aba events
Nikon Monarch 7

    How to Record Birdsong—Part 2

    Note: This is the second in a three-part series on how to record bird vocalizations. This part is about software—editing sound files and then sharing them with other birders on the internet. Click here to back up to the first part—an overview of the hardware you’ll need to get started.

    __________________________________________________________


    5. Edit the sound file.
     I’ll start off on a heretical note: I use Audacity, not Raven, for editing and displaying sound files. I accept that Raven is the industry standard for birding, but Audacity is better suited to my needs. Files edited in Audacity sound superior to my ears—smoother, less harsh, than files edited in Raven. And I actually like the parti-colored spectrograms generated by Audacity; they help me discern differences in “volume” (technically, millipascals of sound energy) in a bird’s song or call.

    You don’t have to agree with me on this. Submit a comment, below, if you don’t. Let’s move on.

    First, I ought to mention three glitches with Audacity. On my Mac, at least, the program occasionally crashes (no biggie, just re-launch), occasionally fails to open (more annoying, I have to reboot), and very rarely disables all sound on the computer (a headache, resulting in my having to reset the computer’s PRAM, which google).

    Now an item of housekeeping: Always keep the original, unedited, unaltered, undoctored, “raw” sound file. There are two reasons to do this. First, you never know when there will be something of interest lurking somewhere in the sound file; I’ve several times had the experience of discovering something notable only after going back and listening to the recording on the computer. Second, if the sound file constitutes proof of a rare or otherwise notable bird, you want evidence that hasn’t been tampered with. It’s the same way with a photo of a rare bird: Sure, it’s fine to clean it up (sharpen the contrast or bring out the earth tones, crop out an ugly building or clone out a twig, etc.), but the records committee most likely wants the original, unaltered image.

    We’ll continue now with a real example, a Lark Sparrow I recorded on Friday afternoon, May 23, 2014 in Las Animas County, Colorado. Here’s the sound spectrogram of the entire, unedited file:

    09-Lark Sparrow spectrogram

    The first thing to notice is that I’m showing just a single track (or “channel”), whereas the Audacity output shows two tracks. What’s going on? Since I’m using the zoom (“shotgun” or “mono”) option on the LS-10, the two tracks are identical. That’s good. It means I’m focused on the bird, as opposed to surrounding sounds—of which there were several. (Google “cardioid microphone,” if you want to get technical about it.) Another advantage of the zoom setting is that it tremendously simplifies spectrographic analysis of a recording: You get all the signal (all the “information”) in one track, as opposed to a complicated function of partial signals in two places.

    Let’s get back to our Lark Sparrow.

    The bird starts singing a bit before 11 seconds and continues to a bit after 14 seconds. At around 16 seconds, I start to walk toward the bird; you can “see” my footprints in the form of those tall red columns. Next, the bird flushes, and I start talking into the recorder a bit after 19 seconds.

    I’m not interested in my footsteps or voice, so I delete all but the bird. Well, almost all. It’s good to leave some space (or, rather, time) before and after the vocalization. So we get this:

    10-Lark Sparrow spectrogram

    All those squiggles are the song of the Lark Sparrow. But do you notice something else? That strong band in the low-frequency range is the wind—which would be even more noticeable with no wind baffles. The wind diminishes the quality of the recording.

    Audacity to the rescue: Simply apply the HIGH PASS FILTER with a not-too-severe ROLLOFF. You’ll get good at this after you play around with it for a while. For now, take it on faith that this recording will benefit from a cutoff frequency of 1,500 Hz and a rolloff of 24 decibels (dB). The wind is gone:

    11-Lark Sparrow spectrogram

    Next we take a look at the waveform function of this bird’s sound:

    12-Lark Sparrow waveform

    There are two things to notice. First, this is a clean—that is to say, cleaned-up—recording, indicated by the nearly perfectly thin trace leading up to and trailing the song. With the wind gone, there’s practically no background noise. The second thing to notice is that the bird itself isn’t particularly loud: The waves’ amplitudes aren’t all that great.

    The reason the bird isn’t all that loud is because I wasn’t all that close to it. In the photo below, I’m in the process of actually recording the very Lark Sparrow under consideration right now. As you can see—or, I guess not see—the bird is well outside the photo:

    13-Ted Floyd with recorder

    Photo by © Chris Pague.

    What to do in situations like this? Well, if we were looking at the real bird in the field, we would raise our binoculars. Or if we had a high-resolution photo, we would zoom in. We can do something analogous by applying Audacity’s AMPLIFY feature. Go easy here. I almost never crank it all the way up. In fact, I usually don’t amplify at all. But we’ll do it on this somewhat distant Lark Sparrow, and we’ll go easy—5 dB, instead of the maximum allowable 15. Here’s the result:

    14-Lark Sparrow waveform

    You can see the change. The bird is a fair bit louder (the waves have greater amplitude), but there’s more background noise (the thin trace before and after isn’t as thin). Ratcheting up the “volume” increases the “static.” It’s an unavoidable tradeoff, analogous to increasing the magnification on a zoom scope: bigger bird, poorer image. Here’s the same result, shown a different way:

    15-Lark Sparrow spectrogram

    Compare it with the previous spectrogram. The bird is louder now (brighter traces on the spectrogram), but there’s more background noise (heavier broadband red–purple spackling).

    You might want to know what the bird sounds like, yes? Here you go:

    I think the final result is decent, but not great. The bird was at some distance, and it was a windy afternoon. In this recording, you can certainly hear that it’s a Lark Sparrow. And you can “see,” by way of the spectrogram, various features of the bird’s song: how some notes fall in pitch and others rise, the exact number of notes in the different trilled elements in the song, the changes in volume throughout the song, and so forth.

    This is just the tip of the iceberg. With Audacity, you can do a whole lot more than clip out footsteps, eliminate wind, and amplify birdsong. Audacity is Photoshop for audio recordings. Which brings me to these two key points:

    • By all means, use Audacity—and all of its cool features—to learn about the quantitative features of bird vocalizations: basic stuff like duration, loudness, and pitch, as well as “advanced” stuff like modulation, intonation, and nasality. By playing around with the pitch, speed, and tempo settings in Audacity, I’ve learned amazing stuff about the unbelievably rich songs—plural, songs—of the House Sparrow.
    • That said, a doctored file is, well, a doctored file. It’s difficult and often impossible to undoctor a doctored file. So hang onto the original, unaltered file—ideally, in “raw” .wav format. Better yet, obtain a recording that doesn’t require doctoring. I’m going to come back to that point when I finally get around to step #2. But we’re not quite there yet.

     

    6. Upload to the internet. You’ve just recorded a cool bird—a rarity, let’s say, or “just” a beautiful song, or perhaps an interesting or aberrant vocalization. Now what?

    Not too long ago at all, your only option was that proverbial shoebox in your mom’s attic. You’d toss the reel-to-reel tape in a crate or carton, and soon forget about it. One of the great birdsong recordists—an older guy—tells me that he’s never once listened to the majority of his recordings. They’re on reel-to-reel, uncataloged and uncurated, in unopened boxes in an archives in another state.

    Life before the internet was so barbaric.

    A quick and dirty way of getting your sound files out there is SoundCloud—easy, fast, and annoying.

    Let’s deal first with “easy” and “fast.” Back on June 17, 2014, my kids, Hannah Floyd and Andrew Floyd, and I were looking for the pleasing fungus beetle Gibbifer californicus. But you’re never not a birder, the saying goes, and when we heard a Lazuli Bunting, Andrew recorded its song. Here is Andrew’s recording, via SoundCloud:

    The upload to SoundCloud requires just a few clicks. (Note, by the way, that Andrew provides a bit of commentary at the end—a nice touch. You will recall from step #3, “Operating the Hardware,” that it’s good practice to speak a few notes into the recorder.)

    Now for “annoying.” SoundCloud tries to read your mind—and does a really bad job of it. Assuming you’re not logged into my account, SoundCloud suggests that you listen to other recordings uploaded by me—recordings that aren’t all that interesting. And if you are logged into my account (or, more likely, logged into your account), it gets worse: the dreaded SoundCloud loop. I swear, it’s like something out of Kurt Vonnegut’s “Harrison Bergeron.” Does anybody know how to disable this annoying feature of SoundCloud?

    As to file management, SoundCloud is irredeemably hopeless.

    So let’s go for the gold. Instead of SoundCloud, we’ll use Xeno-Canto—one of the most amazing resources in the whole history of birding. Getting a recording onto Xeno-Canto is a bit of slog, but it’s well worth the effort.

    Xeno-Canto requires that uploads be of MP3 files. So that means converting from .wav to .mp3 format by means of a third-party converter like this one:

    http://audioformat.com/wav-to-mp3

    Now that the file is in the proper format, you’re ready to upload to Xeno-Canto. Be prepared for a full-on inquisition: Where were you? What was the date? What time was it? Did you see the bird? Did you use playback? Are other species audible in the recording? How many notes are in the bird’s song? Does the song rise or fall in pitch? Does it increase or decrease in volume? And a whole lot more. In truth, you can decline to answer a fair number of those questions; but I think it’s good discipline to go through the entire battery of questions. Speaking for myself, the Xeno-Canto inquisition has made me a better—more aware, more knowledgeable, more careful—hearer of bird vocalizations.

    At last, the song has been uploaded:

    http://www.xeno-canto.org/185599

    This is the same bunting we clicked on a moment ago, SoundCloud-wise. Along with the recording itself, Xeno-Canto now provides a ton of information about the recording: the technical details of the recording itself, various quantitative and qualitative details about the bird’s song, and potentially important information about the bird’s acoustic and biological environment.

    Xeno-Canto’s search engine—fast, powerful, and accurate—is almost too good to be true. Play around with it, and see for yourself. If you want to start with baby steps, try my personal page at Xeno-Canto:

    http://www.xeno-canto.org/contributor/KADPGEQPZI

    Let’s get back to the Lazuli Bunting.

    Something you can “see” in the 5–6 kHz band in the Xeno-Canto recording is crickets; you can also “see” broadband noise courtesy of a family group of Black-billed Magpies. It is possible—although you really need to know what you’re doing—to get rid of the crickets and magpies with Audacity. But there are two reasons not to. First, the crickets and magpies were there. They were part of the aural experience. It’s inauthentic, if you ask me, to eliminate them from the soundscape. Second, it might well have been possible to obtain a recording without crickets and magpies to begin with.

    Which finally brings me to step #2.

     

    Click here to continue reading.

     

     

    The following two tabs change content below.
    Ted Floyd

    Ted Floyd

    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)

    • Pingback: How to Record Birdsong, Part 1 « ABA Blog

    • Wim van Dam

      I think that Xeno-Canto already has too many low quality recordings of common species. Recommending people to use it as their personal repository will make matters worse.

      • Ted Floyd

        Good points, Wim. A few replies:

        1. All things considered, I agree that one oughtn’t put “low-quality” recordings on Xeno-Canto. That’s what SoundCloud is for… :-)

        2. However, Xeno-Canto rates your recordings from high quality (A) to poor quality (E). So a user can easily sort among the high-quality and poor-quality recordings. And the Xeno-Canto search engine, as I say above, is superb.

        3. I disagree with you about common species. It is fabulous to have an efficient search engine for well-archived recordings of common species. Museum collections are valuable precisely for all their carefully curated Red-eyed Vireos and Gray Catbirds (or Willow Warblers and Song Thrushes).

        Bottom line: Get those recordings to Xeno-Canto. But use care, a broad point on which Wim and I are in agreement.

    • Denis Lepage

      This is very useful Ted,

      You may already know, but Audacity can export MP3 files, but you have to get download a file and follow a few simple instructions, as the functionality doesn’t come pre-loaded with the software.

      These are links that explain how to do this.

      Windows:
      http://audacity.sourceforge.net/help/faq_i18n?s=install&i=lame-mp3

      Mac:
      http://manual.audacityteam.org/o/man/faq_installation_and_plug_ins.html#maclame

      Given that Audacity is a great software, being able to manage MP3 files directly within it seems like the simplest way to go!

      • Paul Hurtado

        Agreed! Installing the LAME MP3 encoder should definitely be “part 2″ of standard Audacity installation instructions for birders! Great series of posts, Ted.

    • Chris Hill

      Good article, with good tips. But I’m going to skip right to a beef that maybe you can think about and address in the next version. And sorry this comment is so long. Even so I left a lot out :-). I spent 7 years recording and analyzing bird songs pretty intensively (cassette recorder era: 1992-1999) and making sonograms on a Kay. I think the quality of sonograms produced, disseminated, and published in places like the latest Birding magazine (I think they were Thrasher songs? But the sonograms made my eyes hurt) is pretty execrable. I like listening to songs, but making the leap to using your eyes really moves your understanding of bird song way ahead. What’s wrong with the sonograms? Well, birds practically never produce sounds above 8 kHz (Cowbirds and Blackburnian Warblers excepted). Many songs hardly rise above 5 kHz. But almost all the sonograms I see have a Y axis that goes up way past that, to 16 kHz or higher. So given that most songs also don’t go real low, you end up with a picture that is 80% garbage, with the meaningful part of the signal lost in all that noise. And the second problem is signal to noise ratio within the actual meaningful area. Granted, the better the original recording, the better you can make the final picture look, but no matter what you’re working with, you can and should edit the picture to reduce the effect of the background noise, while leaving the trace of the song visible. Compare the Xeno-Canto sonogram of the Lazuli Bunting, where the magpie sounds are readily apparent, to the colored versions on this page, where they aren’t. Not because of editing the actual sound – Xeno-Canto just did a better job optimizing the display.

      • Ted Floyd

        Thanks, Chris, and thanks, in particular, for your honest beef. Two quick responses, in backwards order:

        2. I could be misreading you, but I think you might be mixed up on the magpies in the recording. In the Xeno-Canto recording (http://www.xeno-canto.org/185599), those magpie-like signatures at the end are actually the sound of a seven-year-old human! It’s a cute recording. Meanwhile, the colored recordings on this page are a different cut: a Lark Sparrow in an area with no magpies. Again, I might be misreading you; apologies, if so.

        1. In a certain sense, I totally agree with you about the need to be judicious about units and scale for the abscissa and ordinate. But two things. First, to try to keep things, well, “honest,” I tried to scale everything the same way throughout this whole three-part series. Okay, a few exceptions, but, basically, I went for uniformity. Second, and this is a bit more complex, I’m not convinced that the high-frequency parts of the spectrogram–even the parts we can’t hear–aren’t worth showing. Earlier this week, a piano tuner came by our house. I was nearly certain something was wrong with a particular note on the piano, but the piano tuner could tell my diagnosis was off. He did this by playing all the octaves above and below the key I thought was wrong. By listening for problems with harmonics and overtones, he was able to say, “I think one of your kids dropped a toy, probably about 8 cubic inches, made of wood, somewhere near the bottom left rear of the soundboard.” Spot on, and it all came from listening for all those other notes, the “80% garbage,” you might say.

        • Ted Floyd

          Am not sure if this is going to work, but here’s my attempt to provide a direct comparison between Xeno-Canto’s rendering of the Lazuli Bunting (with audio-bomb at end from Andrew Floyd) vs. Audacity’s parti-colored rendering of the same clip.

          • Ted Floyd

            One last thing. There’s a way in Audacity to convert from technicolor to grayscale. David La Puma’s showed me how to do this, and Diana Doyle says to do so in an article in the forthcoming July/August 2014 Birding.

            As I said at the outset, I’m in the minority about these parti-colored spectrograms. Am seriously rethinking their use in Birding–and, oh yes, we’re going to be seeing more and more in the way of spectrograms in Birding. Thanks, Chris (and thanks to all of you), for making a difference. Keep the comments coming.

    • Andrew Spencer

      Nice post! One comment, however. Audacity, while a nice program, isn’t a “Photoshop for audio recordings”. That (literally) is Adobe Audition. However, like Photoshop, Audition has tons and tons of controls, filters, and settings that would not be used while editing a bird sound. BUT, once you learn to use the program, you can do things in it that you could never dream of doing in Audacity. I’m not disagreeing that Audacity isn’t the program most sound recordists should be using, just setting the record straight.

      • Ted Floyd

        Thanks, Andrew, and I appreciate how you (and others) are setting the record straight.

        But you’re such a tease! Can you give us an example or two of the things Audition can do that you could never dream of doing in Audacity? I totally believe you; I’m just curious.

    • David La Puma

      Here’s my first contribution to Xeno-Canto, Ted! Thanks for writing this great three-part piece.

      http://www.xeno-canto.org/192759

    • Stein Nilsen

      Hi
      I use Audacity for my Zoom H4n and H6 recordings on PIP (Plug in power) microphone from Telinga and DIY in a parabola. I agree Audacity is great, but make the MP3 right out of the box by choose “File>Export marked area” (Might be named something like that, I use a norwegian version!) Great to test out the High-pass filter, always used the Equalizer in Audacity for this kind of work.
      Lots of good recordings on XC, the ones labeled A is often good enough – if not change the label yourself :)
      Keep on enjoying bird recordings and birdsounds!!
      Add one of my rarest so far, the Antarctic petrel recorded with a bare H4n (internal mics) http://www.xeno-canto.org/28032

      Yours Stein, Tromsø, Norway

    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

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

    • Open Mic: 2014 Camp Avocet–an intern’s perspective October 13, 2014 5:38
      I don’t think there is any doubt in anyone’s mind that Camp Avocet was totally, undeniably awesome this year, so I won’t spend too long telling you all that. In mid-August 2014, a committed staff and a crew of very enthusiastic and almost unbelievably skilled campers assembled in Lewes, in southern Delaware, for the second […]
    • Open Mic: Birding Isleta Grande October 6, 2014 5:20
      There is a very good spot for birding in Central Veracruz that has been unnoticed by birders. Isleta Grande is a small village located a half hour from Xalapa. […]
    • Book Review: Petrels, Albatrosses, and Storm-Petrels of North America October 1, 2014 12:36
      Tubenoses - well-adapted birds that spend most of their lives soaring over the open ocean - are shrouded in more mystery than any other group of birds. Not only are their habitats so inaccessible, but distinguishing between cryptic species makes them a true frontier for ornithologists and birders alike. […]

    Follow ABA on Twitter

    Nature Blog Network