audio telescope?
"Benj" wrote:
"hanson" wrote:
"Don Pearce" wrote:
"Don Pearce" [1] wrote:
A telescope makes things look closer.
A directional microphone makes things sound closer.
"Benj" wrote:
This is pretty much wrong. A telescope is an imaging device that
magnifies the image of distant objects. A directional microphone, on
the other hand, is a directional audio antenna. It is analogous to a
directional radio or other electromagnetic antenna, not a telescope.
One CAN however produce a map of some sonic source with one by
scanning it over the source and recording intensities.
"hanson" wrote:
Bull horns and loudspeakers are certainly NOT
audio telescopes as inferred by other posters.
"Benj" wrote:
True.
"hanson" wrote:
A telescope, audio or video, is a passive instrument
that absorbs incoming info/energy, like these audio
gismos he
http://www.lilesnet.com/didjaknow/eardar/
"Benj" wrote:
I positively LOVE the old gadgets at this site! My all-time favorite
is the Dr. Seuss machine (the last one in the series of photos).
Thanks for the laughs, ha ha ha Hanson.
Note that these gadgets are directional microphones, NOT "audio
telescopes" even though they do map intensities of sources. Oh wait.
The exception would be the huge curved "mirrors" built on the coast.
These doubtless DO form sonic images of the source which can be
scanned by movable microphones or a huge array of them totally
analogous to a telescope where the image plane can be scanned with a
single photocell. The horn units do NOT form images.
hanson wrote:
.... ahahaha.. Well, Jacoby, one can nit-pick the meaning
of any subject line apart, to fit and satisfy one's own whims
and agenda. The classic example is of course is Relativity.
Good talking to your. Happy Passah/Easter to you, Ben,
... and thanks for the laughs... ahahaha... ahahanson
PS:
A few posters recently cranked themselves over my
style of "quoting" without specifying what "quoting" was.
I wonder now.
In the post I got from you, on my OE 6, the line:
="Don Pearce" [1] wrote: =
did NOT appear.
I now **added** this [1] line, because without it seems
that I, hanson, said what was actually expressed by Don.
Did you NOT receive [1], or did you omit line [1]?
Is that the issue that those other folks have bitched about?
|