Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1   Report Post  
Posted to sci.physics, sci.electronics.basics, rec.audio.tech
RichD RichD is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 38
Default acoustics

A few days ago, I was in a room on the third floor, the
window was open, some people were conversating
down at street level. Their words came in, clear as a
bell, almost like being in the same room. I was surprised,
I thought the power would attenuate a lot faster.

Then I wondered if it also works the other way - could they
hear our conversations, just as crisp?

I recall a discussion of optics, and someone remarked:
'I see you, you see me' is pretty much a universal law.

Does that also hold for acoustics?

--
Rich
  #2   Report Post  
Posted to sci.physics,sci.electronics.basics,rec.audio.tech
Ethan Winer Ethan Winer is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 536
Default acoustics

Rich,

'I see you, you see me' is pretty much a universal law.
Does that also hold for acoustics?


If someone is in front of a big "satellite dish" their speaking will be
focused toward you, and the dish will also collect sound from you and focus
it at them. The pattern will be highly directional, but it seems to me this
is indeed a reversible situation.

--Ethan

  #3   Report Post  
Posted to sci.physics, sci.electronics.basics, rec.audio.tech
BobG BobG is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 13
Default acoustics

If they were having a conversation, they were conversing, not
conversating.
  #4   Report Post  
Posted to sci.physics,sci.electronics.basics,rec.audio.tech
Bob Masta Bob Masta is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 19
Default acoustics

On Tue, 25 Dec 2007 09:34:20 -0500, "Ethan Winer" ethanw at
ethanwiner dot com wrote:

Rich,

'I see you, you see me' is pretty much a universal law.
Does that also hold for acoustics?


If someone is in front of a big "satellite dish" their speaking will be
focused toward you, and the dish will also collect sound from you and focus
it at them. The pattern will be highly directional, but it seems to me this
is indeed a reversible situation.


This is the same example I was going to use, but with the opposite
result: The dish (parabolic reflector) focuses incoming parallel
waves to a point. If you put a point source at the focus, then the
output is a collimated beam. That's how headlight/flashlight
reflectors work. The output is not "focused" in the same sense
as when the dish is used as a collector, since there is no place
where the rays/waves focus to a point (assuming an ideal
parabolic reflector).

So in answer to the original question, the "I see you, you see me"
holds, in the sense that the process is not totally unidirectional,
but the efficiencies or sensitivities in each direction can be quite
different.

Best regards,


Bob Masta

DAQARTA v3.50
Data AcQuisition And Real-Time Analysis
www.daqarta.com
Scope, Spectrum, Spectrogram, FREE Signal Generator
Science with your sound card!
  #5   Report Post  
Posted to sci.physics,sci.electronics.basics,rec.audio.tech
Androcles[_2_] Androcles[_2_] is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4
Default acoustics


"BobG" wrote in message
...
: If they were having a conversation, they were conversing, not
: conversating.

On the other hand, there are five metacarpals.
The other side of the coin is the obverse, not the reverse or the converse.
:-)




  #6   Report Post  
Posted to sci.physics, sci.electronics.basics, rec.audio.tech
gearhead gearhead is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2
Default acoustics

On Dec 25, 4:53*am, RichD wrote:
A few days ago, I was in a room on the third floor, the
window was open, some people were conversating
down at street level. *Their words came in, clear as a
bell, almost like being in the same room. *I was surprised,
I thought the power would attenuate a lot faster.

Then I wondered if it also works the other way - could they
hear our conversations, just as crisp?

I recall a discussion of optics, and someone remarked:
'I see you, you see me' is pretty much a universal law.

Does that also hold for acoustics?

--
Rich


Beware generalization.
One could easily come up with a scenario in which sound propagates
between two points with more attenuation in one direction.
Imagine a New York City deli owner closes up for the night. He pulls
down the sheet metal gate and retreats to the back of his store. A
friend comes up, puts his face six inches from the sheet metal barrier
and says something to the owner inside store, not yelling, just
raising his voice somewhat above conversational level. Having his
mouth right up against the gate causes the sheet metal to vibrate and
transmits the sounds inside the store. In the quiet of the store
owner can hear every syllable.
The store owner, standing in the cat food and paper goods aisle 16
feet from the sheet metal gate, responds. As humans are wont to do
when speaking, he uses the same tone of voice. Of course, by the time
the sound of his voice reaches the sheet metal surface sixteen feet
away it softens by a factor of a thousand compared to the power other
guy's voice hit the metal with. Not enough to overcome the damping of
the hinges between the segments of the sheetmetal gate. His friend
can hardly hear his voice, let alone make out the words.
Also, consider that the deli owner's friend is standing out in a
street surrounded by noises: traffic sounds, breezes blowing, people
talking. The whisper of a sound coming through the metal gate into
the noisy environment has such a low SNR that the friend standing
outside is lucky to hear anything at all.

It's still a crapshoot when highly trained architects and engineers
design a modern concert hall whether it will have any good acoustics
at all. Some of the best halls were designed generations ago using a
seat-of-the pants, intuitive approach. Acoustics are notoriously
unpredictable.
  #7   Report Post  
Posted to sci.physics,sci.electronics.basics,rec.audio.tech
John Popelish John Popelish is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 7
Default acoustics

RichD wrote:
A few days ago, I was in a room on the third floor, the
window was open, some people were conversating
down at street level. Their words came in, clear as a
bell, almost like being in the same room. I was surprised,
I thought the power would attenuate a lot faster.

Then I wondered if it also works the other way - could they
hear our conversations, just as crisp?

I recall a discussion of optics, and someone remarked:
'I see you, you see me' is pretty much a universal law.

Does that also hold for acoustics?


I think it does, but only if the radiation pattern is also
reversed. For example, if someone stands at the focus of a
parabolic reflector, it very efficiently captures the radial
sound waves from their voice and produces a nearly plane
wave radiation pattern that travels long distances with
little dispersion. In effect, the parabola converts the
near center radial wave pattern to a far center radial
pattern (the waves act as if their center of radiation is a
lot further away than the speaker actually is) so the square
law attenuation rule still applies, but getting to twice the
distance to have wave strength fall to 1/4 means getting a
lot further away.

Now, think of this acting in reverse. Your voice radiates
in a spherical wave, so falls by square law, from your
mouth. Only a small fraction of that sphere is collected by
the parabola to reach its focus. The non-reversibility is
not the fault of the parabola, but your fault for not
radiating a reverse spherical wave pattern similar to what
you received. That kind of wave front would return to the
parabola and focus almost perfectly reversibly to the one
you received.

Now, if you add another parabola at your location, you will
send almost plane waves (spherical waves as if the center
were far from you), almost the reverse of what you received.

Replace both parabola with ellipsoids and the reversibility
is even better.
--
Regards,

John Popelish
  #8   Report Post  
Posted to sci.physics,sci.electronics.basics,rec.audio.tech
Jamie[_2_] Jamie[_2_] is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 36
Default acoustics

BobG wrote:

If they were having a conversation, they were conversing, not
conversating.

Oh, that sounds so perverse!


--
"I'd rather have a bottle in front of me than a frontal lobotomy"

"Daily Thought:

SOME PEOPLE ARE LIKE SLINKIES. NOT REALLY GOOD FOR ANYTHING BUT
THEY BRING A SMILE TO YOUR FACE WHEN PUSHED DOWN THE STAIRS.
http://webpages.charter.net/jamie_5"

  #9   Report Post  
Posted to sci.physics,sci.electronics.basics,rec.audio.tech
Androcles[_2_] Androcles[_2_] is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4
Default acoustics


"Jamie" t wrote in message
...
: BobG wrote:
:
: If they were having a conversation, they were conversing, not
: conversating.
: Oh, that sounds so perverse!

I'm not conversant with that term.
Please do not be so perversitative, conversate properly.



  #10   Report Post  
Posted to sci.physics,sci.electronics.basics,rec.audio.tech
Timo A. Nieminen Timo A. Nieminen is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1
Default acoustics

On Tue, 25 Dec 2007, RichD wrote:

A few days ago, I was in a room on the third floor, the
window was open, some people were conversating
down at street level. Their words came in, clear as a
bell, almost like being in the same room. I was surprised,
I thought the power would attenuate a lot faster.

Then I wondered if it also works the other way - could they
hear our conversations, just as crisp?

I recall a discussion of optics, and someone remarked:
'I see you, you see me' is pretty much a universal law.

Does that also hold for acoustics?


How well does "I see you, you see me" hold for a telescope? The optical
system is reversible, but that doesn't mean that both ends are equal.

In your example, it sounds like reflection from the next building and the
open windows. Your noise that reflects downwards from the open windows
will make it to street level, but since your room is likely to be quieter
than street level, you're probably talking more quietly than the people on
the street.

--
Timo Nieminen - Home page: http://www.physics.uq.edu.au/people/nieminen/
E-prints: http://eprint.uq.edu.au/view/person/...,_Timo_A..html
Shrine to Spirits: http://www.users.bigpond.com/timo_nieminen/spirits.html



  #11   Report Post  
Posted to sci.physics,sci.electronics.basics,rec.audio.tech
Uncle Al Uncle Al is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4
Default acoustics

RichD wrote:

A few days ago, I was in a room on the third floor, the
window was open, some people were conversating
down at street level. Their words came in, clear as a
bell, almost like being in the same room. I was surprised,
I thought the power would attenuate a lot faster.

Then I wondered if it also works the other way - could they
hear our conversations, just as crisp?

I recall a discussion of optics, and someone remarked:
'I see you, you see me' is pretty much a universal law.

Does that also hold for acoustics?


Whispering galleries and inside elliptic reflectors, yes. This is the
preferred way to build confessionals in church - at one focus - with
rentable scholarship rooms at the other focus.

Parabolic reflector (satellite dish), not so much. Incoming will be
focused but outgoing will be collimated.

--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/lajos.htm#a2
  #12   Report Post  
Posted to sci.physics,sci.electronics.basics,rec.audio.tech
Salmon Egg Salmon Egg is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 11
Default acoustics

On 12/25/07 4:53 AM, in article
, "RichD"
wrote:

A few days ago, I was in a room on the third floor, the
window was open, some people were conversating
down at street level. Their words came in, clear as a
bell, almost like being in the same room. I was surprised,
I thought the power would attenuate a lot faster.

Then I wondered if it also works the other way - could they
hear our conversations, just as crisp?

I recall a discussion of optics, and someone remarked:
'I see you, you see me' is pretty much a universal law.

Does that also hold for acoustics?

--
Rich

It is not quite that simple. Most simple physical processes that are easily
understood is in the regime of linear physics. That includes "small signal"
acoustic and electromagnetic propagation..

In the EM case, it is possible to introduce nonlinearity in the form of a
Faraday cell that produces non-reciprocal propagation. Although probably
possible, my guess is that it is much more difficult to introduce that kind
of non-reciprocal propagation with longitudinal waves.

The real problem arises when you consider noise and clutter. That would
apply to both acoustic and EM propagation. Suppose you are looking at source
of light against a noisy background. Look for an LED generating a signal in
front of the sun. That is a tough job for a naked eye. But if you add
spatial and spectral filtering, your signal to noise ratio can be greatly
increased.

On the other hand, if you are near the LED looking away from the sun toward
a dark background, it would be much easier to see a signal from a similar
LED transmitter without adding technology.

Bill

  #13   Report Post  
Posted to sci.physics,sci.electronics.basics,rec.audio.tech
Ian Iveson Ian Iveson is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 960
Default acoustics


I recall a discussion of optics, and someone remarked:
'I see you, you see me' is pretty much a universal law.

Does that also hold for acoustics?


Wind direction may have an effect on sound but not on light.

Not true for light anyway. What about one-way mirrors?

Ian


  #14   Report Post  
Posted to sci.physics,sci.electronics.basics,rec.audio.tech
Don Klipstein Don Klipstein is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 28
Default acoustics

In , Ian Iveson wrote:

I recall a discussion of optics, and someone remarked:
'I see you, you see me' is pretty much a universal law.

Does that also hold for acoustics?


Wind direction may have an effect on sound but not on light.

Not true for light anyway. What about one-way mirrors?


One-way mirrors are actually not directional. They are mostly
reflective and slightly transmissive, and installed between rooms with
greatly different illumination levels. If you flip the mirror around,
the effect of that "partially silvered" surface will not change.

- Don Klipstein )
  #15   Report Post  
Posted to sci.physics,sci.electronics.basics,rec.audio.tech
Phil Allison Phil Allison is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,444
Default acoustics


"RichD"

A few days ago, I was in a room on the third floor, the
window was open, some people were conversating
down at street level. Their words came in, clear as a
bell, almost like being in the same room. I was surprised,
I thought the power would attenuate a lot faster.

Then I wondered if it also works the other way - could they
hear our conversations, just as crisp?



** Almost certainly not.


I recall a discussion of optics, and someone remarked:
'I see you, you see me' is pretty much a universal law.

Does that also hold for acoustics?



** It ain't true of optics or acoustics.

Egs. A peep hole device allows you to see who is outside your door while
being unobserved, similarly a periscope or telescope allows an observer to
be unseen.

A small hole in a wall of a room will allow you to hear what is happening
outside if you press your ear against it - however, very little of your
voice energy escapes the room through that hole.





....... Phil




  #16   Report Post  
Posted to sci.physics,sci.electronics.basics,rec.audio.tech
Chris Hornbeck Chris Hornbeck is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,744
Default acoustics

On Tue, 25 Dec 2007 11:08:38 -0500, John Popelish
wrote:


Now, if you add another parabola at your location, you will
send almost plane waves (spherical waves as if the center
were far from you), almost the reverse of what you received.


The Sante Fe, NM Childrens Museum has a wonderful outdoor
example of this. Two parabolic dishes, doubtlessly C-band
castoffs, face each other across an open space of maybe
fifty feet, centers at a young person's head height.

In front of each dish is a post-mounted yoke, into which you
place your chin. Back-to-back conversation, outdoors, at
about fifty feet and normal conversational volume - it's
big fun.

Much thanks,

Chris Hornbeck
  #17   Report Post  
Posted to sci.physics,sci.electronics.basics,rec.audio.tech
Ethan Winer Ethan Winer is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 536
Default acoustics

Bob,

The output is not "focused" in the same sense as when the dish is used as
a collector


Yes, but the person away from the collector isn't a "large" source either.
So it still seems it would be 100 percent reciprocal, no?

This is like half of a pair of reflectors like you see in parks, where two
people can be hundreds of yards away and talk as if they're next to each
other.

--Ethan

  #18   Report Post  
Posted to sci.physics,sci.electronics.basics,rec.audio.tech
John Larkin John Larkin is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 151
Default acoustics

On Tue, 25 Dec 2007 09:34:20 -0500, "Ethan Winer" ethanw at
ethanwiner dot com wrote:

Rich,

'I see you, you see me' is pretty much a universal law.


Not if I'm in the dark, and you're in the sun. Or if I'm hiding in the
bushes and you're not. Or if I have a telescope but you don't.

John


  #19   Report Post  
Posted to sci.physics,sci.electronics.basics,rec.audio.tech
Arny Krueger Arny Krueger is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 17,262
Default acoustics

"RichD" wrote in message

A few days ago, I was in a room on the third floor, the
window was open, some people were conversating
down at street level. Their words came in, clear as a
bell, almost like being in the same room. I was
surprised, I thought the power would attenuate a lot
faster.

Then I wondered if it also works the other way - could
they hear our conversations, just as crisp?

I recall a discussion of optics, and someone remarked:
'I see you, you see me' is pretty much a universal law.

Does that also hold for acoustics?


Yes, acoustical reciprocity exists.


  #20   Report Post  
Posted to sci.physics,sci.electronics.basics,rec.audio.tech
Rich Grise Rich Grise is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 61
Default acoustics

On Tue, 25 Dec 2007 15:30:57 +0000, Androcles wrote:
"BobG" wrote in message

: If they were having a conversation, they were conversing, not :
conversating.

On the other hand, there are five metacarpals. The other side of the
coin is the obverse, not the reverse or the converse. :-)


No, actually, the obverse is the "front" of the coin, usually considered
to be "heads", and the "tails" side is the reverse.

Hope This Helps!
Rich



  #21   Report Post  
Posted to sci.physics,sci.electronics.basics,rec.audio.tech
Don Klipstein Don Klipstein is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 28
Default acoustics

In article , John Larkin wrote:
On Tue, 25 Dec 2007 09:34:20 -0500, "Ethan Winer" ethanw at
ethanwiner dot com wrote:

Rich,

'I see you, you see me' is pretty much a universal law.


Not if I'm in the dark, and you're in the sun. Or if I'm hiding in the
bushes and you're not. Or if I have a telescope but you don't.


I thought this refers to a principle that when a ray is traced from
origin to destination, percentage loss at each lossy point are the same in
both directions, percentage reflected by partially reflective objects
in the way is the same for both directions, and percentage making it from
origin to destination are the same in both directions.

Of course, polarizers and polarized light can complicate this, but we
can't have a situation where there is a container that light can enter but
not exit along the same path in a way that allows a thermal radiator to
heat a target in the container to a higher temperature than the thermal
radiator is at.

- Don Klipstein )
  #22   Report Post  
Posted to sci.physics,sci.electronics.basics,rec.audio.tech
Androcles[_2_] Androcles[_2_] is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4
Default acoustics


"Rich Grise" wrote in message
news:HGAcj.83626$GV4.20532@trnddc05...
: On Tue, 25 Dec 2007 15:30:57 +0000, Androcles wrote:
: "BobG" wrote in message
:
: : If they were having a conversation, they were conversing, not :
: conversating.
:
: On the other hand, there are five metacarpals. The other side of the
: coin is the obverse, not the reverse or the converse. :-)
:
: No, actually, the obverse is the "front" of the coin, usually considered
: to be "heads", and the "tails" side is the reverse.
:
: Hope This Helps!

No, in fact, observe the other side is the inside and conversely
has a reversed head on the reverse and a converse tail on
the reverse of the obverse.
Hope that is declarified.






  #23   Report Post  
Posted to sci.physics,sci.electronics.basics,rec.audio.tech
Sjouke Burry Sjouke Burry is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 7
Default acoustics

Androcles wrote:
"Rich Grise" wrote in message
news:HGAcj.83626$GV4.20532@trnddc05...
: On Tue, 25 Dec 2007 15:30:57 +0000, Androcles wrote:
: "BobG" wrote in message
:
: : If they were having a conversation, they were conversing, not :
: conversating.
:
: On the other hand, there are five metacarpals. The other side of the
: coin is the obverse, not the reverse or the converse. :-)
:
: No, actually, the obverse is the "front" of the coin, usually considered
: to be "heads", and the "tails" side is the reverse.
:
: Hope This Helps!

No, in fact, observe the other side is the inside and conversely
has a reversed head on the reverse and a converse tail on
the reverse of the obverse.
Hope that is declarified.


They do have pills for what ails you.
In the mean time: stay calm.
  #24   Report Post  
Posted to sci.physics,sci.electronics.basics,rec.audio.tech
Androcles[_2_] Androcles[_2_] is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4
Default acoustics


"Sjouke Burry" wrote in message
...
: Androcles wrote:
: "Rich Grise" wrote in message
: news:HGAcj.83626$GV4.20532@trnddc05...
: : On Tue, 25 Dec 2007 15:30:57 +0000, Androcles wrote:
: : "BobG" wrote in message
: :
: : : If they were having a conversation, they were conversing, not :
: : conversating.
: :
: : On the other hand, there are five metacarpals. The other side of the
: : coin is the obverse, not the reverse or the converse. :-)
: :
: : No, actually, the obverse is the "front" of the coin, usually
considered
: : to be "heads", and the "tails" side is the reverse.
: :
: : Hope This Helps!
:
: No, in fact, observe the other side is the inside and conversely
: has a reversed head on the reverse and a converse tail on
: the reverse of the obverse.
: Hope that is declarified.
:
:
: They do have pills for what ails you.
: In the mean time: stay calm.

Nah, I just ignore ****headed trolls like you that are not amused
by a simple play on words you are incapable of understanding
and rely on insult for their kicks. **** off, you ****ing moron.
*plonk*



  #25   Report Post  
Posted to sci.physics,sci.electronics.basics,rec.audio.tech
Bob Masta Bob Masta is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 19
Default acoustics

On Wed, 26 Dec 2007 09:01:06 -0500, "Ethan Winer" ethanw at
ethanwiner dot com wrote:

Bob,

The output is not "focused" in the same sense as when the dish is used as
a collector


Yes, but the person away from the collector isn't a "large" source either.
So it still seems it would be 100 percent reciprocal, no?

This is like half of a pair of reflectors like you see in parks, where two
people can be hundreds of yards away and talk as if they're next to each
other.


You have given the answer in your example: If one reflector was all
it took to get 100% reciprocal operation, then they wouldn't use
two reflectors.

Suppose we think of this with light beams instead of sound waves,
and use laser pointers so that we have a planar wave front. The
guy without a reflector can aim his beam at the distant reflector,
which might have an area of (say) 10 square feet, and anywhere
he aims within that area the beam will be captured and received
more-or-less 100% at the focal point. But the guy at the focal
point can't do the same thing in reverse. He either needs to aim
his beam *exactly* at the other guy (avoiding the reflector, or
bouncing it on a careful trajectory), or else he needs many, many
beams at slightly different trajectories so that they will cover
the same 10 square-foot area at full intensity at the reflectorless
guy's end.

Best regards,


Bob Masta

DAQARTA v3.50
Data AcQuisition And Real-Time Analysis
www.daqarta.com
Scope, Spectrum, Spectrogram, FREE Signal Generator
Science with your sound card!


  #26   Report Post  
Posted to sci.physics,sci.electronics.basics,rec.audio.tech
Ethan Winer Ethan Winer is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 536
Default acoustics

Bob,

If one reflector was all it took to get 100% reciprocal operation, then
they wouldn't use two reflectors.


I don't think that follows. With only one reflector, the gain would be
insufficient for EITHER person to hear the other. Again, I'm not arguing too
strongly because I don't really know for sure. But so far I can't see why
it's not reciprocal.

The guy without a reflector can aim his beam at the distant reflector,
which might have an area of (say) 10 square feet, and anywhere he aims
within that area the beam will be captured and received more-or-less 100%
at the focal point.


Yes, but a person talking is not a beam.

--Ethan

  #27   Report Post  
Posted to sci.physics,sci.electronics.basics,rec.audio.tech
John Larkin John Larkin is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 151
Default acoustics

On Wed, 26 Dec 2007 23:20:18 +0000 (UTC), (Don
Klipstein) wrote:

In article , John Larkin wrote:
On Tue, 25 Dec 2007 09:34:20 -0500, "Ethan Winer" ethanw at
ethanwiner dot com wrote:

Rich,

'I see you, you see me' is pretty much a universal law.


Not if I'm in the dark, and you're in the sun. Or if I'm hiding in the
bushes and you're not. Or if I have a telescope but you don't.


I thought this refers to a principle that when a ray is traced from
origin to destination, percentage loss at each lossy point are the same in
both directions, percentage reflected by partially reflective objects
in the way is the same for both directions, and percentage making it from
origin to destination are the same in both directions.

Of course, polarizers and polarized light can complicate this, but we
can't have a situation where there is a container that light can enter but
not exit along the same path in a way that allows a thermal radiator to
heat a target in the container to a higher temperature than the thermal
radiator is at.

- Don Klipstein )


There are optical isolators, like electrical isolators, that let light
go from port A to port B, but block light from B to A. They violate no
laws of thermodynamics, because they absorb the light from B, rather
than reflecting it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Optical_isolator


John

  #28   Report Post  
Posted to sci.physics,sci.electronics.basics,rec.audio.tech
Richard Crowley Richard Crowley is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4,172
Default acoustics


"John Larkin" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 26 Dec 2007 23:20:18 +0000 (UTC), (Don
Klipstein) wrote:

In article , John Larkin
wrote:
On Tue, 25 Dec 2007 09:34:20 -0500, "Ethan Winer" ethanw at
ethanwiner dot com wrote:

Rich,

'I see you, you see me' is pretty much a universal law.

Not if I'm in the dark, and you're in the sun. Or if I'm hiding in the
bushes and you're not. Or if I have a telescope but you don't.


I thought this refers to a principle that when a ray is traced from
origin to destination, percentage loss at each lossy point are the same in
both directions, percentage reflected by partially reflective objects
in the way is the same for both directions, and percentage making it from
origin to destination are the same in both directions.

Of course, polarizers and polarized light can complicate this, but we
can't have a situation where there is a container that light can enter but
not exit along the same path in a way that allows a thermal radiator to
heat a target in the container to a higher temperature than the thermal
radiator is at.

- Don Klipstein )


There are optical isolators, like electrical isolators, that let light
go from port A to port B, but block light from B to A. They violate no
laws of thermodynamics, because they absorb the light from B, rather
than reflecting it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Optical_isolator


Or just watch them interviewing the suspects on Law & Order :-)


  #29   Report Post  
Posted to sci.physics,sci.electronics.basics,rec.audio.tech
Bob Masta Bob Masta is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 19
Default acoustics

On Thu, 27 Dec 2007 11:51:39 -0500, "Ethan Winer" ethanw at
ethanwiner dot com wrote:

Bob,

If one reflector was all it took to get 100% reciprocal operation, then
they wouldn't use two reflectors.


I don't think that follows. With only one reflector, the gain would be
insufficient for EITHER person to hear the other. Again, I'm not arguing too
strongly because I don't really know for sure. But so far I can't see why
it's not reciprocal.


The guy without a reflector can aim his beam at the distant reflector,
which might have an area of (say) 10 square feet, and anywhere he aims
within that area the beam will be captured and received more-or-less 100%
at the focal point.


Yes, but a person talking is not a beam.



The reflector provides gain for the listener, by concentrating the
sound from a large area down to a small area at his ear. Let's
say that the reflector is 10 square feet, so all sound impinging
on that area is concentrated down to his ear due to the nature
of the parabolic shape. The gain of this operation could easily
be 100:1 if the ear catches only 0.1 square foot.

Now when we turn around and speak into the reflector
it *spreads* the sound from the small source (mouth) over
that same 10 square feet. Is there gain here? Yes, but
not the same as the prior case: Here the only gain (as far
as the guy at the other end without a reflector is concerned) is
due to the fact that without the reflector the sound would be
a spherical source from the mouth, falling off with the square
of distance. With the reflector, assuming everything was just
right, the best you could hope for would be sound that was
collimated into a plane wave that did not fall off with distance.
But the sound would still be spread over 10 square feet in
the ideal case, and much more in reality. The ear of the listener on
the other end only catches a tiny percent of that without a
reflector. If his ear only catches 0.1 square foot, there is a *loss*
of 100:1 compared to having a reflector.

Best regards,


Bob Masta

DAQARTA v3.50
Data AcQuisition And Real-Time Analysis
www.daqarta.com
Scope, Spectrum, Spectrogram, FREE Signal Generator
Science with your sound card!
  #30   Report Post  
Posted to sci.physics,sci.electronics.basics,rec.audio.tech
Ethan Winer Ethan Winer is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 536
Default acoustics

Bob,

Let's say that the reflector is 10 square feet, so all sound impinging on
that area is concentrated down to his ear due to the nature of the
parabolic shape. The gain of this operation could easily be 100:1 if the
ear catches only 0.1 square foot.


Yes, but my point is that the source / person is not 10 square feet!

--Ethan



  #31   Report Post  
Posted to sci.physics, sci.electronics.basics, rec.audio.tech
[email protected] dpierce.cartchunk.org@gmail.com is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 334
Default acoustics

On Dec 28, 10:46 am, "Ethan Winer" ethanw at ethanwiner dot com
wrote:
Bob,

Let's say that the reflector is 10 square feet, so all sound impinging on
that area is concentrated down to his ear due to the nature of the
parabolic shape. The gain of this operation could easily be 100:1 if the
ear catches only 0.1 square foot.


Yes, but my point is that the source / person is not 10 square feet!


So far, everyone is making a bunch of assumptions,
many of which simply don't hold, with the result being
that the conclusions people are reaching are HIGHLY
suspect.

For example:

1. A parbolic reflector, has TWO focal points. If the
source or receiver is placed at the principle focal
point, the other focal point is an infinite distance
away and the system then will focus an incoming
set of parallel rays to the focal point and vice versa.
Move the focal point farther from the principle point,
and the other focal point now moves closer to the
system and the incoming/outgoing rays are no
longer parallel, but convergent.

Asserting that a parabolic disk will focus a set of
parallel rays to a small point ASSUME that the source
or receiver is placed at the infinity focus point of the
parabola.

A reciprocal transmitter-receiver system would
consist of two parabolic reflectors, with the
transmitter and receiver placed at the principle
focus of each reflector. The transmitter would
emit a parallel bundle of rays which the receiver
could refocus back to the focal point again.

BUT, a system does not REQUIRE a reciprocal
physical arrangement. You could have, say, a
transmitter with no reflector placed 100 feet away
and a receiver with its reflectors aimed at it and the
receiver moved out somewhat to compensate.

2. The ability of any such system to focus to a small
point is a function of the size of the reflector and
the wavelengths involved. With a reflector a few
FEET in diameter and wavelengths ranging from
several inches to many feet, the efficacy of a parabolic
reflector is limited. At low frequencies where the
wavelength is large compared to the dish, it simply
doesn't focus anything. At higher frequencies and
thus shrter wavelengths, the region of focus is,
essentially, defined by the wavelength. I.e. at say
1 kHz, you are simply NOT going to have any precision
in focusing smaller than a couple of feet at best.



  #32   Report Post  
Posted to sci.physics, sci.electronics.basics, rec.audio.tech
Benj Benj is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 46
Default acoustics

On Dec 25, 3:25 pm, Uncle Al wrote:

Whispering galleries and inside elliptic reflectors, yes. This is the
preferred way to build confessionals in church - at one focus - with
rentable scholarship rooms at the other focus.


Really? I"m going to have to look into this. I"m thinking I'd really
like to line up a few "scholarship" hours at peak confession times!

Parabolic reflector (satellite dish), not so much. Incoming will be
focused but outgoing will be collimated.


Obviously the "whispering gallery" setup would use TWO parabolic
reflectors which is the equivalent of the elliptic chamber. Both are
conic sections and work nearly the same. A single parabolic reflector
is the usual microphone setup. But a single reflector is the "I see
you, you see me" equivalent of only ONE person with a telescope as
opposed to each person having one. If both persons have similar
telescopes then that is the optical equivalent of a "whispering
chamber". And I might mention that acoustic lenses exist as well so a
reflector isn't essential to create the effects.

  #33   Report Post  
Posted to sci.physics,sci.electronics.basics,rec.audio.tech
Ethan Winer Ethan Winer is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 536
Default acoustics

wrote:

.... snip ...

Interesting stuff.
So with only one dish, is "I see you, you see me" true?

--Ethan
  #34   Report Post  
Posted to sci.physics, sci.electronics.basics, rec.audio.tech
[email protected] dpierce.cartchunk.org@gmail.com is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 334
Default acoustics

On Dec 29, 10:11 am, "Ethan Winer" ethanw at ethanwiner dot com
wrote:
wrote:

... snip ...

Interesting stuff.
So with only one dish, is "I see you, you see me" true?


Well, look at the optical analogy: with piece of equipment
available for under $5,000, you can see details on the moon
with a resolution on the order of a kilometer or less. But
the person standing on the moon without such an optical aid
couldn't even begin to resolve the county you live in.

It's a somewhat extreme example of the general case, but
going back to the acoustic equivalent, there is gain going in
both directions, but it is not entirely symmetrical. Assume
both "transmitters (i.e., persons speaking) radiate omni-
directionally. In the case of the speaker and no reflector,
the entire energy is emitted in all directions, and a far away
reflector intercepts only a very small portion of the radiated
power. However, the speaker is placed at the principle
focal point of the reflector, the reflector intercepts a much
larger portion of the total radiated power and collimates
it into a beam.

Imagine, for instance, a 1 meter diameter reflector and
the receiver and transmitter placed 30 meters apart.
In the former case, the reflector at the receiving end
intercepts only about 0.11% of the total radiated acoustic
power of the transmitter, whereas in the latter case, where
the focal length might be on the order of a half meter, it
intercepts maybe 30% of the energy.

However, the use of the reflector at the transmitter does
not, as assumed in the discussion, result in a collimated
beam with no divergence, for the reasons mentioned
previously. Rather, it, too, has divergence which is wave-
length and thus frequency dependent: more divergence
at lower frequencies than at high.

Be all that as it may, the result is more along the lines of
"I hear you a bit better than you hear me., or maybe not,
depends." :-)
  #35   Report Post  
Posted to sci.physics,sci.electronics.basics,rec.audio.tech
Ethan Winer Ethan Winer is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 536
Default acoustics

Be all that as it may, the result is more along the lines of
"I hear you a bit better than you hear me., or maybe not,
depends." :-)


Thanks.


  #36   Report Post  
Posted to sci.physics, sci.electronics.basics, rec.audio.tech
syntheticwave syntheticwave is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 18
Default acoustics

On Dec 27 2007, 2:52*pm, (Bob Masta) wrote:
On Wed, 26 Dec 2007 09:01:06 -0500, "Ethan Winer" ethanw at

ethanwiner dot com wrote:
Bob,


The output is not "focused" in the same sense as when the dish is used as
a collector


Yes, but the person away from the collector isn't a "large" source either..
So it still seems it would be 100 percent reciprocal, no?


This is like half of a pair of reflectors like you see in parks, where two
people can be hundreds of yards away and talk as if they're next to each
other.


You have given the answer in your example: *If one reflector was all
it took to get 100% reciprocal operation, then they wouldn't use
two reflectors.

Suppose we think of this with light beams instead of sound waves,
and use laser pointers so that we have a planar wave front. * The
guy without a reflector can aim his beam at the distant reflector,
which might have an area of (say) 10 square feet, and anywhere
he aims within that area the beam will be captured and received
more-or-less 100% at the focal point. But the guy at the focal
point can't do the same thing in reverse. *He either needs to aim
his beam *exactly* at the other guy (avoiding the reflector, or
bouncing it on a careful trajectory), or else he needs many, many
beams at slightly different trajectories so that they will cover
the same 10 square-foot area at full intensity at the reflectorless
guy's end. *

Best regards,

Bob Masta

* * * * * * * DAQARTA *v3.50
* *Data AcQuisition And Real-Time Analysis
* * * * * * *www.daqarta.com
Scope, Spectrum, Spectrogram, FREE Signal Generator
* * * * Science with your sound card!




In that connection seems a procedure interesting, restores acoustic
wave fronts according huygens principle:

http:www.syntheticwave.de

H.







  #37   Report Post  
Posted to sci.physics, sci.electronics.basics, rec.audio.tech
syntheticwave syntheticwave is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 18
Default acoustics

On Jan 16, 12:37 am, syntheticwave wrote:

In that connection seems a procedure interesting, restores acoustic
wave fronts according huygens principle:

http:www.syntheticwave.de



... possibly does not become clear from the link above alone, why
connected that animation with the topic "see I you, you see me"
discussed here. Therefore I would like to justify, what I want to
express by the link:
We must include the Huygens principle ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Huygens_principle
)
into the view of the topic. Thus acoustic waves can be bundled or
diverged or nearly at will aligned by the represented loudspeaker
field. Just suitably delay for each elementary wave would be need.
Perhaps that becomes clearer with the "acoustic curtain" animation:
http://www.syntheticwave.de/acoustic%20curtain.htm

With the light waves the conditions are alike in principle yet, but
both propagation speed and wavelength are by completely different
dimensions. If the light is not coherent, it hardly comes to
extinctions and overlays, as with the many longer acoustic waves the
case is. Therefore applies see I you, you normally sees me. But
whether I hear you, it depends on the fact how the elementary waves
superimpose.


Greetings Helmut, and sorry for my bad English ļ


Reply
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules

Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Gym acoustics [email protected] Pro Audio 8 December 5th 05 04:56 AM
fm-acoustics [email protected] Pro Audio 0 July 15th 04 04:22 PM
Psycho-acoustics or actual acoustics? sanitarium Car Audio 1 February 6th 04 10:15 PM
Acoustics Mkuller High End Audio 0 January 8th 04 11:08 PM
Acoustics? langvid High End Audio 2 January 5th 04 09:38 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 05:21 PM.

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 AudioBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.
 

About Us

"It's about Audio and hi-fi"