How accurate are you at estimating time passing?

1

When out field recording problematic ambiences I sometimes resort to closing my eyes & counting seconds (one thousand and one, one thousand and two, one thousand and three etc) and as soon as a problem occurs (I notice unwanted noise pollution etc) I stop counting and only resume once I have a clean ambience again... I do this to insure I have captured more than enough ie a useable amount of clean ambiences... But over the years I have noticed that sometimes if I set a process going and it estimates eg 23 minutes and I leave it to it, without looking at a clock (or watch or my phone) I will walk back in just as it finishes... So I have always wondered if this is a side effect of working with time based media ie you develop an instinct for duration

user49

Posted 2013-08-27T00:25:53.090

Reputation:

Uninteresting nitpick: If you can repeat that a hundred or a thousand times and count how many times you're correct, and the times you're correct is high enough, then it may be statistically significant. – Internet Human – 2013-08-27T16:13:46.450

1If it happens often enough that you notice it, then its more than a coincidence.... – None – 2013-08-27T21:02:25.060

Maybe, but obviously would not be generalizable to "people who work with time based media develop an instinct for duration", which I think you were looking to confirm. – Internet Human – 2013-08-27T23:42:21.410

3I am OBVIOUSLY not trying to establish some statistically accurate generalisation about the entire population based on the comments of half a dozen people on a minority forum.... Good grief!?! But I AM intrigued as to whether a tendency I experience myself is common amongst other people working in this industry. It is obviously anecdotal and NOT statistically based.. You were right about the uninteresting nitpick aspect though – None – 2013-08-28T02:34:16.333

Well said @tim! – Stavrosound – 2013-08-28T04:34:31.200

This sounded like something that could have even scientifically-minded interest, were the hypothesis of working with time-based medium improving the ability to measure time actually true... but I guess the point surely is just in speculation then and not much of evidence (seeing whether the hypothesis is actually true). Yes, uninteresting nitpick, because it's obviously non-doable in a small QA forum, but I thought the question was framed so as to make an attempt in confirming the hypothesis (even if in a very small random group and even if just "unofficially"). – Internet Human – 2013-08-28T05:46:47.903

Purely anecdotal.... Similarly I would expect people who spend a lot of their waking hours making sure sound is in sync with picture, to have a more highly developed aility to spot sync than 'normal' people - i remember how much i learned about sync through cutting foley eg how late or early does it feel? then checking and cutting the sound into sync, and learning... – None – 2013-08-28T06:29:37.997

Answers

2

While booming with a 5++ meter boom time passes very slowly. ;)

MrToBe

Posted 2013-08-27T00:25:53.090

Reputation: 142

0

I find that when I am recording ambiences and walk away to prevent any potential disturbance from impeding the recording, I go and listen to music which I already am familiar with the duration and set my recording duration in respect to the time I have gone off to listen to music. I also have timed myself reading per page so that when I have read a certain number of passages in relation to the length of recording time, I return and find that I am within 30-45 seconds of my estimation.

I like your counting technique as well and if you don't mind, would like to use it for more problematic recordings where there is a higher chance of sounds intruding on my ambient recording.

Thanks

oinkaudio

Posted 2013-08-27T00:25:53.090

Reputation: 2 113

0

I normally have my iPhone with me. I keep the equipment far enough away and monitor with headphones or just listen without them. I always check the starting time and start writing down notes on the specific session, basic stuff like airplane overhead, type of birds that whistle, but also weather conditions and how the scene feels. I also start recounting after a disturbance or conflicting sound in the scene. After i think i've head enough (and it never is enough :) i try to think of a good description and filename. This saves a lot of time back in the studio.

I just realised I didn't really answer the question. Here goes: It depends on the situation, when i'm not a specific spot but moving about i mostly don't count. I mostly observe and listen to the scene and when i get 'bored' i most of time stop recording. My experience is that if I'm not interested while listening at the spot, i will also not be using the recording very often. At specific locations I always use a silent timer to at least get a certain amount of material.

Most of the time I'm having a harder time pressing stop, simply because I fear on missing out a great new sound. I hate it when that happens..

Arnoud Traa

Posted 2013-08-27T00:25:53.090

Reputation: 2 886

0

It depends on my mood I am in. If it is a hot summer day with the sweat running all over and I'm recording in a stressful or loud enviroment (let's say a highway) I tend to think that more time has passed than it actually did. If I'm recording in a calm ambience where I feel very comfortable (beach, corn fields, etc.) time flies by and I tend to end up with a longer recording than I were up to.

Michael Manzke

Posted 2013-08-27T00:25:53.090

Reputation: 865

0

I go more with specific ratios - usually 2:1, but sometimes as high as 5:1 if there's a lot of ambient crap going on.

In other words, if I feel like I need a solid 5 minutes of clean ambience I'll roll a minimum of 10 minutes (if things feel clean) and as many as 25 or 30 minutes if I'm dealing with mostly noise and only intermittent clean sounds.

Simple math, and frees my mind to think on other things.

I've also been known to measure recordings in candy crush / angry bird game iterations. :)

Rene

Posted 2013-08-27T00:25:53.090

Reputation: 10 706

You're answering a different question Rene - I asked about perception of time/can you accurately estimate duration? :) – None – 2013-08-27T21:05:13.403

fair enough. I've found that I can call out 10 and 30 second markers without effort. I have a very good feel for what 5 or 10 minutes feels like. beyond that I get pretty lost. Dont ask me what day of the week it is on most occasions. :) – Rene – 2013-08-28T14:36:38.363

0

My wife jokes its a mini super power of mine. Without a watch or phone I can normally tell you the time within a minute or two even if its been hrs since last looking at a clock. Strangely, when travelling into different time zones, its often consistent!

Brent_in_Sydney

Posted 2013-08-27T00:25:53.090

Reputation: 562

0

Off topic: For how long are you waiting until you stop the recording and you're satisfied?

Markus

Posted 2013-08-27T00:25:53.090

Reputation: 1

it isn't stopping the recording that ever satisifies me - as with shooting photos its not until they are checked out of context/back in the studio that I can fully appreciate what I have captured – None – 2013-08-28T20:43:41.450

I see but I'm curious about the average time spent on recording a single ambient sound. Let's say that you start to count and don't find any bad sounds while recording, everything is going great. Ofcourse the time is depending on what place you are recording at and what you wan't to record, but any common places like forests or lakes, how much time in average do you like to spend before you leave the place for another? Minutes, hours? – Markus – 2013-08-29T15:37:27.253

0

This all makes me very curious, and my approach is a bit different. I often find that when given a reference time from a clock, if I am asked within an hour after the reference is given I can give the time within a minute or two. This usually happens when I am doing something which calls strongly for my concentration (which, for me, is usually working in a theater or behind a computer/console).

Tim, I think you are right that our work in time-based media is a factor—perhaps not only because it is time-based but because our work during recording/editing/mixing requires full concentration and detailed listening, our brain clock is more active and accurate.

Lord knows the neuroscience-savvy members of SSD will have something to say about this :).

~Matt

Matt Glenn

Posted 2013-08-27T00:25:53.090

Reputation: 1 801