Field Recording: Indian Wedding Band

[herodotus]

This is quite fascinating.

And the recording is better than a lot of records I have owned ('Folkways', anyone?).



Cool indeed.

8)8)8)8)

[pw]

I have a few great ethnographic CD's - a very cool 'Sounds of Islam' set, and some very very nice 'Ethnic Museum' series which is really old stuff recorded with ancient gear in Eastern Europe and Central Asia mostly. There are some fascinating performances there.

This file is with a minidisc, and I am going to keep using the MD for a while, as I think it gets a pretty good sound (I have a nice little mic for it).

[oddbods finger]

very nice recording, sounds great.

trouble with oggs is that WMP doesn't play them

[pw]

very nice recording, sounds great.

trouble with oggs is that WMP doesn't play them

maybe in Vista?

[LOOPxDIGGA]

i downloaded the ogg file...what can i use to convert this to a wave file???

[Mr. Tingle]

I would use mp3 at 192kbps. Ogg is good but no one will listen to your stuff!

[pw]

i downloaded the ogg file...what can i use to convert this to a wave file???

there is also an mp3 file there of course, but for ogg:

NuSofting's VSTPLOOGin:
http://liqihsynth.com/catalogue.htm
plays ogg from any VST host.

Audacity (the Win/Mac/Linux Open Source Audio Editor that *everyone* should have - it always does something handy):
http://audacity.sourceforge.net/

I would use mp3 at 192kbps. Ogg is good but no one will listen to your stuff!

That is why there is ogg *and* mp3 there .

[emdot_ambient]

I would use mp3 at 192kbps. Ogg is good but no one will listen to your stuff!

As someone pointed out, if you use a variable bit rate instead of a constant bit rate, an mp3 file would be better.

It's the old VHS vs Beta argument. One format may be slightly better than the other but ultimately it's the size of the user base, not the quality, that wins out when it comes to one standard versus another.

I'm all for ogg catching on as king of compression, but until the big boys embrace it (which they won't because it's open source and doesn't have digital restrictions on it to prevent copying), then mp3 will reign.

If you continue to offer the option, I'd suggest making the mp3 VBR. You'll get best bang for the bitrate with that.

[pw]

I would use mp3 at 192kbps. Ogg is good but no one will listen to your stuff!

As someone pointed out, if you use a variable bit rate instead of a constant bit rate, an mp3 file would be better.

It's the old VHS vs Beta argument. One format may be slightly better than the other but ultimately it's the size of the user base, not the quality, that wins out when it comes to one standard versus another.

I'm all for ogg catching on as king of compression, but until the big boys embrace it (which they won't because it's open source and doesn't have digital restrictions on it to prevent copying), then mp3 will reign.

If you continue to offer the option, I'd suggest making the mp3 VBR. You'll get best bang for the bitrate with that.

okay. I did some recordings in the Church of the Holy Sepulchre in Jerusalem today - if there is some good material between all the camera clicks from the hundreds of tourists, then I will put it up in mp3 VBR.