Status
Not open for further replies.
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: rec.audio.tech (More info?)

Is there easy solution to make a ultrasound receiver for analog mixer that
accepts up to 40KHz
quite nicely.? (tested with oscillator)...

not actually underwater but it would be nice bonus..

just would like to make few experiment with 24bit/96KHz and slow things down
to human ear range.

..jukka
rihmasto.com
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: rec.audio.tech (More info?)

Jukka Andersson wrote:
> Is there easy solution to make a ultrasound receiver for analog mixer
> that accepts up to 40KHz
> quite nicely.? (tested with oscillator)...
>
> not actually underwater but it would be nice bonus..
>
> just would like to make few experiment with 24bit/96KHz and slow
> things down to human ear range.


Get a Tannoy Supertweeter.

You may not be able to hear much (any) different, but it'll keep the bats
away.

Other than that, conventional piezo sound (horrible) waaay up of 50KHz, from
memory.

geoff
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: rec.audio.tech (More info?)

"Geoff Wood" <geoff@paf.co.nz-nospam> wrote in message
news:%Eaoc.1334$FN.150423@news02.tsnz.net...
> Jukka Andersson wrote:
> > Is there easy solution to make a ultrasound receiver for analog mixer
> > that accepts up to 40KHz
> > quite nicely.? (tested with oscillator)...
> >
> > not actually underwater but it would be nice bonus..
> >
> > just would like to make few experiment with 24bit/96KHz and slow
> > things down to human ear range.
>
>
> Get a Tannoy Supertweeter.
>
> You may not be able to hear much (any) different, but it'll keep the bats
> away.
>
> Other than that, conventional piezo sound (horrible) waaay up of 50KHz,
from
> memory.
>
> geoff
>
>

well i need to record those bats , not make them fly away :)
something like microphone made of piezo would do it?

..-jukka
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: rec.audio.tech (More info?)

"Jukka Andersson" <jukka.andersson@remove.rihmasto.com> wrote in message news:<Tpmoc.146$xa5.109@read3.inet.fi>...
> "Geoff Wood" <geoff@paf.co.nz-nospam> wrote in message
> news:%Eaoc.1334$FN.150423@news02.tsnz.net...
> > Jukka Andersson wrote:
> > > Is there easy solution to make a ultrasound receiver for analog mixer
> > > that accepts up to 40KHz
> > > quite nicely.? (tested with oscillator)...
> > >
> > > not actually underwater but it would be nice bonus..
> > >
> > > just would like to make few experiment with 24bit/96KHz and slow
> > > things down to human ear range.
> >
> >
> > Get a Tannoy Supertweeter.
> >
> > You may not be able to hear much (any) different, but it'll keep the bats
> > away.
> well i need to record those bats , not make them fly away :)
> something like microphone made of piezo would do it?

Generally, no. Piezos work as "well" as they do because they have
a few conveniently placed bending resonant modes. That means they
are pretty narrow-band devices with horrible frequency response.
It works for sonar, because sonar broadcasts and receives at
these same frequencies. Hydrophones aren't usually piezo: they're
more conventional dynamic or electrostatic microphones that are
consructed for in-fluid use. Often a hydrophone is a fairly conventional
audio microphone that's immersed in something like castor or silicone
oils.

Also, for recording signals at the sorts of frequencies you're talking
about, the micriphone has to be physically SMALL. If you're recording
air-borne acoustical phenomena at 40 kHz, you're talking diaphragm
sizes in the realm of 1/4". Hydrophone receivers at those sorts of
frequencies can be physically larger because the speed of sound in water
is faster than in air (1480-1500 m/s in water vs 344 m/s in air), and
thus the diaphragm size can be corresondingly larger (1" vs 1/4").

So, unless you know that whant you want to record is at one of the
resonant frequencies of your piezo, or you don't care how bad the
result is, then, no, piezos make lousy microphones.
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: rec.audio.tech (More info?)

Jukka Andersson wrote:
> Is there easy solution to make a ultrasound receiver for analog mixer
> that accepts up to 40KHz
> quite nicely.? (tested with oscillator)...
>
> not actually underwater but it would be nice bonus..
>
> just would like to make few experiment with 24bit/96KHz and slow
> things down to human ear range.

The Panasonic 1/4" omni microphones that people use to make recording mics
have response that extends well beyond 20 KHz. I don't know how far, but
their response does not seem to be rolling off very fast at 20 KHz. With
equalization, response to 30 or 40 KHz does not seem like a total
impossibility. The price is "right" - way under $4 each in the Digi-Key
catalog.
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: rec.audio.tech (More info?)

"Dick Pierce" <dpierce@cartchunk.org> wrote in message
news:dc02c02f.0405120623.552b6c55@posting.google.com...
> "Jukka Andersson" <jukka.andersson@remove.rihmasto.com> wrote in message
news:<Tpmoc.146$xa5.109@read3.inet.fi>...
> > "Geoff Wood" <geoff@paf.co.nz-nospam> wrote in message
> > news:%Eaoc.1334$FN.150423@news02.tsnz.net...
> > > Jukka Andersson wrote:
> > > > Is there easy solution to make a ultrasound receiver for analog
mixer
> > > > that accepts up to 40KHz
> > > > quite nicely.? (tested with oscillator)...
> > > >
> > > > not actually underwater but it would be nice bonus..
> > > >
> > > > just would like to make few experiment with 24bit/96KHz and slow
> > > > things down to human ear range.
> > >
> > >
> > > Get a Tannoy Supertweeter.
> > >
> > > You may not be able to hear much (any) different, but it'll keep the
bats
> > > away.
> > well i need to record those bats , not make them fly away :)
> > something like microphone made of piezo would do it?
>
> Generally, no. Piezos work as "well" as they do because they have
> a few conveniently placed bending resonant modes. That means they
> are pretty narrow-band devices with horrible frequency response.
> It works for sonar, because sonar broadcasts and receives at
> these same frequencies. Hydrophones aren't usually piezo: they're
> more conventional dynamic or electrostatic microphones that are
> consructed for in-fluid use. Often a hydrophone is a fairly conventional
> audio microphone that's immersed in something like castor or silicone
> oils.
>
> Also, for recording signals at the sorts of frequencies you're talking
> about, the micriphone has to be physically SMALL. If you're recording
> air-borne acoustical phenomena at 40 kHz, you're talking diaphragm
> sizes in the realm of 1/4". Hydrophone receivers at those sorts of
> frequencies can be physically larger because the speed of sound in water
> is faster than in air (1480-1500 m/s in water vs 344 m/s in air), and
> thus the diaphragm size can be corresondingly larger (1" vs 1/4").
>
> So, unless you know that whant you want to record is at one of the
> resonant frequencies of your piezo, or you don't care how bad the
> result is, then, no, piezos make lousy microphones.

hmm....
sadness raises..
well I need low cost solution to archive lo-fi quality sounds from 20khz ->
40khz
its what my A/D converter does understand with only little drop of gain...

now what device should I place next to mixer?

lets say I would like to record normal electronic devices and nature and
other things
that does exist in 20-40khz range. dont really care if the sound does sound
coloured since
I will anyway slow it down to lets say 2-4 times to bring it in our hearing
range.

..jukka
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: rec.audio.tech (More info?)

"Arny Krueger" <arnyk@hotpop.com> wrote in message news:<NuednYHR_ICz4j_dRVn-hQ@comcast.com>...
> Jukka Andersson wrote:
> > Is there easy solution to make a ultrasound receiver for analog mixer
> > that accepts up to 40KHz
> > quite nicely.? (tested with oscillator)...
> >
> > not actually underwater but it would be nice bonus..
> >
> > just would like to make few experiment with 24bit/96KHz and slow
> > things down to human ear range.
>
> The Panasonic 1/4" omni microphones that people use to make recording mics
> have response that extends well beyond 20 KHz. I don't know how far,

Not very far. The curves you see from Panasonic are a trifle, uhm,
"optimistic." They, in fact, are really struggling to get to 20 kHz.
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: rec.audio.tech (More info?)

Dick Pierce wrote:
> "Arny Krueger" <arnyk@hotpop.com> wrote in message
> news:<NuednYHR_ICz4j_dRVn-hQ@comcast.com>...
>> Jukka Andersson wrote:
>>> Is there easy solution to make a ultrasound receiver for analog
>>> mixer that accepts up to 40KHz
>>> quite nicely.? (tested with oscillator)...
>>>
>>> not actually underwater but it would be nice bonus..
>>>
>>> just would like to make few experiment with 24bit/96KHz and slow
>>> things down to human ear range.
>>
>> The Panasonic 1/4" omni microphones that people use to make
>> recording mics have response that extends well beyond 20 KHz. I
>> don't know how far,
>
> Not very far. The curves you see from Panasonic are a trifle, uhm,
> "optimistic." They, in fact, are really struggling to get to 20 kHz.

I'm talking about some recordings I made muyself. Keys jangling, natch.
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: rec.audio.tech (More info?)

"Arny Krueger" <arnyk@hotpop.com> wrote in message
news:Q4adnfq6uZfv6j7dRVn-jg@comcast.com...
> Dick Pierce wrote:
> > "Arny Krueger" <arnyk@hotpop.com> wrote in message
> > news:<NuednYHR_ICz4j_dRVn-hQ@comcast.com>...
> >> Jukka Andersson wrote:
> >>> Is there easy solution to make a ultrasound receiver for analog
> >>> mixer that accepts up to 40KHz
> >>> quite nicely.? (tested with oscillator)...
> >>>
> >>> not actually underwater but it would be nice bonus..
> >>>
> >>> just would like to make few experiment with 24bit/96KHz and slow
> >>> things down to human ear range.
> >>
> >> The Panasonic 1/4" omni microphones that people use to make
> >> recording mics have response that extends well beyond 20 KHz. I
> >> don't know how far,
> >
> > Not very far. The curves you see from Panasonic are a trifle, uhm,
> > "optimistic." They, in fact, are really struggling to get to 20 kHz.
>
> I'm talking about some recordings I made muyself. Keys jangling, natch.
>
>

I am about to order panasonic capsules for my binaural mics anyway so
perhaps I need to get
those also. but what kind of eq could be right before micpre? perhaps
something that kills all below
10.000Hz for example

...jukka
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: rec.audio.tech (More info?)

Jukka Andersson wrote:
> "Arny Krueger" <arnyk@hotpop.com> wrote in message
> news:Q4adnfq6uZfv6j7dRVn-jg@comcast.com...
>> Dick Pierce wrote:
>>> "Arny Krueger" <arnyk@hotpop.com> wrote in message
>>> news:<NuednYHR_ICz4j_dRVn-hQ@comcast.com>...
>>>> Jukka Andersson wrote:
>>>>> Is there easy solution to make a ultrasound receiver for analog
>>>>> mixer that accepts up to 40KHz
>>>>> quite nicely.? (tested with oscillator)...
>>>>>
>>>>> not actually underwater but it would be nice bonus..
>>>>>
>>>>> just would like to make few experiment with 24bit/96KHz and slow
>>>>> things down to human ear range.
>>>>
>>>> The Panasonic 1/4" omni microphones that people use to make
>>>> recording mics have response that extends well beyond 20 KHz. I
>>>> don't know how far,
>>>
>>> Not very far. The curves you see from Panasonic are a trifle, uhm,
>>> "optimistic." They, in fact, are really struggling to get to 20 kHz.
>>
>> I'm talking about some recordings I made muyself. Keys jangling,
>> natch.

> I am about to order panasonic capsules for my binaural mics anyway so
> perhaps I need to get those also.

> but what kind of eq could be right before micpre?

Why would the eq have to be right before the mic preamp?
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: rec.audio.tech (More info?)

"Arny Krueger" <arnyk@hotpop.com> wrote in message
news:1_ydnQg_JripVT7dRVn-gg@comcast.com...
> Jukka Andersson wrote:
> > "Arny Krueger" <arnyk@hotpop.com> wrote in message
> > news:Q4adnfq6uZfv6j7dRVn-jg@comcast.com...
> >> Dick Pierce wrote:
> >>> "Arny Krueger" <arnyk@hotpop.com> wrote in message
> >>> news:<NuednYHR_ICz4j_dRVn-hQ@comcast.com>...
> >>>> Jukka Andersson wrote:
> >>>>> Is there easy solution to make a ultrasound receiver for analog
> >>>>> mixer that accepts up to 40KHz
> >>>>> quite nicely.? (tested with oscillator)...
> >>>>>
> >>>>> not actually underwater but it would be nice bonus..
> >>>>>
> >>>>> just would like to make few experiment with 24bit/96KHz and slow
> >>>>> things down to human ear range.
> >>>>
> >>>> The Panasonic 1/4" omni microphones that people use to make
> >>>> recording mics have response that extends well beyond 20 KHz. I
> >>>> don't know how far,
> >>>
> >>> Not very far. The curves you see from Panasonic are a trifle, uhm,
> >>> "optimistic." They, in fact, are really struggling to get to 20 kHz.
> >>
> >> I'm talking about some recordings I made muyself. Keys jangling,
> >> natch.
>
> > I am about to order panasonic capsules for my binaural mics anyway so
> > perhaps I need to get those also.
>
> > but what kind of eq could be right before micpre?
>
> Why would the eq have to be right before the mic preamp?
>
>

well no need.. 20-10.000 can be killed after micpre and before
a/d converter... just one thought

..jukka
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: rec.audio.tech (More info?)

Jukka Andersson wrote:
>
> lets say I would like to record normal electronic devices and nature
> and other things
> that does exist in 20-40khz range. dont really care if the sound does
> sound coloured since
> I will anyway slow it down to lets say 2-4 times to bring it in our
> hearing range.

Isn't htere a B+K / DPA that goes up to 40KHz ?

geoff
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: rec.audio.tech (More info?)

Geoff Wood wrote:
> Jukka Andersson wrote:
>>
>> lets say I would like to record normal electronic devices and nature
>> and other things
>> that does exist in 20-40khz range. dont really care if the sound does
>> sound coloured since
>> I will anyway slow it down to lets say 2-4 times to bring it in our
>> hearing range.

> Isn't htere a B+K / DPA that goes up to 40KHz ?
>

Yes, the 4007. Been there, done that. About $1,300 net. For 40 KHz @ less
money see Earthworks. Maybe half the price.
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: rec.audio.tech (More info?)

"Arny Krueger" <arnyk@hotpop.com> wrote in message
news:aJCdnRs0y7ZQLDndRVn-hg@comcast.com...
> Geoff Wood wrote:
> > Jukka Andersson wrote:
> >>
> >> lets say I would like to record normal electronic devices and nature
> >> and other things
> >> that does exist in 20-40khz range. dont really care if the sound does
> >> sound coloured since
> >> I will anyway slow it down to lets say 2-4 times to bring it in our
> >> hearing range.
>
> > Isn't htere a B+K / DPA that goes up to 40KHz ?
> >
>
> Yes, the 4007. Been there, done that. About $1,300 net. For 40 KHz @ less
> money see Earthworks. Maybe half the price.
>
>

Yes there seem to be few or more 40khz cabable mics but dont really need
that quality.
isnt there something like ultrasound transmitter - receiver that works in
wider range that
accurate Hz. lets say like 30 000-40 000 Hz it would enought..

..jukka
 
Status
Not open for further replies.