choices (made
about *how* to sonify,
how much to clean up, the resolution at which to publish online
etc.).
For me, it's the messy ambiguity that I find 'meaningful character'
in...
--
Owen
Visa Kuoppala wrote:
My thoughts also... And I don't think this adds any meaningful
"character" to the sounds, but reduces their subtle otherworldly
qualities...
I'm in anyway, but higher quality soundfiles would make it more
interesting...
--------------------------------------------------------------------
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: microsound-unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
For additional commands, e-mail: microsound-help@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
website: http://www.microsound.org
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: microsound-unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
For additional commands, e-mail: microsound-help@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
website: http://www.microsound.org