A Fascinating Document From An Anonymous Amateur Researcher

I just received this fascinating document today, and wanted to share it right away - Below, is a document that was graciously provided to me, from a Naturalist who preferred to remain anonymous. It was originally provided in the German language, so I've pasted it in German first. Followed by a translation (attempt) made with Google Translate, into English.
*Note: I realize there is a problem with the chart text colour in the German version of the chart. I'm working on this...

In German:

Ergebnisprotokoll Fledermausdetektor Empfindlichkeiten        1.7.2013

 

Aufgrund von fehlenden Einschätzungen der Empfindlichkeit verschiedener Ultraschallempfangsgeräte haben wir uns entschlossen, einen diesbezüglichen Test durchzuführen. Die Ergebnisse sind natürlich nur als Richtwerte zu sehen und können von Gerät zu Gerät (innerhalb einer Serie) unterschiedlich ausfallen.

Mit einem UltraSoundGate Player BL Light wurde eine Ruf-Sequenz der Zwergfledermaus wiedergegeben. Die Verstärkung lag nach Einstellungen am Gerät bei 20 dB. Die Testumgebung befand sich in einer 70 m langen Lagerhalle, die völlig leer war. Die Entfernung wurde mit einem 50 m Bandmaß festgestellt.

Alle Geräte wurden mit ihrem Mikrofon direkt auf die Schallquelle ausgerichtet. Bei Geräten mit Kopfhöreranschluss entfernte sich die Person mit dem Gerät in der Hand langsam von der Schallquelle weg. An der Stelle, wo das Schallsignal nicht mehr in den Kopfhörern zu hören war, wurde die Entfernung gemessen.

Bei Geräten ohne Kopfhöreranschluss wurden alle 10 m Aufnahmen von Hand ausgelöst und später am Rechner mit der zum Gerät zugehörigen Auswertung Software begutachtet (zum Beispiel Batcorder).

Bei Geräten, die live die Rufmittelfrequenz erfassen und anzeigen (zum Beispiel Batscanner, Batlogger) bildete die Erfassung der Rufmittelfrequenz die Empfindlichkeitsschwelle, d.h. nur bis zu dem Punkt, an dem die Rufmittelfrequenz noch angezeigt wurde galt die Erfassung. In manchen Fällen waren die Rufe darüber hinaus noch hörbar, wurden vom Gerät jedoch nicht getriggert.

Ultraschall Empfänger	Typ	letzte Signale bei	Bemerkung
BATLOGGER alt	Echtzeit Ultraschallgerät mit Aufnahme auf SD Karte	58,70m+	Messbereich durch Hallenende begrenzt
BATLOGGER neu	Echtzeit Ultraschallgerät mit Aufnahme auf SD Karte und Mithörmöglichkeit	58,70m+	Messbereich durch Hallenende begrenzt
BATCORDER	Echtzeit Ultraschallgerät mit Aufnahme auf SD Karte	30m
PETTERSSON D240x	Mischer/Zeitdehnungsdetektor ohne eingebaute Aufnahmemöglichkeit.	16m
PETTERSSON D1000x	Mischer, Teiler, Zeitdehnungsdetektor mit Aufnahmemöglichkeit auf CF Karte	33m
BATSCANNER alte Version	Mischerdetektor mit Rufmittelfrequenzanzeige	17m
BATSCANNER neue Version	Mischerdetektor mit Ruf Mittelfrequenzanzeige	10m
SSF BAT2	Mischerdetektor mit Frequenzskala	23,5m
BATON Batbox	Teiler Detektor mit eingebautem Lautsprecher	5m
CIEL CDB105 R2	Mischerdetektor mit Frequenzskala	18m
CIEL CDB205 R2	Teilerdetektor	31m

Die Mini Horchbox von Battomania erreichte eine Reichweite von 3 m. Hier wird der Testaufbau noch einmal wiederholt, da das Ergebnis zu negativ ist. Die Batlogger werden ebenso noch einmal getestet, um die tatsächliche Reichweite zu vermessen, da bei der angegebenen Entfernung die Halle zu Ende war, jedoch nicht die Triggerung des Gerätes. Des Weiteren kommen noch andere Geräte zum Test. Hierzu zählen die alten Geräte von Sky, das Mikrofon von Dodotronik und andere Geräte, um deren Leihgabe wir ersuchen.

 

In English:

Results log bat detector sensitivities               1.7.2013

Due to the lack of estimates of the sensitivity of various ultrasonic receivers, we decided to perform a test in this regard. The results are of course seen as a guide only and may vary from device to device (within a series).

With an Ultrasound gate Player BL Light a call was - sequence of pipistrelle reproduced. The gain was on the settings on the unit at 20 dB. The test environment was in a 70-meter warehouse, which was completely empty. The distance was determined using a 50 m tape measure.

All devices were aligned using her microphone directly at the sound source. For devices with a headphone port, the person slowly removed with the device in hand away from the sound source. At the point where the sound signal could no longer be heard in the headphones, the distance was measured.

For devices without a headphone jack every 10 m recordings were triggered by hand and later on to the computer with the device associated analysis software assessed (for example batcorder).

For devices, the live capture and display (for example Batscanner, BATLOGGER) the Rufmittelfrequenz capturing the Rufmittelfrequenz formed the sensitivity threshold, ie only up to the point at which the Rufmittelfrequenz was still displayed was the capture. In some cases, the calls were also still audible, but were not triggered by the device.

Ultrasound receiver	Type	signals at last	Comment
BATLOGGER old	Real-time ultrasound machine with recording to SD card	58,70 m +	Range limited by Hall End
BATLOGGER new	Real-time ultrasound machine with recording to SD card and listen-	58,70 m +	Range limited by Hall End
Batcorder	Real-time ultrasound machine with recording to SD card	30m
Pettersson D240x	Mixer / recording time expansion detector without built-in option.	16m
Pettersson D1000X	Mixers, dividers, time expansion detector with option to CF card	33m
BATSCANNER old version	Detector mixer with Rufmittelfrequenzanzeige	17m
BATSCANNER new version	Mixer detector with call center frequency display	10m
SSF BAT2	Mixer detector with frequency scale	23.5 m
BATON Batbox	Divider detector with built-in speakers	5m
CIEL CDB105 R2	Mixer detector with frequency scale	18m
CIEL CDB205 R2	Divider detector	31m

The mini Horchbox of Battomania reached a distance of 3 m. Here is the test structure is repeated once more, because the result is negative. The BATLOGGER also be tested again to measure the actual range, since at the specified distance, the hall was over, but not the triggering of the device. Moreover join other devices for testing. These include the old equipment from Sky, Dodotronik of the microphone and other devices to the loan we ask.

                                                               ------------------------------------------------------------------- 

Amazing stuff, huh? I have some additional (positive) statements to make myself, in regards to The Batlogger M - In an upcoming Post. I'm very surprised by what this Author found with the Petterssons. I would like an opportunity to check these out myself. When testing the Pettersson D240X, I remember that it had very good pick-up range (distance)...

...Next Post will be the full review of The AR125 from Binary Acoustic Technology!

 

The AR125 From Binary Acoustic Technology - First Impressions

Here are some first impressions of the AR125 Ultrasonic Receiver from Binary Acoustic Technology

First, I'd like to take this opportunity to lash-out at our local UPS drivers, who have picked up a new habit in this City as of late: They like to ring your doorbell like maniacs, leave the package near your door, and take off in their trucks. Shame on you!

In any case the unit arrived very well packaged and in good condition. The instrument itself, was double boxed – which is the proper way to send electronic equipment in the first place. When Amateur Radio hobbyists send vintage radios to each other, this is always the method of packing used. So, this should always be done with instruments that might be considered delicate. OK, end of rant.

Now, you may, or may not have noticed...That Binary Acoustic Technology may also be abbreviated as BAT. I mention this, because many times (in research and detector comparison papers) The AR125 is referred to as the BATx (x being anything from 2, to 125, to ?).
For instance, in certain comparison charts out there - You may see The AR125 referred to as the "BAT2", "BAT-AR", or sometimes even just "BAT" this can be confusing (as you might imagine). Since, until now the only bat recorder that the majority of Folks know of (with a "BAT" in it's name) was the SM2BAT, from Wildlife Acoustics.

The AR125 arrived in a fairly well sized brown cardboard box. Upon opening the box: The inner box, was protected with a nice amount of pink popcorn/Styrofoam "peanuts" (as they are sometimes referred to). The purpose of these, is to provide protection to the second box inside. The second white cardboard box was lined with ample cone-shaped foam. This offered very good protection to the AR125 Receiver inside. 

When you order a standard AR125 Receiver from Binary Acoustic Technology, you get:
The Ultrasonic Receiver, a Software CD ROM (containing all the drivers/software you need), as well as SPECT'R (Spectral analysis, digital Tuning, and Recording) software
a black USB cable for connecting the unit to your PC 


As well as two (slightly different) copies of SPECT'R (Spectral analysis, digital Tuning, and Recording software). AKA SPECT'R III SCAN'R (Snapshot Characterization and Analysis software) is also included.
A basic (printed - Not photocopied) Hardware Manual is also included (not pictured here).

In the pic below, you can see: The AR125, in it's plastic bag (complete with Silica gel absorbent cylinder), the black (good quality) USB cable, and software CD (containing AR125 drivers, etc.).

As you can see, on the CD ROM itself, it's entitled 'BAT Software Suite'. The AR125 Receiver drivers for various types of personal computers are provided. For best results, ensure that you install the correct (specific) driver. Installation is very easy - I went from un-boxing to recording bats in about 10 minutes.
Early testing looks very promising!  

 All I have (right now) is one "little peep" (call) from what Kaleidoscope says is an Evening Bat (Nycticeius humeralis) -But- This was recorded using the AR125 and displayed (here) on the SCAN'R software. I like it! We've had nothing but thunderstorms here (Northeastern US) for days...

To be continued...

Happy bat detecting!

The Batlogger M Revisited

If you want to take the complexity, or hassle and extra steps out of analyzing your bat recordings: Then your best bet is to go for the Batlogger M from Elekon. 
Although it is expensive, and we all know that many bat workers are on a low budget – In the long run I believe it would be well worth it. A lot of the work has been simplified when using the Batlogger M and the accompanying BatExplorer software. 
Just using the BatExplorer software gives you an excellent headstart when IDing bat species. Several Bat Workers that I've communicated with have voiced their displeasure with the performance of BatExplorer software as a Call identification tool – citing its inaccuracy. But, it's still being improved by Elekon, even as you read this...

I happen to really like the fact, that the that Batlogger M can now tune down to 2 kHz – which will allow me to record Insects as well! (Thanks to a recent firmware update).

I think the process of using BatExplorer is generally much smoother, when compared to other software. The entire Process of going through/processing your collected recordings becomes a lot more convenient. If you choose to use the BatExplorer software which is supplied freely: You may save enough discretionary funds to purchase an additional software application, which may be more to your liking. 

Also, a very interesting discovery made by Jon Whitehurst - May be seen Here

Happy bat detecting!

Thoughts On The D500X From Pettersson Elektronik

The D500X From Pettersson Elektronik

After completing extensive research on the D500X From Pettersson Elektronik, I'd like to share some of my findings (and opinions).

Many, if not most of those involved in any kind of bat research, are usually in need of a good passive monitoring system for bats. A unit that may be deployed in any number of locations - Including right in the middle of woodland areas. A device which may be deployed deep in a forest, if needed. Without having to worry about: wind, rain, and other variables having a negative effect on the equipment. 

In my opinion, if someone is going to put forth the time and effort to begin a project; they will probably want to use the very best equipment they can. Most passive monitoring projects are inherently major undertakings. I've recently become very familiar with the in's & out's of passive monitoring for bats. Especially, in the varied field of Bat Research. After reading the protocol, execution, and results of major bat monitoring projects: It's clear that the D500X is a top contender. 
In fact, it may very well be, the best passive monitoring solution available. It has been used in many studies.
If you spend some time finding, and then searching through scientific/research-type documents: You can find many projects, studies, and theses where the D500X was used.
Even studies which, in addition, went as far as including comparisons of the equipment used - For example, many of these individuals or teams were utilizing the D500X along with other detectors (in the same price ranges).
If you cannot afford the D500X, then the absolute next best possible choice, is the SM2BAT+, from Wildlife Acoustics.

I'll also take this opportunity to again convey which bat detectors I'll be reviewing the (new & improved) D500X from Pettersson. I'm also very excited to be reviewing the (new & improved) Batscanner, from Elekon; as well as their new (weatherproof) microphone (for the Batlogger M). 

Happy bat detecting!

Just A Few Miscellaneous Links

Just a few Links And Resources I've Recently Learned Of:

For goodness sake, just have a look at this wonderful resource – on British Bats: Link 

When you go to the page, just click on the bat species of interest - And a plethora of excellent information will pop-up.

Be sure to check out Wildwood Ecology on this link - Wildwood Ecology, Ltd. They offer a myriad of Services, including: 
Bat Training Courses, The Bat License Training Course (BLTC), a Bat Handling Course, Continuing Professional Development (CPD), and a few others as well.

The courses seem very inviting - I would even attend one or two myself, if there wasn't such a large pond in the way!

Also, from Wildwood Ecology, is BatNav. If you are interested in using a GPS with your AnaBat detector - Be sure to check out The BatNav Site Here. 

They have wonderful hardware and software available, 
for getting the most out of your GPS-enabled AnaBat!

The GPS unit, may also be purchased at NHBS via this Link

Another interesting scientific document Here. Covers counting bats while away from roosts.

Yet another very well done paper - Here

I recently finished reading a couple of interesting articles, and I wanted to share!

None of these are new, one is as old as 2009! But, they were fun to read.

'Important criteria for choosing a good TE detector'

'Facts about automatic recording and identification systems: the future'

'Beware of reflections from your detector'

Out On Top! Batlogger M And The Avisoft USG116 Series

Back by popular demand! 

I simply adore this article, because a group of experienced Researchers came to the same conclusions as I have: In a nutshell, the Batlogger M from Elekon and the USG116 Series from Avisoft out-perform several other detectors. Outstanding!
I've taken the liberty of pasting a portion of the (beginning) of the paper below:
And, below that - Please see the link, which will allow you to download the entire PDF.

'Do you hear what I hear? Implications of detector selection for acoustic monitoring of bats'

Amanda M. Adams, Meredith K. Jantzen, and Rachel M. Hamilton. The University of Western Ontario, London, ON
How do you begin to choose which bat detector is best suited for your needs? While budget is a major factor for many, there are numerous other features that contribute to a final decision (e.g. battery life, storage capacity, weatherproofing, etc.). The purpose of this study was to compare ultrasonic call detection in five different bat detectors: AnaBat SD2 (Titley Scientific), Avisoft UltraSoundGate 116Hme CM16/CMPA (Avisoft Bioacoustics), Batcorder 2.0 (ecoObs), Batlogger (Elekon AG), and Songmeter SM2 BAT (Wildlife Acoustics). We used playback of synthetic calls to optimize detection settings for each detector. We played synthetic constant-frequency calls at four frequencies (25, 55, 85, 115 kHz) at five meter intervals (5-40 m) and three angles (0°, 45°, 90°) from the detectors. Detection was most affected by call frequency and distance, while the effect of angle was less apparent. Avisoft and Batlogger outperformed other detectors, while Batcorder and Songmeter performed similarly. Batlogger performed better than the other detectors at angles off-center (45° and 90°). AnaBat detected the fewest calls, none at the higher frequencies (85kHz and 115kHz). We also compared recordings made in the presence of free-flying bats, comparing the number of calls detected by each detector in 27 passes. On average, Batlogger recorded 93% relative to Avisoft, while AnaBat, Batcorder, and Songmeter recorded 40- 50% of the calls. These results suggest that detector performance differs among brands. This factor should be taken into account both when making purchasing decisions, as well as considering bat activity levels reported in studies using different detectors. 

Direct link to PDF File

--- Also ---

Another great article, this one resides on the Bat Call ID Site (makers of BCID software): It covers sampling technology: Link

Happy Bat Detecting!