8 Nov
2004
8 Nov
'04
5:21 p.m.
This might be an interesting starting point:
http://www.scielo.br/scielo.php?pid=S0001-37652004000200040&script=sci_…
Chris is correct that the sound acquisition equipment must be able to
register the ultrasonic frequencies before the A/D converter can do much
about it. I would assume that any Linux audio software capable of
recording at 96 KHz, along with a 96 KHz sound card [the model mentioned
in the above article records at 16 bit, BTW] would work just fine with
an ultrasonic receiver.
I would recommend posting to the Phonography list [it's a Yahoo group,
unfortunately], as this is a bunch of folks dedicated to
nature/field/environmental sound recording.
best,
d.
Chris Cannam wrote:
On Monday 08 Nov 2004 20:17, Eric Dantan Rzewnicki
wrote:
--
derek holzer ::: http://www.umatic.nl
---Oblique Strategy # 174:
"Water"
I just had a crazy idea ... Sorry if this is off
topic a bit. Does
anyone know what frequency ranges bats use? Would a 96KHz 24bit card be
able to capture anything useful from their sounds?
Depends on the bats, but generally yes. Some of them are on the edge of the
human hearing range (I used to be able to hear the bats at my parents' house,
although my hearing is no longer quite good enough).
First Google hit for "frequency range of bats" is a bit less optimistic than I
am:
http://hypertextbook.com/facts/1998/JuanCancel.shtml
Either way, wouldn't the microphone be more of a limiting factor than the
soundcard?
Chris