> I work on the concept of "good enough". It's all fine and dandy to waste
> lots of money chasing perfect if it amuses you, but what really counts
> is "good enough". If it will get the job done well, why spend extra?
Exactly, I have taken some criticism for using Frequency Division detectors
and MDs at high compression. But I felt this missed the point, I only neede=
d
to separate out Horseshoe bats from the rest, and I needed a lot of samplin=
g
stations. The set up I ended up with was perfectly adequate for what I
needed and had we gone the "high quality" route, the project juts wouldn't
have happened because of the costs of setting it up.
As it was, we learnt a lot about how the bats were using the study area and
because we had the detectors running well into the morning we also
discovered that the bats were still flying an hour and a half after sunrise=
.
We also found that, although the radio tracking work had shown only one
route across the site, or rather just off the site, we had records of
Greater Horseshoe bats using every linear corridor all over the site. A ver=
y
different picture to the one given by radio tracking. Of course costs and
concerns about bat welfare restrict the number of bats that can be tagged
for radio tracking.
> This is particularly true in science, where funds are always limited.
> "good enough" is what you are after.
Now if I was undertaking some bat bio-acoustical study then I would
re-position my views on what is "good enough".
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.
Graham
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
|