|
|
Posts: 2361
| fishpoop - 4/7/2009 5:36 PM
Doug
Thank you for making my point for me in a simple manner. I was trying, in a long winded way, to point out that any test results of a lures sound is subjective at best, because muskies and humans are different critters.
No, I don't really think it IS subjective. Tests can be made and this could be measured and recorded very objectively.
Of course, then you have to interpret what it is you recorded....  |
|
| |
|
Posts: 742
Location: Grand Rapids MN | I knew exactly what you were trying to say fishpoop. I wasn't looking to debate either just givin' a friendly 'jab'.
It's just human nature to wonder what makes things tick and their are some people out there that are really good at what they do (I'm not one of them either). For others as long as it works they don't care, as stated. Each to their own; that's teh beauty of it..... |
|
| |
|
Posts: 147
Location: Leech Lake, Walker, MN. | Larry is coming out with a new DVD on lure making. Check out his web page, he has a great message board. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 547
Location: Oshkosh | Do you have a link?
Peter
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 941
Location: Freedom, WI | http://www.huntforbigfish.com/ , Larry said the editing would be done in a couple of weeks. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 317
| fishpoop - 4/7/2009 12:29 AM
We, being human, tend to think of sound in human terms. We think of sound as it sounds to our human ears. generally we hear waveforms that move through the air from 20Hz to 20KHz. Does anyone know the hearing range of a muskie? And, at what frequency range does the lateral line pick up, and what is the range for the fishes ears? My point is, Muskies and humans may well hear and interpert "sound" in entirely different ways. Doing a hydrophone test of how loud a lure is, is only of value if we understand and interpert the test results in terms of how the lure sounds to a muskie. They may hear or sense sound at higher or lower frequencys than a human can. Much like we can't hear a dog whistle. Yes, the double cowgirl may sound quiter to us on a hydrophone but to a muskie? Who knows?
Light is also "sound" in a sense that it is a high frequency waveform that moves through the air and water. We do not have senses that percive light as sound. We view those waveforms as light with our eyes. The lower frequency waveforms we call sound. If our bodies had the proper senses we'd be able to see or hear radio frequencys too. Fish see light and color in different ways than we do. Many studies have been done on the structure of fishes eyes. I'm not aware of much study of a fishes hearing. But there could be research done that I'm not aware of.
What I'm trying to say is, any test of sound must be viewed in terms of the senses of the species in question. Does anyone really know what a cowgirl, or any other lure, sounds like to a muskie?
BINGO! Just like color. You see pink, I see Pink. Muskie? Who knows? Especially in different colored water. Also, That pressure wave Big Blades make may be subsonic, and felt more than "heard" |
|
| |
|
Posts: 73
Location: Indiana | Just cause the blades are moving super quick, doesn't mean they make "noise". The blades on a DCG are like the prop on an airplane. The prop spinning doesn't make much noise at all. But airplanes are loud right? Yes...but MOST of the noise comes from the engine (until the tips of the props break the sound barrier). Until the prop reaches that point, it's virtually silent!!! Look at it this way...how much noise does the prop of an airplane make when it's sitting on the runway and the wind pushes it backwards...or better yet those giant windmills, not much noise. Or if you're in a dive in a plane with the engine off...it's silent and the props spinning pretty good...good enough to get the motor to come out of a stall...at which point the engine makes noise again. So when you think about it, the prop doesn't make much noise at all...until it's going super fast. Well, the DCG blades are essentially a prop...they work the same way. The line essentially pulls the DCG blades forwards meaning that there's a silent engine (like the wind). And they won't make much "noise" at all until they go super super fast...too fast for us to reel mind you, even though there are a few people who probably claim to be the fastest reelers on the planet. (I think I heard someone say that in a video). HA!
Now the blades DO create vibrations. And those vibrations ARE soundwaves....just not "noisy" ones. For example, plane props create vibrations while spinning silently in the wind. But we can't feel it because air is not solid enough. And we certainly can't hear it because the waves they create are of such a low frequency that it's virtually non existant to us. So the DCG blades do create these vibrations as well. However, even though the water is more solid than air, the frequency is still so low that they product virtually no "noise". The frequency is just too low for humans to hear. And probably for muskies too....except for those darn lateral lines.
So, the answer is, you are all right. DCG's are "silent" yet make noise. They don't produce a soundwave that is anywhere near the spectrum of hearing for a human. Yet the muskies can pick up this soundwave as a vibration in their lateral lines.
Here's a good way to explain it. Next time you're at the ocean, swim out from shore a bit. Go underwater and float there with your eyes open. You will find that you move towards and away from shore a few feet at a time...you will move with the waves. That is the scale of soundwaves I'm talking about...obviously a low frequency. You can't HEAR them (not talking about the waves breaking on the shore...talking about the waves themselves...you can't hear them). But you can FEEL yourself moving back and forth....you can FEEL the movement even though you can't HEAR it.
So, in essence the DCG is silent, but creates a vibration that's WAY louder to a muskie's lateral line than any other lure.
TA DAAAA!!!! Today is obviously slow at work :-D |
|
| |
|
Posts: 32886
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | You are going to be surprised!
We are hoping to record number two in the MuskieFIRST Muskie Lure Footprint series (Hydrophone 2) this weekend. By the way, all studies I have read indicate fish (specifically muskies) see color very well, WHEN it's available. The 'color vision' cone cells are definitely there, as are the B&W rod cells, and a collection of triangular shaped cells that Jerry Bucholtz looked into that may indicate something else entirely. Keep in mind the water is a very alien environment for us, and we need to be thinking available light to determine what colors are even visible, |
|
| |
|
Posts: 742
Location: Grand Rapids MN | Either way you look at it just keep it up Steve! Most of the time tests/studies lead to more questions, directions, and of course conversation topics. Will we ever reach the end and answer them all to where everyone is satisfied, NO, but the journey is the best part.
You need to add Muskiefirst Lab Coats to the line up! |
|
| |
|
Posts: 480
| Did Mr Dahlberg invent fishing for muskies with balloons? I remember last summer seeing a boat trolling on tonka with little pink balloons in front of the lures. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 656
Location: Forest Lake, Mn. | There was a subtle message in my post too that I was trying to get across. We humans, as I've said, tend to view animals in human terms. I believe the word is anthropomorphism. Which means to give animals human traits and characteristics. It is this tendency we humans have, that gives the animal rights groups the ammo they need to take away our hunting and fishing rights. That little bunny is cute and cuddly just like a human baby is cute. Therefore, rabbit hunting is immoral. etc. Whoever would shoot the Easter bunny is a monster. It's also why animals are used in advertising. We react to them in human terms and it sells product. The Energizer Bunny. for example. or the Geico Gekko. and the AFLAC duck.
I was trying to get us away from thinking of fish hearing lures the same way humans do because if we understand the fishes sense of hearing better and don't view it in human terms we can therefore better use sound and vibration to catch fish. But at the same time it helps to strengthen the line that separates humans from animals and takes away the ammo the animal rights groups use against us.
Animals aren't human so we must stop thinking of them in human terms.
Any test results of a lures sound through the water should be interpreted with the knowledge of the muskies ear structure and the function of it's lateral line. With that in mind we can then use lures that will better appeal to the muskies sense of hearing and hopefully catch more fish.
Sworrall used to post on the subject of anthropomorphism. Any comments. Steve?
We seem to have gotten away from the subject of Larry Dahlberg here. But I wouldn't be surprised that should he read this thread he would enjoy it and most likely have a few opinions of his own on the subject of lure sound and anthropomorphism. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 32886
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Absolutely. The footprint of any lure we see or hear will not be perceived the same way by a muskie; they have completely different sensory organs, and perhaps more importantly, no where near the interpretative ability we have. What the testing WILL do is allow us to look at and experience what each lure out there looks like and sounds like, and look at it graphically, as well. We can then 'compare' the different footprints and by applying that information to experience, perhaps come up with some ideas why certain baits with a certain signature illicit the reaction from our quarry we experience on the water. I'm particularly interested in seeing what differences there might be between my 'hot' Weagle/Rumbler/Violent Strike etc. and identically built models that are not 'hot'....if there is any.
I would make one comment; the idea ANY lure is 'quiet' when compared to the everyday prey the muskie consumes is not accurate.
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 656
Location: Forest Lake, Mn. | Steve:
Thanks for correcting my error. Anthroppmorphism was the word I was looking for and not Animisum. Mea Culpa. I was on the right track at least.
You raise another interesting question. Why is one lure "hot" and gets all the fish and another seemingly identical lure fails to illicit any response?
Edited by fishpoop 4/12/2009 10:40 PM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 32886
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Yessir. Good to hear from you...get over to Rhinelander and we'll harass the local Muskies some. |
|
| |
