Quote:
Not quite yet, since the back and forth brought up several salient points that deserve a response.
Without going too deeply into Al's bone fides, suffice it to say he shoots way more than his fair share of monster eastern coyotes, but no where near the numbers that were mentioned above. Al has shot 20-30 coyotes each of the last several seasons himself, and called another 20 for guests he has taken hunting in the East. He's a Kentucky rifleman, who uses an FX5 placed on the edge of cover well in front of him, utilizing remote at longer ranges, in conjunction with scents and decoys.
Al is also one of the few posters with any experience with other callers like the WT and Minaska. And he's also one of the few posters who edits his own sounds to any great degree. Al puts together long sound sequences that change volume and sometimes fade out entirely without requiring a single touch of the remote. He, like me, cannot read the display on his TX200 remote, and has been vocal about this shortcoming, and relies to a great extent on his expertise at sound editing rather than remote control to produce the desired calling effects. Anyone interested in Al's sequences can find a few examples at Varmint Al's website (no relation to Al P.).
I've been toying with stereo versions of calling sounds for a couple of years, and actually got started many years ago using converted car stereos and a boombox with limited remote capability using an RC car/airplane control. None of these original callers were satisfactory due to the difficulty I encountered editing reel-to-reel, 8-track, and eventually casette tapes with a razor and scotch tape. Long ago, these crude callers were relegated to the rubbish heap and I drifted back to mono for calling, the JS 512 on the ground and a PA on the truck. Editing stereo sounds to any great degree has only been made possible by the development of micro computers and digital sound storage. Even as recently as 5 years ago, digital media was so expensive that calling sequences were still better stored as short mono sounds as exemplified by the early WT's use of 32KHz mono files. New sound editing software is amazing. And finally, just in the last 24 months, with a Gig of storage now approaching $10., it's possible to play with stereo cards on a remote machine again. There are very few guys out there with any experience hunting with stereo files. It's a brand new feature.
Up to this point even Al hasn't had any experience with stereo. His Fx5 is mono. And FXP files are not editable by the user. If Al edits any stereo for his new Scorpion to throw barks or whines as I described above he will have to rely on his WT or JS sounds as a source, or on one of the Dillons to do his editing for him.
The Minaska Big Country is a stereo caller I've used for 2 years now. When I originally posted my question about my FX caller's poor performance handle-to-handle next to the BCB at the club demos and the camp out, I really thought mine was flawed. My own stereo files sound awful on my FX5 and dynamite on the BCB. Now, after this last trip, there are also 200+ hardcore predator callers out there who will for the most part agree with my results. Are stereo sounds useful in a hunting context? That remains to be explored. I think they really help display the differences between the two-speaker callers to human ears - but as for the coyotes, they're not talking. If stereo sounds are not an important feature, why is FoxPro introducing two new brand new callers featuring totally redesigned stereo circuits? You know for sure they don't like my comparisons or criticisms or playing catch up with Minaska. It cost them plenty to introduce these two new callers. I'll also go out on a limb and predict they'll be mixing some new totally discrete stereo sounds like those I've described for users of the new Scorpion and Prarie Blaster soon, just to show off the stereo capability of their new callers.
Gary,
I was using a "stereo" boom boxes many years ago. I would bet I was not the only one using this type of caller in the 80’s and early 90’s.
Mixing sounds in the analog domain is a bit more challenging but do able all the same.
Your right the digital world has made it easier. I started using digital audio software in the very early 90's.
I think you should buy Jay Nistetter's and Al Lux's book "PREDATOR CALLS the First Fifty Years" and turn to page 273 you will find an old "stereo" commercial electronic game call add... In part the add reads...
"The dual speakers and stereo sound provide more realistic calling noises..."
This may not be the first stereo one either as I'm not claiming to be a historian but it is from the 80's.
You may need your reading glasses to read this old add as it has pretty small print. It is quite a bit smaller then the print on the TX-200.
Are we all possibly playing catch up from this manufacture that had this "brand new" feature you described long ago?
It is a big world... I can tell you we are not the only 2 manufactures or individuals past or present that have had or have interesting ideas for predator hunting. I remember being told long ago by a few old timers of them attaching a feather or two to the platter of a record player... a caller with built in decoy from long ago!!!
There are a lot of cleaver and bright individuals in this world that can come to the same conclusions as to what features are needed and what methods of hunting that works. A lot of this is evolutionary not revolutionary.
Look at the home theater and home audio markets to find some cool features that may come to callers in the future... Moore’s Law is great.
Should we add some Baxandall or other tone filters? My boom box had them. I'm sure your car stereo callers did as well. Would this be a new feature? Maybe with presets...
I have a few of the Minaskas callers in our possession and I have yet to see any of their sounds mixed in true stereo format, meaning different data on left and right channels. Can you tell me what I'm missing? If this was such an important feature why are the sounds that are mixed not in true stereo format? The same data is on both channels. I am not knocking them for this, as we don't have any true stereo sounds either... yet.
Your right we may mix sounds in stereo if that is what our customers want. Are we wrong in doing this for our customers who don't want to mix their own sounds?
You seem to be making a bigger deal out of this mono/stereo then we or they are... If the customer wants to use this "new feature" great, if he chooses not to he can set it up in mono and that is fine as well.
I also wonder why you never made big deal about stereo until we came out with a stereo unit. If it was so important why did you not share this "new" found method with everyone? Why does this appear to rub you the wrong way that we came out with a possible useful feature for our customers?
I would have thought you would welcome the fact that we made a stereo caller with more control to add to the hunters "tool box". We believe that this was the time to add the stereo feature because it opens the door to different calling scenarios now that you can control this feature from the remote in our units. How much this will actually help is most definitely an unknown and remains to be seen. If this feature helps the hunter to feel more confident in his calling ability then why would we not want to help them? Confidence is as much a part of hunting as anything. Should we cry foul if any competition introduces this speaker on/off feature as well to help their customer base?
I do think stereo sounds have a LIMITED use. Can you tell me how much stereo separation remains at 50-200 yards? ...all of this with only a few inches between the speakers in the BCB and the PB. I believe stereo to be a more useful feature when you can turn the speakers on and off independently from a remote, imagine different species on each track. I believe this is more important then the perceived motion you may create by cross fading. I'm not discounting that possibility or scenario either. With some new modern DSP's you can do that without editing!
I also wonder how a controlled mono/stereo test could be implemented. I can see lots of variables coming into play. If one would see an increase in their predator harvest could they solely attribute it to these new audio set ups or could other variables be the reason? I am a believer in the empirical testing method but sometimes it can be easy to allow yourself to be fooled.
I certainly don't want to sell this stereo feature as some great magic elixir that will help you call more critters then ever before! How many furry backstops have been harvested with mono sounds?
Do you remember when we FOXPRO were accused of increasing the sounds on the FX5 only because the competition increased their capacity? We had to show the JUKEBOX mode on the FX3 to prove it was something we were looking at and working on. Does FOXPRO need to have a complete disclosure of all of the features and products we have talked about or the ones that are currently being worked on? Do you think we do not have our own ideas and thoughts? Is it wrong to allow a new feature to mature in engineering instead of running right out with it?
And the last question... If our FXP Foxpro files are not able to be edited or manipulated how in the world did the DSG Cottontail get in your Minaska game calls?
The consumers that are truly into editing sounds are already aware how this can be done as you are. Those that are just getting interested in mixing will soon learn how this can be done using their new found skills and software. I have said it before people are bright and resourceful. I think it is a safe bet to say most hunters remember the analog world.
Steve
