Marty Michener wrote:
> From my own recordings in the last five years, I can summarize a few
> facts. The following species recordings have components above 10 kHz, and
> I am speaking BIRDS, here (most with ME-67, a few ME66 Sennheiser mics).
Thanks, Marty, I knew there had to be some.
> I hasten to note that overloading any of these higher noted species will
> produce visible structure to the max that was never present in the bird's
> sounds, and these are examples where this process was carefully guarded
> against. Frequency measurements were made with Cool Edit Pro.
This is a very important point, particularly for those using sonogram
software. The math in that stuff throws all kinds of ghost echos off
strong sounds. Be very careful trusting things resembling harmonics in
sonograms.
It might be well to use a cut filter to remove the main call frequency
to see if the harmonics are real. I'm not convinced harmonics in actual
calls are really all that common. So many ways our equipment or analysis
can throw us off.
BTW, back when we did sonograms on a piece of sooty paper, we had
harmonics that were ghosts too.
> END OF MY FIRST POINT
>
> Second, the advice. Ask yourself, how was Marty able to produce this
> alphabetical list "one afternoon"? THAT IS THE ADVICE: what MOST of you
> recordists need to do: is not parlay new equipment justifications, but
> organize, label, database sort and detail all your work. Now ask yourself:
> which people on the list have already done that? It should be
> obvious. Doug's are already on his fabulous web page, as are Walt's,
> Lang's, etc..
Well, not quite all of mine are in my personal database yet. The stack
of cards is right here beside me, been working on those ever since I got
in the set in the form that the study needed.
> The advice: don't wait, do it now. The archives of this list tell in
> minute detail how to do it. Over and over again.
And keep doing it. It's a awful headache, but nothing compared to not
doing it. My worst problem is that although I know where everything is,
I neglected when I set it up to put a actual note in there as to the
quality of the recording, as obvious as that is. I'm in the process of
rectifying that error, listening to everything again and making evaluations.
> How to make database lists - I use software I wrote myself to create, link
> and maintain DBF files of all the locations, attributes of sounds, of
> species calls, etc. Anyone (with more sanity?) would use Excel or another
> database software. If you want a short course in "third-form relational
> database design", I can post that too. It IS different. It is not
> hard. Original design is far more important, so the attributes are
> properly linked to the real world, than is what software platform you use
> to implement it.
I use Filemaker Pro on the Mac. It's very easy to use and has some real
nice features. For instance, from a data entry perspective, it can use
lists of possible data and when you hit that field give you a menu to
choose from. Things like the frog species lists, common name lists, and
abundance groupings I do that way, faster than typing it and every entry
is spelled the same, no typo's. It takes moments to set things like that
up. And with Filemaker (and probably most database programs) you can
later add fields and so on with no problem.
I also never trust computers. The originals are hand written cards, and
I'm not throwing those out, though I hope I never need to re-enter them.
I also dump out the data from Filemaker as a straight plain text backup
once in a while. And of course backup the database itself to optical disks.
And my sounds themselves are on two sets of CD's in different locations,
plus another entire backup system on optical disks. And I do have the
original MD's as well.
> I know I have said some accusative stuff, but I stand ready to help anyone
> develop their own archiving process, where you can actually look up stuff
> someone might ask about. For PC's as Doug and I have been saying for 3
> years: get Cool Edit. A PC with CD burner and 10 Gigs of space is less
> than $1000 now. No excuses.
For a mac, Peak is probably the best base for sound work. And Filemaker
Pro is a real database, not a spreadsheet, over the long haul you don't
want to base your data in spreadsheet software. And we were pricing out
a high end G4 tower yesterday for my son's programming work. About $2000
can get you a fire breathing dual 1ghz power PC processor machine with a
73 gig ultra scsi drive and built in CD-RW burner. And that's the top
end, though you can easily kit it out with more. The machinery is there
in whatever flavor you like.
I agree with Marty, if you are not doing the painful job of cataloging,
it's high time to start. The longer you put it off the worse it gets,
and the more you need it. And archive the recordings. This really means
on some form of optical media, not on any of the magnetic media.
I've already pointed out, that, for science this is basic. As is
thinking about what info you are storing. Make sure it includes accurate
location info. Get a GPS if you don't have one. GPS readings are awful
to type into a database, but are far and away the most reliable location
info you can have.
Walt
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
|