Hi everyone, Here I share the first results from the comparative test we carried out to see differences in terms of performance on bats between recording devices and membranes. The tested devices were: 1- Audiomoth v1.1.0 (old version) 2- Audiomoth v1.2.0 (new version) 3- SM4 + U1 microphone (x2) 4- SM4 + U2 microphone Furthermore, each version of Audiomoth were set with 3 different membranes plus a fourth one with no casing: 1- Akustikstoff: https://www.akustikstoff.com/Buy-Cuts-of-Speaker-Cloth-in-Various-Sizes/Acoustic-Cloth-2-0-Pre-cut-50-x-160-cm-19-7-x-61-42-Colours::764.html 2- Hydrophobous fabric (TNT), similar to the light fabric used in dinning tables: (in Spanish) http://www.tejidonotejido.com/es/caracteristicas-tejido-no-tejido/ 3- Metal sticker (PP): (in Spanish) https://www.apli.com/es/producto/10066 The devices were placed in a window facing an urban area, at the same angle an elevation. All AM with membranes were using the same type of case. All devices recorded for 4h from 1h after sunset on the 16th of February 2021. The new AM v1.2.0 detected less batpasses (fragments of 5s with at least 1 bat call) and calls (individual pulses) in all four membrane configurations, with different results depending on the membrane used. Differences in batpasses ranged between 8% less (no case) and 43% less (PP membrane). When looking at species level, these values changed, only showing similar results in the commonest species the Kuhl's Pipistrelle. Much scarcer species like Common and Soprano Pipistrelle showed different results, showing much better performance on the former one compared to old AM v1.1.0 in all membrane configurations. Regarding membranes, the Akoustikstoff and TNT showed similar results, having 18-21% less batpasses with the new AM v1.2.0 than the no casing configuration. The PP showed very poor performance. Surprisingly, comparing the AM with SM4, both showed similar results in terms of batpasses, which is the usual variable used in bat ecology studies. I'm waiting for more detailed analysis from other tests done with the same devices, but the results so far point towards the following conclusions: 1- The new AM version has a worse performance in medium freq. bats (pipistrelles) than the old AM version. I think having worse numbers in all 4 membrane configurations is consistent enough to conclude this. The different results when looking at scarcer species might be due to low sample size. 2- The TNT membrane offers a good alternative to the Akoustikstoff membrane. 3- The AM may not be as bad as it seems compared to SM4 when analysing batpasses, at least for medium freq bats. Has anyone done any similar testing, especially regarding old vs new AM version? Or could anyone explain the difference in performance between species? Cheers, Robert

I recently purchased two AudioMoths for bat work here in Australia (Tasmania)- our bats have a frequency range between about 10 and 80 kHz. One of my units detects up to six of our eight species the other only two even when they are side by side. One of my units (two species unit) only detects calls at about one-third of the better unit. Any ideas or advice greatly appreciated ... Thanks Andy

Dear colleagues, I am having a weird issue. During my recording nights, iI set audio files to be 7200 seconds (2 hours) long. If an audio file goes from 23:00 to 1:00, Audiomoth is saving a shorter file from 23:00 to 00:00, and then starts making regular 2 hour files (00:00-02:00, 02:00-04:00 and so on). Is anyone having a similar trouble? It's not a huge problem for me but I am worried that could be a major softare problem. Thanks!