Perhaps the problem was simply that it was harder to communicate in 1988, a=
nd spread the word till it reached those few other people who knew of the "=
burr". Unless they were all writing and/or reading journal articles, these =
co-discoverers would be unaware of each other. There's also the difficulty =
in sharing recordings, and the disinterest by non enthusiasts who might spr=
ead information by word of mouth.=0D
=0D
The Internet appears to have solved many of these problems.=0D
=0D
Peter Shute=0D
=0D
Sent from my iPad=0D
=0D
On 17/05/2013, at 3:31 AM, "Klas Strandberg" <<tel=
>> wrote:=0D
=0D
=0D
=0D
Richard,=0D
=0D
with respect to Roger Boughtons recording, which I am sure is a=0D
million times better than mine, I will point out that after making my=0D
recording in 1988, I asked "everyone" that I met about this low freq.=0D
sound (I wouldn't be surprised if I asked you too...) but no one had=0D
ever heard of it, or recorded it. This is very surprising, indeed, as=0D
the Capercaillie is one of the "cult" birds in Sweden, which every=0D
nature recordist should record at least once a year, to be=0D
"somebody". Still, nobody would step forward and tell that he knew=0D
about any low freq. sound.=0D
How many times have I seen Capercaillie on TV? Many times. Not once=0D
with the "burr"!=0D
So I did my best to tell everybody and spread my "finding," just to=0D
get funny looks. Now, it seems, at least a few birders know about it.=0D
=0D
With respect to Roger Boughtons recording, I would say that there=0D
ought to be at least hundreds of Swedish recordings of Capercaillie,=0D
much better than mine and probably better than Roger's too.=0D
But, as far as I knew, until now, not one of them have any low freq.=0D
material! So, I was kind of proud about my recording! Even though it=0D
is a poor recording, as a whole, it does have the "burr"!=0D
=0D
I am soooo sorry that you fantastic guys at the Royal Fancy British=0D
Library has known about this low freq. sound all the time and have=0D
the most fantastic recording of it already.=0D
Sorry to bother you.=0D
=0D
Klas.=0D
=0D
At 01:10 2013-05-16, you wrote:=0D
>Hi Chris, I'm afraid I don't have access to a PDF - the article is in=0D
>copyright to Wiley and can be purchased from here:=0D
>INFRASONIC COMPONENTS IN THE SONG OF THE CAPERCAILLIE TETRAO UROGALLUS=0D
>http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1474-919X.1979.tb05021.x/abst=
ract=0D
>Ibis Volume 121, Issue 1, pages 95-97, January 1979=0D
>=0D
>However, from memory, this bird emits true infrasound, i.e. components bel=
ow=0D
>20Hz, well below the cassowary example (although maybe this is just a case=
=0D
>of needing better gear - the cassowary is a bigger beast and might be able=
=0D
>to produce lower frequencies). The sound spreads into the audible range,=
=0D
>above 20Hz, which is what we humans hear. The best recordings of=0D
>Capercaillie I've ever heard were made by Roger Boughton in Scotland, usin=
g=0D
>a Sennheiser MKH105 or MK110, a 'military' spec mike that can capture just=
a=0D
>few Hz. With all respect to Klas, his recording just does not compare.=0D
>Forget about using a parabola to record these birds properly: the lower th=
e=0D
>frequency, the longer the wavelength, and by the simple physics of=0D
>diffraction and reflection you can calculate that to capture 20Hz, the=0D
>reflector needs to be at least 56 feet in diameter - instead use a decent=
=0D
>open mic and place it close up - takes many hours of fieldcraft but the=0D
>results stand the test of time.=0D
>=0D
>Richard Ranft=0D
>The British Library=0D
>London=0D
>=0D
>=0D
>=0D
|