John Hartog wrote:
> And then there is species and ecosystem documentation -
> what about all that communication above 20k?
Hi John,
Yes, there are indeed applications (in bats and insects) where it is VERY i=
mportant to record at sample rates higher than 44.1 kHz. However, I believe=
that this normally does not justify (for common nature recording) to recor=
d at 96 or 192 kHz all the time. Even a sample rate of 192 kHz would not be=
sufficient to record all the communication that takes place in the animal =
kingdom.
Simply the fact that we cannot hear those signals while using common record=
ing gear makes this attempt a bit questionable. In fact one would need spec=
ialized equipment that allows to listen to (or viewing) the ultrasonic sign=
als while recording them and of course one would need suited microphones th=
at cover the desired frequency range. Otherwise, such ultrasonic recording =
sessions would be something like a blind flight.
Regards,
Raimund
|