Gianni Pavan wrote:
> Hi all,
> I would simply say that every situation, like every research, has its
> ow=
n
> features and its own needs. In my particular case, acoustic surveys with=
> towed arrays of hydrophones, the ability to do continuous recordings
> 24h/day for weeks is the key to get the results we are searching for.
> Recording 40GB/day, maybe for 2 weeks with no interruption, is a big
> challenge. Though no one has a software smart enough to recognize what to=
> record and what to discard. Thus we prefer to record everything and to do=
> continuous monitoring with headphones and real-time spectrograms to
> classify the sounds we receive into a limited set of easily identifiable=
> sound categories. This is done continuously, 24h/day by rotating trained=
> operators, with a 1 minute accuracy. At the end of each cruise we can
> produce a GIS map of what sounds were recorded and where. Then we use thi=
s
> data as an index to recordings, to easily focus on interesting cuts. Also=
,
> we test different automatic recognition algorithms on our data sets and w=
e
> make comparisons with what the operators did. Maybe in future we will be=
> able to discard all those cuts with no interesting sounds.
>
> Gianni
I certainly agree, the automatic software is not there yet. But, it's
what everybody is attempting to do. Having those folks listening all the
time adds a lot of expense. More and more research is not done because
of a lack of funds to pay for the help.
I doubt that your situation is repeated much in this mostly terrestrial
recording group. Certainly not the level of intensive data logging while
moving.
I'm just cautioning that before committing to making long recordings a
person needs to realize exactly what sort of commitment they are making.
A unattended long recording is just time shifting. Sure you may get to
listen to it without all the usual insect bites and so on in a pleasant
indoor setting. But you will have to listen just like you would if out
there. Being present in person is likely to pick up more too, than
listening to one aspect via a recording.
In astronomy, even hobby astronomy, we have folks that sit inside at
their computer looking at digital images transmitted from their
telescope outside. I hardly consider them as true participants in the
hobby, but more like spectators. It's far different being there, even if
it's just outside vs inside. Outside I can look around at the whole sky,
not just the narrow view of the telescope. Same with recording, the mic
is a limited view of the sound picture. A much more complete view will
come from being there and listening. And that does not even count the
other senses.
And that's why I'm a field biologist, and not a indoor one.
Walt
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
|