Lang Elliott wrote:
> on 3/10/03 10:35 PM, Walter Knapp at wrote:
> Walt,
>
> Perhaps you're right. Raven is really designed as a sound analysis tool f=
or
> scientists and may not cater to the needs of us nature sound recordists.
Part of the problem is that they tend to develop this ivory tower thing.
They isolate themselves from what's going on. I deal with the same thing
with the herps people down here as far as computers and equipment.
Of course part of it is also that science does not have piles of money.
The shoestring that government agencies responsible for dealing with the
natural systems live on is criminal.
> The big feature I'm hoping will be included in Raven is the ability to ma=
ke
> decent Log 2 sonograms (you probably remember all my posts about this las=
t
> year). They were supposed to include this feature, but I see no mention =
of
> it on the web site.
>
> I still feel that a log 2 representation will produce a sound-picture tha=
t
> more closely resembles the way we hear, which is in octaves. An arithmeti=
c
> sonogram stretches the highs and is misleading to the eye.
Spark XL's sonogram has the log option. Take a look at the one I just
put up from Spark XL, it's log scaled. I never use it's linear scaling.
http://frogrecordist.home.mindspring.com/naturerecordists/Martyn.samples.jp=
g
It does mean that it shows the failings of resolution of low frequencies
for the usual settings for sonograms. That's one thing that would be
nice to have in Raven. It involves having FFT settings higher than the
4096 top one in Spark XL. You simply have to analyze longer time
segments at lower frequencies.
But I do note that every screen shot of a sono they have is linear.
Walt
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
|