Interesting. I can see the same sonogram patterns using Raven and Sonic Vis=
ualiser using the track you just uploaded, but on the original and all othe=
r attempts at cleaning it up, the sub 4kHz bands aren't really visible. Eve=
n in yours, they're much fainter that those above 4.
I agree it looks like a good match, and a very likely one too, given the lo=
cation, but I'm wary of something that's completely invisible on the origin=
al.
Sonograms are a new thing to me, so I'm right out of my depth here. Do you =
think the distance and reverb can explain why the lower harmonic bands are =
fainter? I would have thought higher frequencies would be attentuated by di=
stance more than lower ones (but I'm not sure about that).
Or perhaps they're just almost completely masked by the frog chorus, and wo=
uld have to be fainter once that's removed. On closer inspection, I can see=
a faint band around 3kHz on the original in a couple of spots (eg 28s), b=
ut I just couldn't say below that.
Peter Shute
From: O=
n Behalf Of vickipowys
Sent: Sunday, 4 December 2011 11:25 AM
To:
Subject: Re: [Nature Recordists] Re: Advice needed for cleaning up this rec=
ording
Peter,
I'm sorry you've given up on the mystery call. Here is one last
attempt on my part to convince you the mystery call really is the
distress call of a Green Tree Frog.
I've selected just a short side-by-side comparison, using the
clearest part of Tom's recording that I could find. I've also
presented the recordings at half speed, which is always useful for a
listening test.
This is the soundcloud link:
http://snd.sc/ticMjy
I've included a Raven sonogram that shows how the harmonics, although
faint, do extend well below 4 kHz (you thought they did not).
I did some broad band noise reduction on Tom's original recording
using RX, and removed the prominent insect call.
cheers,
Vicki
On 03/12/2011, at 7:26 PM, Peter Shute wrote:
> Thanks everyone for your attempts at cleaning up this recording.
> We've given up on identifying the call for now. I assume it must be
> a lesser known call that we have no samples of for comparison. We
> had quite a few suggestions that sounded similar, but nothing with
> a matching sonogram.
>
> Now I just have to try to understand the steps you all took so I
> can try for myself next time.
>
> Peter Shute
>
> ________________________________
> From: <naturerecordists%40yahoogro=
ups.com>
> <naturerecordists%40yahoogroups.c=
om>] On Behalf Of greghpr
> <gregstuarthooper%40gmail.com>]
> Sent: Monday, 28 November 2011 6:33 PM
> To: <naturerecordists%40yahoogroup=
s.com>
> Subject: [Nature Recordists] Re: Advice needed for cleaning up this
> recording
>
>
>
> here is my attempt - I first converted to a 32bit wav and did
> everything then converted to mp3 at the end. Then I got rid of the
> lower frequencies after checking where the call was in frequency
> space, then used a couple of noise profiles in the Audition noise
> reduction system, then raised the volume using a limiter rather
> than just amplitude because the peaks are irrelevant (not call
> related) so I could go a bit higher than just using normalise. I
> could have gone quite a bit more aggressively with the limiting.
>
> http://tinyurl.com/bslv7jr
>
> Greg
>
> --- In <naturerecordists%40yahoogr=
oups.com><naturerecordists%
> 40yahoogroups.com>, "Mike Rooke" <> wrote:
>>
>> Heres my attempt, SNR is quite poor.
>>
>> http://urlme.net/audio/t98proc.mp3
>>
>> Steps:-
>> MS processing, background noise subtracted in baudline, rendered
>> into reaper.
>> processed with dynamic eq and apeq.
>>
>> Might be better to replace the ambient floor with noise or gate
>> it, the bird call is between
>> 5khz to 10khz
>>
>> -Mike.
>>
>> --- In <naturerecordists%40yahoog=
roups.com><naturerecordists%
>> 40yahoogroups.com>, Peter Shute <pshute@> wrote:
>>>
>>> That's the track, but what have you done to it? It sounds
>>> decidedly weird, with lots of strange clicks and pops (I think
>>> these are raindrops) and echos.
>>>
>>> Peter Shute
>>>
>>> ________________________________
>>> From: <naturerecordists%40yahoog=
roups.com><naturerecordists%
>>> 40yahoogroups.com>
>>> <naturerecordists%40yahoogroups=
.com><naturerecordists%
>>> 40yahoogroups.com>] On Behalf Of Avocet
>>> Sent: Saturday, 26 November 2011 1:56 PM
>>> To: <naturerecordists%40yahoogro=
ups.com><naturerecordists%
>>> 40yahoogroups.com>
>>> Subject: Re: [Nature Recordists] Advice needed for cleaning up
>>> this recording
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> http://www.aviceda.org/audio/?p=3D208
>>>
>>>> The problem is that the call is distant and masked by frog and
>>>> insect calls. Can anyone suggest techniques for cleaning it up to
>>>> make the call clearer?
>>>
>>> Peter,
>>>
>>> Do you mean this one:
>>> http://www.stowford.org/sounds/tt98_edit_redux.mp3
>>>
>>> Because of the distance, the call is rather smudged by reverb.
>>>
>>> Best Wishes, David
>>>
>>> David Brinicombe
>>> North Devon, UK
>>> Cogito cogito ergo cogito sum - Ambrose Bierce
>>>
>>
>
>
>
|