wrote:
>
> Good point! I've been careful to do this to human voice interviews, and to
> species with fairly low frequency calls and songs. Our own ears can hear
> some distortions and changes in quality with downsampling, and sonagrams are
> obviously much more accurate. Again, the purpose of the web recordings is
> also pertinent. And remember that many people that download sounds are
> listening on pretty poor speakers, too--the kind that make a Ruffed Grouse
> sound like someone tapping on a tabletop.
I always assume that at least some will be using good speakers or
headphones. And my final choice is done by actual listening comparisons
with quality headphones. In my case I pay particular attention to the
cues I use to identify the species. We are not trying to put out a
perfect sample on the web, but as good a compromise as we can. We want
someone who hears a call outside and comes to our site to have a good
chance of being able to match the call.
When using sonograms be sure and be aware that the math involved in
producing sonograms produces artifacts in the display. In particular a
lot of what looks like harmonics off the louder parts of the call is not there.
Walt
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
|