Hi Micheal,
My opinion here is that a sound recording could be very hard to prove as au=
thentic. Recordings might be great for supplementing your testimonials, how=
ever that alone will not give them scientific validity. If similar results =
can be reproduced by others following your documented method, only then wil=
l your approach become scientifically credible. A sound recording is merely=
data, and data gets fudged all the time.
John Hartog
rockscallop.org
--- In Michael Dalton <=
> wrote:
>
> Nature Recordists,
> =A0
> I have a question related to current audio or video recordings. I am wond=
ering, with current editing technology, whether it is possible to detect wh=
en someone puts together a "composite" recording that did not exist in fact=
.
> =A0
> When I was in school there was "fudging" to produce the correct result. N=
ot too long ago a scientist was exposed for cheating in a similar way; that=
is forcing the data to support=A0his conclusion.
> =A0
> While I do not participate in such deceptions, it occurred to me that I m=
ight be accused of doing something like that; i.e., fabricating data.=A0It =
is unfortunate that I even have to consider the situation, but I want to be=
prepared for potential crusaders.
> =A0
> Is there any defense against "fabricating data," i.e., slicing unrelated =
sounds together to make them appear to be related? The only thing that I ha=
ve noted so far is that on a few recordings there are background sounds suc=
h as a Cardinal chirping in the background that are continuous through my s=
amples. On the other hand, it is possible to put in such sounds and then ed=
it them closely to make them appear to be part of the clip.
> =A0
> I'm curious, because I do not wish to be in the camp with people using bo=
gus=A0 data.
> =A0
> Thanks for the help.
> =A0
> Mike
> Florida
> www.ParrotSpeech.com
>
>
|