This is true, although I would have thought most heterodyne detectors work =
up to 10kHz or more either side of the chosen frequency. Fine if you know w=
hat frequency to set. I suggested it because they're cheap.=0D
=0D
My experience with frequency division is that although it picks up a much w=
ider range, it generally sounds worse than heterodyne because the signal is=
so processed. Some sound much worse than others.=0D
=0D
Playing back at reduced speed means you can't mix in "normal" frequency sou=
nds, because they sound too weird. I would prefer to apply heterodyne or fr=
equency division processing to the high frequencies before mixing them back=
in.=0D
=0D
Peter Shute=0D
=0D
> -----Original Message-----=0D
> From: =0D
> =0D
> Sent: Tuesday, 27 February 2018 11:33 AM=0D
> To: =0D
> Subject: Re: [Nature Recordists] Esoteric Mic Builds: Multi-style Capsule=
SASS=0D
=0D
> As for the heterodyne detectors, I would discourage using them. They=0D
> produce an audible output signal only when the incoming signal is few kHz=
=0D
> around the selected frequency thus producing a highly partial and distort=
ed=0D
> output signal. Bat detectors based on frequency division are for sure muc=
h=0D
> better. The best option remains the full bandwidth recording and then the=
=0D
> slow speed playback to make them longer and lower in frequency, thus well=
=0D
> audible by our "slow" ears.=0D
|