John Williamson wrote:
===================
>
> >
> In this case, "maxing it" refers to setting the gain of the recorder
> preamplifiers at maximum to make the best of a very low level signal.
>
> What would also help slightly would be to make the recordings on a cold
> night to minimise thermal and Brownian motion noise.
>
** Huh ? That is plain nuts.

...... Phil

palli...@gmail.com <pallison49@gmail.com> wrote:
> John Williamson wrote:
> ===================
>>
>>>
>> In this case, "maxing it" refers to setting the gain of the recorder
>> preamplifiers at maximum to make the best of a very low level signal.
>>
>> What would also help slightly would be to make the recordings on a cold
>> night to minimise thermal and Brownian motion noise.
>>
> ** Huh ? That is plain nuts.
>
>
> ..... Phil
>

It might not be very effective until you hit liquid Nitrogen range, but the
physics is there.

On Tuesday, December 7, 2021 at 3:06:01 PM UTC-5, John Williamson wrote:
> On 07/12/2021 20:03, Don Pearce wrote:
>
> > I really said max the gain as n easy way of making sure it hadn't
> > changed between runs.
> >
> > d
> >
> That too, but the k-man got the wrong end of the stick as usual.
> --
> Tciao for Now!
>
> John
________

Instead of being critical, explain things.

Mxing the pre-amp gains works, until an unexpected local loud
noise overloads things.

Ralph Barone wrote:
=================
>
> > John Williamson wrote:
> > ===================
>>>
> >> In this case, "maxing it" refers to setting the gain of the recorder
> >> preamplifiers at maximum to make the best of a very low level signal.
> >>
> >> What would also help slightly would be to make the recordings on a cold
> >> night to minimise thermal and Brownian motion noise.
> >>
> > ** Huh ? That is plain nuts.
> >
>
> It might not be very effective until you hit liquid Nitrogen range, but the
> physics is there.

** No it isn't.

Mics are sometime tested in a vacuum to eliminate such all noise sources.
ONLY they best, large diaphragm, true condenser mics show any self noise drop.

...... Phil

On 07/12/2021 23:16, Chris K-Man wrote:
> On Tuesday, December 7, 2021 at 3:06:01 PM UTC-5, John Williamson wrote:
>> On 07/12/2021 20:03, Don Pearce wrote:
>>
>>> I really said max the gain as n easy way of making sure it hadn't
>>> changed between runs.
>>>
>>> d
>>>
>> That too, but the k-man got the wrong end of the stick as usual.
>> --
>> Tciao for Now!
>>
>> John
> ________
>
> Instead of being critical, explain things.
>
> Mxing the pre-amp gains works, until an unexpected local loud
> noise overloads things.
>
Read my post, It explains what is being done very clearly.

--
Tciao for Now!

John.

On Wednesday, December 8, 2021 at 3:41:25 AM UTC-5, John Williamson wrote:
> On 07/12/2021 23:16, Chris K-Man wrote:
> > On Tuesday, December 7, 2021 at 3:06:01 PM UTC-5, John Williamson wrote:
> >> On 07/12/2021 20:03, Don Pearce wrote:
> >>
> >>> I really said max the gain as n easy way of making sure it hadn't
> >>> changed between runs.
> >>>
> >>> d
> >>>
> >> That too, but the k-man got the wrong end of the stick as usual.
> >> --
> >> Tciao for Now!
> >>
> >> John
> > ________
> >
> > Instead of being critical, explain things.
> >
> > Mxing the pre-amp gains works, until an unexpected local loud
> > noise overloads things.
> >
> Read my post, It explains what is being done very clearly.
> --
> Tciao for Now!
>
> John.
______

So turning up the recorder's pre-amp gain is not the
same as turning up recording levels? I've never seen
a recorder where such can be done

On 08/12/2021 11:11, Chris K-Man wrote:

> So turning up the recorder's pre-amp gain is not the
> same as turning up recording levels? I've never seen
> a recorder where such can be done
>
The levels on the recording depend on the gain as well as the actual
signals themselves. In this case, the sounds are very quiet, so the
microphone signals are at a low level even with nthe gain all the way
up. There are also, in this case, quality and noise limitations in the
recorder and microphones.

I suggest you go back to the top of the thread and carefully read all
the posts before posting here again.

--
Tciao for Now!

John.

On 12/7/21 8:46 AM, Don Pearce wrote:
> On Tue, 7 Dec 2021 08:08:53 -0500, Jake T <jaketbone@steak.com> wrote:
>
>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Ok, just to be sure I'm reading this right, you want me to do testing
>>>> first with the H2 mics facing into the umbrella as I have been doing,
>>>> then with the H2 mics facing away from the umbrella? Since the coyotes
>>>> only sound off once a night and only for about a minute, I could set up
>>>> the frequency sweep and do it sometime today if the weather cooperates
>>>> or tomorrow.
>>>
>>> That's it. - I don't know what frequency sweep you are talking about
>>> though. The idea of this experiment is to make two recordings, one
>>> with the umbrella and one without. Obviously for the one without, the
>>> H2 needs to be facing the coyotes. No problem with doing this on
>>> successive nights. Disabling automatic gain is vital though, as is
>>> making sure the level setting is identical both times - maybe just max
>>> it.
>>>
>>> d
>>>
>>
>> The frequency sweep would come from an oscillator placed 100 feet or so
>> away and sweeping from around 200 Hz to 10 Khz. I'll try the experiment
>> today, but I doubt the wind's going to cooperate but will get to it when
>> I can. I could try it indoors, but I don't think I can achieve enough
>> distance as I live in a small rancher so the most I could achieve would
>> be 15 feet or so.
>
> Got you. No, do it outside - indoors won't work because of all the
> reflections off the walls. The swept oscillator is a good idea.
>
> d
>

I'm going to try and do this today before it snows later! Was it you or
someone else who owns the H2? Whoever it was could maybe answer a few
questions for me since I really don't know:

1) How long can it record with Eneloop batteries? That's what I have
in it now. I have yet to try these at night (opting for an external
lithium battery instead), but the lithium battery adds a lot of bulk and
weight which takes away some of the portability aspects of the device.
Since I recently got permission to set up on land much closer to the
coyotes than I am, I want to keep the set up light and simple. With the
Eneloops so far, I've gotten four hours. Not sure how much longer I can
go yet.

2) What happens to the recorded file in progress either (1) when the
batteries run out and/or (2) the SD card fills? I've not encountered
either of these yet, but probably will once I set up remotely. My fear
is that the SD card will be corrupted or I'll lose one of the 2 GB files.

3) Speaking of file size, I notice a new file is created every 2.1 GB
during continuous recording. It's not a problem, but just wondering why
that is?

Thanks.

On 08/12/2021 14:53, Jake T wrote:

> 3) Speaking of file size, I notice a new file is created every 2.1 GB
> during continuous recording. It's not a problem, but just wondering why
> that is?
>
Compatibility with an ancient, but still used, Microsoft file format
decision.

--
Tciao for Now!

John.

On 12/7/21 8:46 AM, Don Pearce wrote:
> On Tue, 7 Dec 2021 08:08:53 -0500, Jake T <jaketbone@steak.com> wrote:
>
>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Ok, just to be sure I'm reading this right, you want me to do testing
>>>> first with the H2 mics facing into the umbrella as I have been doing,
>>>> then with the H2 mics facing away from the umbrella? Since the coyotes
>>>> only sound off once a night and only for about a minute, I could set up
>>>> the frequency sweep and do it sometime today if the weather cooperates
>>>> or tomorrow.
>>>
>>> That's it. - I don't know what frequency sweep you are talking about
>>> though. The idea of this experiment is to make two recordings, one
>>> with the umbrella and one without. Obviously for the one without, the
>>> H2 needs to be facing the coyotes. No problem with doing this on
>>> successive nights. Disabling automatic gain is vital though, as is
>>> making sure the level setting is identical both times - maybe just max
>>> it.
>>>
>>> d
>>>
>>
>> The frequency sweep would come from an oscillator placed 100 feet or so
>> away and sweeping from around 200 Hz to 10 Khz. I'll try the experiment
>> today, but I doubt the wind's going to cooperate but will get to it when
>> I can. I could try it indoors, but I don't think I can achieve enough
>> distance as I live in a small rancher so the most I could achieve would
>> be 15 feet or so.
>
> Got you. No, do it outside - indoors won't work because of all the
> reflections off the walls. The swept oscillator is a good idea.
>
> d
>

Ok, here's the comparison. No compression, limiting, or AGC, gain set
3/4 max. Outdoors, oscillator was about 100 feet away.

http://sndup.net/qhyq

On Wed, 8 Dec 2021 15:24:07 -0500, Jake T <jaketbone@steak.com> wrote:

>On 12/7/21 8:46 AM, Don Pearce wrote:
>> On Tue, 7 Dec 2021 08:08:53 -0500, Jake T <jaketbone@steak.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Ok, just to be sure I'm reading this right, you want me to do testing
>>>>> first with the H2 mics facing into the umbrella as I have been doing,
>>>>> then with the H2 mics facing away from the umbrella? Since the coyotes
>>>>> only sound off once a night and only for about a minute, I could set up
>>>>> the frequency sweep and do it sometime today if the weather cooperates
>>>>> or tomorrow.
>>>>
>>>> That's it. - I don't know what frequency sweep you are talking about
>>>> though. The idea of this experiment is to make two recordings, one
>>>> with the umbrella and one without. Obviously for the one without, the
>>>> H2 needs to be facing the coyotes. No problem with doing this on
>>>> successive nights. Disabling automatic gain is vital though, as is
>>>> making sure the level setting is identical both times - maybe just max
>>>> it.
>>>>
>>>> d
>>>>
>>>
>>> The frequency sweep would come from an oscillator placed 100 feet or so
>>> away and sweeping from around 200 Hz to 10 Khz. I'll try the experiment
>>> today, but I doubt the wind's going to cooperate but will get to it when
>>> I can. I could try it indoors, but I don't think I can achieve enough
>>> distance as I live in a small rancher so the most I could achieve would
>>> be 15 feet or so.
>>
>> Got you. No, do it outside - indoors won't work because of all the
>> reflections off the walls. The swept oscillator is a good idea.
>>
>> d
>>
>
>Ok, here's the comparison. No compression, limiting, or AGC, gain set
>3/4 max. Outdoors, oscillator was about 100 feet away.
>
>http://sndup.net/qhyq

Well, congratulations! The umbrella was doing the business.
Definitely best pointing into the umbrella, and worst with no
umbrella. I'm surprised it made such an easily identifiable
difference.

d

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

On 12/8/21 3:34 PM, Don Pearce wrote:
> On Wed, 8 Dec 2021 15:24:07 -0500, Jake T <jaketbone@steak.com> wrote:
>
>> On 12/7/21 8:46 AM, Don Pearce wrote:
>>> On Tue, 7 Dec 2021 08:08:53 -0500, Jake T <jaketbone@steak.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Ok, just to be sure I'm reading this right, you want me to do testing
>>>>>> first with the H2 mics facing into the umbrella as I have been doing,
>>>>>> then with the H2 mics facing away from the umbrella? Since the coyotes
>>>>>> only sound off once a night and only for about a minute, I could set up
>>>>>> the frequency sweep and do it sometime today if the weather cooperates
>>>>>> or tomorrow.
>>>>>
>>>>> That's it. - I don't know what frequency sweep you are talking about
>>>>> though. The idea of this experiment is to make two recordings, one
>>>>> with the umbrella and one without. Obviously for the one without, the
>>>>> H2 needs to be facing the coyotes. No problem with doing this on
>>>>> successive nights. Disabling automatic gain is vital though, as is
>>>>> making sure the level setting is identical both times - maybe just max
>>>>> it.
>>>>>
>>>>> d
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> The frequency sweep would come from an oscillator placed 100 feet or so
>>>> away and sweeping from around 200 Hz to 10 Khz. I'll try the experiment
>>>> today, but I doubt the wind's going to cooperate but will get to it when
>>>> I can. I could try it indoors, but I don't think I can achieve enough
>>>> distance as I live in a small rancher so the most I could achieve would
>>>> be 15 feet or so.
>>>
>>> Got you. No, do it outside - indoors won't work because of all the
>>> reflections off the walls. The swept oscillator is a good idea.
>>>
>>> d
>>>
>>
>> Ok, here's the comparison. No compression, limiting, or AGC, gain set
>> 3/4 max. Outdoors, oscillator was about 100 feet away.
>>
>> http://sndup.net/qhyq
>
> Well, congratulations! The umbrella was doing the business.
> Definitely best pointing into the umbrella, and worst with no
> umbrella. I'm surprised it made such an easily identifiable
> difference.
>
> d
>
Yes, I look at the spectra... looks to be about 10 dB gain on average in
the frequency of interest. I'll have to go back and look at the
comparison with a fine toothed comb just to be sure. It does seem to be
doing the job though. Got some more audio from last eve of the coyotes.
Will share later.

I think most of my background noise is coming from several things, one
being that the H2 lies just beyond the umbrella and, even at the 90
degree setting, it still picks up some background. As others have
pointed out, a better mic would probably remedy. Another factor is that
there is still some audio transparency. The aluminum tape did make a
huge difference, but still frequencies come through the other side. Oh
well, it's been a great experiment and it is doing a fair to good job on
the coyotes.

I just fashioned my set up for when I take advantage of the landscaper's
property shortly. I'll only be using the H2 on top of a post and the
hairy dead cat's going to look like someone is wearing a wig. That's
something else I must made DIY. I tested it with the fan yesterday,
made a huge difference with and without.

Here's just over half a minute of coyote howls from last night. To my
surprise, about 45 minutes after sunset.

http://sndup.net/5kjc

Last night's session did not go all that well. When I went out to bring
in everything this AM, I found that the umbrella had toppled over. My
gut instinct told me that I should have brought everything in last night
when I noticed the winds picking up. Most of the audio files were
corrupted also when power was evidently lost between the H2 and the
lithium battery. However, to my surprise, VLC media player was able to
repair the damaged WAV files. Lesson learned.

On Thu, 9 Dec 2021 08:57:04 -0500, Jake T <jaketbone@steak.com> wrote:

>Here's just over half a minute of coyote howls from last night. To my
>surprise, about 45 minutes after sunset.
>
> http://sndup.net/5kjc
>
>Last night's session did not go all that well. When I went out to bring
>in everything this AM, I found that the umbrella had toppled over. My
>gut instinct told me that I should have brought everything in last night
>when I noticed the winds picking up. Most of the audio files were
>corrupted also when power was evidently lost between the H2 and the
>lithium battery. However, to my surprise, VLC media player was able to
>repair the damaged WAV files. Lesson learned.

That's as good a coyote recording as I have ever heard. Go with that
method.

d

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

Jake T <jaketbone@steak.com> said...news:sot1vh$4hn$1@dont-email.me:

> Here's just over half a minute of coyote howls from last night. To my
> surprise, about 45 minutes after sunset.
>
> http://sndup.net/5kjc
>
> Last night's session did not go all that well. When I went out to bring
> in everything this AM, I found that the umbrella had toppled over. My
> gut instinct told me that I should have brought everything in last night
> when I noticed the winds picking up. Most of the audio files were
> corrupted also when power was evidently lost between the H2 and the
> lithium battery. However, to my surprise, VLC media player was able to
> repair the damaged WAV files. Lesson learned.

Good job, that sounded great !

david

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

On 12/9/21 9:31 AM, david gourley wrote:
> Jake T <jaketbone@steak.com> said...news:sot1vh$4hn$1@dont-email.me:
>
>> Here's just over half a minute of coyote howls from last night. To my
>> surprise, about 45 minutes after sunset.
>>
>> http://sndup.net/5kjc
>>
>> Last night's session did not go all that well. When I went out to bring
>> in everything this AM, I found that the umbrella had toppled over. My
>> gut instinct told me that I should have brought everything in last night
>> when I noticed the winds picking up. Most of the audio files were
>> corrupted also when power was evidently lost between the H2 and the
>> lithium battery. However, to my surprise, VLC media player was able to
>> repair the damaged WAV files. Lesson learned.
>
> Good job, that sounded great !
>
> david
>

Thanks, guys. I kept a little noise in there as I never like to
eliminate it all unless it comes naturally :).

On 12/9/21 9:41 AM, Jake T wrote:
> On 12/9/21 9:31 AM, david gourley wrote:
>> Jake T <jaketbone@steak.com> said...news:sot1vh$4hn$1@dont-email.me:
>>
>>> Here's just over half a minute of coyote howls from last night.  To my
>>> surprise, about 45 minutes after sunset.
>>>
>>>     http://sndup.net/5kjc
>>>
>>> Last night's session did not go all that well.  When I went out to bring
>>> in everything this AM, I found that the umbrella had toppled  over.  My
>>> gut instinct told me that I should have brought everything in last night
>>> when I noticed the winds picking up.  Most of the audio files were
>>> corrupted also when power was evidently lost between the H2 and the
>>> lithium battery.  However, to my surprise, VLC media player was able to
>>> repair the damaged WAV files.  Lesson learned.
>>
>> Good job, that sounded great !
>>
>> david
>>
>
> Thanks, guys.  I kept a little noise in there as I never like to
> eliminate it all unless it comes naturally :).

So, after playing this on several speakers, it seemed that my NR allowed
too much harshness right in the coyote range, so some parametric eq:

http://sndup.net/q286

As someone else mentioned, the coyote frequencies are fairly narrow with
limited harmonics, still though some must be present. It's a good thing
for the narrow range, otherwise it would be much harder to filter.

I couldn't use all of the range I captured. Someone down the street was
running a circular saw or similar. When I looked at the spectra, the
fundamental and harmonics were everywhere, but luckily they stopped for
a moment while the howling was going on.

I think I'll post one more file later on today of a Chickadee bird song.
It was one of the first audio captures I made with the dish a few days
back. Very high gain, it was like the bird was almost in front of me...
and not unexpected given that the dish peaks in the 2-3 Khz range.

Thanks again for everyone's help and suggestions. I never thought this
simple makeshift aluminum tape covered umbrella would work as well as it
has but, when you have a limited budget, you tend to try working with
whatever you have. I had the opportunity of purchasing a used 24"
actual polycarbonate dish for a mic, but it won't be necessary. I'm
pretty happy with how this one is performing.

On Thu, 9 Dec 2021 11:53:55 -0500, Jake T <jaketbone@steak.com> wrote:

>http://sndup.net/q286
>
>As someone else mentioned, the coyote frequencies are fairly narrow with
>limited harmonics, still though some must be present. It's a good thing
>for the narrow range, otherwise it would be much harder to filter.

Yes, that was me. I also mentioned that the response of a dish rises
at 6dB per octave, so you should apply a reverse of that over the band
of interest. I just tried that on your file, and it sounded good. I
don't know if it sounded right - we don't have too many coyotes in
central London.

d

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

On 12/9/21 12:33 PM, Don Pearce wrote:
> On Thu, 9 Dec 2021 11:53:55 -0500, Jake T <jaketbone@steak.com> wrote:
>
>> http://sndup.net/q286
>>
>> As someone else mentioned, the coyote frequencies are fairly narrow with
>> limited harmonics, still though some must be present. It's a good thing
>> for the narrow range, otherwise it would be much harder to filter.
>
> Yes, that was me. I also mentioned that the response of a dish rises
> at 6dB per octave, so you should apply a reverse of that over the band
> of interest. I just tried that on your file, and it sounded good. I
> don't know if it sounded right - we don't have too many coyotes in
> central London.
>
> d
>

Last one, the chickadees:

http://sndup.net/bj2n

Thanks, Don. I'll try the reverse EQ the next time.

Thanks again, everyone. Adios for now. It's been a lot of fun!

> Last one, the chickadees:

So clean for the H2. What was
your post processing scheme?

On 12/9/21 2:29 PM, Tobiah wrote:
>
>> Last one, the chickadees:
>
> So clean for the H2.  What was
> your post processing scheme?
>
>

Well, I used Adobe Audition. Grabbed a noise print, then applied to the
NR algorithm. I adjusted the EQ in the box to take out more noise above
and below the coyotes. I also added a noise gate to better mask the
slight amount of artifacts remaining. On top of that was some general
EQ to compensate for some slight loss using the foam cover. Then, if I
found harshness, I did a little more EQ to compensate. I don't have
anything like Izotope Neutron, so basically eyeball compare a good EQ
spectra with mine and then tweak. Works ok, but sometimes I miss it. I
then remix the result with some clean noise from the remaining file.
It's tough because I no longer have any decent studio monitors. I have
a cheap $30 "stereo", but nowhere near a monitor quality. I can get by
by tweaking out the bass and increasing the treble of the stereo, which
gets me somewhat closer. I can then listen on the laptop which, again,
has it's own woes but give me an idea. I used to have a pretty good car
setup I'd listen to mixes on too. If this were music instead of a
single frequency, I'd be throwing together the car set up once again.

Most of these samples have had a jet passing overhead while the howls
were occurring. If I couldn't sample enough of the jet immediately
within/ surrounding the howls, I tried to find a similar jet of roughly
the same amplitude later on in the file (or before), and then tweak it.
Jets aren't too bad because they pretty much stay below about 300 Hz.
A passenger car or truck on the road passing by if a different story,
however, with more broadband noise.

On 12/9/21 3:08 PM, Jake T wrote:
> On 12/9/21 2:29 PM, Tobiah wrote:
>>
>>> Last one, the chickadees:
>>
>> So clean for the H2.  What was
>> your post processing scheme?
>>
>>
>
> Well, I used Adobe Audition.  Grabbed a noise print, then applied to the
> NR algorithm.  I adjusted the EQ in the box to take out more noise above
> and below the coyotes.  I also added a noise gate to better mask the
> slight amount of artifacts remaining.  On top of that was some general
> EQ to compensate for some slight loss using the foam cover.  Then, if I
> found harshness, I did a little more EQ to compensate.  I don't have
> anything like Izotope Neutron, so basically eyeball compare a good EQ
> spectra with mine and then tweak.  Works ok, but sometimes I miss it.  I
> then remix the result with some clean noise from the remaining file.
> It's tough because I no longer have any decent studio monitors.  I have
> a cheap $30 "stereo", but nowhere near a monitor quality.  I can get by
> by tweaking out the bass and increasing the treble of the stereo, which
> gets me somewhat closer.  I can then listen on the laptop which, again,
> has it's own woes but give me an idea.  I used to have a pretty good car
> setup I'd listen to mixes on too.  If this were music instead of a
> single frequency, I'd be throwing together the car set up once again.
>
> Most of these samples have had a jet passing overhead while the howls
> were occurring.  If I couldn't sample enough of the jet immediately
> within/ surrounding the howls, I tried to find a similar jet of roughly
> the same amplitude later on in the file (or before), and then tweak it.
>  Jets aren't too bad because they pretty much stay below about 300 Hz.
>  A passenger car or truck on the road passing by if a different story,
> however, with more broadband noise.
>

Sorry, I see you were asking about the chickadees. Well, since they are
much closer to the dish's natural amplification resonance, pretty much
everything above but to a much lesser degree. Quite easy to work with
those as the chickadee looks like fundamentals in the 3-4 Khz range.