|
Hi all,
a new ultrasonic microphone is now available on:
High sensitivity and double MEMS sensor
Cheers
Ivano Pelicella
|
Very interesting!? DUAL means two signals (two channels, STEREO) ???
Kind Regards,
Hi all,
a new ultrasonic microphone is now available on:
High sensitivity and double MEMS sensor
Cheers
Ivano Pelicella
|
Interesting - but perhaps a tad expensive for such a specialised function only?
I think I might be tempted to find an extra ?100 or so, and go for a full spec. stereo recorder with an ultrasonic capability - like the Tascam DR100Mk3 for example ?
??
And then do your own DIY ultrasonic mic using MEMs capsules (You can get them from Micboosters:? ?)
That way you get the option to record ultrasonics - in stereo if you want - but also end up with a very high spec 'standard' audio recorder set up as well...
That's what I did for my bat echo location recordings. (Some notes here:? ?? )
I made those mics before the PCB mounted Micboosters ultrasonic capsules were available -- It was a very fiddly process.....The Micboosters mic should make for a simpler solution !
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
On Fri, Apr 30, 2021 at 08:44 AM, Ivano Pelicella wrote:
Hi all,
a new ultrasonic microphone is now available on:
High sensitivity and double MEMS sensor
Cheers
Ivano Pelicella
|
If you can live with a?+/- 10 dB FR spec for the ultrasonic range, the Micbooster MEMS mics will do. IF you're into diy...
If you need a complete solution, no DIY, the Dodotronics are the most affordable on the market. Especially if you want frequencies over 80 kHz, which most biologists will need anyways.?
The Tascam costs as much as the Dodotronic 384 recorder and doesn't provide any mics. And that's at the current "EOL" price for the Tascam. Originally it was just below 500 €. Also, the Tascam doesn't even provide 384 kHz SR. So, not really a contender, is it?
If you're studying bats and not just playing around, 192 kHz SR just isn't high enough. Hec, even mice can reach 125 kHz sound-wise, if excited. Impossible to record with 192 kHz SR.
It's a problem I've been trying to solve, working with biologists, for years. There are hardly any small, rugged recorders that are 384 kHz capable. We've always ended up with Dodotronic mics and an expensive AD, so I'm glad they provide a very affordable recorder now.?
The same goes for hydrophones. Looks very simple, until you try to diy one that survives being in the ocean for weeks...
Op vr 30 apr. 2021 om 12:11 schreef Arjay 1949 < info@...>:
Interesting - but perhaps a tad expensive for such a specialised function only?
I think I might be tempted to find an extra ?100 or so, and go for a full spec. stereo recorder with an ultrasonic capability - like the Tascam DR100Mk3 for example ?
??
And then do your own DIY ultrasonic mic using MEMs capsules (You can get them from Micboosters:? ?)
That way you get the option to record ultrasonics - in stereo if you want - but also end up with a very high spec 'standard' audio recorder set up as well...
That's what I did for my bat echo location recordings. (Some notes here:? ?? )
I made those mics before the PCB mounted Micboosters ultrasonic capsules were available -- It was a very fiddly process.....The Micboosters mic should make for a simpler solution !
On Fri, Apr 30, 2021 at 08:44 AM, Ivano Pelicella wrote:
Hi all,
a new ultrasonic microphone is now available on:
High sensitivity and double MEMS sensor
Cheers
Ivano Pelicella
|
On Fri, Apr 30, 2021 at 11:37 AM, Wim wrote:
?
...If you're studying bats and not just playing around, 192 kHz SR just isn't high enough. Hec, even mice can reach 125 kHz sound-wise, if excited. Impossible to record with 192 kHz SR.
As you say, if you're studying bats formally - and not just 'playing around'? - then of course specialised equipment is a must.?? But as this suggestion was included on a hobby DIY microphone forum,? I thought a 'DIY' option might be appropriate for some folk? In my part of the world all the local bats (except the Horseshoes - which are very rare ) transmit echolocation 'chirps' below 80KHz.? So 192KHz sampling works well. I can get quite good quality results as well (here's a pipistrelle 'feeding buzz' slowed down 40 times :??) I'm not a professional biologist of course, just - as you say - playing around...... The sort of thing we do, here on a DIY hobby microphone forum ! :)
|
Op vr 30 apr. 2021 om 13:48 schreef Arjay 1949 < info@...>: On Fri, Apr 30, 2021 at 11:37 AM, Wim wrote:
?
...If you're studying bats and not just playing around, 192 kHz SR just isn't high enough. Hec, even mice can reach 125 kHz sound-wise, if excited. Impossible to record with 192 kHz SR.
As you say, if you're studying bats formally - and not just 'playing around'? - then of course specialised equipment is a must.??
But as this suggestion was included on a hobby DIY microphone forum,? I thought a 'DIY' option might be appropriate for some folk?
In my part of the world all the local bats (except the Horseshoes - which are very rare ) transmit echolocation 'chirps' below 80KHz.? So 192KHz sampling works well.
That's echo location sounds. Even that goes up for most species to over 100 kHz. Then there's communication between bats, which is different from echo location, goes up to very high frequencies, especially, like rodents, when they're angry...
You're confusing what's commonly reported by casual observers who had no way of knowing what's really going on, with science. It starts with microphones being unable to catch anything at those higher frequencies, to people always repeating what's been found, over and over again, because the equipment doesn't exist.
And it's not only bats, of course. Some insect species can transmit and hear up to 300 kHz. Here's a popular science article about it from eight years ago:
Note that's the upper range we know about. We don't know everything, as there isn't a way to capture audio above 300 kHz that I know of... ;-)
Still some unknown territories available to those who want to explore. DIY is certainly acceptable, as there are very knowledgeable people here. I'd be glad to see a ADC with 768 kHz SR, even if it was just 8-bit. And, of course, a mic to go with it. I'm pretty certain some MEMS mics can go up very high. I haven't found one that has an incorporated AD of such a high SR. But I'll keep looking.
|
Be aware that many soundcards manage to achieve their superlative
noise and THD preformance by using noise-shaping, that shipts the
noise spectrum in the ultrasonic region. The noise and THD figures
are always measured with a 22-22kHz filter engaged.
You may find that the actual signal abobe 22kHz is plagued with
noise.
That's the case with my Native Instruments soundcard, taht has
enough noise in the 80-160kHz range to fool the level meter and
the side-chain detector of my compressor.
Le 30/04/2021 à 13:48, Arjay 1949 a
écrit?:
On Fri, Apr 30, 2021 at 11:37 AM, Wim wrote:
?
...If
you're studying bats and not just playing around, 192 kHz SR
just isn't high enough. Hec, even mice can reach 125 kHz
sound-wise, if excited. Impossible to record with 192 kHz
SR.
As you say, if you're studying bats formally - and not just
'playing around'? - then of course specialised equipment is a
must.??
But as this suggestion was included on a hobby DIY microphone
forum,? I thought a 'DIY' option might be appropriate for some
folk?
In my part of the world all the local bats (except the Horseshoes
- which are very rare ) transmit echolocation 'chirps'
below 80KHz.? So 192KHz sampling works well.
I can get quite good quality results as well (here's a pipistrelle
'feeding buzz' slowed down 40 times :??)
I'm not a professional biologist of course, just - as you say -
playing around......
The sort of thing we do, here on a DIY hobby microphone forum ! :)
|
I am an amateur, not scientist. I discovered ultrasonic bat voices completely accidentally thanks advices from MicBuilders members.
?"
there's communication between bats, which is different from echo location"If you try to look at the link below and rewind to the point 0:55? you will find voices that could probably be described as "social". At the beginning (0:55)?you can hear normally as squeals of young bats, and then recording has been slowed down 16 times (they resemble rubbing a balloon with a wet finger)
Op vr 30 apr. 2021 om 13:48 schreef Arjay 1949 < info@...>: On Fri, Apr 30, 2021 at 11:37 AM, Wim wrote:
?
...If you're studying bats and not just playing around, 192 kHz SR just isn't high enough. Hec, even mice can reach 125 kHz sound-wise, if excited. Impossible to record with 192 kHz SR.
As you say, if you're studying bats formally - and not just 'playing around'? - then of course specialised equipment is a must.??
But as this suggestion was included on a hobby DIY microphone forum,? I thought a 'DIY' option might be appropriate for some folk?
In my part of the world all the local bats (except the Horseshoes - which are very rare ) transmit echolocation 'chirps' below 80KHz.? So 192KHz sampling works well.
That's echo location sounds. Even that goes up for most species to over 100 kHz. Then there's communication between bats, which is different from echo location, goes up to very high frequencies, especially, like rodents, when they're angry...
You're confusing what's commonly reported by casual observers who had no way of knowing what's really going on, with science. It starts with microphones being unable to catch anything at those higher frequencies, to people always repeating what's been found, over and over again, because the equipment doesn't exist.
And it's not only bats, of course. Some insect species can transmit and hear up to 300 kHz. Here's a popular science article about it from eight years ago:
Note that's the upper range we know about. We don't know everything, as there isn't a way to capture audio above 300 kHz that I know of... ;-)
Still some unknown territories available to those who want to explore. DIY is certainly acceptable, as there are very knowledgeable people here. I'd be glad to see a ADC with 768 kHz SR, even if it was just 8-bit. And, of course, a mic to go with it. I'm pretty certain some MEMS mics can go up very high. I haven't found one that has an incorporated AD of such a high SR. But I'll keep looking.
|
Le 30/04/2021 à 14:21, Wim a écrit?:
I'd be glad to see a ADC with 768 kHz SR, even if it was just
8-bit. And, of course, a mic to go with it. I'm pretty certain
some MEMS mics can go up very high. I haven't found one that has
an incorporated AD of such a high SR. But I'll keep looking.
There are many, but they are data acquisition cards, which don't use
the usual audio protocols.
Check National Instruments. Note in the same $$$ league, though...?
|
you all are right!
there are two ways to discover ultrasound: one is the diy with a sensor connected to a microphone and the other is to use professional USB ultrasonic microphones.
Both are ok for the intended use.
Here the pros and cons:
The Diy is not so expensive but almost all the commercial recorder even with very high sampling rate have a commercial good quality codec intended for audio and they integrates a low pass filter cutting sound over 22 kHz and only a small part of the ultrasonic sound can reach the recorder and this is what you are recording. For our microphones we are using non audio ADC with no filter (except for anti aliasing). Moreover the amplification of the signal is very crucial and often it brings analogic and digital noise coming from the sensor and from the whole circuit.
Ultramic384K_EVO intergates a dual MEMS in order to increase the sensitivity and to reduce the noise (it's mono)
We are also working hard on a 4 channel 1 MHz (probably 4 MHz) per channel recorder but it is not an easy task and a lot of time is necessary to reach a final design.
Ivano
|
Thanks, Jerry lee. I keep an eye on these industrial ADCs, from time to time.?
I know my 192 kHz SR capable RME FireFace 400 works well up to 80 kHz, as I use that for measurements. No problem with filtering, but obviously, as mentioned, some other interfaces cut of way below that.
I think the bigger problem is finding the "transducers", the mics. I've experimented with piezos, decades ago, but never found any that were sensitive enough to be used in nature recordings.?
The only DIY mics I built, were electret based. Some electrets go up to 50 kHz. Rare ones to 80 kHz or so, so DIY is definitely possible. Easy, even.?
I never looked into externally charged condenser mic capsules, as these weren't readily available before the internet.
Today, I think the best contenders are MEMS mics. The only problem is availability in small quantities. And, for me personally, SMD soldering, as my eyes aren't very good.
These days I no longer have the need to DIY, as I can't beat Dodotronic's offerings. So I simply refer biologists to the Dodotronic site.
I would like to build some of Rog's HF powered mics, to replace my ageing MKH816s. These are certainly more economic than buying new MKHs, or even used ones. ;-)
Maybe I'll find the time one day...
Le 30/04/2021 à 14:21, Wim a écrit?:
I'd be glad to see a ADC with 768 kHz SR, even if it was just
8-bit. And, of course, a mic to go with it. I'm pretty certain
some MEMS mics can go up very high. I haven't found one that has
an incorporated AD of such a high SR. But I'll keep looking.
There are many, but they are data acquisition cards, which don't use
the usual audio protocols.
Check National Instruments. Note in the same $$$ league, though...?
|
On Sat, May 1, 2021 at 12:04 AM, Wim wrote:
I never looked into externally charged condenser mic capsules, as these weren't readily available before the internet.
They are now, but they are typically aimed at audio recording. I have never really looked for true-condense ultrasonic capsules, but I've never seen one advertised, except from the usual suspects, B&K, ACO Pacific,...$$$
|
On Fri, Apr 30, 2021 at 11:37 AM, Wim wrote:
If you can live with a?+/- 10 dB FR spec for the ultrasonic range, the Micbooster MEMS mics will do. IF you're into diy...
?
If you need a complete solution, no DIY, the Dodotronics are the most affordable on the market. Especially if you want frequencies over 80 kHz, which most biologists will need anyways.?
?
I continue to 'play around'? - DIY wise - with my attempts to record bat ultrasound.
?
As Wim mentions above, I can live with the '±10dB FR spec for the ultrasonic range' of the Knowles? SPU0410LRSH MEMs capsule .
(Interestingly, that's the same capsule? used in the Dodotronics mic being referred to in this thread! )
?
What has made quite difference to my amateur experiments this summer is the use of 32 bit float recording.....?
The unpredictable nature of bat ultrasound often means that the (relatively) limited dynamic range of 16 bit recordings need to include gain settings.?
Those can be a pain to implement accurately - outdoors, and in the dark!
?
I have updated my Tascam recorder to? a Zoom F3,? which is a simple 2 channel field recorder, that records as 32 bit floating point.
So no more worries about gain settings!?
A couple of DIY additions (a remote pole mounted phantom powered ultrasonic mic, and a phantom powered heterodyne monitor, to listen to and record to a second channel ) make for a very useful recorder.?
?
As for any FR correction, that's simply applied to the recorded files in my DAW..... With 32 bit float files I've not had to worry about clipping any more - at least not so far!
Knowles publish the ultrasonic response of the FR of their **0410 capsule, so its simple enough to make a similar correction filter response in my DAW.??
?
The one remaining downside of using the F3 is the limitation of the 192KHz sampling rate.?
So, for those who need to look at recording ultrasound above 80KHz, this is not an answer!
?
What is does provide is for the abiltiy to obtain some pretty useful 32 bit recordings of most of the bats, here in the UK.
OK, only fundamentals for pippistrelle calls and the like, but also 2nd - and even? 3rd? - harmonics for Noctule an Serotine bats.
?
Nothing at all of course, should I happen to encounter a Horseshoe bat - which creates fundamental calls in the? +100KHz range.?
That's unlikely? - they're incredibly rare in my part of the world!
?
So, although I'm not a scientific researcher, my DIY hobby projects continue to allow me to improve the quality of my amateur bat recordings.. which I do enjoy doing.
?
If Zoom were to introduce a firmware update that included 384KHz? - or higher - sampling for the F3, then that might change the importance on the use of this 32 bit float device for more serious scientific work ?.....? ?Maybe one day!
?
One of my next projects is to see if I can modify my RF mic design (I'm also 'rogs' in another internet incarnation) to allow it to extend into a useful ultrasonic range ?
?
|
Ivano Pelicella
Andrzej Sochon