If one edits excerpts from the same sample or from different takes of
sounds recorded at the same environment and using the same gear, it'll be v=
ery
hard to detect the editing if it's skillfully done. That's what sound edito=
rs
do all the time while editing and designing dialogue, ambient sounds and sf=
x
for movies.
=C2=A0
Way off topic:
=C2=A0
I've known an Amazona Aestiva which
used to emulate something that resembled what is called 'walla' among film
sound people. It sounded similar to a chat between a couple people, rather =
than
a crowd chattering though. I referred to it as walla as the words sounded q=
uite
unintelligible, resembling a conversation taking place at a distance. The i=
ntonation
and melodic nuances were so alike the 'real' thing that I was deceived the
first time I heard the bird performing his 'act'.
=C2=A0
Luis
From: Michael Dalton <>
To: Nature Recordists <>
Sent: Saturday, April 21, 2012 9:01 PM
Subject: [Nature Recordists] Re: Composite detection
=C2=A0
Thanks to everyone who replied!
=C2=A0
The consensus seems to be a definite maybe. My recordings are either mixed =
binaural or recently I switched to single channel to save file space.
=C2=A0
I wanted to get all the opinions possible before I go to a conference in Eu=
rope, just in case the question arises. In my writing, I always make clear =
that I remove material before and after a clip, but never internally. I hop=
e this keeps me out of hot water.
=C2=A0
The message from John brings up a different question with which I also wres=
tle. I am writing an article about my methods that I hope others around the=
world will take up the investigation. I would include amateur bird keepers=
as well as academic researchers.
=C2=A0
There are others who send me clips of birds doing some of the things my par=
rots does, so the phenomenon I describe exist in locations other than mine.=
Canade, England, Australia, South Africa, and so on about English speaking=
countries (birds elsewhere speak languages I do not understand).
=C2=A0
I hope since I have a great quantity of data that it will be recognized as =
"honest recordings." There is yet another problem which I find annoying. A =
lady listens to the sounds, which do not register with her, she comments, "=
The bird makes noise and you come up with words that fit the noises." Well =
if that were true, I'd have to be a genius to come up with thousands of loc=
utions that happen to sound like random noises.
=C2=A0
Last on this list, you might comment on the following. I have been listenin=
g to bird speech for many years. People from all over send me occasional cl=
ips of their bird's "mumbles." Isn't it odd that without previously having =
heard their bird, I can transcribe their bird's words and return the script=
to them. They respond that I am mostly correct including unusual proper na=
mes. I'm not perfect and due to the nature of speech, I sometimes get a sma=
ll percentage wrong, but as the lady said, "Am I inventing sounds that are =
just likely when the owner confirms that I am correct?"
=C2=A0
If I can transcribe speech by a strange bird, would you not suspect that I =
am able to relate my own bird's words accurately? Does any of this make any=
sense to those who listen?
=C2=A0
Mike
Florida
www.ParrotSpeech.com
=C2=A0
Re: Composite detection
Posted by: "hartogj" hartogj
Fri Apr 20, 2012 12:18 pm (PDT)
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
|