Yes having great recording gear and using it at the "high quality"
settings is good but as you say it doesnt guarantee good results. I
know people who will only ever buy and use "the best" in equipment but
sometimes I suspect they hope the gear will somehow compensate for the
skills and knowledge that they sense they lack. In the end there's
no substitute for that knowledge and those skills.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Association for Recorded Sound Discussion List"
<[log in to unmask]>
To:<[log in to unmask]>
Sent:Sat, 21 Nov 2020 10:37:01 +0100
Subject:[ARSCLIST] Terminological choice
In the academic literature (of linguistics) I often read about the
necessity to record with "high-quality recordings..." and what they
often mean is all based on technical parameters. For instance using a
mic, and recording to .wav format at something like 48khz/24bit.
My perspective, and I think some on this list would agree, is that
technical settings on hardware by themselves do not make a
recording". My interpretation is that "quality" involves so much more
terms of sound engineering, such as mic placement, levels like gain
to signal ratio) etc, and composition of the content.
So I am writing a brief squib on this issue, and I would like to
terminologically make a distinction between a "High quality
a "a well recorded recording". I am wondering if I should contrast
concepts of "High quality recording" and "High fidelity recording"?
you think? Do these terms adequately capture the contrast? Are there
terms that should be used?
all the best,
Email sent using Optus Webmail