I tend to believe wood knocks are used in a range of manners to convey different messages based upon context.
Single loud wood knocks, coupled with a loud whoop or other vocal, could be a "tag-up" if you will. Maybe they ask the question "is there any body out there?!" The wood knock portion of a knock/vocal combination could serve two purposes, the first being punctuation "!", and the second being confirmation (that I am indeed a member of your species, and not some other animal vocalizing in the wilderness).
Softer wood knocks seem to be used as a means of keeping track of each other when in close proximity, and/or when danger may be near. Making a milder warning knock that your buddies a few hundred feet away can hear seems wiser than a loud bash, that would also alert the source of danger to your presence.
Here's a recording that includes a soft whoop, and subtle wood knocks, that might be an example of this kind of situation:
http://sites.google.com/site/mongahela/myrecordings2010-1/WS310076-03-AMNRLPAM-WhoopKnocksShort.mp3
Then even softer knocks may be used for still stealthier communication, possibly when danger is very near, or tension is high. I recorded some fast, soft "stick" knocks just seconds after something moved in the forest near me, and grunted audibly. The knocks sound very tense and can be heard at the very end of this recording:
http://sites.google.com/site/mongahela/myrecordings2010-1/WS310089-AMLPHPNRAMCOPEAK-study.mp3
And then there seems to be the intimidation type of wood knock, which forum member uluax actually observed being made in his remarkable class A sighting from Colorado. I don't have the link to that report handy though.
So in general, I don't think we should attach just one reason or meaning to the existence of wood knocks. Their use is probably more complex than we currently understand, and only time spent recording, studying, and learning them will improve that understanding.
But in terms of a component of communication, the inclusion of wood knocks to enhance vocals is a fascinating advance to consider. A rudimentary technology to be sure, but the mastery of a technology none the less.
Thursday, July 29, 2010
Friday, July 23, 2010
A Reoccurring Howl
In the post from June 13th I shared a faint howl that I recorded on the evening of June 12th. The recorder actually intercepted the howl twice, but it was so distant that it wasn't worth sharing both snippets.
But as evidenced in the last few posts, I've been playing around with presentation in the form of spectrogram videos. And I wanted to see just how far I could take it to demonstrate their ability to help audiophiles study sound (and interested onlookers to get more out of the experience).
So this evening I sat down and pulled out the original recording of that faint, distant, flat howl I recorded on June 12th, at 11:13 PM. I applied some heavy filtering to the recording which basically wiped all sound above and below the howl (this worked because the howl was so flat in nature). Then I did the usual noise filtering and amplification, and was very pleasantly surprised by the results. Even listening to it on my laptop speakers, it sounds like a pretty good recording of a howl.
So I took it the next step and played it through my spectrogram software, Sonic Visualiser. As I did so I used "RecordMyDesktop" to make a short video of the spectrogram in action. I loaded that video into PiTiVi, a video editor, and then added my newly cleaned up audio snippet as the sound track. A little tweaking and I had a video ready for loading to Youtube. Here's the result, the brightest parts of the horizontal band of color represents the howl:
But what caught my attention after replaying that howl about 40 times this evening, was a moment when I happened to play another of the Youtube spectrogram videos I've made. That video has a nearly identical howl in it, only captured a few weeks later at sunset on July 2nd. You can see and hear that howl at the 12 second mark in this video:
It comes in apparent response to my whoop and wood knock and before several loud wood knocks toward the end of the recording. It too seems to center around 490Hz and has a basic flat form.
This makes three times that I've recorded this type of howl in my area of investigation. And I hadn't recognized it until I began playing clips and spectrograms from different dates side by side. Obviously my ears and eyes will be much more tuned to that frequency in the future.
But as evidenced in the last few posts, I've been playing around with presentation in the form of spectrogram videos. And I wanted to see just how far I could take it to demonstrate their ability to help audiophiles study sound (and interested onlookers to get more out of the experience).
So this evening I sat down and pulled out the original recording of that faint, distant, flat howl I recorded on June 12th, at 11:13 PM. I applied some heavy filtering to the recording which basically wiped all sound above and below the howl (this worked because the howl was so flat in nature). Then I did the usual noise filtering and amplification, and was very pleasantly surprised by the results. Even listening to it on my laptop speakers, it sounds like a pretty good recording of a howl.
So I took it the next step and played it through my spectrogram software, Sonic Visualiser. As I did so I used "RecordMyDesktop" to make a short video of the spectrogram in action. I loaded that video into PiTiVi, a video editor, and then added my newly cleaned up audio snippet as the sound track. A little tweaking and I had a video ready for loading to Youtube. Here's the result, the brightest parts of the horizontal band of color represents the howl:
But what caught my attention after replaying that howl about 40 times this evening, was a moment when I happened to play another of the Youtube spectrogram videos I've made. That video has a nearly identical howl in it, only captured a few weeks later at sunset on July 2nd. You can see and hear that howl at the 12 second mark in this video:
It comes in apparent response to my whoop and wood knock and before several loud wood knocks toward the end of the recording. It too seems to center around 490Hz and has a basic flat form.
This makes three times that I've recorded this type of howl in my area of investigation. And I hadn't recognized it until I began playing clips and spectrograms from different dates side by side. Obviously my ears and eyes will be much more tuned to that frequency in the future.
Tuesday, July 20, 2010
Walk Up Visitor
In June of this year I deployed a "long-duration" field recorder in my research area. The recorder captured audio over the course of 12 days before the battery finally died. I've reviewed all of the audio from that recorder and found a few interesting items. Among the most interesting was an event that occurred on the fourth night that the recorder was left running in the field.
To me it sounds as if something begins by pelting the recorder with small rocks or nuts. Soon, something begins manipulating the recorder from its left side. Finally, foot steps approach through the crunchy leaf mat and something audibly investigates the recorder. There are no vocals that I can discern, but I can make out individual foot steps, several loud sniffs or exhales of breath, and instances of tapping and knocking (possibly on the recorder itself).
These sounds are best demonstrated in an annotated spectrogram. So I've put together my third attempt and posted it to youtube. The audio and video are a little out of sync, but close enough that you can follow what's going on. Youtube has unfortunately diminished the clarity of the video so reading the annotations can be a challenge, but you should be able to hear & see the important points.
Here' the spectrogram:
To me it sounds as if something begins by pelting the recorder with small rocks or nuts. Soon, something begins manipulating the recorder from its left side. Finally, foot steps approach through the crunchy leaf mat and something audibly investigates the recorder. There are no vocals that I can discern, but I can make out individual foot steps, several loud sniffs or exhales of breath, and instances of tapping and knocking (possibly on the recorder itself).
These sounds are best demonstrated in an annotated spectrogram. So I've put together my third attempt and posted it to youtube. The audio and video are a little out of sync, but close enough that you can follow what's going on. Youtube has unfortunately diminished the clarity of the video so reading the annotations can be a challenge, but you should be able to hear & see the important points.
Here' the spectrogram:
Thursday, July 8, 2010
R. Scott Nelson presentation to 2009 Honobia Bigfoot Conference
This video of Mr. Nelson's presentation at Honobia last year underscores the importance of his contribution and the utility of the Sasquatch Phonetic Alphabet to ongoing studies of suspected sasquatch vocalizations.
R. Scott Nelson presentation to 2009 Honobia Bigfoot Conference
This video of Mr. Nelson's presentation at 2009 the Honobia Bigfoot Conference underscores the importance of his contribution and the utility of the Sasquatch Phonetic Alphabet to ongoing studies of suspected sasquatch vocalizations.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TH1qmYWUkSg
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TH1qmYWUkSg
A Phonetic Alphabet for the Sasquatch Language
Mr. R. Scott Nelson, a Navy retired cryptologic linguist has undertaken the analysis and transcription of the renowned Berry-Morehead tapes and the purported sasquatch vocals they contain. Several of the most popular sasquatch research websites carry biographic information about Mr. Nelson, and his background clearly demonstrates this authority to tackle such a task as this.
Recently Mr. Nelson completed his transcription of the vocals recorded by Barry-Morehead and through an open letter to the sasquatch research community has shared the fruits of his labor. Significantly, and of great interest to the efforts undertaken here, Mr. Nelson has proposed the Sasquatch Phonetic Alphabet (SPA). This is a vitally important baseline that dramatically enables the linguistic and bioacoustic analysis of sasquatch vocalizations. It is my intent to utilize the SPA in future vocal analysis and transcription efforts.
And in case you haven't seen the letter from Mr. Nelson, his transcript, the SPA or his video presentation to the 2009 Honobia Bigfoot conference, they are reproduced here:
Fm: R. Scott Nelson
To: Sasquatch Research Community
Re: Sasquatch Phonetic Alphabet (SPA) (attached)
Since I became involved in Sasquatch research a little over two years ago, I have received dozens of e-mails from around the country involving first-hand witness accounts, many containing recorded audio files, of perceived Sasquatch Language. Virtually all of these have included an attempt to spell out Sasquatch “words” using Standard English. This is of little value to the language researcher, since English is notoriously non-phonetic and is subject to widely-varied local dialects.
Since our ultimate goal is the recovery of Sasquatch Language, I have found it necessary to establish a phonetic alphabet and transcription standard (based on the transcription of the Berry/Morehead tapes), by which the contrast and comparison of all future suspected language can be facilitated.
To this end, as an invaluable tool in the future of Sasquatch Language research, I am requesting that the attached standard be published on research web-sites and that it be copied and distributed freely. With this, I am also requesting that local investigators begin using this alphabet as soon as possible to accurately document any perceived Sasquatch Language.
This standard should not be limited to first-hand witness accounts or recordings from North America, but should be used by investigators world-wide, since most languages have many of the same non-phonetic characteristics as English. The work is written in the style of a military SOP (Standard Operating Procedure).
It is my belief that there is nothing more important, at this early stage of Sasquatch Language study, than to standardize the documentation of evidence.
With highest regard for all those engaged in the work of Sasquatch recognition;
Time Utterance
0:4.5 (W) (W)
0:8.62 (W) (W) (W)
0:15.11 RAM HO BÄ RÜ KHÄ HÜ
0:16.70 WAM VO HÜ KHÖ KHU′
0:17.52 NÖ U PLÄ MEN TI KHU
0:18.82 NÄR LÄ
0:20.21 NA GÖ KÜ STEP GÄ KÜ BLEM
0:21.25 Ü KÜ DZJÄ
0:21.76 FRrÄP E KHÜK LE
0:22.65 ÜN Ï KÜ O GÜ AKH (int)
0:23.85 DÖ WÄÏ NÖ (dr)
0:24.52 MÜ Ï FWI KÖ PÏ KHU′ SJ΄
0:31.43 (ma) HU Ö NÖ> KHÄ HÜ
0:32.95 PLEN DÜTSJ TISJ
0:33.61 SÏ DZJAÖ GLÖ PÜ MËKH
0:34.90 PÄ KHÏ KÖ DÜ TÜ SEKSÏ
0:35.88 WA HEP DÜ TSJE DÜ FU HEP
0:36.95 (ma) FI KÜ ÄÏ> KHÜ′
0:44.80 FÄ LIP ÄBÄSJ KHU′
0:45.03 NE VER GÖ ΄ ÖM KHU′
0:47.03 FÖ WÄ Ï>
0:48.08 WA KHU΄ KVÄM
0:49.16 ITS KÄÏM VÄR US FO RI ZIS TENS
0:51.27 MÖ> FER BÏ KEN JÄ Ä VÄÖN SÏ RYK MI RO GHAP GÏ GO WYP
0:53.66 MÏ WÄTSJ FYD PLËN FYD NÜ AÖ> KHE KHU′
0:55.34 NÖ ÄÏ ÄKHSJ HÜ
0:57.13 (h) Come on, boy.
0:58.04 (h) Come on, let’s eat.
1:00.93 BÏ KAER FYL NAÖ PRÖS GYD
01.87 NÖÄ Ö JA LET KHE
02.99 MÖÏ PISJ FE KHE KHU′ (h) Come on.
1:11.58 KHU BEK
1:12.63 KHËÄ KHU′
1:13.77 Ä LÄF
1:14.46 MÖ VE KHÜ
1:14.86 LAF KHU′
1:15.35 NÖ KHÏÄ
1:16.01 KHÖ VË ÄER ZÏ RÄ KIL WÄ KÜ ′ÜSJ
1:17.49 BÜ GÄ TÄÏSJ KHU′
Recently Mr. Nelson completed his transcription of the vocals recorded by Barry-Morehead and through an open letter to the sasquatch research community has shared the fruits of his labor. Significantly, and of great interest to the efforts undertaken here, Mr. Nelson has proposed the Sasquatch Phonetic Alphabet (SPA). This is a vitally important baseline that dramatically enables the linguistic and bioacoustic analysis of sasquatch vocalizations. It is my intent to utilize the SPA in future vocal analysis and transcription efforts.
And in case you haven't seen the letter from Mr. Nelson, his transcript, the SPA or his video presentation to the 2009 Honobia Bigfoot conference, they are reproduced here:
Fm: R. Scott Nelson
To: Sasquatch Research Community
Re: Sasquatch Phonetic Alphabet (SPA) (attached)
Since I became involved in Sasquatch research a little over two years ago, I have received dozens of e-mails from around the country involving first-hand witness accounts, many containing recorded audio files, of perceived Sasquatch Language. Virtually all of these have included an attempt to spell out Sasquatch “words” using Standard English. This is of little value to the language researcher, since English is notoriously non-phonetic and is subject to widely-varied local dialects.
Since our ultimate goal is the recovery of Sasquatch Language, I have found it necessary to establish a phonetic alphabet and transcription standard (based on the transcription of the Berry/Morehead tapes), by which the contrast and comparison of all future suspected language can be facilitated.
To this end, as an invaluable tool in the future of Sasquatch Language research, I am requesting that the attached standard be published on research web-sites and that it be copied and distributed freely. With this, I am also requesting that local investigators begin using this alphabet as soon as possible to accurately document any perceived Sasquatch Language.
This standard should not be limited to first-hand witness accounts or recordings from North America, but should be used by investigators world-wide, since most languages have many of the same non-phonetic characteristics as English. The work is written in the style of a military SOP (Standard Operating Procedure).
It is my belief that there is nothing more important, at this early stage of Sasquatch Language study, than to standardize the documentation of evidence.
With highest regard for all those engaged in the work of Sasquatch recognition;
R. Scott Nelson
20 June 2010
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Fm: R. Scott Nelson
To: Sasquatch Research Community
Re: Sasquatch Phonetic Alphabet (SPA) (attached)
Since I became involved in Sasquatch research a little over two years ago, I have received dozens of e-mails from around the country involving first-hand witness accounts, many containing recorded audio files, of perceived Sasquatch Language. Virtually all of these have included an attempt to spell out Sasquatch “words” using Standard English. This is of little value to the language researcher, since English is notoriously non-phonetic and is subject to widely-varied local dialects.
Since our ultimate goal is the recovery of Sasquatch Language, I have found it necessary to establish a phonetic alphabet and transcription standard (based on the transcription of the Berry/Morehead tapes), by which the contrast and comparison of all future suspected language can be facilitated.
To this end, as an invaluable tool in the future of Sasquatch Language research, I am requesting that the attached standard be published on research web-sites and that it be copied and distributed freely. With this, I am also requesting that local investigators begin using this alphabet as soon as possible to accurately document any perceived Sasquatch Language.
This standard should not be limited to first-hand witness accounts or recordings from North America, but should be used by investigators world-wide, since most languages have many of the same non-phonetic characteristics as English. The work is written in the style of a military SOP (Standard Operating Procedure).
It is my belief that there is nothing more important, at this early stage of Sasquatch Language study, than to standardize the documentation of evidence.
With highest regard for all those engaged in the work of Sasquatch recognition;
20 June 2010
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Fm: R. Scott Nelson
To: Sasquatch Research Community
Re: Sasquatch Phonetic Alphabet (SPA) (attached)
Since I became involved in Sasquatch research a little over two years ago, I have received dozens of e-mails from around the country involving first-hand witness accounts, many containing recorded audio files, of perceived Sasquatch Language. Virtually all of these have included an attempt to spell out Sasquatch “words” using Standard English. This is of little value to the language researcher, since English is notoriously non-phonetic and is subject to widely-varied local dialects.
Since our ultimate goal is the recovery of Sasquatch Language, I have found it necessary to establish a phonetic alphabet and transcription standard (based on the transcription of the Berry/Morehead tapes), by which the contrast and comparison of all future suspected language can be facilitated.
To this end, as an invaluable tool in the future of Sasquatch Language research, I am requesting that the attached standard be published on research web-sites and that it be copied and distributed freely. With this, I am also requesting that local investigators begin using this alphabet as soon as possible to accurately document any perceived Sasquatch Language.
This standard should not be limited to first-hand witness accounts or recordings from North America, but should be used by investigators world-wide, since most languages have many of the same non-phonetic characteristics as English. The work is written in the style of a military SOP (Standard Operating Procedure).
It is my belief that there is nothing more important, at this early stage of Sasquatch Language study, than to standardize the documentation of evidence.
With highest regard for all those engaged in the work of Sasquatch recognition;
R. Scott Nelson
20 June 2010
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Phoneme Key
Ä = a in father
Letter = traditional spelling(phonetic spelling)[name]
1. Ä ä = a in father (fäqur), o in mop (mäp) [ä]
2. A = a in can
B = b in bib
4.D = d in did
Ë = a in make
E = e in set
F = f in fife
G = g in gag
H = h in ham
Ï = i in machine, ee in meet
I = i in sit
J = y in yes, i in union
K = k in kite, c in cut
L = l in lull
M = m in mom
N = n in nine
Ö = o in lone
O = o in log
P = p in pipe
R = r in roar
Rr = rolled r, as in Spanish or in Scottish Brogue
S = s in sister
T = t in tight
Ü = u in plume, oo in boot
U = u in run, o in union
V = v in verve
W = w in way
Y = oo in book
Z = z in zebra, s in is
′ = glottal stop
c = tongue click, not evident in BMT
> = phoneme drawn out
Compound Phonemes
ÄÏ = i in like, y in my
JÜ = as in you, u in fume
KH = ch in Scottish loch, x in Spanish Quixote, x in Russian (khah)
SJ = sh in shirt
TSJ = ch in church
ZJ = z in azure, s in treasure
DZJ = j in jail, g in age
NG = ng in sing
Δ (Greek Delta) = th in then
Θ (Greek Theta) = th in thin
Abbreviation Key
(rt) = transcribed at real-time
(75%) = transcribed at a speed other than 50%
(h) = human vocalization
(1-2m) = one or two words or syllables are missing or inaudible here
(int) = interrogative inflection
(dr) = Inflected as a direct response
(imp) = imperative inflection
(w) = whispered
(q) = very low audibility, quiet, almost imperceptible at normal speeds
(im) = human imitating a creature
(ma) = possible male Sasquatch Being
(fe) = possible female Sasquatch Being
(ju) = possible juvenile Sasquatch Being
(G) = grunt, growl or grumble, possible language
(W) = whistle or squeak, possible language
(SN) = snarl, possible language
(SC) = scream, possible language
(TP5) = tooth pop, number in sequence, possible language, not evident in BMT
(WK3) = wood knock, number in sequence, possible language
(RK4) = rock knock, number in sequences, possible language
20 June 2010
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Phoneme Key
Ä = a in father
Letter = traditional spelling(phonetic spelling)[name]
1. Ä ä = a in father (fäqur), o in mop (mäp) [ä]
2. A = a in can
B = b in bib
4.D = d in did
Ë = a in make
E = e in set
F = f in fife
G = g in gag
H = h in ham
Ï = i in machine, ee in meet
I = i in sit
J = y in yes, i in union
K = k in kite, c in cut
L = l in lull
M = m in mom
N = n in nine
Ö = o in lone
O = o in log
P = p in pipe
R = r in roar
Rr = rolled r, as in Spanish or in Scottish Brogue
S = s in sister
T = t in tight
Ü = u in plume, oo in boot
U = u in run, o in union
V = v in verve
W = w in way
Y = oo in book
Z = z in zebra, s in is
′ = glottal stop
c = tongue click, not evident in BMT
> = phoneme drawn out
Compound Phonemes
ÄÏ = i in like, y in my
JÜ = as in you, u in fume
KH = ch in Scottish loch, x in Spanish Quixote, x in Russian (khah)
SJ = sh in shirt
TSJ = ch in church
ZJ = z in azure, s in treasure
DZJ = j in jail, g in age
NG = ng in sing
Δ (Greek Delta) = th in then
Θ (Greek Theta) = th in thin
Abbreviation Key
(rt) = transcribed at real-time
(75%) = transcribed at a speed other than 50%
(h) = human vocalization
(1-2m) = one or two words or syllables are missing or inaudible here
(int) = interrogative inflection
(dr) = Inflected as a direct response
(imp) = imperative inflection
(w) = whispered
(q) = very low audibility, quiet, almost imperceptible at normal speeds
(im) = human imitating a creature
(ma) = possible male Sasquatch Being
(fe) = possible female Sasquatch Being
(ju) = possible juvenile Sasquatch Being
(G) = grunt, growl or grumble, possible language
(W) = whistle or squeak, possible language
(SN) = snarl, possible language
(SC) = scream, possible language
(TP5) = tooth pop, number in sequence, possible language, not evident in BMT
(WK3) = wood knock, number in sequence, possible language
(RK4) = rock knock, number in sequences, possible language
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
BERRY TAPE I
Transcribed by R. Scott Nelson
Transcribed by R. Scott Nelson
Time Utterance
0:4.5 (W) (W)
0:8.62 (W) (W) (W)
0:15.11 RAM HO BÄ RÜ KHÄ HÜ
0:16.70 WAM VO HÜ KHÖ KHU′
0:17.52 NÖ U PLÄ MEN TI KHU
0:18.82 NÄR LÄ
0:20.21 NA GÖ KÜ STEP GÄ KÜ BLEM
0:21.25 Ü KÜ DZJÄ
0:21.76 FRrÄP E KHÜK LE
0:22.65 ÜN Ï KÜ O GÜ AKH (int)
0:23.85 DÖ WÄÏ NÖ (dr)
0:24.52 MÜ Ï FWI KÖ PÏ KHU′ SJ΄
0:31.43 (ma) HU Ö NÖ> KHÄ HÜ
0:32.95 PLEN DÜTSJ TISJ
0:33.61 SÏ DZJAÖ GLÖ PÜ MËKH
0:34.90 PÄ KHÏ KÖ DÜ TÜ SEKSÏ
0:35.88 WA HEP DÜ TSJE DÜ FU HEP
0:36.95 (ma) FI KÜ ÄÏ> KHÜ′
0:44.80 FÄ LIP ÄBÄSJ KHU′
0:45.03 NE VER GÖ ΄ ÖM KHU′
0:47.03 FÖ WÄ Ï>
0:48.08 WA KHU΄ KVÄM
0:49.16 ITS KÄÏM VÄR US FO RI ZIS TENS
0:51.27 MÖ> FER BÏ KEN JÄ Ä VÄÖN SÏ RYK MI RO GHAP GÏ GO WYP
0:53.66 MÏ WÄTSJ FYD PLËN FYD NÜ AÖ> KHE KHU′
0:55.34 NÖ ÄÏ ÄKHSJ HÜ
0:57.13 (h) Come on, boy.
0:58.04 (h) Come on, let’s eat.
1:00.93 BÏ KAER FYL NAÖ PRÖS GYD
01.87 NÖÄ Ö JA LET KHE
02.99 MÖÏ PISJ FE KHE KHU′ (h) Come on.
1:11.58 KHU BEK
1:12.63 KHËÄ KHU′
1:13.77 Ä LÄF
1:14.46 MÖ VE KHÜ
1:14.86 LAF KHU′
1:15.35 NÖ KHÏÄ
1:16.01 KHÖ VË ÄER ZÏ RÄ KIL WÄ KÜ ′ÜSJ
1:17.49 BÜ GÄ TÄÏSJ KHU′
Monday, July 5, 2010
Sharing What I See and Hear
OK, I want to try a different approach that might help make some of these recordings a little easier to listen to. I have the benefit of some good spectrogram software to use when I'm studying the audio I collect in the field. My ears and eyes are so tuned in to what's happening on the screen and in my head phones, that I often hear things very clearly when in reality they are faint sounds at best to someone listening on their computer speakers.
I don't want to waste anyone's time posting faint recordings that only an audio fan like me could learn to appreciate, but unfortunately my research area is so large that the vocalizers I capture are often at significant distance, a quarter to half mile being the norm.
So this time, instead of sharing a link to an obscure audio recording, I'm going to share a couple links to some short videos of the audio files as they play back in my spectrogram application. These were recorded within the last hour of daylight, last Friday evening, at a remote location in the Monongahela National Forest:
In this first clip I was 200 yards south of the mic and recorder, and could clearly here the wood knock response to my whoop and knock. The recorder captured the response as well, but not as clearly as my own ears could hear it. The spectrogram tells the story better:
About 20 minutes later I was back at the location of the recorder and mic and did another whoop and wood knock. This seemed to elicit still more vocals and several easily heard wood knocks from an entirely different direction than the response described above:
These two videos are my first attempt at this approach and I hope they'll be more effective than just sharing an audio file. Please feel free to comment on the results or offer any suggestions that might make things better.
I don't want to waste anyone's time posting faint recordings that only an audio fan like me could learn to appreciate, but unfortunately my research area is so large that the vocalizers I capture are often at significant distance, a quarter to half mile being the norm.
So this time, instead of sharing a link to an obscure audio recording, I'm going to share a couple links to some short videos of the audio files as they play back in my spectrogram application. These were recorded within the last hour of daylight, last Friday evening, at a remote location in the Monongahela National Forest:
In this first clip I was 200 yards south of the mic and recorder, and could clearly here the wood knock response to my whoop and knock. The recorder captured the response as well, but not as clearly as my own ears could hear it. The spectrogram tells the story better:
About 20 minutes later I was back at the location of the recorder and mic and did another whoop and wood knock. This seemed to elicit still more vocals and several easily heard wood knocks from an entirely different direction than the response described above:
These two videos are my first attempt at this approach and I hope they'll be more effective than just sharing an audio file. Please feel free to comment on the results or offer any suggestions that might make things better.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)