Indeed, in 2013 one only needs to Google "Capercallie low pitched
sounds" to come up with a raft of references.
Vicki
On 17/05/2013, at 4:31 AM, Peter Shute wrote:
> Perhaps the problem was simply that it was harder to communicate in
> 1988, and 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 spread information by word
> of mouth.
>
> The Internet appears to have solved many of these problems.
>
> Peter Shute
>
> Sent from my iPad
>
> On 17/05/2013, at 3:31 AM, "Klas Strandberg"
> <<>> wrote:
>
>
>
> Richard,
>
> with respect to Roger Boughtons recording, which I am sure is a
> million times better than mine, I will point out that after making my
> recording in 1988, I asked "everyone" that I met about this low freq.
> sound (I wouldn't be surprised if I asked you too...) but no one had
> ever heard of it, or recorded it. This is very surprising, indeed, as
> the Capercaillie is one of the "cult" birds in Sweden, which every
> nature recordist should record at least once a year, to be
> "somebody". Still, nobody would step forward and tell that he knew
> about any low freq. sound.
> How many times have I seen Capercaillie on TV? Many times. Not once
> with the "burr"!
> So I did my best to tell everybody and spread my "finding," just to
> get funny looks. Now, it seems, at least a few birders know about it.
>
> With respect to Roger Boughtons recording, I would say that there
> ought to be at least hundreds of Swedish recordings of Capercaillie,
> much better than mine and probably better than Roger's too.
> But, as far as I knew, until now, not one of them have any low freq.
> material! So, I was kind of proud about my recording! Even though it
> is a poor recording, as a whole, it does have the "burr"!
>
> I am soooo sorry that you fantastic guys at the Royal Fancy British
> Library has known about this low freq. sound all the time and have
> the most fantastic recording of it already.
> Sorry to bother you.
>
> Klas.
>
> At 01:10 2013-05-16, you wrote:
>> Hi Chris, I'm afraid I don't have access to a PDF - the article is in
>> copyright to Wiley and can be purchased from here:
>> INFRASONIC COMPONENTS IN THE SONG OF THE CAPERCAILLIE TETRAO
>> UROGALLUS
>> http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1474-919X.
>> 1979.tb05021.x/abstract
>> Ibis Volume 121, Issue 1, pages 95-97, January 1979
>>
>> However, from memory, this bird emits true infrasound, i.e.
>> components below
>> 20Hz, well below the cassowary example (although maybe this is
>> just a case
>> of needing better gear - the cassowary is a bigger beast and might
>> be able
>> to produce lower frequencies). The sound spreads into the audible
>> range,
>> above 20Hz, which is what we humans hear. The best recordings of
>> Capercaillie I've ever heard were made by Roger Boughton in
>> Scotland, using
>> a Sennheiser MKH105 or MK110, a 'military' spec mike that can
>> capture just a
>> few Hz. With all respect to Klas, his recording just does not
>> compare.
>> Forget about using a parabola to record these birds properly: the
>> lower the
>> frequency, the longer the wavelength, and by the simple physics of
>> diffraction and reflection you can calculate that to capture 20Hz,
>> the
>> reflector needs to be at least 56 feet in diameter - instead use a
>> decent
>> open mic and place it close up - takes many hours of fieldcraft
>> but the
>> results stand the test of time.
>>
>> Richard Ranft
>> The British Library
>> London
>>
>>
>>
|