Keyboard Shortcuts
ctrl + shift + ? :
Show all keyboard shortcuts
ctrl + g :
Navigate to a group
ctrl + shift + f :
Find
ctrl + / :
Quick actions
esc to dismiss
Likes
- MicBuilders
- Messages
Search
|
Re: Freshwater Soundscapes...
I'd love to build the Gladys Hydrophone. Any chance to get the parts or DIY kit in Europe?
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
Udo Jules Ryckebusch via groups.io: Heinz, these will work fine in a pond. They are designed almost identical <ryckebusch@...>:Yes! these: they |
|
Re: Freshwater Soundscapes...
I recently discovered many small and very old ponds and would like to take a listen. Some are very small. I will try your suggestion.? I would find it a bit of a schame to use Jule's well-built hydrophones in ponds, where even wild boars sometimes wallow. From my humble opinion they're better suited for naval environments..? Am Mo., 13. Jan. 2025 um 03:41?Uhr schrieb Johan Vandermaelen via <johan.vandermaelen=[email protected]>:
|
|
Re: Active noise cancelling for microphones in noisy environments - techniques?
¿ªÔÆÌåÓý
Le 12/01/2025 ¨¤ 19:36, Jerry Lee Marcel
via groups.io a ¨¦crit?:
EDIT:Two omnidirectional capsules may result in some directivity, but polarity and level must be adjusted. What you suggest would be two cardioid mics placed back-to-back and wired out-of-phase. |
|
Re: Freshwater Soundscapes...
It looks like a piezo disk microphone. It's easy to build one for a handful of dollars. To make them watertight I use nail varnish instead of the more common plastidip. Be aware you should use an impedance adapter for best results. E.g. Triton, but I have had good results with a BSS DI. Waterinsects in a pond. This os a cheap way to start your journey. But Jules piezo with his adapter will clearly outperform my suggested - cheap- solution. Op zo 12 jan 2025 10:24 schreef Heinz via <heinz.hartfiel=[email protected]>:
|
|
Re: Active noise cancelling for microphones in noisy environments - techniques?
Le 12/01/2025 ¨¤ 18:40, aauer1 via groups.io a ¨¦crit?:
And there is an MEMS mic called ICS-40800 from TDK with a front and back hole. Regarding the datasheet, it picks up the sound from the front and back side. But mostly ignores the sound from the side (90 degree).It's a bi-directional microphone, a.k.a. Figure-8. So, I think this is similar to using 2 omni-directional capsules oriented in the opposite? direction.No, it's not. Two omnidirectional capsules oriented in whatever direction always result in omnidirectionality. What you suggest would be two cardioid mics placed back-to-back and wired out-of-phase. Could be an interesting approach I guess. What do you think?A figure-8 microphone has the same directivity index as a cardioid (4.8dB), so both placed in diffused field receive the same amount of non-desired signal. A hypercardioid mic has a directivity index of 6dB, and rejection is optimal at about 110¡ã on both sides. Sounds from the back are attenuated only by 6dB. It is theoretically the most effective at rejecting ambient noise. However, if the main noise source is at the rear it may be less efficient than a simple cardioid. |
|
Re: Active noise cancelling for microphones in noisy environments - techniques?
Hello all.
I found this group while searching for directional microphones. Especially for an headset similar to the one in the above post for the aircraft.
?
On Sat, Dec 21, 2024 at 11:17 PM, <michaeljtbrooks@...> wrote:
It works pretty well! Happens to be at the right mic level with the pot mostly towards zero.Do you know the mic level you need for the Garmin GNC255? Would be interesting for me to know. Turning your pot mostly towards to zero means, that you are using a low level close to the 70mV you specified? ?
Has anybody ever thought about using an MEMS microphone for this application? Because I think the output impedance might be lower. And there is an MEMS mic called ICS-40800 from TDK with a front and back hole. Regarding the datasheet, it picks up the sound from the front and back side. But mostly ignores the sound from the side (90 degree).
So, I think this is similar to using 2 omni-directional capsules oriented in the opposite? direction. Could be an interesting approach I guess. What do you think? ?
BR
Andreas |
|
Re: short pickup range options
Le 12/01/2025 ¨¤ 09:40, Johan Vandermaelen via groups.io a ¨¦crit?:
?In live radio, they sometimes opt for a dynamic mic and going very close to the sound source.In this case, the nature of the transducer (dynamic, electret or condenser) does not make a difference. It's only the distance that matters. Putting the mic as close as possible to the source increases the level of desired sound, when parasitic sounds are identical, so it increases the Wanted-Signal-to-Unwanted-Signal ratio. You miss out some details and the frequency range is rather limited, but it's a way to lift ou your subject out of it's environmentDynamic microphones have an undeserved reputation for being less sensitive to ambiant sounds or feedback, when they only attenuate high frequencies. Actually most condenser mics have a better directivity control than dynamics. |
|
Re: Freshwater Soundscapes...
Hi Johan
Many thanks for your advice.?
I have a modest question. I own a Shadow (12mm). It sounds quite nice. Even on a classical guitars. Would it be possible to turn this pickup into a (small) hydrophone. I'm just wondering.
?
Btw: I didn't forgot that you might be interested in a HM-200 (#36096). But sadly I didn't came across another one yet.
?
On Fri, Jan 10, 2025 at 08:20 PM, Johan Vandermaelen wrote:
I have built electret hydrophones in the past. They have serious limitations. Noise/sensitivity is one. Another is the huge change in pressure on the (protected) membrane when passing from air to water. It asks for care to release this pressure. Condens is one more concern. In general, except for experimentation I wouldn't advise to use electret for hydrophones. |
|
Re: short pickup range options
sorry, I see I misunderstood your question. As Jerry Lee Marcel says it's difficult. The microphone is not intelligent to make an interpretation of the distance. In live radio, they sometimes opt for a dynamic mic and going very close to the sound source. You miss out some details and the frequency range is rather limited, but it's a way to lift ou your subject out of it's environment |
|
Re: short pickup range options
¿ªÔÆÌåÓý"Short pick-up range" does not exist. Le 12/01/2025 ¨¤ 09:08, cx b via
groups.io a ¨¦crit?:
|
|
Re: short pickup range options
Hello,
?
Your message sounds a bit like a contradiction to me. The best lows you will get from an omnidirectional capsule are often way lower than what we hear. On the upper range, most go into ultrasonics. This topic is a recent treat.
If you want a more directional response you will have to sacrifice the lows. Pressure gradient microphones have a roll-off in their lows. Can you be more precise in your question? |
|
Re: Freshwater Soundscapes...
I have built electret hydrophones in the past. They have serious limitations. Noise/sensitivity is one. Another is the huge change in pressure on the (protected) membrane when passing from air to water. It asks for care to release this pressure. Condens is one more concern. In general, except for experimentation I wouldn't advise to use electret for hydrophones. |
|
Re: Freshwater Soundscapes...
Thanks, Jules! I'm sure Gladys will work well in ponds. Don't you have a pond nearby? Please dipp one of your Gladys in and tell us how it sounds. Maybe you'll discover something interesting. That would be fun! I'll definitely consider Gladys. But I must admit that I'm also intrigued by Zach Poff's relatively simple DIY method. And that I'm thinking about sacrificing an AOM-5024 for a test. Many thanks! Am Do., 9. Jan. 2025 um 21:20?Uhr schrieb Jules Ryckebusch via <ryckebusch=[email protected]>:
|
|
Re: Freshwater Soundscapes...
Heinz, these will work fine in a pond. They are designed?almost identical to a NOAA paper on them and, like Naval Hydrophones. I have not measured the sensitivity but they are very low noise as well. Far better than encasing an electret microphone capsule.? Jules On Wed, Jan 8, 2025 at 11:54?PM Heinz via <heinz.hartfiel=[email protected]> wrote:
--
Best Regards, Jules Ryckebusch 214 399 0931 |
|
Re: Freshwater Soundscapes...
Digging a little deeper, I found that the hydrophones that David Rothenberg uses for his pond recordings were originally invented and built by Zach Poff. When it comes to hydrophones,? on his website. It seems that he also used low-noise electret capsules in his . Which puzzled me a bit. Does this mean that an AOM-5024L might work underwater? I still have two left. :-) Is it really necessary to modify the front case of the capsule to allow more contact between the silicone and the diaphragm? I have a lot of respect for this step because I'm afraid of damaging the capsule. |
|
Re: Freshwater Soundscapes...
Hi Jules First of all, thank you for your post and the instructions you put together to build these amazing Gladys hydrophones. Your humpback whale recording on YouTube is fantastic! Did you ever checked how your hydrophone?performs in ponds? I'm asking because David Rothenburg mentioned in the ?that he heard almost nothing when he used a hydrophone that was made for whale?recordings inside ponds. It seems that he used a special and very sensitive hydrophone for his pond recordings instead. To record sounds that are only a few meters away? A hydrophone that even picks up sounds from nearby underwater creatures and plants? I'm looking forward to experimenting! Heinz Am Mi., 8. Jan. 2025 um 22:53?Uhr schrieb Jules Ryckebusch via <ryckebusch=[email protected]>:
|
|
Re: Freshwater Soundscapes...
Yes! these:?? they work really well and I have gotten great sounds with them as have several renown field?recording people. Jules On Wed, Jan 8, 2025 at 7:48?AM Heinz via <heinz.hartfiel=[email protected]> wrote:
--
Best Regards, Jules Ryckebusch 214 399 0931 |
|
Re: Learning more - Ultrasonic Microphone building
On Tue, Jan 7, 2025 at 08:05 PM, Ivano Pelicella wrote:
.... Unfortunately, I have personally found through experimental testing that datasheets often report completely invented data, especially in the ultrasonic range.?I did wonder about that with the curves published on the Knowles app. notes I found for the SPU1410 (see here: ) The noise response follows the signal frequency response curve farily closely , so recording the noise from the mic (in as quiet an environment as I could find!) should produce a noise file that follows the same response curve. .... which it does!
So in this case it's possible to apply corrective EQ fairly acurately -- I prepared a script to do that in my DAW (Adobe Audition) and that allows for the recordings made on my Zoom F3 to have fairly accurate frequency resposne correction made up to around 75KHz.? Above that, the F3 frequency itself response tends to be a bit erratic!
I'm hoping the next generation of field recorders - using the 32 bit float file format - will enable the higher sampling rates available from the latest A/D converters to be enabled?? |
to navigate to use esc to dismiss