This might be an interesting starting point: http://www.scielo.br/scielo.php?pid=S0001-37652004000200040&script=sci_arttext&tlng=en 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: > >>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 > -- derek holzer ::: http://www.umatic.nl ---Oblique Strategy # 174: "Water"
