LISTSERV mailing list manager LISTSERV 16.0

Help for ARSCLIB Archives


ARSCLIB Archives

ARSCLIB Archives


[email protected]


View:

Message:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Topic:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Author:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

Font:

Proportional Font

LISTSERV Archives

LISTSERV Archives

ARSCLIB Home

ARSCLIB Home

ARSCLIB  March 2016

ARSCLIB March 2016

Subject:

Re: Extended range biologist generated sound recordings

From:

"Richard L. Hess" <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

ARSC Library and Archives Discussion List <[log in to unmask]>

Date:

Thu, 31 Mar 2016 21:25:28 -0400

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (166 lines)

On 3/31/2016 7:42 PM, Tom Fine (GMail) wrote:
> I agree this topic is more suited to ARSC List, so I will cross-post
> this reply.
>
> Question 1 -- do any birds or ocean mammals produce frequencies higher
> than 48kHz? If no, then 96k sampling rate is just fine.

While not totally up to date, 
http://hypertextbook.com/facts/1998/JuanCancel.shtml supplies some answers:

> Frequency Range of Hearing for Humans and Selected Animals
>
>   animal                        frequency   (hertz)
>                                     low       high
>   Humans                             20      20,000
>   Cats                              100      32,000
>   Dogs                               40      46,000
>   Horses                             31      40,000
>   Elephants                          16      12,000
>   Cattle                             16      40,000
>   Bats                            1,000     150,000
>   Grasshoppers and locusts          100      50,000
>   Rodents                         1,000     100,000
>   Whales and dolphins                70     150,000
>   Seals and sea lions               200      55,000
>
> Reference: Encyc. Britannica.


>
> Question 2 -- what are the known uppper limits of sounds captured by
> analog recordings of these animals? I suspect there was no analog
> recording system used capable of more than about 30kHz, but I may be
> wrong. If my suspicion is correct, then, again, 96k sampling rate is fine.

Sennheiser MKH 800 - 30-50k Hz

http://www.wildlife-sound.org/equipment/technote/micdesigns/ultrasonic.html 
  60 kHz
		
	
Bruel & Kjaer mic (very noisy)	
4138 - 1/8-inch pressure-field microphone, 6.5 Hz to 140 kHz, 200V 
polarization
Designed for very high-frequency measurements in confined spaces.

So a lot of things are doable.

Cheers,

Richard


>
> Finally, a comment. I don't think there is a huge issue with storing
> massive amounts of 96/24 data. First of all, it can be
> lossless-compressed, a variety of ways. Second, disc drives are cheap
> and huge-capacity these days.
>
> -- Tom Fine
>
> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Richard L. Hess"
> <[log in to unmask]>
> To: <[log in to unmask]>
> Sent: Thursday, March 31, 2016 7:20 PM
> Subject: Re: Extended range biologist generated sound recordings
>
>
>> Hello, Nathan,
>>
>> You raise a good question here (but I wonder if this is better on
>> ARSCLIST than ARSCLIB). The short answer is that I suspect each
>> discipline and, in many instances, each instance of that discipline
>> has their own standards.
>>
>> In the analog world, the IRIG instrumentation recorders offered
>> excellent options to record infrasonic and ultrasonic sounds and other
>> similar data.
>>
>> My major experience in IRIG tapes has been for seismic purposes. I
>> have digitized some audio recordings of a seismic survey of Flathead
>> Lake in Montana and the USGS tapes preceding, during, and following
>> the 1980 eruption of Mt. St. Helens.
>>
>> One of the nice things about IRIG recordings is that the speeds can be
>> varied and everything else stays in proper relation (unlike analog
>> audio where the EQ does not follow the speed steps).
>>
>> We looked at the desired output frequency range. The IRIG machines
>> when they record in FM can go down to DC, so we had to define a lower
>> cutoff obtain very expensive DC-capable instrumentation converters.
>> For the Mt. St. Helens material, which was recorded at 15/32 in/s, we
>> digitized at 60 in/s, raising the lowest frequencies 128x so that our
>> converters that were flat to below 10 Hz provided real-time flat
>> response down to below 0.1 Hz which was more than adequate. We were
>> able to capture above 40 kHz (using a 96 kHz sample rate) which
>> resulted in a HF limit of about 300 Hz. The client was interested only
>> in signals up to about 60 Hz or so. Since they were not going to
>> retain the original tapes, I made a case that I could see information
>> up to about 180 Hz, so they kept a set of the 300 Hz wide bandwidth
>> digital copies.
>>
>> Using speed to slide the desired signal bands into the available
>> signal bands is a powerful tool to making excellent digital copies of
>> IRIG-type tapes at relatively low cost.
>>
>> Seismic material is analyzed by graphical plots and digital systems,
>> so the speed variations were of no consequence.
>>
>> Interestingly, I was contacted by a Brazilan musician who wished to
>> use some of the sounds in a musical piece. I contacted my clients and
>> obtained permission for him to use it.
>>
>> This reminds me of the use of Roger Payne of Woods Hole giving Judy
>> Collins a tape of whale sounds back in the late 1960s or 1970 which
>> came out accompanying a whaling song on Collin's November 1970 album,
>> "Whales and Nightingales." I am not certain, but I think the ones that
>> Collins uses are sped up 2x.
>>
>> Working with ultrasonic material could be handled the same way.
>>
>> At both ends of the spectrum, the spectrum shifting does not impede
>> digital analysis and allows human audible analysis. As long as the
>> spectrum shifting is properly documented and carefully done, it should
>> be fully reversable.
>>
>> Cheers,
>>
>> Richard
>>
>>
>>
>> On 3/31/2016 6:24 PM, Nathan Coy wrote:
>>> For a while now I have been wondering about how organizations are
>>> approaching storage, access, and format for extended frequency range
>>> recordings related to birds (Cornell), ocean mammals (MBARI), and so on.
>>> Not so much audiophile music recordings per se, but recordings that are
>>> analyzed spectrally outside of human hearing for scientific research
>>> purposes. Is there a recommended or emerging sample rate and bit depth?
>>> Much like in many ways 96kHz 24 bit has been mostly adopted when
>>> appropriate. I am curious if individuals working within organizations
>>> that
>>> are collection and generating these types of recordings are noticing
>>> trends
>>> and so on. Often there are massive amounts of sound being recorded also
>>> which seems like it could present management challenges.
>>>
>>> It seems like this is a significant research area and relevant to sound
>>> recording collections at many institutions.
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>>
>>> Nathan
>>>
>> --
>> Richard L. Hess                   email: [log in to unmask]
>> Aurora, Ontario, Canada                             647 479 2800
>> http://www.richardhess.com/tape/contact.htm
>> Quality tape transfers -- even from hard-to-play tapes.
>
-- 
Richard L. Hess                   email: [log in to unmask]
Aurora, Ontario, Canada                             647 479 2800
http://www.richardhess.com/tape/contact.htm
Quality tape transfers -- even from hard-to-play tapes.

Top of Message | Previous Page | Permalink

Advanced Options


Options

Log In

Log In

Get Password

Get Password


Search Archives

Search Archives


Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Subscribe or Unsubscribe


Archives

March 2024
February 2024
January 2024
December 2023
November 2023
September 2023
August 2023
June 2023
April 2023
March 2023
February 2023
January 2023
December 2022
November 2022
October 2022
September 2022
August 2022
July 2022
June 2022
May 2022
April 2022
March 2022
February 2022
January 2022
December 2021
November 2021
October 2021
September 2021
August 2021
July 2021
June 2021
May 2021
April 2021
March 2021
February 2021
January 2021
December 2020
November 2020
October 2020
September 2020
August 2020
June 2020
May 2020
April 2020
March 2020
February 2020
January 2020
December 2019
November 2019
October 2019
September 2019
August 2019
July 2019
June 2019
May 2019
April 2019
March 2019
February 2019
January 2019
December 2018
November 2018
October 2018
September 2018
August 2018
July 2018
June 2018
May 2018
April 2018
March 2018
February 2018
January 2018
December 2017
November 2017
October 2017
September 2017
August 2017
July 2017
June 2017
May 2017
April 2017
March 2017
February 2017
January 2017
December 2016
November 2016
October 2016
September 2016
August 2016
July 2016
June 2016
May 2016
April 2016
March 2016
February 2016
January 2016
December 2015

ATOM RSS1 RSS2



LISTSERV.LOC.GOV

CataList Email List Search Powered by the LISTSERV Email List Manager