Aug, 19, 2009Colorado Howl – Pt. 2
These recordings were obtained by me in the primary research area of David Petti in the mountains of beautiful Colorado.
Monday the 3rd of August 2009 I camped in the mountains of Colorado. This is a very remote research site. Texas BFRO Investigator Sybilla Irwin and two companions (including David Petti) had camped here in mid-July. Sybilla had recorded some unusual vocals and encouraged me to check out the area. Her recordings and report can be found at Colorado Howl – Pt. 1. Also in the report be sure to read about the sound analysis done on these recordings by DB Donlon, The Blogsquatcher.
I arrived at about 5 p.m. and surveyed where I would place my two recorders. I was very fortunate to get these recordings because my one batteries only lasted 8 1/2 hrs and these recording were made at 7 hrs and 7 1/2 hrs into the night at 3 and 3:30 a.m.
When the first vocal started off it woke me up . I listened for about 10 seconds and fell back to sleep. I could have placed the recorder further out but then if something was at my car I wouldn’t have been able to record it.
Click here to listen to sound clip:Â Â Colorado Howl 1
First vocalization was at 3 a.m. I woke up and listened for a few moments. It appeared to be about a 1/4 of a mile away.
Click here to listen to sound clip: Â Colorado Howl 2
The second recording a half hour later appears to be further away,Â was a 3:30 a.m. This sound was far enough in the distance that I did not wake up.
The third recording was of a coyote that was only about 150 feet from my car.
Click here to listen to sound clip: Â Coyote Vocalization was at 5 a.m. and only the H-2 had battery life left.
from DB Donlon:
I’ve listened to your clearest recording at the same location. That creature does seem to be more canine in it’s tone and certainly in it’s bark-like vocalizations, but it shows the same oddness with the non-harmonic frequency peaks.
I also tested the coyote that you recorded. One thing I note is that with the coyote, there is no non-harmonic frequency peak. I also note that as the calls go on, the coyote’s frequencies stay stable in relation to each other, while there is movement in the frequency peaks with the suspect call. I’m not an expert, but this would lead me to believe that the suspect call is not a coyote.
Here are some pictures — note that picture #5 (the 2nd here) is at a resolution of 22kHz so that you can see the regular arrangement of the coyote call easier, while picture #6 is rendered at 5kHz to match the pictures I sent to you earlier. Pic #4 is at 5kHz too. For picture #7 I went back and rendered at 22kHz to match the first pic of the coyote call. They do look similar until you start moving the cursor, then you see that the coyote call stays pretty stable, while the suspect call goes all over the place, with frequency peaks disappearing and appearing here and there. It’s odd.
Another quick follow up — note that in the coyote call, the fundamental is the highest peak. This is what I’ve been led to expect by my reading. But in our suspect calls, the dominant note moves around and is never the fundamental. I think this has to be a key characteristic so it’s worth remembering and studying some more.
Anyway, the pics: