From: "Graham M Smith" <>
> Yes, this was the problem we had. We hadn't really thought it through, an=
d
> suddenly had hundreds of hours of recordings to wade through
You are not alone in that error. It's very commonplace for people to not
realize just how long analysis takes.
>>> Note also, if you are listening to analyze that you can play the MD
>>> itself to do that,
>
>
> That is what we did, we had a team of people, bookmarking every instance =
of
> a bat recording, and then copied that section of recording into Bat sound
> software for analysis, or at least some of them. In fact, in this instanc=
e,
> the key needs were met through listening to the discs. The primary object=
ive
> was to count the number of greater horseshoe bat passes, and these are
> readily identified simply by listening to the recording.
I don't know if it's the same people, but by hooking up a deck to the
computer like I have, it's virtually seamless to grab the samples as I
found them and do the analysis on the spot. I don't have that kind of
hours of samples, so usually listen as transferring, thats my first sort
of what's in the recording, not time wasted. And then any playing after
that I'll likely have a sonogram running so I can hear and see what's
going on.
> Is this the same deck as Aaron mentioned: the Sony MDH-10, or are there
> alternatives to this.
The one Aaron mentioned is a way out of production data drive that can
read the audio disks. No current decks do that, it's all 1x, realtime
from current decks, no matter if it's done via analog, optical digital,
or usb. All of which my Portadisc can do. My deck only has analog outs,
it's one designed for handling CD to MD copying, having both drives in
it. Model is the MXD-D3, and it's been replaced by newer models that do
the same.
The new version MD's apparently can transfer faster. Up to the read
speed of the optical disk. That's not going to be a whole lot faster,
current MD can read up to about 5x, which is why the one Aaron has
limits out at about that copy speed.
I really think that copying all that large amount of recording into the
computer is not the way to go. It's going to eat hard disks like mad,
and will use time that it's not necessary to use. You are much better
standardizing on a system where the initial sort is done by listening to
the recording on the original medium and only selectively transferring.
Best if you have people who can do the selective transfers on the fly as
they listen. That is unless you can come up with computer software
that's reliable enough at doing the original analysis. Even there it
might do that without transferring.
> I have also wondered about one of the Creative Juke boxes (can't remember
> the model) but they now have a line in/out capability and will record *.w=
av
> files directly from the bat detector: at least it looks as if it will. Th=
is
> would give me 20gb plus of recording and they cost about the same as top =
end
> consumer grade minidsk recorder.
It's going to be way outside what the Juke box was designed for. Bet
something won't work right for that use.
Walt
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
|