As per a recent forum discussion, I have started tagging files that I have recorded and not manipulated (other than cleaning up and editing out the bad parts) as "Purist".
Mostly these are nature recordings where a bird sound is really made by a bird, thunder is really made by lightning, etc; and not created by a synth or manipulated in such a way that it is now a new sound altogether. (I'll have to go back and re-tag previous samples that I have uploaded.)
Thanks for taking the initiative. I was waiting to see if there were any other suggestions-was concerned that 'purist' had elitist connotations. Certainly don't want to disparage the art of sound manipulation. But I'd say for consistancy and immediacy 'purist' it will be. I'm doing some recording while in Paris and will upload them shortly with that tag.
I believe that many can benefit from a resource to aquire sounds that they may not be in a position to record themselves.
I think we should all take the initiative to let any sound collectors know of this resource(and encourage them to share material they may have.
And to reiterate what you said earlier the tag 'Purist' will stand for all sounds collected and not manipulated sonically. (of course cleaning or editing is permissible in the interest of presenting a better representation of the intended source)
This of course is my two cents and entirely open for comments, discussion etc.
this is a decent idea...otherwise the samples simply are deleted "from behind" always beautifully cleanly describe :roll:...cya
eek, I didn't know one could post as "guest", gotta fix that
"raw" would be confusing with "raw" as in "raw waveform format"...
No-one stops you to use both tags!
I mean, that's the power of tags, you can adapt to other rules, but you don't have to...
You could even propose the tag in this forum, but I'm not forcing anyone to use any tag, this forum is basicaly for "suggestions"
As the original instigator of this thread, I would certainly not discourage the use of other tags, but would like to see one which denotes a sound of an unaltered nature.
I do sound editing for film, television, and theater and like the idea of a datacase larger than my own and the CD libraries for real world sounds that I don't have the time resources to collect at the time. It of course would be most expedient if someone in this situation could search under a specific tag to find what they seek.
Raw could be appropriate, but also has aesthetic connotation which could be related to a more manufactured sound.
I would still stick with Purist unless something more appropriate comes up.
just like to add that for RAW/Purist tags the file shouldnt be compressed with a lossy format (like mp3 or ogg).
just thought i'd add purist for me would be straight from source to wav file with as little edit as possible, things like slicing or chopping start/end times even normalizing the wav then after are fine but if you start to change the sound with eq or whatever i think it's not as how it was captured in the first place... even if you didn't have the best equipment at hand i think it's still better to leave it as it is. natural.
I just uploaded my first sounds and as they weren't processed in any way I chose the tag "unprocessed" as the most apt.
purist seems a little to vague to me. Are we purist about the microphones, the pre-amps, the format (mp3/not), the environment ... ?
It's fine to re-define "purist" very specifically in the forum , but that definition may not manage to percolate out to novice uploaders like myself, who see purist as a confusing catch all.
raw is possible, but has a .RAW (file format) feel to it.
Well, I hesitated to tag the "field-recordings" I uploaded as "purist" precisely because I didn't think my recording equipment was particularly pure.. :?
OTOH, they were almost unprocessed: trimmed, sometimes a short fade-in or fade-out, minimally amplified (usually just to bring up to the nearest multiple of 3 dB, to help with later processing in MaxMSP).
Sounds as though that might qualify, after all.
To me, Purist, means audiophile quality. With a superb signal chain and a good source material. But thats just me, talking about definitions can be a very tedious process (Whats Art?)
Why don't we just use the tags 'processed' and 'unprocessed'? That would be clear, right? Processed is stuff you edited after recording, unprocessed is exactly how you recorded it in the first place.
I think Anton's right. Until I get some slammin' mics and a multimegabit ultradigital recording device, I'd prefer "unprocessed" to "purist."
I second that! Maybe Freesound can provide us with state of the art equipment in order to meet the "purist" criteria...
how about "acoustic" or "natural"? or just "pure" - purist has connotations! :?: