Hello, Tech. Yes, reducing the size is a high priority. Incoming sound pressure is not something we can control, but if the device is tiny, the ratio of input pressure to stream displacement becomes more favorable -- leverage, really. Cheers, David
Hello, Klandestino. the audio of the test sequence was the mic recording converted to MP3 for import into Windows MovieMaker II, since MM would not accept the.WAV file. The captured .WAV file sounds better, I may upload that to my website, later. Best Regards, David
Tech; The smoke adds noise, so the less the better. Minimal size parts and cold, smooth (laminar flow) smoke or vapor will be the way to go. Cheers, David
@KlandestinoRec Sorry to report that we haven't done much with the system lately. I did put together a test rig so we could measure frequency response and pattern. Dan and I were very disappointed by the lack of interest in co-development or licensing by mic manufacturers after our big Audio Engineering Society demo in New York last year. Right now, I have to focus on projects that bring in money. Best Regards, David
Interesting David. It would take quite a bit of pressure to move smoke doesn't it? Assuming that's the meagre audio out of one laser beam at test-level density, there's much more room for improvement. Multiple cross-beams perhaps? Is there no latency in which the audio is registered on the laptop? You use Analog-Digital converters but no pre-amps? What sample rates are you working with now? :) Sorry, lots of variables bolting my thoughts about posibilities. rastAsia - Singapore/Netherlands
Hello, Tech.
Yes, reducing the size is a high priority. Incoming sound pressure is not something we can control, but if the device is tiny, the ratio of input pressure to stream displacement becomes more favorable -- leverage, really.
Cheers,
David
Tech;
We're hoping to have finished product at the Audio Engineering Society exhibition in San Francisco this year.
Cheers,
David
Hello, Klandestino.
the audio of the test sequence was the mic recording converted to MP3 for import into Windows MovieMaker II, since MM would not accept the.WAV file. The captured .WAV file sounds better, I may upload that to my website, later.
Best Regards,
David
Tech;
The smoke adds noise, so the less the better. Minimal size parts and cold, smooth (laminar flow) smoke or vapor will be the way to go.
Cheers,
David
@KlandestinoRec
Sorry to report that we haven't done much with the system lately. I did put together a test rig so we could measure frequency response and pattern. Dan and I were very disappointed by the lack of interest in co-development or licensing by mic manufacturers after our big Audio Engineering Society demo in New York last year. Right now, I have to focus on projects that bring in money.
Best Regards,
David
Interesting David.
It would take quite a bit of pressure to move smoke doesn't it? Assuming that's the meagre audio out of one laser beam at test-level density, there's much more room for improvement. Multiple cross-beams perhaps?
Is there no latency in which the audio is registered on the laptop? You use Analog-Digital converters but no pre-amps? What sample rates are you working with now? :) Sorry, lots of variables bolting my thoughts about posibilities.
rastAsia - Singapore/Netherlands