开云体育

Good Day, Gentlemen. Whew! This discussion quickly evolved into a complex shotgun situation and there is a LOT of buckshot in the last few shells (replies.) I GET and follow all points raised therein.

This!

yes I think it could be regarded as a form of resynthesis, it isn't a direct measurement like an analog mic or even a ADC that converts an analog signal into a linearly correlated string of numbers.

I don't think this is a valid comparison. Compare instead to a contact mic affixed to the front of each instrument - there's your near total separation of sources. As far as i understand it the very

I don’t expect them to be able to point it at someone’s mouth and get sound. Sent from a mobile device. Please excuse my brevity.

Certainly it holds great promise for bird enthusiasts (and spies and perverts)!? Wouldn't it be something if these mics end up with an extraordinary musicality.? I know, I know, chances are slim,

There are some sound examples in the video at the end of the article. Also, consider this is new tech that can be improved in software. Obviously, it won't replace a Neumann in the short run, but just

Actually, reading the article, seems more like a synth using optical cues for reconstructing notes. In the absence of audible results, we're left in conjecture.

Thet, you just hit the nail on the head. Worlds best contact microphone. Best Regards, Jules

Maybe I'm missing something because I didn't look at every detail of the explanation, but, seems to me that is equivalent to having a contact mic on each guitar. If there is one laser beam on each

This came up on my readinglist today: https://newatlas.com/music/optical-microphone-sound/ “ Researchers at Carnegie Mellon University have presented some remarkable audio from a new optical

Boré & Peus PDF book on the Neumann website ------------------------------------------------------------ THANK YOU for the link Paul -- that looks to be an excellent resource !! I will read it. James

I agree with Jerry and Tom. They are really comparing it to a laser microphone which is a single use case. This paper reads like a "Well we got it to work and there is slight numerical improvement in

Knowing that most of the noise is due to acoustic impedance, the diaphragm is still the most significant part of the equation. We know that extremely low noise can be achieved by using undamped

It's interesting that they compared their quantum microphone to a laser microphone. I understand why they made that choice: they could take both measurements off the same diaphragm. But it was a

Here's a link to the full paper: https://journals.aps.org/prxquantum/abstract/10.1103/PRXQuantum.3.020358 And an article:

Hello, I'm definitely a tube mic guy, but this article on quantum microphones certainly caught my eye (probably great for room mics when heavily compressed!).

this link shows a different capsule from the one in the attachments you have mentioned two different capsules with a perforated brass cover , one with hivis plastic rings and one without. they may be

But do you understand the difference between electret (permanently polarised) and non-electret (externally polarised) - it has (almost) nothing to do with the presence of a fet in the capsule. All

I should qualify this, on some boards the polarisation voltage is applied to the same side of the capsule as the signal is taken from. Your transformer board appears to have this arrangement. (the two