Dan Dugan wrote:
> >> how does one go about a longitudinal study. I know that
> seems obvious, but it would probably includes things that I
> wouldn't have thought of.
> >
> > Just a fancy way of saying that you go back to the same
> location repeatedly on a schedule.
> >
> > Is there more to it than that, to allow comparison of
> recordings? E.g. Recording of the exact location and the
> weather, setting up facing the same way at the same height,
> using the same equipment at the same settings, etc.
>
> That would be nice, but I don't think it's possible to match
> the weather!
I meant noting the humidity, temperature, wind speed and direction, etc. I
noticed that some people here do that, so I assume it's for a reason.
> > I saw a mention of calibration.
>
> Level calibration is good but not necessary if the value of
> the study is in counting the species present. I do calibrate
> my systems so if it was desired to compare the SPLs of
> overflying aircraft, for example, that would be possible.
Would you need to know the weather parameters I mentioned to do that
accurately? I don't know how much difference it makes.
Peter Shute
|