Reply by Richard Owlett●October 31, 20062006-10-31
Richard Owlett wrote:
> Rune Allnor wrote:
>
>> Major Misunderstanding skrev:
>>
>>> There is such a thing as acoustic impedance. Is it possible to have
>>> sounds
>>> that humans can hear that cannot be picked up with a mic?
>>
>>
>>
>> Yes and no. "Yes" because it is perfectly possible that any given mic
>> is tuned to a frequency range or sensitivity such that it does not
>> record
>> sounds a human can hear: An ultrasound transducer does not record
>> the 0 - 20 kHz range, a hydrophone in air would not record anything
>> but the loudest explosions.
>>
>> "No" on a more principal level. If a acoustic sound exists (I am
>> deliberately
>> excluding "voices inside my head") and the human ear can detect it
>> (note
>> the term "detect"; not "recognize" or "classify"), a microphone can be
>> designed that also detects the same sound.
>> Rune
>>
>
> You didn't answer his first question (ended with a "." not a "?" ;/
>
> Yes, there is a concept that may be called "acoustic impedance". Speaker
> housings are essentially "acoustic impedance matching devices".
>
> Does it have anything to do with second question. ~no.
>
mea culpa *MEA CULPA*
I should practice "read first -- type later" ;<
Reply by Richard Owlett●October 31, 20062006-10-31
Rune Allnor wrote:
> Major Misunderstanding skrev:
>
>>There is such a thing as acoustic impedance. Is it possible to have sounds
>>that humans can hear that cannot be picked up with a mic?
>
>
> Yes and no. "Yes" because it is perfectly possible that any given mic
> is tuned to a frequency range or sensitivity such that it does not
> record
> sounds a human can hear: An ultrasound transducer does not record
> the 0 - 20 kHz range, a hydrophone in air would not record anything
> but the loudest explosions.
>
> "No" on a more principal level. If a acoustic sound exists (I am
> deliberately
> excluding "voices inside my head") and the human ear can detect it
> (note
> the term "detect"; not "recognize" or "classify"), a microphone can be
> designed that also detects the same sound.
>
> Rune
>
You didn't answer his first question (ended with a "." not a "?" ;/
Yes, there is a concept that may be called "acoustic impedance". Speaker
housings are essentially "acoustic impedance matching devices".
Does it have anything to do with second question. ~no.
Reply by Rune Allnor●October 31, 20062006-10-31
Major Misunderstanding skrev:
> There is such a thing as acoustic impedance. Is it possible to have sounds
> that humans can hear that cannot be picked up with a mic?
Yes and no. "Yes" because it is perfectly possible that any given mic
is tuned to a frequency range or sensitivity such that it does not
record
sounds a human can hear: An ultrasound transducer does not record
the 0 - 20 kHz range, a hydrophone in air would not record anything
but the loudest explosions.
"No" on a more principal level. If a acoustic sound exists (I am
deliberately
excluding "voices inside my head") and the human ear can detect it
(note
the term "detect"; not "recognize" or "classify"), a microphone can be
designed that also detects the same sound.
Rune
Reply by Major Misunderstanding●October 31, 20062006-10-31
There is such a thing as acoustic impedance. Is it possible to have sounds
that humans can hear that cannot be picked up with a mic? Could this be
because of a miss-match between acoustic impedances? ie a bit like an
amplifier and load.Would using a 'hood' a bit like an ear improve things?
M.
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com