Andrew,
> > This topic bubbles up everyone once in a while in my
> circles....and I say
Are your circles concerned with bats? If there is a mailing list etc
dedicated to recording bats then I would be interested
> > If good enough is good enough, then fine for you, but leave the
> people who want and need newer and better tools alone to accomplish their
works.
Of course, if you "need" the newer and better tools then that fits the
definition of being "good enough". That is the point of the argument that
instead of getting bogged down with some minor improvement or concern over
quality, you only require a level of quality that is "good enough" for your
"needs"
> > I find it truly ironic that this post has the heading =B3MiniDisk
> data transfer and bat recordings=B2
Well, OK, "Minidisk data transfer of recordings from bat detectors" would
have been more accurate
> > It=B9s been reported that bats make sound well over 120khz.
But that isn't what is being recorded. What is being recorded is the
original bat calls converted by the bat detectors to at least a 10th of the
original frequency (assuming the arithmetic is as simple as that) so the
highest frequencies being recorded will be 12 (twelve) khz.
The nuances of how the bat detectors alter/distort the signal before
outputting to the recorder is another story.
Graham
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
|