Nikon Monarch 7

aba events

Documenting Rarities, Part 2: Have Fun, Get Fancy, and Learn Cool Stuff

At the end of Part 1, we listened to a pair of recordings of a Western Screech-Owl from Alamosa County, Colorado, on March 30, 2012. The owl’s hooting is faint in the first recording, and you can hear some amount of background “static.” In the second recording, however, the owl’s hooting is a fair bit louder, and the static is gone.

Hang on a second. There aren’t two recordings. We’ve been listening in fact to just one recording: We’ve been listening to the same bird, and the same series of hoots; I didn’t move around out there, and I didn’t adjust the settings on the recorder; again, we’re listening to two versions of the exact same recording.

Needless to say, I’ve “doctored” one version of the recording. In a nutshell, I applied a noise filter to the raw recording, then increased the amplitude. The result: a doctored recording with no static, and a louder owl.

How did I do that?

 

91 Eskimo CurlewsLong ago, folks would doctor photos with box cutters and glue. A famous example, discussed in detail by Martin Collinson in a recent article in Birding (September 2011 issue, pp. 26–31) involves photos of one or more Eskimo Curlews from Texas in the 1950s (see image, right). These days, we do it with computers. Download your digital photo of a common Cassin’s Vireo (or scan an old slide), mess around with the color and contrast settings in PhotoShop, and—voila!—you have yourself a rare Blue-headed Vireo.

I hasten to point out that photos can be digitally manipulated for less nefarious purposes—for example, to crop out a branch or twig, or perhaps to call attention to a particular feather or other field mark.

We can do the same sort of thing with audio recordings. No need for scissors and Scotch Tape. (Yes, I realize that readers under the age of 30 will have have no idea what I’m talking about.) Just download the soundfile (one word), create a sound spectrogram (I’ll explain in a second), and get to work.

 

If you’re still with me, you’re probably on a computer and you’re probably online. (People don’t really download and print this stuff out, do they?) Thus, you have access to one or more soundfiles. Here are two examples of how they might appear on your computer:

 

92x files       92y files

Open up one of the files, and most computers will play the sound for you. When I open up the 2.6-megabyte file called “Bushtit.wav,” I hear the sputtering calls of a male Bushtit, recorded in Boulder County, Colorado, on April 15, 2012 (we heard this same clip in Part 1). I also hear the annoying sound of a passing car.

And I think that’s as far as most of us ever get with listening to birds (and annoying background sounds) on our computers. Until recently, it’s as far as I ever got.

Let’s take it to the next level.

 

We need software that lets us “see” what we’re hearing. We have lots of options. I use a free application called Audacity, but you can use something else.

Now instead of opening the Bushtit soundfile with the default application for my computer (it happens to be iTunes for me), I’m going to open it with Audacity.

The result is utterly different. Instead of hearing the sound, I now see it. Here’s what I see:

93x Bushtit-raw
The result is a graph of frequency in kilohertz plotted against time in seconds. (Irksomely, Audacity places the time axis across the top of the graph.) Such graphs are often called “sonograms,” but I don’t favor that word. To me, a “sonogram” is a picture of a baby before it’s born. A sound spectrogram, then, is a plot of frequency against time.

And there’s something else on that sound spectrogram: lots of color. In particular, I see: (1) a mainly blue background with fine red dots; (2) a broad swath of red across the lower bottom of the graph (that is to say, in the lower frequency range); and (3) 27 vertical red stripes in the middle frequency range.

Those colors and patterns are a visual rendering of what we’re hearing. Let’s listen again.

Immediately, we hear the loud whooshing of a passing car, becoming fainter as the car gets farther away. That sound is represented graphically by the broad swath of red at the lower frequency range. It’s so loud, it simply drowns out the soft background “static,” represented on the graph by the blue wash with red stippling.

We also hear the notes of the Bushtit. Those notes are represented on the sound spectrogram by the 27 vertical stripes. They’re coming through pretty clearly, both aurally via the VN-8100PC and visually via Audacity, but, still, that passing car is awfully annoying.

So let’s get rid of the car!

In this doctored recording, the Bushtit sounds the same, but the sound of the car is greatly diminished. The car is noticeable—but bearable, I would say—for about the first two seconds, then softer and softer. I accomplished this trick via Audacity’s high pass filter. In geekspeak: cutoff frequency, 2.5 kHz; rolloff, 12 dB per octave; filter quality, 0.70. In plain English: I largely eliminated the low-frequency sound of the car, but preserved the relatively high-pitched calls of the Bushtit.

 

Bushtits are expanding their range north and east, and I wouldn’t be surprised if a small flock were to wander to the Nebraska panhandle. Suppose you were lucky enough to come upon one such flock. What would you do?

Well, you’d whip out your VN-8100PC, obtain a recording, and present the evidence before the Nebraska Ornithologists’ Union Records Committee.

“Sure sounds like a Bushtit,” you’d confidently note in your write-up on Nebraska’s first record for the species.

Hmm… What exactly does a Bushtit sound like? Does it say spit or pssst or ssip? How do such utterances differ from the calls of, say, Virginia’s or Orange-crowned warblers? How about the calls of even Long-billed Dowitchers or White-rumped Sandpipers? I’m serious: A whole lot of birds give monosyllabic call notes that can be rendered spit, pssst, ssip, or whatever.

This is a job for Audacity.

We’re going to “magnify” the sound spectrogram by a factor of 16. The procedure is extremely simple: We simply stretch out the time axis by a factor of 16. Also, I’m going to splice out a lot of the “space” (time, really) between calls. Here now is a clip from that spliced Bushtit recording, with the time axis elongated by a factor of 16:

93y Bushtit-magnified
There’s a lot of complexity in those 80-millisecond notes! Here’s what I’m seeing: a fairly faint vertical bar; then a louder (brighter) note that rises quickly from 4 kHz to 8 kHz; then a wavy descent to 5 kHz; then a rise to 7 kHz. Sure, there’s variability from call to call, but the basic pattern is consistent: faint vertical bar, then loud and rising, then descending and wavy, then rising a bit. To our human ears and brains, it’s merely spit or pssst or ssip. To a Bushit’s ears and brains, though, it’s a lot more. Don Kroodsma has written a lot about this—in the technical literature, in several popular books, and in this online tutorial for Birding.

 

I mentioned Orange-crowned Warbler, Virginia’s Warbler, Long-billed Dowitcher, and White-rumped Sandpiper. You could probably get away with spit or pssst or ssip for their calls. Let’s instead look at their calls, all recorded earlier this year in Boulder County, Colorado. Look how different they are from one another:

94a OCWa      94b ViWa

94c LBDo      94d-y WRSa

The Orange-crowned Warbler (top left, recorded May 4) is a V-shape. The Virginia’s Warbler (top right, recorded May 26)  is an S-shape, flipped, and lying on its side. The Long-billed Dowitcher (bottom left, recorded May 6) is a stack of four shallow crescents. And the White-rumped Sandpiper (bottom right, recorded June 11) is a shallow W, angled clockwise a bit, with a ghost of the same shape above. And there are other differences—in frequency, duration, amplitude, and so forth—all plainly evident from the sound spectrograms.

 

Let’s go back now to the matter of rare birds wandering to Nebraska. As you will recall, we were talking about a hypothetical flock of Bushtits. But let’s now entertain an alternative fantasy. Let’s pretend we’re dealing with a Black-capped Vireo.

Our hypothetical Black-capped Vireo is frustratingly silent, but it poses right out in the open. You get 150 frame-filler photos. Then, amazingly, the vireo flies a short distance to a nearby banding station, where it is captured, measured, weighed, photographed 150 more times, and let go. Next, the bird heads in the direction of the local nature center, with its big glass windows. Uh-oh. Well, you retrieve the specimen and deposit it with the University of Nebraska State Museum.

There’s just one thing left to do: Write up your report for the Nebraska Ornithologists’ Union Records Committee.

Now you do something bizarre. In your report, you neglect to include any of the hundreds of photos of the Black-capped Vireo; you decline to report any of the banding data; and there’s no mention in your report of the whereabouts of the specimen. Instead, you simply report that you watched the bird, and it sure looked like a Black-capped Vireo: black head, white goggles, the whole nine yards.

You wouldn’t do that, would you?

And, yet, I think we do it with bird sounds—even when we have recordings—all the time.

“Yep, sounds like a Bushtit to me. Sputtering, lisping, the whole nine yards.”

Don’t do that! Instead, make a sound spectrogram, and evaluate the actual data—just as you would for primary projection, feather wear, and maybe even DNA. If you ask me, the species-specific sound spectrogram of a Bushtit’s call is frankly the most distinctive thing about the bird! I mean, what else is there to a Bushtit?—that drab, colorless ball of cotton with a toothpick for a tail. Yet its sound spectrogram, we have seen, is possessed of wonderful complexity.

That’s enough, I think, on Bushtits.

 

I mentioned in Part 1 that we’d return in Part 2 to the matter of Willow Flycatchers. As you may recall from Part 1, I recorded a distant but definitive Willow Flycatcher on May 24 of this year in Boulder County, Colorado. The bird was—and, at this writing, still is—on territory in the lowlands in the eastern part of the county. So which subspecies is it?

(Before we go any further, I want to be clear that it is not my intent to get bogged down in Willow Flycatcher nomenclature. Suffice it to say, the topic is complex. If you simply must to know all the details, google the BNA Online account for Willow Flycatcher—but not until you’re done reading my words, please!)

Anyhow, is it an “eastern” or a “western” Willow Flycatcher? My honest answer to that question is: I don’t know. I’ve never seen this bird well enough to say whether it is greenish-brown (eastern?) vs. brownish-green (western?) above.

But check this out: I have a sound spectrogram, and recent publications suggest that geographic variation in Willow Flycatchers may have a critical vocal component. The sound spectrogram isn’t great, but I bet it’s good enough. Here it is:

95 WiFl
Again, it ain’t pretty. But there’s abundant detail in there. We can “see” that the fitz part of the fitz-bew song runs for about 140 milliseconds, during which time it rises from around 3.5 kHz to around 6.0 kHz. We can further say that the fitz part of the song has 11 discrete elements; and, if we wanted or needed to, we could say specific things about each of those discrete elements. And that’s just the fitz part of the song. The bew part, as you can see from the sound spectrogram, is substantially more complex.

When I listen to that bird’s song, whether in “real life” or here at the computer, I hear fitz-bew, and not much more. Similarly, when I view that bird in the field, I behold a greenish-brown (or brownish-green?) dot on a distant perch. But if I were to examine a great digital image (or a specimen), I would see much more than just a dot on a distant perch. By the same token, when I actually look at the sound spectrogram, I see vastly more than just fitz-bew.

 

If a Willow Flycatcher’s fitz-bew song can be said to be complex, then imagine how much more complex a Warbling Vireo’s song must be! A mnemonic I learned years ago goes like this: I can see you, I can seize you, I will squeeze you, till you SQUIRT! That worked wonderfully for the Warbling Vireos I grew up with back East.

Then I moved out West, where the Warbling Vireos say something entirely different. There’s a lazy, gruff quality about Warbling Vireos out West. They say something like this: ...uh?…yeah…what…EVER…dewd

Now how do you quantify those differences? A great approach is to look at sound spectrograms. Here’s a bird with an “eastern” song, recorded in the lowlands of eastern Boulder County, Colorado, on May 29, 2012:

96a WaVi-eastern
And here’s a bird with a “western” song (with warm-up by a Spotted Towhee), recorded a few miles to the west, in the Boulder County foothills, on May 25, 2012:

96b WaVi-western
(We heard these two birds in Part 1, by the way. Listen again to the “eastern” bird; and here’s the “western” bird again.)

I suspect you’ll agree with me that the images look different. Indeed, I can “see” eight potentially important distinctions between the two sound spectrograms. I don’t have the space here to go into all the details, but I lay it out for you in a recent tutorial at the Colorado Field Ornithologists’ website.

 

Warbling Vireos and Willow Flycatchers make me nervous.

Let me explain.

It wasn’t so long ago that most birders wouldn’t have been able to tell you the differences between what today many of us refer to as Eastern Warbling-Vireos and Western Warbling-Vireos. And it wasn’t all that long ago that birders knew only the “Traill’s Flycatcher”—which today we understand to consist of two species, the Willow and Alder flycatchers.

Fast forward to 2012. With new knowledge, anybody can separate Willow from Alder! Eastern campestris vs. western adastus?—No problem! As to a warbling-vireos out of range, just hear a snippet of song and just look at the clear differences in bill size!

If it’s not obvious, the preceding is a caricature. I’m being glib. But I bet you’ll agree with me that there’s a kernel of truth to that caricature. Don’t you know somebody who’s a bit too confident about separating invisible Setophaga warblers solely on the basis of their poorly heard nocturnal flight calls? Haven’t you ever been in a situation in which a single whit note was instantly and incredibly ascribed to this or that Empidonax flycatcher?

Have we gotten too cocky? Is it the fault of technology? We’ll explore those matters in Part 3.

Oh, and please don’t be misled or put off by those two questions I just posed. I’m not about to launch into some luddite’s diatribe against technology. Instead, I’ll be telling you about Alexander Pope, Jean Baudrillard, Rick Wright, and Red Crossbills. If that’s not an inducement to come back, I don’t know what is!

 

Facebooktwitter
The following two tabs change content below.
Ted Floyd

Ted Floyd

Editor, Birding magazine at American Birding Association
Ted Floyd is the Editor of Birding magazine, and he is broadly involved in other programs and initiatives of the ABA. He is the author of more than 100 magazine and journal articles, and has written four recent books, including an ABA title, the ABA Guide to Birds of Colorado. Floyd is a frequent speaker at birding festivals and state ornithological society meetings, and he has served on the boards of several nonprofit organizations. Mainly, he listens to birds at night.
Ted Floyd

Latest posts by Ted Floyd (see all)

  • Fascinating stuff Ted. Can’t wait for your spectogram field guide! But will it be a book form or an app? And if it’s an app, and it has the ability to record, and I’m lucky/skilled enough to get a clean recording, will it also be able to identify the species or even subspecies for me?

  • Ted Floyd

    Not me. I’m not going to do it. But others are at work on such guides. Here are some sample pages from a forthcoming guide by expert Arch McCallum:

    http://aba.org/birding/v43n5p45w1.html

    (In particular, see Figs. 2, 4, & 6. Those are sample page-spread layouts.)

  • Ted Floyd

    Ah. Robert. You’ve pressed a button of mine. To wit:

    “But will it be a book form or an app?”

    One of these days, I’m going to post here about what is for now the false dichotomy between books and apps. For now (and this could all change!), I believe that field guide apps are just print field guides on a computer monitor. Different medium, yes, but the same information and pedagogy. Am waiting for an app that presents information in a way that books do not, and in particular am looking for an app that presents information per se that books do not.

    For more, see Rick Wright’s review of The Crossley Guide:

    http://blog.aba.org/2011/03/crossley-the-crossley-id-guide.html

  • Ted Floyd

    One more response, Robert:

    You ask, “[W]ill it also be able to identify the species or even subspecies for me?”

    Quite possibly! Check this out:

    http://blog.aba.org/2011/10/digital-bird-song-identification-a-reality.html

  • jmj

    Love this series, Ted.

  • Ted, awesome post. It was cool to see you “in action” with your recorder recently. This all is “back to the future” in that many of grew up with the Robbins field guide and it’s little spectrograms. Some of them made sense in that the little graphic of the song “looked” like the bird sounded and others seemed mysterious.

    I’m curious–is there something or things that makes this particular model particularly useful for bird songs?

  • Ted Floyd

    Re: “It was cool to see you “in action” with your recorder recently.” Stay tuned… Tomorrow everybody will get to see me in action. You’ll recognize the scenery, Carl, and you’re well acquainted with the photographer.

  • Ted Floyd

    Re: “This all is ‘back to the future’ in that many of us grew up with the Robbins field guide and it’s little spectrograms.”

    Good point, and here’s that same point in an ABA context: Way back in Birding, vol. 1, no. 5 (1969), there’s a “Tools of the Trade” prototype by James A. Tucker. Tucker’s article is titled “Birding with Cassette Recorder,” and it starts with these words:

    “For several years now it has been very clear to me that the small portable tape recorders now available may well be the birding invention of the decade.”

    In general, birders did not get into the habit of carrying tape recorders in the field. (Neither would they go on to carry eight-tracker players!)

    But maybe Tucker’s prediction will in some sense finally come true. Porter’s “small portable tape recorder” is gigantic compared to the VN-8100PC. So I don’t think we have to worry about portable tape recorders roaring back to life. But I do wonder–and I sure would like it!–if the VN-8100PC is destined for widespread use by birders in the 2010s.

  • Ted Floyd

    Also: “I’m curious–is there something or things that makes this particular model particularly useful for bird songs?”

    That’s a great question.

    Let’s try to smoke out Bob Zilly (Bob, you out there?), and hear from him. Bob’s tried out several of these “cheap voice recorders,” and has great comparative experience. While we’re waiting to hear from Bob (yoohoo! Bob!), check out his comments on the matter, posted a while back to Nathan Pieplow’s EarBirding blog:

    http://earbirding.com/blog/archives/1398

  • Great stuff, Ted! Using a tape recorder to confirm a bird is obviously a lot less disruptive than using a tape player to do the same. Very interesting that a sound spectrogram can be more diagnostic than a photo. So “heard only” is not necessarily a second-class encounter with a bird.

  • More, here, on “heard-only” birds:

    http://blog.aba.org/2010/10/heard-only.html

    A brief anecdote. At the 2009 ABA conference in Minot, North Dakota, one of the field trips was awed by Wilson’s Snipes winnowing, unseen, in the dawn mist. Meanwhile, another field trip saw a snipe sitting by a pile of cow manure. The latter group lamented that their snipe was “seen-only.”

    In my experience, “heard-only” is frequently superior to “seen-only.”

  • Bob Zilly

    Re: Also: “I’m curious–is there something or things that makes this particular model particularly useful for bird songs?”

    I don’t think there’s anything special about that particular model except that Ted had a chance to try one out first, right Ted? There are a lot small inexpensive recorders to choose from. Here are two links to sections of the B&H PhotoVideo site. http://tinyurl.com/862nhly
    http://tinyurl.com/74x47pn

    But there are a number of things to pay attention to. It should have a USB port so you can connect it to your computer. Make sure that the file formats that it can record in are compatable with your computer and audio player. And make sure the frequency response, at least in the highest quality setting, is something like 12kHz or better. If it doesn’t say then skip it and go to the next one. And read the reviews. You probably won’t find any that reference recording birds per say but they often mention build quality etc.

  • The VN-8100PC isn’t perfect. In Part 1, I noted that it performs relatively poorly under 2 kHz, i.e., down in owl and bittern range.

    Here are two other annoyances:

    1. On several occasions, I’ve inadvertently turned on the recorder and started recording. Like, for 12 hours before noticing I’d been recording. So, in addition to having to wipe out an annoying 12-hour file, I’ve also managed to knock out half the life of the battery. Okay, I should be more careful. But I don’t know what to do about my next gripe…

    2. Even when there’s 10-11 hours left (i.e., a LOT of time, given that I rarely record clips longer than 3 minutes in duration), I constantly get this “low battery” message. It comes on whenever, like, right in the middle of a schistacea Fox Sparrow’s song. The only solution I’ve come up with is to replace the battery when there’s still 10+ hours left. Does anybody know a better way?

American Birding Podcast
Birders know well that the healthiest, most dynamic choruses contain many different voices. The birding community encompasses a wide variety of interests, talents, and convictions. All are welcome.
If you like birding, we want to hear from you.
Read More »

Recent Comments

Categories

Authors

Archives

ABA's FREE Birder's Guide

If you live nearby, or are travelling in the area, come visit the ABA Headquarters in Delaware City.

Beginning this spring we will be having bird walks, heron watches and evening cruises, right from our front porch! Click here to view the full calender, and register for events >>

via email

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

  • Open Mic: Rocky Mountain Encounter at Camp Colorado December 9, 2017 5:50
    From American Dippers to White-tailed Ptarmigan to new friends and new birding skills, a young birder shares her experience at 2017 Camp Colorado. […]
  • Open Mic: Endemics, Research, and Adventure on Costa Rica’s Osa Peninsula December 2, 2017 9:23
    As we flew through a gap in the lush, green mountains to land on a thin airstrip, I anticipated the birding and research I was about to experience on the Osa Peninsula of Costa Rica, the world’s most bio-intense area. […]
  • The Warbler Guide Comes to Android: A Review November 26, 2017 3:08
    Many people would say we are currently in the golden age of bird books. As we learn more and more about birds, and that information becomes more and more accessible, a huge number of bird books have been published. We have whole books dedicated to molt, tricky identifications in the Western Palearctic, the birdlife of […]

Follow ABA on Twitter