Peter,
It will be much better to work with wav format for cleaning up and
analyzing the recording of Tom's 'mystery call'.
Of interest, this morning I heard the same 'mystery sound' coming
from outside and upon investigating there was a Pied Currawong
pecking hard at something on the ground! No doubt, a hapless Green
Treefrog. Just missed out on a photo!
Vicki
On 07/12/2011, at 9:00 AM, Peter Shute wrote:
> Tom says they do record in wav format. I'll post a link as soon as
> I can get the original recording.
>
> Peter Shute
>
> ________________________________
> From:
> On Behalf Of vickipowys
> Sent: Tuesday, 6 December 2011 10:23 AM
> To:
> Subject: Re: [Nature Recordists] Re: Advice needed for cleaning up
> this recording
>
>
>
> Hi Mike,
>
> My understanding is that the tt98_edit mp3 recording IS the
> original. It comes from a Queensland University automatic recorder
> used for wildlife surveys. I am guessing that it records in mp3
> format, given that it would be running for long periods of time.
> Needs Peter Shute or Tom Tarrants to verify this though.
>
> This was the original link and request that Peter gave, which leads
> you to the tt98 file:
>
>> Those of you who also subscribe to birding-aus will already heave
>> seen Tom Tarrant's request for help with identifying the bird
>> chattering in the background of 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?
>>
>> I tried high pass (>4000Hz) in Audacity, but it didn't clean it up
>> enough. I repeated it a couple of times, and it was much cleaner,
>> but sounded odd. I tried noise removal, which I'v never used
>> before, using a quieter part of the track as a sample, and that
>> sounded really odd.
>>
>> The call can be heard several times during the 1m20s recording, and
>> a sonogram easily shows their location. Tom has provided a sample
>> sonogram on that page.
>>
>> Peter Shute
>
> It would be interesting Mike if you could try Spectral Layers again,
> bearing in mind that we would like to keep all the harmonics below 4
> kHz.
>
> I found I could remove the insect whine just below 4 kHz using a VERY
> narrow horizontal selection in RX, and Edit/ Silence selection. RX
> normal version works fine on my Mac OSX 10.4.
>
> What version of Spectral Layers are you using?
>
> cheers,
>
> Vicki
>
> On 06/12/2011, at 9:45 AM, Mike Rooke wrote:
>
>> Hi Vicki,
>> If theres the original material somewhere I can run it
>> though spectral layers to give some idea of what its capable of.
>> (the linked url was already processed?)
>>
>> Ive found its far more stable than RX2 which didnt work very well
>> on my machine. Im using the Pro version. The trial is too limited
>> to be of much use. Most users would like to evaluate in stereo and
>> at least to 44.1Khz.
>>
>> The app works like a photo editor with layers, you can copy
>> spectral sections reposition them elsewhere in a new layer (to add
>> noise back to an area you subtracted). The frequency tool is
>> perhaps the most useful if a vocalisation needs to be extracted. It
>> has some robotic sounding issues when using the noise gate although
>> its possible to go in and manually brush over spectral areas (with
>> fine resolution and amplitude tolerance).
>>
>> BR
>> Mike.
>>
>>
>> --- In <naturerecordists%
>> 40yahoogroups.com>, 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=3Dspectrallayers
>>>>
>>>> Now to remove that generator humming away in my beech recording...
>>>>
>>>> BR
>>>> Mike.
>>>>
>>>> --- In <naturerecordists%
>>>> 40yahoogroups.com>, 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: <naturerecordists%
>>>>>> 40yahoogroups.com>
>>>>>> <naturerecordists%
>>>>>> 40yahoogroups.com>] On Behalf Of vickipowys
>>>>>> Sent: Monday, 5 December 2011 8:12 AM
>>>>>> To: <naturerecordists%
>>>>>> 40yahoogroups.com>
>>>>>> Subject: Re: [Nature Recordists] Re: Advice needed for
>>>>>> cleaning up
>>>>>> this recording
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Peter,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Yep, FFT =3D 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>
>>>>>>> <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><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><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><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
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>
>
>
>
|