naturerecordists
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: the nature of parabolic reflectors

Subject: Re: the nature of parabolic reflectors
From: Bret <>
Date: Wed, 25 Feb 2004 11:29:24 -0800 (PST)
Thanks,
bret
--- Eric Benjamin <> wrote:
> Bret <> wrote:
> Wahlstrom says "Furthermore, at 1000hz the sound wavelength is 34mm,
> <SNIP>
>=20
> Wahlstrom did write that, but please note that it is a typo.  He
> meant to write "10000 Hz" not "1000 Hz"
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>
> ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
>
> "Microphones are not ears,
> Loudspeakers are not birds,
> A listening room is not nature."
> Klas Strandberg
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>=20
>


__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail SpamGuard - Read only the mail you want.
http://antispam.yahoo.com/tools


________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________

>From   Tue Mar  8 18:27:04 2005
Message: 14
Date: Wed, 25 Feb 2004 11:39:06 -0800 (PST)
From: Bret <>
Subject: Re: the nature of parabolic reflectors

Great comments, Eric.=20
Diffraction at the edge of the parabola is yet another problem not
addressed by any of the papers nor is there a simulation offered.=20
Regarding accuracy of the parabolic shape, I have read that for RF
purposes that you want accuracy to 1/10 wavelength.=20
Regarding dispersal over time, Backman shows this in impulse responses.
 There can be a sort of pre-echo.

With all that could go wrong, it is amazing they work as well as they
do.

If you attached a chart, it did not make it through.  Please post it at
yahoo groups if you can, or email it directly to me.=20

I hope you will expand on this.
thanks,
bret
--- Eric Benjamin <> wrote:
>
> I must start out by confessing that I've never used or built a
> parabolic microphone.  In fact I've never even seen one.  But all of
> this discussion has piqued my interest.
>
> In order to achieve the theoretical gain, the actual recording
> circumstances must result in the waves from various directions
> arriving at the focus with phase errors conforming precisely to the
> expectation of theory.  Put another way, everything must work exactly
> right, or the gain will be less than predicted by theory.  This can
> be seen in Wahlstrom's figures 12, 13, and 14.  The measured gain is
> always below the theoretical gain with the exception of one data
> point in figure 14.
>
> If follows that Errors of the following types may occur in practice:
>
> Focal length error
> Non conformance to exact paraboloid
> Aiming error
> Violation of the plane-wave assumption
>
> Focal length error: If the microphone is not located precisely at the
> focal point, then it will be progressively further away from the
> point where the high-frequency maximum is, and the high-frequency
> output will be less than the theoretical optimum.  This is shown
> quite clearly in Wahlstrom's figures 9, 10, and 11.  One practical
> consideration is that the designer might like to use a tripod
> arrangement to support the microphone capsule from the rim of the
> dish, but for the case where =E1 =3D l this results in a non-rigid
> support system
>
> Non-conformance to an exact paraboloid results in waves from one
> direction arriving with positive or negative phase shifts relative to
> other directions of incidence.  Variations of 1/2 wavelength, which
> is only about 8.6 mm at 20 kHz, will result in complete cancellation.
>  Not only can there be errors due to manufacturing tolerance, but for
> flexible paraboloids it is extremely unrealistic to expect that they
> will snap back to exactly their original shape.  Assuming that the
> errors are not systematic, the result is merely a failure for the
> gain to continue to increase at higher frequencies.
>
> A side implication is that a spherical reflector may work nearly as
> well in practice, and be easier to fabricate.
>
> Aiming error when measuring (or using) the microphone will result in
> a rolled-off frequency response.  Because the polar pattern of a
> parabolic microphone becomes progressively narrower with increasing
> frequency,
>
> A violation of the plane wave assumption will occur if the source of
> the sound is not located at infinity.  Again, in order to achieve the
> theoretical gain from the paraboloid reflector it is necessary that
> the planarity of the wavefront not be in error by more than about 1/4
> wavelength.  Note that this effect increases with the size of the
> dish.  A very large paraboloid is not appropriate for recording near
> sources.  Assuming that the dish is 0.5 meters in diameter, and that
> the distance is 10 m.
>
> So for a dish of diameter 0.5 meters, 5 meters from the source, the
> "height" of the wavefront entering the dish is about 1.2 cm.  This
> will result in cancellation for a source at approximately 14 kHz.
>
> In looking at Wahlstrom's analysis in his appendices, I see that the
> figures do not precisely portray the shape of the gain curve.  Using
> Wahlstrom's analysis and the result in his Equation 14, I have
> calculated the theoretical gain curve for a parabolic microphone of
> dimensions the same as that of the Telinga microphone.  The
> horizontal axis thus takes on the dimensions of Hz.  The principle
> thing that can be seen that is not visible in the figures in
> Wahlstrom's paper is that the oscillating part of the sound field
> affects the response up to high frequencies.  The implication of this
> is that the sound is dispersed in time, and indeed this would be
> expected given that there is both a direct sound and focused sound
> component to the microphone signal.
>
> If there is interest on the part of the group, I could expand upon
> this in more detail, and put the results into the files section of
> the Nature Recordist group pages.
>
> Eric
>

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail SpamGuard - Read only the mail you want.
http://antispam.yahoo.com/tools


________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________

<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