QUESTIONS & ANSWERSAsk BCM a Question
I want to know what is the best option between the u384 and the D1000x. What is the difference in aspects of technological innovation and seniority. Also in terms of quality in the study of identification of species and study of populations.
The D1000x is first and foremost -the best- ultrasonic microphone we have -ever- used, hands down. It is better suited for active monitoring or labratory research where the best possible recording is desired and the device will be monitored (it is too expensive to leave unattended, etc.) It has a built in recorder with a trigger system that is user-definable, so it many be set to record under a variety of conditions and for various purposes (many people actually buy it to study something besides bats). The files are then offloaded from a memory card and viewed in analysis software such as BatSound or SonoBat. The D1000x is capable of 768kHz sampling rate, blowing the doors off most any device in it's price range.
The u384 is intended to be used on a tablet running BatSoundTouch or SonoBatLIVE capture software. The recordings are then further viewed/sorted using SonoBat or other bat analysis software. It does not have the lab quality noise floor of the D1000x, but the capture software is more convienant to use. The 384 sampling rate is perfectly suitable for bats worldwide, and extending the mic on a pole will maximize the capabilities. The u384 is mass produced therefore making it cost effective (mic+tablet+long cable ~$600?) wheras the D1000x device is a unique custom lab instrument.