At 07:58 AM 7/19/2004 -0700, Dave wrote:
>For example, they [Cornell] claim, if two tones close
>in frequency are present but one is significantly louder than the other,
>we won't percieve the softer tone and ATRAC exploits this phenomenon and
>drops the tone of lower amplitude. But if other species can resolve two
>tones where we cannot, they may be likely to produce calls with that
>feature and any resulting ATRAC recording will not reveal that fact.
>However, the article contained no citations or references to support
>that claim.
If we accept that ATRAC does not deliver a perfect copy of a natura=
l sound, and I do, what does that mean? What question are we trying to answ=
er? If it is to deliver pleasurable recordings to human ears ATRAC is just =
fine. If it is to study animals' behavior by their response to animal calls=
, then there are a lot of other variables that must be taken into account b=
efore we accuse the recording of being inadequate. A general indictment of =
ATRAC is meaningless.
In practical terms, I have seen birds respond to the cruddiest reco=
rding systems (RatShack cheapo cassette recorder and self-contained mic). I=
have seen species respond to calls of closely related species but not thei=
r own. They respond to predator calls too, of course. Their responses vary =
according to the time of day and season and age of the animal and other env=
ironmental noise and so on. Anyone who can pick ATRAC out of that pile of v=
ariables and say it's making a difference has got to show me how. I'm not d=
enying the possibility, but where's the beef?
-- Chuck
=20=20=20=20=20=20=20
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
Chuck Bragg, Pacific Palisades, CA
Membership Chair
Newsletter Editor
Santa Monica Bay Audubon Society
www.smbas.org
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
|