Hi, I have a question for this knowledgeable group. I'm attempting to
capture some coyote barks and howls using my old Zoom H2 recorder. The
problem I'm having is that these animals are probably at least 1/2 mi
away. I have captured some howls last evening, but the sound is not
much above the background noise and has been difficult to filter so far.
Unfortunately, they are located on private properly and I wouldn't be
able to get any closer. What could I do on my end? Thank you.

On 30/11/2021 17:57, Jake T wrote:
> Hi, I have a question for this knowledgeable group. I'm attempting to
> capture some coyote barks and howls using my old Zoom H2 recorder. The
> problem I'm having is that these animals are probably at least 1/2 mi
> away. I have captured some howls last evening, but the sound is not
> much above the background noise and has been difficult to filter so far.
> Unfortunately, they are located on private properly and I wouldn't be
> able to get any closer. What could I do on my end? Thank you.

If you can get them in the exact centre of the sound stage on the H2, it
may be worth trying software designed to remove the central information,
as if preparing a karaoke track, then mixing the original dry version
and the wet version, but, and this is the fun bit, invert the phase of
one of them. Enable 24 bit recording, of course, preferably at high
sample rate.

This will result in the off centre information cancelling out to a
degree, while leaving the central information intact but at a reduced
amplitude. I have used this trick to pull a vocal out of a Decca Tree
mix when the vocal mic failed embarrassingly mid take. (It was, of
course, the best performance...)

Also, using the H2, I have had some success in removing room noise by
using all four channels, and subtracting the rear information from the
front information (Invert one and mix them together). This may help
remove some of the local sound. Alternatively, point the open end of a
portable vocal booth at the source and mount the H2 as normal, pointing
at the source to reduce local input.

A parabolic setup may also help, but the frequencies you want may be too
low for a carryable parabola to be flat enough in its frequency response.

<Grin> The rich movie sound mob can afford a decent shotgun mic. About
five to ten thousand should cover it. Then you need a decent recorder.

--
Tciao for Now!

John.

On 11/30/21 1:22 PM, John Williamson wrote:
> On 30/11/2021 17:57, Jake T wrote:
>> Hi,  I have a question for this knowledgeable group.  I'm attempting to
>> capture some coyote barks and howls using my old Zoom H2 recorder.  The
>> problem I'm having is that these animals are probably at least 1/2 mi
>> away.  I have captured some howls last evening, but the sound is not
>> much above the background noise and has been difficult to filter so far.
>>  Unfortunately, they are located on private properly and I wouldn't be
>> able to get any closer.  What could I do on my end?  Thank you.
>
> If you can get them in the exact centre of the sound stage on the H2, it
> may be worth trying software designed to remove the central information,
> as if preparing a karaoke track, then mixing the original dry version
> and the wet version, but, and this is the fun bit, invert the phase of
> one of them. Enable 24 bit recording, of course, preferably at high
> sample rate.
>
> This will result in the off centre information cancelling out to a
> degree, while leaving the central information intact but at a reduced
> amplitude. I have used this trick to pull a vocal out of a Decca Tree
> mix when the vocal mic failed embarrassingly mid take. (It was, of
> course, the best performance...)
>
> Also, using the H2, I have had some success in removing room noise by
> using all four channels, and subtracting the rear information from the
> front information (Invert one and mix them together). This may help
> remove some of the local sound. Alternatively, point the open end of a
> portable vocal booth at the source and mount the H2 as normal, pointing
> at the source to reduce local input.
>
> A parabolic setup may also help, but the frequencies you want may be too
> low for a carryable parabola to be flat enough in its frequency response.
>
> <Grin> The rich movie sound mob can afford a decent shotgun mic. About
> five to ten thousand should cover it. Then you need a decent recorder.
>

Thanks for the info. I recorded at the 90 degree stereo setting. I'll
have to see if I can try the "coyote vocal removal" technique, then
maybe I can invert and use the vocals. I should point out that it
takes, on average, about 5-7 hours before hearing a coyote. They only
seem to howl once during the night, so there's about 5-7 hours recorded
before hearing them, and then at least 5 hours after as they are too
weak to use anything like VOX. Because of the large file size created,
I am capturing 320K MP3. If I use WAV, I'd probably run out of space
before checking in the morning. I just carefully review the audio
spectra in Audacity until I see frequencies in the coyote range, then
copy and save to a new file.

One other thing I'm thinking of trying is using a good coyote howl
recording with high S/N ratio as a sample to filter out as much of the
coyote frequencies in my recording, then apply the remaining noise,
which should be as free of the coyote howls as possible, to my noisy
result. I've had some luck with this technique in the past, although a
lot depends on the type of noise and amplitude of both my recording and
the prerecorded sample.

Jake T <jaketbone@steak.com> wrote:

> Hi, I have a question for this knowledgeable group. I'm attempting to
> capture some coyote barks and howls using my old Zoom H2 recorder. The
> problem I'm having is that these animals are probably at least 1/2 mi
> away. I have captured some howls last evening, but the sound is not
> much above the background noise and has been difficult to filter so far.
> Unfortunately, they are located on private properly and I wouldn't be
> able to get any closer. What could I do on my end? Thank you.

What is causing the background noise?

If it is ambience such as traffic, wind in the trees etc. that can only
be overcome by improving the signal-to-noise ratio. You can either
decrease the noise or move nearer to the wanted sounds. As you say you
can't do the latter, you need to consider how you could do the former.

A very directional microphone, such as a parabolic reflector might help;
or you may be able to position the mic behind a large feature, such as a
hillock or building, that blocks the noise. As the source of the sound
is distant, you might get an improvement by putting the mic on the top
of a high pole (well shielded aginst wind).

If the noise is coming from the mics themselves, plug in a separate mic
which has a lower noise level. Usually a large diaphragm type would be
better because it suffers less from Brownian noise of the air molecules
and gives a larger signal into its head amplifier. Two widely-spaced
mics may help in stereo as the local noise will seem more distributed
and the distant sounds will be more directional (and easier for the ear
to identify).

The best results will be obtained by getting a good signal to start
with, mucking about with software afterwards should only be done as a
last resort and will often be disappointing.

--
~ Liz Tuddenham ~
(Remove the ".invalid"s and add ".co.uk" to reply)
www.poppyrecords.co.uk

On Tue, 30 Nov 2021 12:57:31 -0500, Jake T <jaketbone@steak.com>
wrote:

>Hi, I have a question for this knowledgeable group. I'm attempting to
>capture some coyote barks and howls using my old Zoom H2 recorder. The
>problem I'm having is that these animals are probably at least 1/2 mi
>away. I have captured some howls last evening, but the sound is not
>much above the background noise and has been difficult to filter so far.
> Unfortunately, they are located on private properly and I wouldn't be
>able to get any closer. What could I do on my end? Thank you.

Coyote howls probably occupy a fairly limited frequency range. Use
lowpass and highpass filters to just let through the howls. That
should improve the signal to noise ratio a lot.

If you can find some really clean recording of a coyote you can
examine that to see what you need to allow through.

d

--
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

On Tue, 30 Nov 2021 20:34:58 GMT, spam@spam.com (Don Pearce) wrote:

>On Tue, 30 Nov 2021 12:57:31 -0500, Jake T <jaketbone@steak.com>
>wrote:
>
>>Hi, I have a question for this knowledgeable group. I'm attempting to
>>capture some coyote barks and howls using my old Zoom H2 recorder. The
>>problem I'm having is that these animals are probably at least 1/2 mi
>>away. I have captured some howls last evening, but the sound is not
>>much above the background noise and has been difficult to filter so far.
>> Unfortunately, they are located on private properly and I wouldn't be
>>able to get any closer. What could I do on my end? Thank you.
>
>Coyote howls probably occupy a fairly limited frequency range. Use
>lowpass and highpass filters to just let through the howls. That
>should improve the signal to noise ratio a lot.
>
>If you can find some really clean recording of a coyote you can
>examine that to see what you need to allow through.
>
>d

OK - I've done the job for you. Save about 500Hz to 5kHz and you will
have all of the howl.

d

--
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

Jake T wrote:
---------------------
> Hi, I have a question for this knowledgeable group. I'm attempting to
> capture some coyote barks and howls using my old Zoom H2 recorder. The
> problem I'm having is that these animals are probably at least 1/2 mi
> away. I have captured some howls last evening, but the sound is not
> much above the background noise and has been difficult to filter so far.
> Unfortunately, they are located on private properly and I wouldn't be
> able to get any closer. What could I do on my end? Thank you.
>

** Like the famous recipe for " rabbit pie" - first capture your coyote.
Then have it howl into the mic.

....... Phil

On 11/30/21 3:19 PM, Liz Tuddenham wrote:
> Jake T <jaketbone@steak.com> wrote:
>
>> Hi, I have a question for this knowledgeable group. I'm attempting to
>> capture some coyote barks and howls using my old Zoom H2 recorder. The
>> problem I'm having is that these animals are probably at least 1/2 mi
>> away. I have captured some howls last evening, but the sound is not
>> much above the background noise and has been difficult to filter so far.
>> Unfortunately, they are located on private properly and I wouldn't be
>> able to get any closer. What could I do on my end? Thank you.
>
> What is causing the background noise?
>
> If it is ambience such as traffic, wind in the trees etc. that can only
> be overcome by improving the signal-to-noise ratio. You can either
> decrease the noise or move nearer to the wanted sounds. As you say you
> can't do the latter, you need to consider how you could do the former.

All of the above. There is a lot of airplane traffic here and one
night, the howls were completely disrupted by the noise.
>
> A very directional microphone, such as a parabolic reflector might help;
> or you may be able to position the mic behind a large feature, such as a
> hillock or building, that blocks the noise. As the source of the sound
> is distant, you might get an improvement by putting the mic on the top
> of a high pole (well shielded aginst wind).

I used to have a parabolic microphone, but unfortunately sold it years
ago. I am considering the high pole idea, have plenty of ways to get it
up above the rooftops.

>
> If the noise is coming from the mics themselves, plug in a separate mic
> which has a lower noise level. Usually a large diaphragm type would be
> better because it suffers less from Brownian noise of the air molecules
> and gives a larger signal into its head amplifier. Two widely-spaced
> mics may help in stereo as the local noise will seem more distributed
> and the distant sounds will be more directional (and easier for the ear
> to identify).
>
> The best results will be obtained by getting a good signal to start
> with, mucking about with software afterwards should only be done as a
> last resort and will often be disappointing.

Before I do anything else, I'm going to try recording again at 44 Khz,
24 bit. As I mentioned prior, I recorded in MP3 format to save SD card
space but checking later, it seems I can record up to 16 hours at
44/24. I am therefore trying tonight and, assuming they howl again
between 11 PM- 1 AM, I'll have a better signal to work with.

I did manage some usable results this last time though with sort of
sound modeling and using a good recording applied to my noisy one. Not
perfect, but I could actually use it if I can't improve it any.

On 1/12/2021 8:11 am, Jake T wrote:

>
> One other thing I'm thinking of trying is using a good coyote howl
> recording with high S/N ratio a

You could just use a good coyote howl recording !

But I guess you want the challenge for yourself ;- )

geoff

Jake T <jaketbone@steak.com> wrote:

> On 11/30/21 3:19 PM, Liz Tuddenham wrote:
[...]
> > If it is ambience such as traffic, wind in the trees etc. that can only
> > be overcome by improving the signal-to-noise ratio. You can either
> > decrease the noise or move nearer to the wanted sounds. As you say you
> > can't do the latter, you need to consider how you could do the former.
>
> All of the above. There is a lot of airplane traffic here and one
> night, the howls were completely disrupted by the noise.

It sounds as though you may just have to keep recording until you strike
lucky. Wildlife recording can be a frustrating business.

[...]

> I used to have a parabolic microphone, but unfortunately sold it years
> ago. I am considering the high pole idea, have plenty of ways to get it
> up above the rooftops.

I have improvised with a metal dustbin lid as a reflector, the results
weren't brilliant, but they were a lot better than nothing. The
diameter of the reflector needs to be comparable with a wavelength of
the lowest frequency sound you want to focus,. Don Pearce says that is
500 c/s, so you need a reflector around 2ft diameter as a minimum.

If you put the mic high up, there might be a problem with wind noise.
There was another thread onwind protection recently. Basically you need
an enclosure of long-haired fur, well-supported so it does not move in
the breeze, surrounding the microphone but leaving a large internal air
space to allow any air currents that penetrate it to circulate gently
without causing a pressure variation around the microphone.

Often, for smaller wind-shields, the fur is supported on an open-cell
foam rubber 'pop shield', but for a larger enclosure you could just make
a ball of wire netting or an expanded aluminium mesh cylinder with free
air inside it.

If you are just using the mics on the recorder, a wind-shield like my
"Poileuse" should help a bit.
http://www.poppyrecords.co.uk/other/poileuse/poileuse.php

I'm hoping to expand that page to include instructions on how to make
it. [Don't enquire too deeply into the name :-) .]

[...]

> I did manage some usable results this last time though with sort of
> sound modeling and using a good recording applied to my noisy one. Not
> perfect, but I could actually use it if I can't improve it any.

Rather than using software to pick out the wanted specctrum, how about
using it to notch out the unwanted one?

--
~ Liz Tuddenham ~
(Remove the ".invalid"s and add ".co.uk" to reply)
www.poppyrecords.co.uk

On Tuesday, November 30, 2021 at 12:45:21 PM UTC-8, Don Pearce wrote:
> On Tue, 30 Nov 2021 20:34:58 GMT, sp...@spam.com (Don Pearce) wrote:
>
> >On Tue, 30 Nov 2021 12:57:31 -0500, Jake T <jake...@steak.com>
> >wrote:
> >
> >>Hi, I have a question for this knowledgeable group. I'm attempting to
> >>capture some coyote barks and howls using my old Zoom H2 recorder. The
> >>problem I'm having is that these animals are probably at least 1/2 mi
> >>away. I have captured some howls last evening, but the sound is not
> >>much above the background noise and has been difficult to filter so far.
> >> Unfortunately, they are located on private properly and I wouldn't be
> >>able to get any closer. What could I do on my end? Thank you.
> >
> >Coyote howls probably occupy a fairly limited frequency range. Use
> >lowpass and highpass filters to just let through the howls. That
> >should improve the signal to noise ratio a lot.
> >
> >If you can find some really clean recording of a coyote you can
> >examine that to see what you need to allow through.
> >
> >d
> OK - I've done the job for you. Save about 500Hz to 5kHz and you will
> have all of the howl.
> d
>
> --
> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
> https://www.avast.com/antivirus

There's an old rule of thumb that says "For best *perceived* spectral balance, the LF x HF cutoffs should equal 600,000." Eg 50-12,000 Hz. 40-15000 Hz, etc. Here, if 500 Hz is LF then HF = 1200 Hz should "sound better".

Roy W. Rising "If you notice the sound, it's wrong."

On 01/12/2021 18:23, Roy W. Rising wrote:

> There's an old rule of thumb that says "For best *perceived* spectral balance, the LF x HF cutoffs should equal 600,000." Eg 50-12,000 Hz. 40-15000 Hz, etc. Here, if 500 Hz is LF then HF = 1200 Hz should "sound better".
>
The thing about any rule of thumb is that it only applies to normal
circumstances, and is only a starting point anyway. Recording distant
animal sounds is not "normal" recording, and the aim of the equalisation
here is to preserve as much of the original sound as possible while
rejecting as much of the unwanted stuff as possible. Both things need to
be balanced by listening.

Another point to bear in mind here is that while they are surprisingly
good considering the intended use of the machine, the H2 mics are not
the most sensitive in the world, and at low levels, there is self noise
in the mics and preamps to consider.

--
Tciao for Now!

John.

John Williamson wrote:
===================
>
> Another point to bear in mind here is that while they are surprisingly
> good considering the intended use of the machine, the H2 mics are not
> the most sensitive in the world, and at low levels, there is self noise
> in the mics and preamps to consider.
>

** Rarely the main noise source when recording outdoors.

The OP has indicated his issue IS with ambient noise sources including aircraft.
My earlier post was not purely in jest.

Folk trying to do the impossible with sound gear is nothing new.

...... Phil

On Wed, 1 Dec 2021 10:23:08 -0800 (PST), "Roy W. Rising"
<rwrising@dslextreme.com> wrote:

>There's an old rule of thumb that says "For best *perceived* spectral balance, the LF x HF cutoffs should equal 600,000." Eg 50-12,000 Hz. 40-15000 Hz, etc. Here, if 500 Hz is LF then HF = 1200 Hz should "sound better".

That may or may not be a rule in general recording, but we are dealing
with a specific source with a very limited frequency spectrum. There
is absolutely no point in preserving anything outside that spectrum as
it will be unwanted. There is something to be said for adding in
broadband pink noise at low level. It should not be high enough to
interfere with the howls, but it will add a more comfortable, less
telephone-like background against which to hear them.

Also, depending on the nature of the background, there may be some
percentage in active noise reduction. A Coyote's howl is sufficiently
different from the wind, cars and planes that there could be some
success in this approach. Just don't expect anything approaching
studio quality.

d

--
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

palli...@gmail.com <pallison49@gmail.com> wrote:
> John Williamson wrote:
> ===================
>>
>> Another point to bear in mind here is that while they are surprisingly
>> good considering the intended use of the machine, the H2 mics are not
>> the most sensitive in the world, and at low levels, there is self noise
>> in the mics and preamps to consider.
>>
>
> ** Rarely the main noise source when recording outdoors.
>
> The OP has indicated his issue IS with ambient noise sources including aircraft.
> My earlier post was not purely in jest.
>
> Folk trying to do the impossible with sound gear is nothing new.
>
>
> ..... Phil
>
>

I’m surprised that nobody yet has suggested wrapping the H2 with a nice
juicy steak. That should cure the distance problem.

On 01/12/2021 20:16, Don Pearce wrote:
> On Wed, 1 Dec 2021 10:23:08 -0800 (PST), "Roy W. Rising"
> <rwrising@dslextreme.com> wrote:
>
>> There's an old rule of thumb that says "For best *perceived* spectral balance, the LF x HF cutoffs should equal 600,000." Eg 50-12,000 Hz. 40-15000 Hz, etc. Here, if 500 Hz is LF then HF = 1200 Hz should "sound better".
>
> That may or may not be a rule in general recording, but we are dealing
> with a specific source with a very limited frequency spectrum. There
> is absolutely no point in preserving anything outside that spectrum as
> it will be unwanted. There is something to be said for adding in
> broadband pink noise at low level. It should not be high enough to
> interfere with the howls, but it will add a more comfortable, less
> telephone-like background against which to hear them.
>
> Also, depending on the nature of the background, there may be some
> percentage in active noise reduction. A Coyote's howl is sufficiently
> different from the wind, cars and planes that there could be some
> success in this approach. Just don't expect anything approaching
> studio quality.
>
> d
>
<Grin> All these options should keep the OP busy for a while. I'd love
to hear what he ends up with.

--
Tciao for Now!

John.

Ralph Barone wrote:
===============> >>
> >> Another point to bear in mind here is that while they are surprisingly
> >> good considering the intended use of the machine, the H2 mics are not
> >> the most sensitive in the world, and at low levels, there is self noise
> >> in the mics and preamps to consider.
> >>
> >
> > ** Rarely the main noise source when recording outdoors.
> >
> > The OP has indicated his issue IS with ambient noise sources including aircraft.
> > My earlier post was not purely in jest.
> >
> > Folk trying to do the impossible with sound gear is nothing new.
> >
> >
> >
> I’m surprised that nobody yet has suggested wrapping the H2 with a nice
> juicy steak. That should cure the distance problem.
>

** But then all you will hear is: gurrrrr, num, num, num, num...

....... Phil

On 2/12/2021 10:01 am, palli...@gmail.com wrote:
> Ralph Barone wrote:
> ================
>>>>
>>>> Another point to bear in mind here is that while they are surprisingly
>>>> good considering the intended use of the machine, the H2 mics are not
>>>> the most sensitive in the world, and at low levels, there is self noise
>>>> in the mics and preamps to consider.
>>>>
>>>
>>> ** Rarely the main noise source when recording outdoors.
>>>
>>> The OP has indicated his issue IS with ambient noise sources including aircraft.
>>> My earlier post was not purely in jest.
>>>
>>> Folk trying to do the impossible with sound gear is nothing new.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>> I’m surprised that nobody yet has suggested wrapping the H2 with a nice
>> juicy steak. That should cure the distance problem.
>>
>
> ** But then all you will hear is: gurrrrr, num, num, num, num...
>
>
> ...... Phil
>

But also the howl of the person holding the H2 ....

geoff

On 2/12/2021 9:16 am, Don Pearce wrote:
> On Wed, 1 Dec 2021 10:23:08 -0800 (PST), "Roy W. Rising"
> <rwrising@dslextreme.com> wrote:
>
>> There's an old rule of thumb that says "For best *perceived* spectral balance, the LF x HF cutoffs should equal 600,000." Eg 50-12,000 Hz. 40-15000 Hz, etc. Here, if 500 Hz is LF then HF = 1200 Hz should "sound better".
>
> That may or may not be a rule in general recording, but we are dealing
> with a specific source with a very limited frequency spectrum. There
> is absolutely no point in preserving anything outside that spectrum as
> it will be unwanted. There is something to be said for adding in
> broadband pink noise at low level. It should not be high enough to
> interfere with the howls, but it will add a more comfortable, less
> telephone-like background against which to hear them.
>
> Also, depending on the nature of the background, there may be some
> percentage in active noise reduction. A Coyote's howl is sufficiently
> different from the wind, cars and planes that there could be some
> success in this approach. Just don't expect anything approaching
> studio quality.
>
> d
>

All these ambient factors are present in real life for hearing a distant
coyote (or whatever) howl.

So is it meant to be realistic - or is what is really wanted is a
close-miked coyote howl ?

geoff

geoff wrote:
==========
>
> All these ambient factors are present in real life for hearing a distant
> coyote (or whatever) howl.
>
> So is it meant to be realistic - or is what is really wanted is a
> close-miked coyote howl ?
>

** Like this ?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YtsZoIe3Czk

Sounds clipped to me.

..... Phil

On 12/1/21 3:51 PM, John Williamson wrote:
> On 01/12/2021 20:16, Don Pearce wrote:
>> On Wed, 1 Dec 2021 10:23:08 -0800 (PST), "Roy W. Rising"
>> <rwrising@dslextreme.com> wrote:
>>
>>> There's an old rule of thumb that says "For best *perceived* spectral
>>> balance, the LF x HF cutoffs should equal 600,000."  Eg 50-12,000 Hz.
>>> 40-15000 Hz, etc.  Here, if 500 Hz is LF then HF = 1200 Hz should
>>> "sound better".
>>
>> That may or may not be a rule in general recording, but we are dealing
>> with a specific source with a very limited frequency spectrum. There
>> is absolutely no point in preserving anything outside that spectrum as
>> it will be unwanted.  There is something to be said for adding in
>> broadband pink noise at low level. It should not be high enough to
>> interfere with the howls, but it will add a more comfortable, less
>> telephone-like background against which to hear them.
>>
>> Also, depending on the nature of the background, there may be some
>> percentage in active noise reduction. A Coyote's howl is sufficiently
>> different from the wind, cars and planes that there could be some
>> success in this approach. Just don't expect anything approaching
>> studio quality.
>>
>> d
>>
> <Grin> All these options should keep the OP busy for a while. I'd love
> to hear what he ends up with.
>

Well, here's what I did today: made a parabolic out of an old umbrella.
However, I didn't just settle on that and forget it. I lined the
inside surface with a roll of leftover aluminum tape I had. It took
about an hour. The resulting "dish" is about 2 feet in diameter and I
have it coupled to a tripod now. Early testing this afternoon showed
promise. One of my first targets was northern cardinal birds chirping
in the trees. With careful aiming, I noticed a large gain increase over
not using the dish at all. Then, some neighbors were conversing across
the street- barely audible without the dish, but with it, I could hear
what they were saying. So, there is at least some gain. I guess I'll
find out tonight if it helps any as I have it aimed in the general
direction where I am hearing the coyotes. I set up a 1 Khz tone inside
and, from outside the house, adjusted the mic up and down the rod until
the amplitude was greatest. Pretty makeshift and I'll fall over if this
works.

On Wednesday, December 1, 2021 at 5:24:44 PM UTC-5, palli...@gmail.com wrote:
> geoff wrote:
> ==========
> >
> > All these ambient factors are present in real life for hearing a distant
> > coyote (or whatever) howl.
> >
> > So is it meant to be realistic - or is what is really wanted is a
> > close-miked coyote howl ?
> >
> ** Like this ?
>
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YtsZoIe3Czk
>
> Sounds clipped to me.
>
> .... Phil
________

Clipping's all the rage here in 2021! Where have you been? :D

On 12/1/21 10:52 PM, Chris K-Man wrote:
> On Wednesday, December 1, 2021 at 5:24:44 PM UTC-5, palli...@gmail.com wrote:
>> geoff wrote:
>> ==========
>>>
>>> All these ambient factors are present in real life for hearing a distant
>>> coyote (or whatever) howl.
>>>
>>> So is it meant to be realistic - or is what is really wanted is a
>>> close-miked coyote howl ?
>>>
>> ** Like this ?
>>
>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YtsZoIe3Czk
>>
>> Sounds clipped to me.
>>
>> .... Phil
> ________
>
> Clipping's all the rage here in 2021! Where have you been? :D
>

Yeah, that one is horribly clipped. When I was initially looking around
for some good coyote sounds a few days back, that was one of the ones I
came across. Reminds me of a friend of mine who gives lectures once or
twice weekly over Facebook using his wife's I-phone. Every week, he's
clipping and I have to turn my speakers way down to listen to him. I've
tried to tell him, but I don't think he has any idea how to adjust his
audio and, since I don't own such devices, neither do I!

On 12/1/21 5:21 PM, geoff wrote:
> On 2/12/2021 9:16 am, Don Pearce wrote:
>> On Wed, 1 Dec 2021 10:23:08 -0800 (PST), "Roy W. Rising"
>> <rwrising@dslextreme.com> wrote:
>>
>>> There's an old rule of thumb that says "For best *perceived* spectral
>>> balance, the LF x HF cutoffs should equal 600,000."  Eg 50-12,000 Hz.
>>> 40-15000 Hz, etc.  Here, if 500 Hz is LF then HF = 1200 Hz should
>>> "sound better".
>>
>> That may or may not be a rule in general recording, but we are dealing
>> with a specific source with a very limited frequency spectrum. There
>> is absolutely no point in preserving anything outside that spectrum as
>> it will be unwanted.  There is something to be said for adding in
>> broadband pink noise at low level. It should not be high enough to
>> interfere with the howls, but it will add a more comfortable, less
>> telephone-like background against which to hear them.
>>
>> Also, depending on the nature of the background, there may be some
>> percentage in active noise reduction. A Coyote's howl is sufficiently
>> different from the wind, cars and planes that there could be some
>> success in this approach. Just don't expect anything approaching
>> studio quality.
>>
>> d
>>
>
> All these ambient factors are present in real life for hearing a distant
> coyote (or whatever) howl.
>
> So is it meant to be realistic - or is what is really wanted is a
> close-miked coyote howl ?
>
> geoff

Good questions. Just as realistic as possible and not up close. I
don't think there's any way I could get that close anyway with the
private property involved.

I have hopes with the parabolic I made yesterday that I talked about in
another response. Of course, if it wasn't aimed correctly last night
and, assuming they howled, I might have done more harm than good. I
noticed that the unit was quite directional yesterday during testing,
but none of the subjects honed in on were greater than 100 yards away
and the coyotes are significantly further than that I believe.

On 11/30/21 9:57 AM, Jake T wrote:
> Hi, I have a question for this knowledgeable group. I'm attempting
> to capture some coyote barks and howls using my old Zoom H2 recorder.

What have you come up with so far? Are you able to post a recording
to soundcloud or something?