>> 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
Yes, I believe that the usage of MD recorders for your specific application
should not prevent the discrimination of bat species. MD will not change th=
e
(fundamental) frequency envelopes of the calls. At the worst case, it could
slightly degrade the signal to noise ratio of your recordings. Even if a fe=
w
harmonics get lost in time-expansion recordings (buried in the quantization
noise), this would probably not affect your results. Similar effects can al=
so
be caused by the specific recording situation (distance and angle between t=
he
bats and the microphone).
=20
>Now if I was undertaking some bat bio-acoustical study then I
>would re-position my views on what is "good enough".
That's true. If you was interested in more specific in-depth analysis of ba=
t
call structures and needed the maximum possible quality, then MD might
become a limitation.
Regards,
Raimund
--
+++ GMX - die erste Adresse f=FCr Mail, Message, More +++
Bis 31.1.: TopMail + Digicam f=FCr nur 29 EUR http://www.gmx.net/topmail
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
|