There is something here that I clearly don't understand.
In that mics are better than speakers and sound decays over distance
having a omni at 30 meters next to your dish seems to make sense in
any comparison. The "different things" that a dish sees I understand
to always be "bad" things. I don't understand when you would want to
do a comparison without a true reference that an omni would offer.
Rich Peet
--- In Klas Strandberg
<> wrote:
> Yes, then it was relevant to have both mic's at 30 meters, as both
mic's
> were omnis.
> My set up is a little different, I can't compare a parabol at 30
meters with
> an omni at the same distance. They will "see" very different things
and
> react to very different reflections, in and out of phase.
>
> Klas.
>
> At 11:18 2003-07-03 -0700, you wrote:
> >Klas, you wrote,
> >
> >>It doesn't matter if my "leveler" don't work perfectly. Please
note that I
> >>don't measure true frequency curves, as in a laboratory, but
rather curves
> >>only to describe a change from one set up to another. Example:
What happens
> >>if I put an omni facing forward, compared to if I put it facing
inwards the
> >>dish?
> >
> >I understand. I did the same thing with my CVX review, not
worrying
> >about absolute calibration but comparing the responses of two
mikes.
> >You could use the FFT analyzer then, with pink noise driving the
> >speaker. I'd put the calibration mike and the mike being tested
both
> >at 30 meters, and compare the curves.
> >
> >-Dan Dugan
> >
> >
> >To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
> >
> >
> >
> Telinga Microphones, Botarbo,
> S-748 96 Tobo, Sweden.
> Phone & fax int + 295 310 01
> email:
>
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
|