On Mon, Nov 08, 2004 at 11:36:50PM +0100, derek holzer wrote: > 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. > 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? Great. Thanks to all for the pointers. -edrz
