Muskie Discussion Forums

Forums | Calendars | Albums | Quotes | Language | Blogs Search | Statistics | User Listing
You are logged in as a guest. ( logon | register )
Moderators: Slamr

View previous thread :: View next thread
Jump to page : 1 2
Now viewing page 2 [30 messages per page]

Muskie Fishing -> General Discussion -> sound - Hunt for Big Fish show
 
Message Subject: sound - Hunt for Big Fish show
stinger
Posted 2/21/2010 8:39 AM (#424913 - in reply to #424885)
Subject: Re: sound - Hunt for Big Fish show




Posts: 93


Location: Minneapolis, MN
"The single thing that surprised all of us the most was how much noise the line can make when you rip it. "

Here's a funny thing I discovered while bottom fishing the Mississippi near downtown Mpls. for catfish, carp, etc. When I get rocked up (snagged), I thrash and snap my rod up and down as hard and fast as possible in a vertical motion. Sometimes I can jar the rig loose this way. But plenty of other times I've had something big grab the bait (crawlers), pulling it free from the rocks. In each case it has been a nice flathead catfish.

My guess is that these flatheads are attracted to the sound and commotion of the rig jangling against the rock and the sound of the line whipping. I have yet to catch a flathead with a still rig on the bottom (although I know they will from time to time).
Beaver
Posted 2/21/2010 9:51 AM (#424929 - in reply to #424913)
Subject: Re: sound - Hunt for Big Fish show





Posts: 4266


I love Larry
jasonvkop
Posted 2/21/2010 4:55 PM (#425007 - in reply to #424026)
Subject: Re: sound - Hunt for Big Fish show





Posts: 599


Location: Michigan
I loved the episode but have a quick question about it. Are we all interchanging the words sound and vibration (or are they really the same thing to the fish)? When the double tens are under the hydrophone I couldn't really 'hear' (sound) it but I'm sure the fish 'feel' (vibration) it. When the 14" Jake was in the water the angler listening said if the rattles were removed he probably wouldn't be able to hear it, but yet I'm pretty sure the fish would be able to feel it without the rattles. Is it all the same to the fish and I am just confusing myself thinking about it in human terms of hearing and feeling?
bturg
Posted 2/21/2010 8:43 PM (#425038 - in reply to #424026)
Subject: Re: sound - Hunt for Big Fish show




Posts: 711


"I think the difference between audible sound and pressure waves in the water from displacement are where some interesting findings could come about...they should be a different animal. "

Take the rattles out and the hooks still rattle and make audible noise, we threw a Phantom (no rattles) and you could hear the hardware rattle on the way in....but it was pretty subtle. The Jake with the rattle in was crazy loud...it literally sounded like you were beating on a car hood with a hammer, The part you kinda heard but didn't see was the monster that followed the Jake in on that little 20 foot cast....unfortunatly I was talking to camera and didn't see it coming untill it was too late and it was turning away. Larry's "Double Wouble" the tandem spinnerbait would clank blades when you pulled it fast and that sound ( I described as clinking china) was very different than most of the others. Low sounds (bass) were much easier to hear at distance than high sounds (no surprise if you have a neighbor kid with a sub-woofer)......the Wooper Plooper has a ton of Bass which may account for it's success and pulling fish from long distances. As noted on the show and echo'd here the line also contributes a lot of noise especially when ripped and on the 8.

If anyone has info on how the fish percieve actual sound vs displaced water (pressure change ? ) I would love to hear it.
Vibration IS noise but is it percieved the same by fish in the same way they sense something moving thru the water with no mechanical noise tied to it....like their food. Of course we hear things displaceing air ourselves.......the woosh of a golf club for example...so maybe it is the same.........all food for thought....especially if we can convince the fish it is "food".

And BTW spending a few days on the water with Mr D is like taking a mini Masters degree class in fish science and theory.........
Wimuskyfisherman
Posted 2/22/2010 12:49 PM (#425146 - in reply to #425038)
Subject: Re: sound - Hunt for Big Fish show




Posts: 229


One thing to add:

Audible sound to humans is 20 Hz to 20 kHz. As people get older the high end of what they hear goes down. Just because we can't hear it does not mean a fish cannot feel the vibrations or pressure waves. Frequencies below 20Hz are a not audible to humans, but you will feel the pressure wave of sub 20 Hz. So what frequency do the fish prefer? Do they like low frequency or high frequency? I know dogs are very sensitive to high frequencies... Anybody have any answers?

John
muskydeceiver
Posted 2/22/2010 1:16 PM (#425154 - in reply to #424026)
Subject: Re: sound - Hunt for Big Fish show





In one of the Badfish movies Chad Cain mentions something about Jakes with the lowest sounding rattles being the best producers for him. Prior to that I had noticed that the one Jake I had the most action on had a different sound than others. If I am after a certain color Jake I now grab every one and shake them until I find the one with the lowest sounding rattle. I probably look like an idiot doing this.......
ToothyCritter
Posted 2/22/2010 3:47 PM (#425171 - in reply to #424026)
Subject: Re: sound - Hunt for Big Fish show





Posts: 661


Location: Roscoe IL
Someone gave me the bright idea to drill a hole in my Jakes and fill them with oil then epoxy the holes... I either filled them up to high or not enough, because neither one works worth a #*^@.. Sounded like a good idea.......
muskydeceiver
Posted 2/22/2010 4:02 PM (#425175 - in reply to #424026)
Subject: Re: sound - Hunt for Big Fish show





You don't fill them with oil. Have to find the spot where they are neutral.
Fin-Addict
Posted 2/23/2010 10:54 AM (#425344 - in reply to #424026)
Subject: Re: sound - Hunt for Big Fish show




Posts: 101


Location: Liberty, IN (OKI Tri-State)
First of all folks let me say, Great to see such a positive, civil and thought provoking thread... especially in the heart of "Winter-Net" season. Thanks to you all!

Mr. Dahlberg's body of work speaks for itself. Angler, innovator, adventurer... I am a huge fan and upon seeing this past episode, immediately thought back to the first time I had seen some of these amazing sound characteristics presented.

I had the pleasure some few years back of seeing/hearing Mr. Worrall's hydrophone presentation while attending the MI KY Chapter's Annual "Cabin Fever Challunge" @ Green River. Like most in attendance, I was fascinated by the incredible racket apparently 'stealthy' lures make while in the water; it was quite an eye-opener.

Speaking with Sue & Steve afterwards proved to be very informative as he shared some of his thoughts and ancedotal observations accrued over many years putting some of this together. I found that by simply changing hook sizes and/or adding extra split rings you can take, well in my case it started with Suicks & spinnerbaits, two or three identical lures and subtly/dramaticly change the sound portion of their presentation. This may be an over-generalization but it gives me some fine-tunability, if you will, to some of my most productive lure types. ( i.e. water clarity, boat traffic, light conditions ect. to coincide with "lure volume", if you get my drift..?)

Anywho... It is well worth tinkering with even if we are still far from understanding the actual cause-effect relationship.... and it is just this type of work and discussion that will eventually get us there.

Thanks again and the best of luck to all afield this season.
Bob "the FinAddict" Osborne
sworrall
Posted 2/23/2010 2:21 PM (#425408 - in reply to #425146)
Subject: Re: sound - Hunt for Big Fish show





Posts: 32786


Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin
Wimuskyfisherman - 2/22/2010 12:49 PM

One thing to add:

Audible sound to humans is 20 Hz to 20 kHz. As people get older the high end of what they hear goes down. Just because we can't hear it does not mean a fish cannot feel the vibrations or pressure waves. Frequencies below 20Hz are a not audible to humans, but you will feel the pressure wave of sub 20 Hz. So what frequency do the fish prefer? Do they like low frequency or high frequency? I know dogs are very sensitive to high frequencies... Anybody have any answers?

John


There isn't a simple answer.
Many fresh water fish have rudimentary inner ears, and those organs couple with the swim bladder in roughly what we would anthropomorphize as 'hearing'.
I'll offer some of the science out there as something to ponder drawn from two volumes of 'Behavior of Teleost Fishes', Chapman and Hall:


---The air bladder of the fish in many fishes acts as an acoustical transformer (or in simple terms, an amplifier). Incident sound pressures cause the compressible body of gas within the organ to pulsate, generating much higher amplitude of particle motion than would otherwise have existed. The result is amplification of particle motion over a wide frequency range with minimal distortion----

Directional hearing:
Some scientists believed that fish and land based animals detected direction and distance using the same mechanisms. Due to (simply put) the slower transmission of sound in the air, and generally larger distances between the inner ears of land based animals when compared to the velocity of sound in water and narrower distances between the 'ears' of most fish means that differences in stimulus timing (used by man, as an example) are minimal. These difficulties, together with the linking of the two sound receiving organs with the swim bladder, indicate directional hearing isn't possible. it's thought a combination of lateral line and certain selected portions of the inner ear specifically related to vibration are responsible for 'directional hearing'.

Fish are acutely sensitive to sounds, though their hearing abilities are confined to low frequencies.They are able to discriminate between sounds of different amplitude and frequency, and between sequences that differ in the pulse patterning. Fish are able to determine the direction and even the distance of a sound source. Sounds are very important to fish, and may enable them to find prey, avoid predators, and seek out their own kind at great distances, under conditions where other senses may be less effective.

The lateral line is a whole 'nuther subject. I've been fascinated by this subject for years, which is what drove me to the hydrophone in the first place.



Ldahlberg
Posted 2/24/2010 6:28 AM (#425507 - in reply to #424026)
Subject: RE: sound - Hunt for Big Fish show


Fun stuff.
I think it boils down to this.
A vibration is a vibration. As humans we can detect them audibly within a certain frequency range. Both the "hardware" a creature is born with, and the medium through which the vibration passes are the two main considerations of the first basic question. What is "heard" or detected.
A human listening to an underwater mike can still only hear what a human can hear, even if the mike and speakers are literally blaring other frequencies!
Of course the same might be said about our other senses as well.
And, of course there are ways to measure what we can't sense using instruments.
But, that being said, it doesn't mean what we do hear isn't in some way valid in our efforts to determine the answer to the second question, "Do specific sounds affect the way a fish reacts to my lure, and if so, what, when, where, how etc.. "?
It's possible that the sounds we hear don't matter to the fish, it's possible that they do. It's possible the only sounds that matter are below or above our range. It's possible fish are different in different environments. No one really knows.
Lots of possibilities. Fun to diddle with. I've got a few theories, but only that.
Main thing I've learned so far is in some environments, there is great application of the lessons in this to strategy as well as tactics.
L



Wimuskyfisherman
Posted 2/24/2010 10:54 AM (#425543 - in reply to #425507)
Subject: RE: sound - Hunt for Big Fish show




Posts: 229


So if fish feel vibrations or waves and really do not "hear" at least as a human does. Would potentially lower frequency producing lures be better because lower frequencies have more power and the ability to travel further through water?

John
sworrall
Posted 2/24/2010 11:05 AM (#425544 - in reply to #424026)
Subject: Re: sound - Hunt for Big Fish show





Posts: 32786


Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin
Actually, they hear very well.

'Fish are acutely sensitive to sounds, though their hearing abilities are confined to low frequencies.They are able to discriminate between sounds of different amplitude and frequency, and between sequences that differ in the pulse patterning. Fish are able to determine the direction and even the distance of a sound source. Sounds are very important to fish, and may enable them to find prey, avoid predators, and seek out their own kind at great distances, under conditions where other senses may be less effective.'

Larry pretty much sums it up here:
'Main thing I've learned so far is in some environments, there is great application of the lessons in this to strategy as well as tactics. '

l
TC esox
Posted 2/24/2010 12:13 PM (#425560 - in reply to #424026)
Subject: RE: sound - Hunt for Big Fish show


This has been a great thread. Since it got started, I've been thinking about this stuff, and what is cool, is that a lot of the things I've been thinking, are being echoed by others. One distinction to consider is the difference between hearing and sensing. As Mr. D so accurately put it, vibration is vibration. And as mentioned by others, we, as well as other creatures have a range of vibration, that we can detect with our ears, which we call hearing. And as mentioned, we can detect vibration outside of our range, through other senses. If I remember correctly from vertebrate zoology over 20 years ago, the pores along the lateral line, contain a similar mechanism as is found in our ears, for detecting vibrations. This would indicate that vibrations picked up by the lateral line might in fact be things the fish hears(and would also be like having a whole bunch of ears up and down both sides of the body!). Whereas vibrations picked up by the swim bladder or other means, would be more like sensing, versus hearing. Vibration is vibration, but how a vibration is processed may have different meanings to a creature. A vibration you pick up with your ear, may cause a different reaction(and mean something different) than a vibration sensed through your body. Brings up lots of questions, such as what frequencies are detected by the lateral line, rudimentary ear, swim bladder, etc. Also, are there any frequencies that are beyond a fish's detection? Or are there any frequencies that, while being detected, are of no interest to a fish and will cause no reaction?
jlong
Posted 2/24/2010 12:45 PM (#425568 - in reply to #425560)
Subject: RE: sound - Hunt for Big Fish show





Posts: 1937


Location: Black Creek, WI
Try a google search on Cheryl Coombs and the Parmly Institute of hearing. She can explain how the lateral line works. The fun part is trying to figure out how we as anglers can use it to our advantage.

Love that she can make a fish repeatedly strike a vibrating sphere when it hits the right "note".
DonSchwartz
Posted 2/24/2010 1:17 PM (#425576 - in reply to #424026)
Subject: Re: sound - Hunt for Big Fish show




Posts: 37


Outstanding topic, last evening I did a presentation in Milwaukee regarding Territorial Swats, As TC mentioned in a previous post about Bass. Muskies do the same thing, in many cases they are just annoyed by baits and escort them out of the area. Muskies only have the mouth to defend or react with. I have filmed many muskies underwater swatting at the baits with no intentions of eating them. These recordings are both in the figure 8 and trolling. This seems very territorial in nature and appears to be dirrectly related to the vibration / sound of the bait. The reason I make the claim they are not relating to the baits to a food source,, is this... when a Muskies attacks to eat the gills flair and they attack. The behavior I have recorded is no gill flair in many cases, just swats sometimes as far as 3 or 4 feet behind a bait. I compare it to my wife turning on the vaccum during a packer game, hehe. I think the muskies are just annoyed with our baits in many cases. As h20 warms or enviremental conditions change these swatts turn into attacks. I also beleive they can be territorial while in groups, even though in many cases there are more than one fish on a spot , maybe just one or 2 in that group may be annoyed enough to follow and swat or attack. Even though we group them and want to pin down key triggers they are still individuals.
sworrall
Posted 2/24/2010 1:18 PM (#425578 - in reply to #424026)
Subject: Re: sound - Hunt for Big Fish show





Posts: 32786


Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin
Under 'Physical Properties of Midwater Waves' Volume 2, beahvior of Teleost Fishes, Dipole field equations:
'One physical definition of sound is the collection of disturbances set up in a medium by a source of movement. Complex acoustic stimuli can be described an infinite series of terms, each series consisting of a monopole (pulsating sphere), a dipole (constant -volume, vibrating sphere), a quadrupole, and so forth.True monopole lateral line stimuli are probably rare....'

Prey detection:
Blinded Pike, E. Lucius, attack live fish from distances of 5 to 10cm. The animals fail to attack after permanent extirpation of the lateral line, (Wunder, 1927), Enger et al. Intact bluegills attack live fish in daylight and under covert infrared illumination. if the lateral line is blocked by cobalt ions, (Karlesn and Sand, 1987) the bluegills only attack the fish under infrared light after direct touch.


As I said, the lateral line is a whole 'nuther subject.


Fascinating reading.
Halfpint
Posted 2/24/2010 4:01 PM (#425597 - in reply to #424026)
Subject: RE: sound - Hunt for Big Fish show


I think the lateral line aspect is relevant to the original question...

Sound vs Vibration.

You can hear the low frequency sound coming out of a young hoodlum's car...but you can also FEEL the low frequency sound waves if you touch the car with your fingers.

Now if the frequency was lower than a human’s ears can detect, would you no longer be able to feel the sound waves.

Sound is only a portion of vibration that a fish can detect because fish are emerged in water, and water carries vibrations well…and fish have the whole lateral line thingamajig. I think the lateral line is more important because it covers the whole spectrum…you don’t see many shad or ciscos with rattles in their bellies
sworrall
Posted 2/24/2010 8:20 PM (#425675 - in reply to #424026)
Subject: Re: sound - Hunt for Big Fish show





Posts: 32786


Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin
As with any living organism, it takes all the senses to survive and flourish, and Muskies and Pike have evolved employing complex vision, hearing, and lateral line senses, yet developed a very poor sense of smell. Odd, until one looks at how they feed, then it makes sense. Sort of.

It's the package that makes the critter what it is, and one needs to look at it all to even begin to postulate as to the what-fors and whys; drives me nuts. A 'scientist/fisheries biologist' friend of mine likes to say that when we can ask a muskie why it does what it does, and the Muskie answers....then we'll know.
bturg
Posted 2/24/2010 10:12 PM (#425695 - in reply to #424026)
Subject: Re: sound - Hunt for Big Fish show




Posts: 711


So for now my theory is evolving to:
Thru the Hydro-phone WE hear mostly rattles, thumps, clicks.......things in OUR frequency range....these noises are so obvious in a liquid environment that it is a certainty the fish hear them.

Noises like the quite pulse of a Bulldawg for example are out of OUR range but within the range of the fish...so we hear nothing ....they hear FOOD.

So that is good enough for me in the catagory comparing noise vs displacement....displacement is simply noise WE can't hear but should not be dismissed as the fish CAN.

Now if we can actually narrow down the whens and whys of noise presentation, progressions, volumes etc. as it applies to lures and fish attitudes we'll have a much bigger piece of the total puzzle in our hands.

Thoughts?
sworrall
Posted 2/24/2010 10:54 PM (#425707 - in reply to #424026)
Subject: Re: sound - Hunt for Big Fish show





Posts: 32786


Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin
I know very subtle differences in identical lure's sound/vibration footprints can make the difference between nothing and a strike. I had two Tallywackers...one produced like crazy, the other didn't. On the hydrophone recordings I could hear the difference, but one sure couldn't while using the two lures out in the boat. Tuning wouldn't create the sound the effective lure put out...so I gave up trying and junked the ineffective lure. If I had only bought one; the ineffective one, I'd have sworn Tallywackers didn't catch fish. If the other, I'd sing the praises of that lure loudly. I had a Dog Turd that was magic, too. It turned out to be the hanger of all things, not the body style, hooks, leader, or any other variable, and I picked that up on the hydrophone when comparing the hot lure to not lures made exactly the same way...except for the hanger that secured the blade.

I'd bet a steak dinner that syndrome could be applied to a bunch of lures, but it ain't a simple thing to do...I probably had 25 recordings of those Snodlow copies and had to re-create the sound I wanted in a new one and have it work as well as the old hot lure. Took me a very long time to figure out. I'm sure I have it, but I'm not sure the Muskies do...
TC esox
Posted 2/25/2010 11:01 AM (#425753 - in reply to #424026)
Subject: RE: sound - Hunt for Big Fish show


Something else I noticed while watching Mr. D and friend using the hydrophone, was the line noise. What was cool, was that as the lure got closer, and the line got shorter, the pitch changed. Just like a guitar string. If you pluck a string while holding it out on the last fret, then slide down the neck, the sound gets higher and higher. I wonder if, as the line is reeled in, the changing pitch might affect how the fish responds. Maybe that is part of what keeps them(or at least can keep them) distracted boat side, and staying on the chase, rather than spooking away immediately.
lambeau
Posted 2/25/2010 11:37 AM (#425758 - in reply to #425695)
Subject: Re: sound - Hunt for Big Fish show


So for now my theory is evolving to:
Thru the Hydro-phone WE hear mostly rattles, thumps, clicks.......things in OUR frequency range....these noises are so obvious in a liquid environment that it is a certainty the fish hear them.
Noises like the quite pulse of a Bulldawg for example are out of OUR range but within the range of the fish...so we hear nothing ....they hear FOOD.
So that is good enough for me in the catagory comparing noise vs displacement....displacement is simply noise WE can't hear but should not be dismissed as the fish CAN.
Now if we can actually narrow down the whens and whys of noise presentation, progressions, volumes etc. as it applies to lures and fish attitudes we'll have a much bigger piece of the total puzzle in our hands.
Thoughts?


i think you've hit the nail squarely, Mr. Turgeon.

something we need to keep in mind is that there isn't really much meaningful difference between waves that are heard and waves that are felt.
the difference comes mostly from the tool used to sense and interpet them: what we "hear" is actually the eardrum vibrating in a way that our brain uses to make meaning. this is a great tool for our environment, but the waves that our ear can't detect (espc in other environments) still exist and can be used by those creatures able to detect and interpet them.

the fish has other ways of detecting these waves in the water that are uniquely designed to work in that medium...the fish also has a different nervous system used for assigning them meaning and responding.

since the fish is enabled to detect it, displacement IS noisy and useful...to them! since the fish can also detect what we sould call sound, i'm sure that's important to them too.

in some ways a hydrophone or other pressure-sensing tool tells us things we already know: "yep, displacement is detectable." a real advantage is that it presents the "noise" in a way that allows us to distinguish it from other different noises and gauge the relative volume. a huge missing piece is that it doesn't tell us much of anything about how the fish perceives and makes meaning of it.

it'd be great if we could decipher what matters the most in triggering the muskie's brain to interpret something as "food", but we can't. so knowing more about the sound signature of the things that work is a place to start forming inferences...this is what Mr. Worrall was doing in the surface bait example - knowing a certain lure performed better and using a tool to find out what was different from other ones that appear exactly the same.




Edited by lambeau 2/25/2010 11:40 AM
jlong
Posted 2/25/2010 1:35 PM (#425792 - in reply to #425758)
Subject: Re: sound - Hunt for Big Fish show





Posts: 1937


Location: Black Creek, WI
Lambeau makes a good point.... regarding the tool used to interpret those vibrations.

In my opinion, the lateral line is what anglers should be most focused on.
Wimuskyfisherman
Posted 2/25/2010 2:25 PM (#425793 - in reply to #425792)
Subject: Re: sound - Hunt for Big Fish show




Posts: 229


In studying the human ear they have come up with an established curve- the PHON curve- this curve shows the human ears sensitivity to various frequencies. It is by no means a flat line and the human ear is most sensitive to frequencies from 500-5000 Hz. It would be interesting to see a frequency plot of how a muskies senses(both hearing and lateral line) respond to various underwater waves.

Another part of the equation is how efficiently different frequency sound/waves travel through water at a given intensity- directly related to this would be how far they can travel. I am sure this research has already been done. Does anyone have access to this information.

Those two things I mentioned above may be useful in trying to pinpoint how to at least get a fishes attention better.

John
kap
Posted 2/25/2010 2:54 PM (#425801 - in reply to #424026)
Subject: Re: sound - Hunt for Big Fish show




Posts: 536


Location: deephaven mn
can some one recreate the sound of a school of ciscos for me?

I would like to play it on my boat stereo will i fish. maybe even hang a waterproof speaker in the water
jlong
Posted 2/25/2010 3:53 PM (#425811 - in reply to #425801)
Subject: Re: sound - Hunt for Big Fish show





Posts: 1937


Location: Black Creek, WI
I beleive the lateral line is sensitive to vibes 50 Hz and lower....... but that comes from the research I did probably 10 years ago.... so I could be wrong
Jump to page : 1 2
Now viewing page 2 [30 messages per page]
Jump to forum :
Search this forum
Printer friendly version
E-mail a link to this thread

(Delete all cookies set by this site)