[Top] [All Lists]

Looking for GHOW vocalizations?

Subject: Looking for GHOW vocalizations?
From: "antonio celis" tony_celis
Date: Tue Oct 10, 2006 8:43 am (PDT)
Hi all,

Is anybody knows and has the email address of the
person who was looking for Great Horned Owl
vocalizations for her studies?

Thank you

Antonio Celis

 --- Walter Knapp <> escribi=F3:

> Posted by: "Randolph S. Little"
> > Yes, think about it some more.  The microphone is
> immersed in the
> > acoustic medium (air), such that a passing
> acoustic pressure wave
> > effectively wraps completely around it almost as
> if the microphone
> > were not there.  One of the great challenges of
> microphone design is
> > to make that "almost" as complete as possible
> across the entire
> > spectrum of interest.  This is especially
> difficult at wavelengths
> > short compared to microphone dimensions, and
> various types of side-
> > and rear-porting are typically used to flatten
> performance as a
> > function of direction and wavelength.
> Indeed, mic design is not a simple thing.
> Yes I more or less agree with your description here
> of a acoustic
> pressure wave interacting with a microphone. It is
> part of what I've
> been pointing out that argues against partial
> interaction of the wave
> and the diaphragm.
> >
> > This discussion pertains to pressure gradient
> microphones, which are
> > typically what we all use in the field.  (I
> apologize to any users of
> > velocity mikes who may feel left out.)  The small
> volume of air
> > trapped between the diaphragm and the backplate
> rests at ambient
> > static pressure.  As an acoustic wave surrounds
> the mike, the
> > instantaneous pressure on the exposed side of the
> diaphragm
> > oscillates around this static pressure at the
> frequencies of the
> > sound and at amplitude proportional to the
> loudness of the sound.
> > The diaphragm is faced momentarily with unequal
> pressure on its two
> > sides and, being compliant, moves in or out to
> compress or expand the
> > air volume behind the diaphragm to equalize the
> instantaneous
> > pressure.  This induced motion of the diaphragm,
> of course, is what
> > the microphone transduces to an electrical analog
> of the acoustic
> > pressure.
> So far, so good.
> > At all wavelengths much longer than the
> diaphragm's diameter,
> > regardless of direction of travel, the entire
> diaphragm
> > effectively "feels" the same oscillations of
> acoustic pressure, and
> > certainly moves in unison.  No problem.  However,
> at wavelengths
> > short compared to the diaphragm diameter, any
> off-axis excitation
> > will sweep across the diaphragm, rather than
> driving it all at once.
> > The exact response is dependent on the mike's
> porting, the lateral
> > compliance of its diaphragm, and probably many
> other arcane effects.
> You have a little problem here. Think back about
> that planar sound wave
> arriving at the parabolic dish. Take the case of the
> sound from on axis
> and assume it's a 1:1 dish just to take a simplified
> case. And just for
> kicks the diaphragm is pointing in and not
> obstructed (no exotic mic
> design problems).
> That wave interacts with all the surface of the dish
> and then arrives
> from all points of the dish simultaneously at the
> mic diaphragm (at
> increased amplitude compared to the wave as it
> entered the dish, the
> gain). It's not a wave from some specific direction
> for the mic, for all
> frequencies it's a integrated pressure wave arriving
> from half a sphere
> of directions (in the case we choose above). Now try
> and sweep that
> across the diaphragm at a angle, not the way it's
> going to happen. That
> is where I have a lot of problem with your
> explanation, particularly
> when you go back up to your first paragraph about
> how the pressure wave
> interacts with the mic.
> > Actual measurements confirm the leveling-off of
> gain in the
> > neighborhood of 10 KHz for most of our reflector
> systems.
> > Mathematical "proof" of cause is elusive - not
> because we can't
> > calculate the acoustic performance of a parabolic
> reflector or of a
> > particular microphone, but because we must model
> BOTH elements at
> > once.  That's a real challenge!
> At 10 KHz you have a wavelength of 1.2" or so. Much
> bigger than most
> diaphragms used, particularly bigger than those used
> in the Telinga.
> Though there you have to deal with multiple
> capsules. I've used single
> tie tac mics which are much smaller too. Are there
> actual measurements
> where diaphragm size is correlated with the falloff?
> Preferably with
> some reasonable statistical confidence level?
> I'm not saying there is no falloff. I've seen enough
> graphs that it
> would appear there generally is a falloff in gain
> increase. I'm finding
> it hard to buy the explanation. The graphs I've seen
> of gain falloff
> also don't look like a singular cause for them.
> Modern computers should be up to the task. I think
> the primary problem
> is that few are interested enough in the performance
> of parabolic mics.
> Probably no money for the effort.
> Walt

Do You Yahoo!?
La mejor conexi=F3n a Internet y <b >2GB</b> extra a tu correo por $100 al =

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

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