Walt
>They put out a frog logger to do this. Of course a bunch of
> eyes and ears that don't just do their biology 9-5 would have worked
as
> well. We have some herps people I know of that contract surveys and
only
> work 9-5, one of my little pet peeves. Frogs are very scarce in
their
> surveys.
Well, this bat stuff is contract consultancy work, but we are the
contractor, and me and my team were out until 2am changing over the
disks every night, were using hand held detectors in between time, to
try and fill in some of the gaps left by the static detectors, and
back out at 6am to check the great crested newt traps. Our working
days are dictated by what we are surveying and what techniques we are
using. I cannot see ecological consultants surviving if they try and
work a 9-5 day.
> For that, MD is highly inappropriate. But so is any other standard
audio
> recorder, not matter if it's compressed or uncompressed. In
actuality in
> such studies "good enough" has little to do with what is appropriate
and
> cost effective and all to do with what will be acceptable on peer
> review.
Very true.
> > One web site that did concern me was
> > http://www.avisoft-saslab.com/compression/compression.htm
> >
> > but I assume you are ware of this one.
>
> That's Raimond's attempt at analyzing on paper something he's no
> experience with. He heavily overstates his case.
Mmmm, Ok I will leave it there, I don't want to open/re-open any old
discussions on this.
thanks again,
Graham
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
|