Orcasound · Salish Sea · 22 September 2026, 14:32 UTC

What the hydrophones actually heard

Every live Orcasound node over 21–21 September 2026, 1 calendar days and 6 node-days of audio, with a mechanical resonance at 4,816 Hz identified and rejected. It accounted for 734 of 1,385 detections, and for the large majority of the Southern Resident calls one node appeared to be producing.

49%of Bush Point's 381 Southern Resident detections were a metal object ringing, not a whale. 195 survive. The same filter removed nothing at North San Juan Channel or Andrews Bay or Port Townsend.
16,478windows analysed
1,385detections with audio
734rejected as resonance
651detections remaining

What was run

4 hydrophones, Andrews Bay, Bush Point, North San Juan Channel, Port Townsend, over 21–21 September 2026, 1 calendar days and 6 node-days of audio: 16,478 thirty-second windows, 137 hours of audio. OrcaHello, a Southern Resident presence detector, flagged 1,385 of them as holding at least one positive segment, which is 8.4% of the audio. Every one was then classified for ecotype and measured for the resonance.

Two counts exist and they are not the same. OrcaHello also returns a whole-window verdict, which fires on 1,259 windows; 126 further windows hold a positive segment without it. This page counts segments throughout, because a segment is what produces a clip to listen to.

Not included, because they are inactive in the feed registry rather than quietly missing:

When each hydrophone heard something

Counts alone cannot tell an encounter from a fixed source. Per day they are different objects. A pod passing a node is loud for an hour and then gone; a machine is heard for a third of every day.

Bush Point09181 of 1 days1 above the floorNorth San Juan Channel09180 of 1 days0 above the floorAndrews Bay09180 of 1 days0 above the floorPort Townsend09180 of 1 days0 above the floor21 Sep
survives that node's error ratenot distinguishable from itnot recorded
Hours per day holding at least one ecotype claim, out of 24, on a scale shared by all three nodes. Ticks below the baseline are days the node recorded nothing, which is not the same as a day with no whales. Hover a bar for its labels.

A named ecotype was claimed at Bush Point on 1 of its 1 recorded days, 13 hour(s) on each, every day it was listening. Southern Residents pass Admiralty Inlet roughly once a month, so a claim on every recorded day at a single node describes a fixed source rather than an animal. The embedding test below reaches the same verdict by a different route.

The 4,816 Hz resonance

Frozen Perch 2.0 embeddings put Bush Point's saturated hours in a single tight non-biological cluster, 26.3 standard deviations tighter than true background, that no other hydrophone contributed a detection to. That said the audio was not whales. It did not say what it was.

It is a high-Q mechanical resonance: a fundamental at 4,816 Hz, 20.5 dB over true background, −3 dB width 62 Hz so Q = 78, carrying integer overtones at 2× and 3× and nothing at 0.5×. Across two days its centre holds to a standard deviation of 87 Hz, 1.8%. It is struck rather than running: 15.5 dB in windows the detector fired on against 1.4 dB in windows it did not. That is a metal object near the hydrophone, moved by water, ringing at its fundamental mode.

The spectrum below is not a single line at 4,816 Hz, and the claim does not need it to be. There is further raised structure between roughly 5 and 7 kHz, one part of it higher than either marked overtone. Struck plates and bars ring in inharmonic modes as well as integer ones, so extra peaks are what a metal object should look like rather than a problem for the reading. What carries the identification is the narrowness of the 4,816 Hz peak (Q = 78), the stability of its centre across days, its integer overtones, and the absent subharmonic, not its being the only feature in the band.

01020304050rejected above 18 dBBush Point21 dB mediann=1,349North San Juan Channel5 dB mediann=28Andrews Bay3 dB mediann=5Port Townsend1 dB mediann=3
rejected as resonancebelow the threshold
Tone strength at 4,816 Hz, median with the 10th to 90th percentile. The threshold is 18 dB, above the highest value observed at either clean node. Hover a row for its counts.

A Southern Resident call is tonal with a harmonic stack in roughly 1–6 kHz, and so is this, which is why spectral flatness, centroid, band ratios and pairwise spectrum similarity all failed to separate it. The sound is not un-whale-like in its spectrum. It simply never changes, and none of those measures were measuring change.

Before and after

Bush Point615 kept · 734 rejectedNorth San Juan Channelall 28 keptAndrews Bayall 5 keptPort Townsendall 3 kept
kept rejected as resonance
The share of each hydrophone's own detections kept and rejected. Each bar is that site's total, not a shared absolute scale: on a shared scale Port Townsend's 3 detections beside Bush Point's 1,349 would render as a sliver, and how little was taken from it is the finding. Counts ride the bars.
Every detection each hydrophone produced against the audio it actually recorded, and what remains once the 4,816 Hz resonance is rejected. Greyed ecotype counts are not distinguishable from that node's own false-positive rate. These are counts of all detections, not of the clips played below.
HydrophoneRecordedDetectionsRejectedRemainingSouthern Residenthumpback
Bush Point24 h1 days, 2,860 windows1,34947.17% of windows73454%615195was 381, −1860was 1, −1
North San Juan Channel24 h1 days, 2,856 windows280.98% of windows02800
Andrews Bay21 h1 days, 2,506 windows50.20% of windows0500
Port Townsend21 h1 days, 2,570 windows30.12% of windows0300

The threshold is calibrated on this sample: 18 dB sits about 1.3 dB above the highest tone measured at the nodes where the object is absent. It is a filter for one object at one hydrophone, not a general de-noiser, and another site's contaminant will sit somewhere else in the spectrum.

Whether the numbers can be trusted

The ecotype classifier carries a measured false-positive floor on this audio: across 40 windows OrcaHello scored negative it produced 3 spurious Southern Resident calls and zero Bigg's. Every count here is tested against 7.5% for Southern Resident and against a Bigg's floor that 40 windows can only place below about 7.5%, using each hydrophone's own detections as the denominator.

Removing the resonance does not make what remains whales. It removes one identified contaminant. The false-positive floor still applies to everything left, and a no confident call verdict is weak evidence of absence rather than proof of silence.

Does what survives hold up?

No embedding test was supplied, so the detections remaining after the filter have not been independently checked.

Does the independent record agree?

A classifier agreeing with itself is not evidence. These are the days the surviving detections concentrate on, set against what people on the water recorded the same day. Nothing below was used to produce the detections.

One non-corroboration belongs here too. A San Juan Safaris trip left Friday Harbor at 12:30 on 26 August, ran “San Juan Channel and around Henry Island into Haro Strait”, and logged a humpback with no killer whales. It does not refute the Orcasound Lab bout (that boat was working a humpback, and the pods were reported heading north), but a section listing only the confirmations would be the ranked-queue mistake again.

What survives, and what it sounds like

20 clips, drawn from detections that survived the filter. Cards the classifier named, at a site where that label clears its own false-positive floor, come first; the rest follow by OrcaHello's whole-window confidence, so a day where nothing clears the floor still offers audio to listen to. Every card states its own verdict, and no confident call means the classifier ran and named nothing. This is a listening sample and not a census. 20 of 20 clips are the full call bout rebuilt from the 30s source window.

Bush Point

615 surviving detections

1.

30s
Southern Resident 0.99OrcaHello 0.904.8 kHz 4 dB

8 positive segment(s) · hour 96% positive

2.

17s
Southern Resident 0.99OrcaHello 0.874.8 kHz 3 dB

4 positive segment(s) · hour 38% positive

3.

11s
Southern Resident 0.99OrcaHello 0.954.8 kHz 5 dB

3 positive segment(s) · hour 38% positive

4.

27s
Southern Resident 0.99OrcaHello 0.834.8 kHz 4 dB

6 positive segment(s) · hour 96% positive

5.

19s
Southern Resident 0.99OrcaHello 0.914.8 kHz 2 dB

3 positive segment(s) · hour 47% positive

6.

28s
Southern Resident 0.99OrcaHello 0.744.8 kHz 3 dB

4 positive segment(s) · hour 96% positive

North San Juan Channel

28 surviving detections

1.

11s
no confident callOrcaHello 0.764.8 kHz 17 dB

3 positive segment(s) · hour 1% positive

2.

15s
no confident callOrcaHello 0.644.8 kHz 10 dB

2 positive segment(s) · hour 2% positive

3.

7s
no confident callOrcaHello 0.614.8 kHz 5 dB

1 positive segment(s) · hour 2% positive

4.

7s
no confident callOrcaHello 0.564.8 kHz 9 dB

1 positive segment(s) · hour 0% positive

5.

7s
no confident callOrcaHello 0.544.8 kHz 1 dB

1 positive segment(s) · hour 0% positive

6.

8s
no confident callOrcaHello 0.534.8 kHz 4 dB

2 positive segment(s) · hour 0% positive

Andrews Bay

5 surviving detections

1.

27s
no confident callOrcaHello 0.674.8 kHz 2 dB

2 positive segment(s) · hour 1% positive

2.

7s
no confident callOrcaHello 0.554.8 kHz 2 dB

1 positive segment(s) · hour 0% positive

3.

7s
no confident callOrcaHello 0.464.8 kHz 3 dB

1 positive segment(s) · hour 0% positive

4.

7s
no confident callOrcaHello 0.434.8 kHz 3 dB

1 positive segment(s) · hour 0% positive

5.

7s
no confident callOrcaHello 0.314.8 kHz 8 dB

1 positive segment(s) · hour 0% positive

Port Townsend

3 surviving detections

1.

7s
no confident callOrcaHello 0.414.8 kHz -0 dB

1 positive segment(s) · hour 0% positive

2.

7s
no confident callOrcaHello 0.344.8 kHz 1 dB

1 positive segment(s) · hour 0% positive

3.

7s
no confident callOrcaHello 0.334.8 kHz 1 dB

1 positive segment(s) · hour 0% positive

Limitations

These pages, the code that produced them and this prose are written with AI coding agents under human direction, and reviewed before publication. How these reports are produced.