naturerecordists
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: How parabolas do work.

Subject: Re: How parabolas do work.
From: "Rich Peet <>" <>
Date: Thu, 13 Feb 2003 23:11:03 -0000
Thank you Marty and I will give it a go with my 32" without barrier.=20
In my inquiry to Lang your additions are why I inquired if he used
one.  I suspect that a barrier would have more of an effect in widely
off axis sound but I have noted poor stereo out of using omni's with
a 5.25 barrier and no dish.

The telinga seems to get better stereo without the dish than I obtain
with two omni's and a 5.25 thin barrier and no dish.  The Telinga I
have not commented on for other reasons as well.  It is difficult and
complex to understand and a one of a kind product.  It does not
appear to be a parabolic for its entire diameter and its mics I can
not understand without destructive testing which I can not do with
loaned equipment.  I will leave it for what it is as many like what
it accomplishes.

Rich Peet

--- In  Marty Michener <>
wrote:
> At 10:18 AM 2/13/2003 -0700, it was written:
> >I've used a similar system of 2 mono mics mounted in a parabola
with a
> >barrier between.  It works fairly well, however it has less
magnifying
> >power than a single mic because each mic in the pair only receives
the
> >amplified sound from 50% of the parabola surface area.  Thus it
has a
> >bit less "reach" than the single mono mic.  The stereo effect is
more
> >pleasing however, and you will need to get a bit closer to your
sound
> >source.
> >Kevin
>
> Hello:
>
> There is absolutely no physical reason why, FOR INCOMING FOCUSED
SOUND, one
> needs to put a barrier between two mono mics in a parabola; it just
gets in
> the way.  For non-focused background sound, the barrier will have
about the
> same effect as in non-parabola usage, some slight contralateral
damping.
>
> I don't mean to pick on anyone, here. This is a widely stated and
used
> misconception.  I have posted to clarify this point on at least two
past
> occasions (see attached notes below, from this list Sept 2000).=20
Parabolas
> do NOT "gather" and they do not "amplify".  These words have
specific
> meanings other than focusing, and apply to things and to signals,
but not
> to waves.  The focused light or sound may be brighter or dimmer
than the
> intensity of the object itself, it depends on the ratio of object
distance
> to image distance.  In all our REAL-LIFE nature recording settings,
the
> image is much brighter - louder - than the object intensity, so we
can use
> noisier mics.
>
> Please lets be clear that a parabola is a reflecting lens.  Putting
a
> barrier between the mono mics is like putting a small card inside
your SLR
> camera to keep the light from the lens that is supposed to fall on
one spot
> from also falling on the spot next to it.  The physics and the
practice is
> nonsense. The card just cuts down the light you WANT getting to the
two
> spots, making the lens effectively a larger "f-number" (smaller
numerical
> aperture, e.g. f/8 instead of f/5.6.). This is why Kevin finds LESS
sound
> than with ONE mic, because of the ill-conceived barrier.  In
principle, you
> could put an ARRAY of mics, like the array of light sensors in a
digital
> camera.
>
> I even prepared a diagram of the focusing process, and privately
mailed it
> to some folks.  Placing two small mono mics two inches apart, with
no
> barrier, means they gather ALL the sound from ALL the parabola,
each from
> two divergent incoming paths.  This is just like a camera.  It is
the
> incoming DIRECTION of the sound that determines where it will focus.
>
> Who ever dreamed up the idea of using the "sound from one half of
the
> parabola" that I keep hearing.  I bet it was G*** B*****, at LNS, I
could
> never get him to understand this when I talked to him in the 80's
or 90's
> either. ;^)
>
> As with sounds to your two ears, the waves all cross in the air,
they don't
> bounce on each other.  You are holding this huge reflector out in
front of
> you, so you want ALL the reflected sound getting to ALL your mics
for
> maximum focused signal per background (non-reflected) sound.
>
> If the focal length is 20 inches, and the spacing between mics is
two inch,
> the angle will have a tangent of 1/10, of about 6=B0.  With my 48
inch giant
> parabola, I usually used two or three inches, depending on what I
was
> recording.  When you point the parabola at a pond, for instance,
subtending
> an arc of six degrees, you point the center to the pond's middle.=20
Then the
> focused sound from the left end of the pond focuses squarely on the
right
> mic, and the right end of the pond is focused on the left mic.  And
the
> sound in the earphones is a really clear stereo.  I have hundreds
of really
> old cassettes of it.  Good, live sounding stuff.
>
> Please, no more barriers!
>
> my best regards,
> Marty Michener
> MIST Software Associates PO Box 269, Hollis, NH 03049
> EnjoyBirds.com  - Software that migrates with you.=20=20=20
http://www.EnjoyBirds.com
>
> Folks:
>
> Let us be really clear about how a parabola works and how it
> may be configured to make a stereo recording.
>
> First, a parabola is mathematically not that different from
> a (transparent, biconvex refractive) lens - both do focus sound to
> a plane, with predictable aberrations from a plane as covered in
> any high school physics book under optics. We recordists use
> the reflective medium for sound because it is just about impossible*
> to make a transparent lens that is linear for sound. To do so
> you would need a predictably different sound velocity (inside the
> lens) from that in air, with a surface medium also totally
> transparent to sound, separating the two media. So we always
> use a parabola as a reflector. Under some conditions a helium
> balloon seems to act as a very non-linear sound lens.
>
> But both a refractive lens and a parabolic reflector focus
> parallel waves (in our case of sound) to a single 3D point
> in space. Parallel waves correspond to a near flat wavefront,
> that is, from a point source that is so far away that the waves
> appear to have a single arrival time in the neighborhood of the
> parabolic dish. This is like assuming for an optics lesson
> that the object is at infinity.
>
> To say that you can't focus incoming sound on two separate
> points would be like saying a camera can only take a picture
> of a single point of light. Not true. If the waves arrive from
> different directions, corresponding, let us say, to two frogs
> singing from 100 ft away are 6 ft apart, the two focus
> points will be several centimeters apart - one corresponding
> in this simple example to the left mic, the other to the right mic.
>
> NO separation device between mics is in fact needed.
> The two mics are like two nearby grains of silver halide in
> a camera film emulsion. One records the singing of the
> left frog (the mic on the right, because the image reverses)
> and the other from the other frog.
>
> The mics do not need any separation device because
> sound waves, like light waves, freely cross in space, yet
> arrive concentrated at but a single point - at least in the ideal
> case where the sound wavelength is much less than the
> dimensions of the mic and dish.
>
> I have recorded from two omni mics in the focal PLANE
> (not point) of my 48 inch (70 pound) dish, many bird and frog
> flocks and choruses. The spacing of the stereo separation of
> the sources is by the same ratio to the separation of the two
> mics as are the relative distances from the reflector. This is
> identical to the formula for magnification of an image with
> an optical lens Object size/image size =3D Object dist/Image distance.
>
> If the frogs are 6 ft apart at 100 ft distant, and the parabolic
focal
> plane is 2 ft from the dish, the ratio would simply be 2/100
> or 1/50, and the 6 ft would be represented by a mic
> placement of 6/50 ft or the mics about 1.44 inches apart.
>
> . . . and he went on and on . . .
>
> and from a private note I wrote on the same subject following up to
> somebody else:
>
> I attach a diagram of how they really work. Sound waves
> bounce off (and refract around small ) solid objects. This is true,
> because the impedance to travel in a solid is so radically
> different from that of air. Waves pass by objects small
> with respect to their wavelength, like ocean waves
> wash past a post or wharf by a dock. They reflect off objects
> much larger than their wavelength, in a mirror-like manner.
> In between sizes, they bend and curve in a manner
> much harder to visualize.
>
> Sound is not "gathered" as you state. It is reflected,
> jut like light in a flashlight, sort of in reverse. Angle of
> incidence equals angle of reflection. If you simply
> place to bulbs in a flashlight, against each other, side by
> side, you would have two diverging beams of light - make
> one bulb red on the right and one green, on the left, and you
> would produce a green beam of light to the right and a red
> to the left of center. This is exactly what you do with two
> mics side by side in a parabola. No barriers, no membranes.
>
> Correction, that is what **I** have been doing with my parabolas for
> over 30 years. The analogy with a refractive lens is much better.
>
> Each lens, whether refractive or reflective focuses waves to a
point.
> The location of the point only depends on the entry angle of the
> sound waves to the lens's diameter and center axis. Just like
> a camera lens, sound is focused by every parabola, regardless
> of who makes it, to a point. You are absolutely correct that this
> point is spread to a globe by the inherent diffusion factor which
> depends directly on wavelength. Longer wavelength, larger
> the globe. In photographic optics, this is actually called the
> "circle of confusion".
>
> To put a barrier in a parabola I would say is worse than useless:
> it prevents each half from providing directional sound focusing
> to each mic, so makes the sound amplification less by 3 dB
> at each mic. Why do it? I have read the explanation of
> the PZM effect, and it is all new to me, so I don't pretend to
> understand it. If what you say about it is all true, then
> you are also correct that the sound at which you aim the
> axis would be recorded mono in both mics, and the off
> axis sound would be blocked differentially to the two mics.
> I am not convinced yet that this would amount to a stereo
> recording. It would be nothing like what I am showing in
> my diagram and what I can provide you with hours of from
> my old recordings.



________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>
Admin

The University of NSW School of Computer and Engineering takes no responsibility for the contents of this archive. It is purely a compilation of material sent by many people to the naturerecordists mailing list. It has not been checked for accuracy nor its content verified in any way. If you wish to get material removed from the archive or have other queries about the archive e-mail Andrew Taylor at this address: andrewt@cse.unsw.EDU.AU