[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: domestic audio surveillance in LA, Redwood City (fwd)

At 07:33 AM 1/6/00 -0600, Jim Choate wrote:
>----- Forwarded message from Reese -----
>Date: Wed, 05 Jan 2000 20:06:30 -1000
>From: Reese <[email protected]>
>Subject: Re: domestic audio surveillance in LA, Redwood City (fwd)
>www.sound-labs.com isn't registered, yet, and I doubt just about any decent
>electrostatic speaker will faithfully reproduce a gunshot.
>----- End of forwarded message from Reese -----
>What do you mean it isn't registerd? I had no problem looking at their

www.sound-labs.com isn't registered.
www.soundlabs.com is, but it's a software company.

>Electrostatis speakers are the most faithful reproduction mechanism there
>is for audio. They have the same sort of responce characteristics as 
>microphones. If an electrostatic speaker won't reproduce it then a
>won't pick it up, and therefore the software and hardware that get driven by 
>that microphone won't see that signal in the first place.

That's my point.  A gunshot, at close range, would probably overmodulate
both a microphone, and the speaker you try to reproduce it on.  I'm sure a
speaker can be driven to produce as much, or more db, but not in the same
timeframe, I'm thinking.  It wouldn't be a faithful reproduction, although
it may serve the purpose (of spoofing the accoustic targeting system).