Be careful not to get too lost in the prospective technical
limitations of all of this. Yes; you'll have reflections not
only from the sides, but also from the bottom and surface and
you'll have random distances from the source. All of these
will make it pretty impractical to measure source level
amplitude to any reasonable degree of resolution. Yes; you
may loose some high-frequency information, limited by the
sampling rate of your A/D conversion. But what are you
trying to do? How will your recordings be used? It may well
be that you don't need the resolution that you'll get with
any given system anyway, or that there are limitations in the
accuracy of your measurements beyond those of the hydrophone or
sound interface. If you're just trying to detect certain sounds
and perhaps correlate those sounds with certain behaviors,
you may not even need 192KHz.
What will you use for a preamp?
The lapel hydrophone concept could work. Wireless is probably
not an option because radio signals are grounded out in
water, but you could potentially buy or build a recording
device that could be attached to the subject. Again though,
first you have to identify your goals. Perhaps you already
know exactly what you need, but you haven't told us.
ps. If anybody has an interest in having one of these Reson 4013
hydrophones, I have one that I would sell really cheap. It
appears to be damaged because it has had a recent calibration
from the US Navy and HF response was limited to around 70KHz.
I think these things cost about a thousand dollars now and
the calibration is worth about another $500. As it is not
performing to spec, I'd sell it for $250.
Tue Jul 8, 2014 8:09 pm (PDT) . Posted by:
> Thanks for the help and recommendations, the
work will be done in pools so we will have reflections off the
sides. Is there a way to mitigate that problem ? i guess a lapel
hydrophone with a wireless transmitter would be out of the