4 ms·

Great and fun idea, but the resolution of these files is incredibly low.

by bingu 5y ago

gregsadetsky 5y ago
You're not kidding, they're 8 kHz i.e. ""phone resolution""... Interesting, this seems to be related to the Bluetooth microphone that they used: "Thus, we adopted a very small and lightweight microphone placed under the cat’s throat through a collar" The microphone is described in their paper [0]: "The signal is transmitted via Bluetooth [...] at a sampling frequency of 8 kHz." Also: "As a consequence, the actual range of frequencies we could rely on is 0–4 kHz. We expected that the fundamental frequency emitted by cats falls within the range, whereas some higher-frequency harmonics were likely to be cut" [0] https://www.mdpi.com/2076-2615/9/8/543/htm https://www.mdpi.com/2076-2615/9/8/543/htm
- Tabular-Iceberg 5y ago
  Sounds like they were over-complicating things. Simply pointing a shotgun mic at the cat from a distance would have done the trick. I don’t blame them, though, we do it all the time in software development.
  - azalemeth 5y ago
    Most outdoor shotgun mics I've seen have a nice furry wind screen affectionately known (in en-gb at least) as a "dead rat". Most indoor shotgun mics I've seen also have a double life as outdoor shotgun mics, and therefore come inside a 'dead rat'. My cat will investigate anything pointed at him, and I'm pretty sure would love to see how dead the dead rat really is... Rather than taking aim at the sampling rate, if anything I'd be more interested in being sure that they'd sampled up to the end of the frequency spectrum that cats can actually hear -- for birds at least the >30kHz part is important.
nexuist 5y ago
I'm very confused as to why. According to Finder these have an 8kHz sample rate? How did they find a mic that bad? Or is it intentional? Is there some scientific usefulness that would make these clips easier for a machine to analyze? I really don't know if there would be, since a higher resolution clip could just be sampled again if you really wanted something lower. It is very unfortunate, but I'm grateful that someone performed this experiment as ethically as they could think of and made the data available for all to use.
- tyingq 5y ago
  Lol. It's a no-name bluetooth earbud from WalMart that's $16. https://www.walmart.com/ip/QCY-Mini2-Wireless-Business-Headphone-with-Mic-5-0-Headset-Voice-Assistant-Activate-Earbuds/108772093 https://www.walmart.com/ip/QCY-Mini2-Wireless-Business-Headp...

Great and fun idea, but the resolution of these files is incredibly low.

by bingu 5y ago

Great and fun idea, but the resolution of these files is incredibly low.

You're not kidding, they're 8 kHz i.e. ""phone resolution""... Interesting, this seems to be related to the Bluetooth microphone that they used: "Thus, we adopted a very small and lightweight microphone placed under the cat’s throat through a collar" The microphone is described in their paper [0]: "The signal is transmitted via Bluetooth [...] at a sampling frequency of 8 kHz." Also: "As a consequence, the actual range of frequencies we could rely on is 0–4 kHz. We expected that the fundamental frequency emitted by cats falls within the range, whereas some higher-frequency harmonics were likely to be cut" [0] https://www.mdpi.com/2076-2615/9/8/543/htm https://www.mdpi.com/2076-2615/9/8/543/htm

Tabular-Iceberg 5y ago
Sounds like they were over-complicating things. Simply pointing a shotgun mic at the cat from a distance would have done the trick. I don’t blame them, though, we do it all the time in software development.
- azalemeth 5y ago
  Most outdoor shotgun mics I've seen have a nice furry wind screen affectionately known (in en-gb at least) as a "dead rat". Most indoor shotgun mics I've seen also have a double life as outdoor shotgun mics, and therefore come inside a 'dead rat'. My cat will investigate anything pointed at him, and I'm pretty sure would love to see how dead the dead rat really is... Rather than taking aim at the sampling rate, if anything I'd be more interested in being sure that they'd sampled up to the end of the frequency spectrum that cats can actually hear -- for birds at least the >30kHz part is important.

nexuist 5y ago

I'm very confused as to why. According to Finder these have an 8kHz sample rate? How did they find a mic that bad? Or is it intentional? Is there some scientific usefulness that would make these clips easier for a machine to analyze? I really don't know if there would be, since a higher resolution clip could just be sampled again if you really wanted something lower. It is very unfortunate, but I'm grateful that someone performed this experiment as ethically as they could think of and made the data available for all to use.

tyingq 5y ago
Lol. It's a no-name bluetooth earbud from WalMart that's $16. https://www.walmart.com/ip/QCY-Mini2-Wireless-Business-Headphone-with-Mic-5-0-Headset-Voice-Assistant-Activate-Earbuds/108772093 https://www.walmart.com/ip/QCY-Mini2-Wireless-Business-Headp...