> Thanks for the follow-up. Glad to know the problem is solved. It's often the
> simple things! Having strong trouble-shooting skills will take you far in
> figuring out these types of problems. A good general strategy is to simplify,
> partition, and isolate the problem. For example, if there are 3 possible
> sources of a problem, think of tests that could prove/disprove each one
> individually.
An do the simplest ones first, even if you think they're less likely to
find the trouble. They sometimes will (or lead you to it) and they don't
cost much.
...
Jerry
--
Engineering is the art of making what you want from things you can get.
�����������������������������������������������������������������������
Reply by Jon Harris●March 2, 20052005-03-02
Thanks for the follow-up. Glad to know the problem is solved. It's often the
simple things! Having strong trouble-shooting skills will take you far in
figuring out these types of problems. A good general strategy is to simplify,
partition, and isolate the problem. For example, if there are 3 possible
sources of a problem, think of tests that could prove/disprove each one
individually.
"Karthik Ravikanti" <karthik.ravikanti@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1109781100.592571.246300@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> Hi again,
>
> Thanx for the responses guys....but I found the problem!!!
>
> The dual mono female input jack I was using was the culprit.
> I tested it with a multimeter and the channels were shorted...I
> replaced it with one stereo jack....and everything is just workin as it
> should....thanx again..
>
>
> Karthik Ravikanti
>
> http://students.iiit.net/~karthik_ravikanti
>
> ----
>
> Let there be Sound!!!
>
Reply by Karthik Ravikanti●March 2, 20052005-03-02
Hi again,
Thanx for the responses guys....but I found the problem!!!
The dual mono female input jack I was using was the culprit.
I tested it with a multimeter and the channels were shorted...I
replaced it with one stereo jack....and everything is just workin as it
should....thanx again..
Karthik Ravikanti
http://students.iiit.net/~karthik_ravikanti
----
Let there be Sound!!!
Reply by Karthik Ravikanti●March 2, 20052005-03-02
Hi,
I did try plugging out one of the microphone, and still the other
channel does not go out.
I also know that both the channels are identical because i calculated
the time delay by cross-correlating them in Matlab, and the delay came
out to be zero.
I did not connect them into mic in,coz i know line-in is blue. The
signal was not extremely low because i amplified it before sending it
in.
My sound source was not on the perpendicular bisector either, it was at
50 degrees to the bisector.
Once, I connected both the microphones and put them far away(there was
a wall between them too), and asked a friend to speak into one while I
did into another. Guess what? Both of our voices were heard in both the
channels!
Is it the line-in jack,or the sound card, or my Dual-mono to stereo
jack. Whose the culprit???
Any guesses?
And can anyone confirm the fact that a Blue Jack is always a stereo
jack?(coz thats what i heard).
Do I have to use a dual line-in sound card???
Reply by Rune Allnor●March 2, 20052005-03-02
Jerry Avins wrote:
> Karthik Ravikanti wrote:
> > Hi,
> > I'm Back again.
> > This time I have a different problem....
> >
> >
> > I tried to record a sinusoidal tone using a pair of microphones by
> > plugging the microphones into the line-in port of my sound card. I
used
> > Sony Sound Forge to record the signal.But what i saw was that both
the
> > channels were identical.It seemed like the recorded file was a sum
of
> > the individual mic ouputs. I connected the mics to the line in
using a
> > Dual Mono female to Stereo Male Jack.
> > Is there anyway I can actually record the channels separately, i
mean
> > the left mic's output should come in the left channel and right mic
in
> > the right channel.
> >
> > Thanx in advance,
> >
> > Karthik Ravikanti
> >
> > http://students.iiit.net/~karthik_ravikanti
> >
> > Let there be Sound!!!
>
> Is your line-in jack stereo? (I think your adapter was a dual mono
jack
> to stereo plug.) Using a stereo plug in a mono jack connects only the
> tip, not the ring.
>
> Are the two channels numerically the same, or only their waveforms?
The
> same waveform is to be expected when two microphones record the same
sound.
I don't know this particular software, nor do I know how you
compared the two sounds. You should be aware, though, that
visualization and plotting routines generally don't have the same
resolution as the numbers in your sound file. So if you have little
time delay between channels and and "almost equal" data, they might
well look equal when plotted on screen.
I would suggest you try to plot the arithmetic difference between the
two channels, i.e. channel(A) - channel(B). If this difference
is exactly 0, then I'd get a bit worried.
Rune
Reply by Jerry Avins●March 1, 20052005-03-01
Richard Owlett wrote:
...
> OP did not specify how signals were compared. ;}
You specified that: "*EXACTLY*". I asked him.
Jerry
--
Engineering is the art of making what you want from things you can get.
�����������������������������������������������������������������������
Reply by Jon Harris●March 1, 20052005-03-01
"Richard Owlett" <rowlett@atlascomm.net> wrote in message
news:1129pnfqcbebp84@corp.supernews.com...
> Jerry Avins wrote:
>
> > Richard Owlett wrote:
> >
> > ...
> >
> >> He may have done everything and got *EXACTLY* the correct answer.
> >>
> >> Assume two identical mikes ( Same make and model may be sufficient.
> >> Same production run might be even more favorable. )
> >>
> >> Place mikes at points "A" and "B".
> >> Place sound source *ANYWHERE* on perpendicular bisector of line AB.
> >>
> >> Would not signals have *IDENTICAL* amplitude and phase ;}
> >>
> >> I would suggest placing mike at point "M" such that:
> >> 1. MAG(MA) > MAG(MB)
> >> 2. MAG(MA) >> MAG(AB)
> >> 3. wavelength of tone <> rational multiple of any of distances involved
> >> ( <> integer multiple *might* be sufficient )
> >
> >
> > A challenge to you:
> >
> > Use two mikes, as identical as you can get. Place them wherever you
> > like, accounting for reflections from the surroundings. Place a sound
> > source as best you can measure in their perpendicular bisecting plane.
> > Record the source in such a way as to make the numbers in the two
> > recorded channels identical, as it one had been copied from the other.
> >
> > Do you think you can do it? I don't. I think the channels will generate
> > nearly identical waveforms on playback, but I'm sure the actual numbers
> > will differ. Doesn't that conform to what I wrote?
> >
> > Jerry
>
>
> Ahh, but what is discernible difference.
>
> Then again how about "free field" &/or "anechoic chamber"?
>
> OP did not specify how signals were compared. ;}
In the real-world, the left and right channels of a stereo input are going to be
numerically different, even if the exact same signal is fed to both. Such is
the effect of noise (not to mention slight gain mis-matches, etc.). But Richard
is correct that the OP didn't specify if the 2 channels sounded the same, the
waveforms looked the same, or the numbers were exactly the same. That would be
helpful information to have.
Reply by Richard Owlett●March 1, 20052005-03-01
Jerry Avins wrote:
> Richard Owlett wrote:
>
> ...
>
>> He may have done everything and got *EXACTLY* the correct answer.
>>
>> Assume two identical mikes ( Same make and model may be sufficient.
>> Same production run might be even more favorable. )
>>
>> Place mikes at points "A" and "B".
>> Place sound source *ANYWHERE* on perpendicular bisector of line AB.
>>
>> Would not signals have *IDENTICAL* amplitude and phase ;}
>>
>> I would suggest placing mike at point "M" such that:
>> 1. MAG(MA) > MAG(MB)
>> 2. MAG(MA) >> MAG(AB)
>> 3. wavelength of tone <> rational multiple of any of distances involved
>> ( <> integer multiple *might* be sufficient )
>
>
> A challenge to you:
>
> Use two mikes, as identical as you can get. Place them wherever you
> like, accounting for reflections from the surroundings. Place a sound
> source as best you can measure in their perpendicular bisecting plane.
> Record the source in such a way as to make the numbers in the two
> recorded channels identical, as it one had been copied from the other.
>
> Do you think you can do it? I don't. I think the channels will generate
> nearly identical waveforms on playback, but I'm sure the actual numbers
> will differ. Doesn't that conform to what I wrote?
>
> Jerry
Ahh, but what is discernible difference.
Then again how about "free field" &/or "anechoic chamber"?
OP did not specify how signals were compared. ;}
Reply by Jerry Avins●March 1, 20052005-03-01
Richard Owlett wrote:
...
> He may have done everything and got *EXACTLY* the correct answer.
>
> Assume two identical mikes ( Same make and model may be sufficient. Same
> production run might be even more favorable. )
>
> Place mikes at points "A" and "B".
> Place sound source *ANYWHERE* on perpendicular bisector of line AB.
>
> Would not signals have *IDENTICAL* amplitude and phase ;}
>
> I would suggest placing mike at point "M" such that:
> 1. MAG(MA) > MAG(MB)
> 2. MAG(MA) >> MAG(AB)
> 3. wavelength of tone <> rational multiple of any of distances involved
> ( <> integer multiple *might* be sufficient )
A challenge to you:
Use two mikes, as identical as you can get. Place them wherever you
like, accounting for reflections from the surroundings. Place a sound
source as best you can measure in their perpendicular bisecting plane.
Record the source in such a way as to make the numbers in the two
recorded channels identical, as it one had been copied from the other.
Do you think you can do it? I don't. I think the channels will generate
nearly identical waveforms on playback, but I'm sure the actual numbers
will differ. Doesn't that conform to what I wrote?
Jerry
--
Engineering is the art of making what you want from things you can get.
�����������������������������������������������������������������������
Reply by Richard Owlett●March 1, 20052005-03-01
Jerry Avins wrote:
> Karthik Ravikanti wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>> I'm Back again.
>> This time I have a different problem....
>>
>>
>> I tried to record a sinusoidal tone using a pair of microphones by
>> plugging the microphones into the line-in port of my sound card. I used
>> Sony Sound Forge to record the signal.But what i saw was that both the
>> channels were identical.It seemed like the recorded file was a sum of
>> the individual mic ouputs. I connected the mics to the line in using a
>> Dual Mono female to Stereo Male Jack.
>> Is there anyway I can actually record the channels separately, i mean
>> the left mic's output should come in the left channel and right mic in
>> the right channel.
>>
>> Thanx in advance,
>>
>> Karthik Ravikanti
>>
>> http://students.iiit.net/~karthik_ravikanti
>>
>> Let there be Sound!!!
>
>
> Is your line-in jack stereo? (I think your adapter was a dual mono jack
> to stereo plug.) Using a stereo plug in a mono jack connects only the
> tip, not the ring.
>
> Are the two channels numerically the same, or only their waveforms? The
> same waveform is to be expected when two microphones record the same sound.
>
> Jerry
He may have done everything and got *EXACTLY* the correct answer.
Assume two identical mikes ( Same make and model may be sufficient. Same
production run might be even more favorable. )
Place mikes at points "A" and "B".
Place sound source *ANYWHERE* on perpendicular bisector of line AB.
Would not signals have *IDENTICAL* amplitude and phase ;}
I would suggest placing mike at point "M" such that:
1. MAG(MA) > MAG(MB)
2. MAG(MA) >> MAG(AB)
3. wavelength of tone <> rational multiple of any of distances involved
( <> integer multiple *might* be sufficient )