#153

did you improvised on location, ie while recording ? or post-recording ?

#154

Everything was done in real time while recording on location. I had created a Max patch ahead of time with some tools (multi delay, envelopes, triggers, slicers, etc), then fed the live audio directly into the patch and listened through headphones while I played.

2 Likes
#155

Nice approach!

20202020

#156

My approach involves using whatever I can find, which in the past has included both hi and low end equipment (e.g., shoebox-style cassette recorders, handheld Zooms, and Sound Devices recorders; and built-in and external microphones of varying quality). I’m in total agreement with @analogue01 in that perhaps the aesthetic is more important than overall audio “quality”. Graham Lambkin is one of my favorite artists to utilize field recordings as material for his work, and he uses some “poor” quality recorders quite effectively. Embrace what you have! Embrace noisy pre-amps and crap microphones!

4 Likes
#157
2 Likes
#158

Totally agree with this! It’s not like gear isn’t important, but it’s not as important as we might think. There’s also another aspect to it, you can make up a mental plan of what the final piece should sound like and then pick your gear according to that, or you can pick some random gear and explore that. In the end field recording is a lot about exploring, so it only makes sense to include the gear you use in that process too.

5 Likes
Speaker Preferences
#159

This whole discussion made me want to share these work-in-progresses that I’ve been working on as of lately.

The first two tracks are made using mainly field recordings specifically created for these tracks. The idea was to pick one interesting space for each track, explore it sonically through field recording and then create a track using these sounds. Spaces should be closed ones, but could be of different sizes. The first track is made using sounds from a 4 storey-high light shaft, the second one with sounds from inside and outside of a concrete bridge. Initially I wanted to be very strict with how much I would add to these tracks. So in “shaft” I did add some sounds made with the modular synth, but they were only there to emphasize pitched tones already presents in the field recordings (the shaft is characterized by strong, clearly pitched comb filtering)
In “bridge” the added synthesis sounds are passed through a convolution reverb that uses fragments from the bridge’s sounds as the IR. The last track is just a mix of random modular stuff I’m still unsure about…

https://soundcloud.com/papernoise/sets/kurodama-various-wips/s-oGRTU

3 Likes
#160

I am still researching the mid price recorders…sort of chewing over the zoom F4 at the moment as I would quite like four tracks. Have read differing reviews of it but no comparisons with the eridol and the tascams at the same price bracket (around £500-600).

For the record I do lots of recording with walkmans, dictaphones, mobiles and minidiscs and love the lo-fi end of things. Take the point that good stuff can be achieved at all levels. I dont recall seeing any comments on synth//eurorack threads telling people they should embrace their Casios? (but maybe they should)

As I am at work I cant listen to your tracks Papernoise but looking forward to them later. Personally I love altered and composed over field recordings…dont hold any purist standpoint over recordings - this integrity thing is a bit of a hang over- has its place but not always valid.

There is an air conditioning duct at work which I am desperate to get a really high quality recording of. It is just fantasically haunting.

#161

I have the same craving of making a super hq recording of a specific factory hum close by. I just realised a pattern of where the more banal the sound gets the more hq I want it. Whereas with more special sounds I don’t mind it being lofi. Feels like I want to compensate conventional sounds with higher quality which doesn’t really make sense when I think of it…

2 Likes
#162

To me there’s sounds that have a lot of fine-grained and subtle details, and for those I think it’s great if your recording equipment is as hi-q as possible (within reason). Then there’s the sounds that are just generally interesting, where it’s less about the details but about the whole thing, and then there’s the sounds that aren’t nothing special by themselves, but can be made interesting by using a certain recording technique which might as well be a lo-fi one.
I see lo-fi recording or processing equipment as a stylistic device that you can use on sound for various purposes, which can range from “talking about technology in sound and music” to capturing a certain mood, or feeling that certain devices add to the sound (thanks for what we associate with them).

1 Like
#163

So, I’m headed out west, and in the interest of tinkering with more stereo recording, I just ordered a 2nd contact mic and 2nd hydrophone from Jez Riley French. Super good dude. Super pleased with the results of the mics I bought from him. Now I can hopefully get some stereo recordings in June :slight_smile:

4 Likes
#164

where is out west? what you hoping to record in the water? anyway good hunting.

#165

Sorry for not being specific, I’m headed out through South Dakota, Wyoming, and Montana. I’m not sure what I’m hoping to record, I try not to be too specific with field recording and just sort of use it as an opportunity to savor the magic of ‘normal’ life sounds.

1 Like
#166

https://www.sounddevices.com/news/sound-devices-news/introducing-the-mixpre-series

potentially interesting…new sound devices priced between their normal high end and the hand helds… its all a bit hype so far but hopefully some decent reviews with comparison tests will follow.

1 Like
#167

Thought I’d share this with the Field Recording thread and not the latest tracks as this work is made up entirely of field recordings.
All sounds were recorded on the Isle of Grain (also known as the Hoo Peninsular) in Kent, UK over two days in October 2016. All sounds were captured on a basic Tascam Dr07 Mk2 recorder with attached Omni-directional Microphones. I was very much inspired by the field recording philosophy of Chris Watson, the idea of taking sections of the recordings and layering them to make a soundscape. (I understand that this is how Chris Watson made his famous St. Cuthberts Time album by building up layers of sound almost like a painter). I took this idea to its limit by looping shorter sections of the recordings to make it more like a ‘music’ track. The drone of the light aircraft really helped as well, it came over the island low and seems very musical.
I don’t believe there is anything called a ‘pure field recording’, all recorded sounds are selective to some degree or another and I think we should always blend several recordings together.
Enjoy

7 Likes
#168

HOLY COW!!!

Sound Devices saved themselves!

It’s obviously very early, but this–THIS!–looks like almost exactly the device I’ve been arguing for for going on at least half a dozen years now. I’m astonished. I’d mostly given up.

And the expected price! Honestly, I’m astonished: $900 for the big one.

Let’s see how it holds up in the hands of users.

Thank you for sharing this. Huge!

1 Like
#169

Yes…sort of the same thoughts here…if they have got rid of the features we dont need and kept the quality thats a promising start.

#170

I couldn’t see the track recording count? Am I missing it, or are they stereo record only?

#171

im guessing so…just have read the same website as you…no insider knowledge

#172

Eight tracks on the 6, five on the 3; four mic/line ins on the 6, two on the 3.

Really, really exciting.

https://www.sounddevices.com/products/recorders/mixpre-6/feature-comparison

3 Likes