Hi,
Heres a sonogram from amadeus pro for the bugswat file also linked:-
http://urlme.net/audio/bugswatsono.tiff
and the demo file with a single bird vocalisation, starts with the insect din
in place, they are removed during the bird call and are present at the end
minus the background / just the insect cacophony.
http://urlme.net/audio/bugswat.wav
Harmonics are present below 4Khz, but quite buried in the noise there.
BR
Mike.
--- In vickipowys <> wrote:
>
> Hi Mike,
>
> The only problem with your example is that we were trying to show the
> harmonics below 4 kHz (on the original they are just visible for at
> least some of the calls), and your example seems to have wiped them
> all away.
>
> Spectral Layers looks good as a noise reduction application though,
> but pricey, $700 - $2200, yikes! I like the way it could remove the
> background siren in the demo recording on their website.
>
> Vicki
>
>
>
> On 06/12/2011, at 3:20 AM, Mike Rooke wrote:
>
> > Hi All,
> > Heres a new application which Ive used on the recording.
> >
> > First an example from the original recording (no changes) - then
> > the isolated call extracted, followed by the original with some
> > background noise removed and again the call on its own with more
> > amplification. -Quite an easy task in spectral layers, see the
> > tutorial file section on the website for more info.
> >
> > http://urlme.net/audio/spectrallayers.mp3
> >
> > The application web site:
> >
> > http://www.divideframe.com/?p=spectrallayers
> >
> > Now to remove that generator humming away in my beech recording...
> >
> > BR
> > Mike.
> >
> > --- In vickipowys
> > <vickipowys@> wrote:
> >>
> >> Peter,
> >>
> >> All your questions about the frogs are interesting ones and of course
> >> I don't know the answers. Except to say I think it is just one frog
> >> giving the calls.
> >>
> >> In my experience of living for 15 years in an area where there are
> >> quite a few GT Frogs about, I had never heard this call before until
> >> a couple of years ago, and it was a very long time before I was able
> >> to get a recording. The call would occur briefly about once each
> >> night during the summer. I kept microphones on my front verandah
> >> because I was also doing some research on night birds. That way I
> >> was eventually able to pick up a recording and much later tracked it
> >> down to Green Tree Frog distress call.
> >>
> >> At one stage a small goanna got into my ceiling and ate some frogs,
> >> but the frogs then gave a different sort of distress call, more of a
> >> moaning shriek. I have picked up the frogs with my hands and they
> >> make no sound at all, or maybe just a brief croak. It was only with
> >> the mice attacking them that the frogs gave this shrill call. I
> >> don't know why the frogs didn't simply hop away. I suppose the mice
> >> just chased them and nipped at their feet until they could not hop
> >> any more.
> >>
> >> I have also heard GT Frogs occasionally give a sharp yapping call.
> >> Mostly of course they just give a loud and rhythmic croak-croak-croak
> >> call, especially when it is hot and raining.
> >>
> >>
> >> Vicki
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> On 05/12/2011, at 8:52 AM, Peter Shute wrote:
> >>
> >>> OK, good, I hadn't noticed that parameter before, and it makes
> >>> quite a difference. I do see the faint bands now. I'll sent Tom
> >>> Tarrant the link to your sonogram, and he can decide for himself.
> >>>
> >>> Now I'm curious to know what was happening to the frog. And was it
> >>> one frog, or a series of frogs being attacked by something one by
> >>> one? I'm also curious to know why this call is apparently uncommon
> >>> on Tom's recordings - I would have thought froggy death was a daily
> >>> occurrence in that habitat. Perhaps it's normally too swift. (I'm
> >>> not expecting any answers to these questions.)
> >>>
> >>> Peter Shute
> >>>
> >>> ________________________________
> >>> From:
> >>> On Behalf Of vickipowys
> >>> Sent: Monday, 5 December 2011 8:12 AM
> >>> To:
> >>> Subject: Re: [Nature Recordists] Re: Advice needed for cleaning up
> >>> this recording
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Peter,
> >>>
> >>> Yep, FFT = the sharpness setting in Raven Lite. In some applications
> >>> it is called FFT (Fast Fourier Transform).
> >>>
> >>> Basically when you are adjusting any sonogram settings, you simply
> >>> juggle the available settings until you get an image as clear as
> >>> possible and that suits your needs. A less contrasty sonogram is
> >>> more likely to show up some of the less obvious aspects of the
> >>> sound. A more contrasty sonogram can be useful for publication,
> >>> provided you already have a good clear sound to work with.
> >>>
> >>> I like to work with black and white (which is useful for
> >>> publication)
> >>> altho some members on this list prefer to work with colour for on
> >>> screen analyses.
> >>>
> >>> For anyone using Izotope, the lovely sonograms that it produces can
> >>> be set to white on black, but not black on white. But it is easy to
> >>> invert the image using photoshop so that you get black on white. You
> >>> need to take a screen shot of the Izotope screen first, to work
> >>> with.
> >>>
> >>> Vicki
> >>>
> >>> On 05/12/2011, at 5:31 AM, Peter Shute wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> FFT? Where do I set that in Raven Lite? All I see is a third
> >>>> adjustment called "sharpness".
> >>>>
> >>>> Peter Shute
> >>>>
> >>>> ________________________________
> >>>> From: <naturerecordists%
> >>>> 40yahoogroups.com>
> >>>> <naturerecordists%
> >>>> 40yahoogroups.com>] On Behalf Of vickipowys
> >>>> [vickipowys@<vickipowys%40skymesh.com.au>]
> >>>> Sent: Sunday, 4 December 2011 2:20 PM
> >>>> To: <naturerecordists%
> >>>> 40yahoogroups.com>
> >>>> Subject: Re: [Nature Recordists] Re: Advice needed for cleaning up
> >>>> this recording
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> Peter,
> >>>>
> >>>> You are quite right to be suspicious of the effects filtering may
> >>>> have on a sonogram. So let's go back to the original.
> >>>>
> >>>> If you look at the left hand channel of the original recording in
> >>>> Raven Lite, with the settings at 50 darkness and 50 contrast,
> >>>> and FFT
> >>>> size 2516, that may help. Expand the sonogram window so that you
> >>>> are
> >>>> seeing about 1 minute of sound, and only up to 10 kHz, then you
> >>>> should be able to see two more harmonic bands at around 3 khz and 2
> >>>> khz for at least some of the calls. At 1 kHz things get messy
> >>>> because of other things calling.
> >>>>
> >>>> In Sonic Visualizer, I could not find where to adjust the
> >>>> brightness
> >>>> and contrast and FFT for the sonograms, and therefore could not
> >>>> get a
> >>>> very clear result.
> >>>>
> >>>> Izotope RX gave a good result (but only very slightly better than
> >>>> Raven Lite), i.e. just looking at the spectrogram window of the
> >>>> original recording and adjusting the controls for clearest
> >>>> settings.
> >>>>
> >>>> You are right that normally it is the higher frequencies that are
> >>>> attenuated by distance. In the case of the frog distress call
> >>>> though, the strongest part of the call is not in the lowest
> >>>> frequencies, but higher up, say above 3 kHz. So with Tom's call
> >>>> being so faint in the first place, maybe the lower frequencies
> >>>> simply
> >>>> did not pick up on the recording.
> >>>>
> >>>> Also, I don't know what other effects the mp3 format may have
> >>>> had on
> >>>> the recording.
> >>>>
> >>>> cheers,
> >>>>
> >>>> Vicki
> >>>>
> >>>> On 04/12/2011, at 12:56 PM, Peter Shute wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>> Interesting. I can see the same sonogram patterns using Raven and
> >>>>> Sonic Visualiser using the track you just uploaded, but on the
> >>>>> original and all other attempts at cleaning it up, the sub 4kHz
> >>>>> bands aren't really visible. Even 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 location, but I'm wary of something that's completely
> >>>>> invisible on the original.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> 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 distance more than lower ones (but I'm not
> >>>>> sure about that).
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Or perhaps they're just almost completely masked by the frog
> >>>>> chorus, and would 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), but I just couldn't say below that.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Peter Shute
> >>>>>
> >>>>> ________________________________
> >>>>> From: <naturerecordists%
> >>>>> 40yahoogroups.com><naturerecordists%
> >>>>> 40yahoogroups.com>
> >>>>> <naturerecordists%
> >>>>> 40yahoogroups.com><naturerecordists%
> >>>>> 40yahoogroups.com>] On Behalf Of vickipowys
> >>>>> [vickipowys@<vickipowys%
> >>>>> 40skymesh.com.au><vickipowys%40skymesh.com.au>]
> >>>>> Sent: Sunday, 4 December 2011 11:25 AM
> >>>>> To: <naturerecordists%
> >>>>> 40yahoogroups.com><naturerecordists%
> >>>>> 40yahoogroups.com>
> >>>>> Subject: Re: [Nature Recordists] Re: Advice needed for cleaning up
> >>>>> this recording
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> 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
> >>>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------------
> >
> > "While a picture is worth a thousand words, a
> > sound is worth a thousand pictures." R. Murray Schafer via Bernie
> > Krause.
> >
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> >
>
|