[HN Gopher] DIY Acoustic Camera ___________________________________________________________________ DIY Acoustic Camera Author : tomsonj Score : 295 points Date : 2021-10-27 15:35 UTC (7 hours ago) (HTM) web link (navat.substack.com) (TXT) w3m dump (navat.substack.com) | nyanpasu64 wrote: | Based on my experience building corrscope, I feel this is the | kind of project that will outgrow Python once you want to | implement your own low-level algorithms, make it embeddable or | shippable as an application, or parallelize it. I wonder what's | the easiest way to port Python DSP code and UIs to a | compiled/etc. language. | achn wrote: | It would be interesting to see how well this could detect non | incident sounds - for instance detecting reflective/resonant | hotspots in an audio mixing/recording room. | kabla wrote: | Works very well for that! At least on high enough frequencies. | Source: have done something similar. | geokon wrote: | Actual information on how it's done is here: | | http://www.acoular.org/literature/index.html | davidb_ wrote: | Combining this with Motion Amplification/Video Magnification [1] | could result in some very interesting visuals and applications | for factory equipment. | | [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rEoc0YoALt0 Explainer Youtube | video about Motion Amplification | 5faulker wrote: | Thus another surveillance tool is born. | fragmede wrote: | It has been rumored that the US military has heartbeat | sensors (aka real-life minimap) for decades now, would this | really be a _new_ one? | runj__ wrote: | Then put a gun on it and you have something even worse! | elfchief wrote: | I don't suppose you have any idea if there are publicly | available motion amplification tools, yet? | johndough wrote: | The authors of the predecessor method released some of their | code: | | https://people.csail.mit.edu/mrub/vidmag/#code | noodlesUK wrote: | A starting point for the MIT research in question can be | found here https://people.csail.mit.edu/mrub/vidmag/ | Wistar wrote: | That is a great video. | loxias wrote: | Interesting. I'm casually familiar with Video Amplification | (the approach at SIGGRAPH a decade ago IIRC), but have never | implemented it myself. A really cool result, using the changes | in the phase of the basis vectors over time to infer motion, | without having to do dense optic flow. | | I'm curious how you would combine acoustic localization in 3 | space with motion amplification. I unreservedly agree that they | are both "super cool", but don't see how they tie together to | make something greater than the sum of their parts. | | The only thing I thought of is, if two data channels (video, | audio) are registered accurately enough, one could maybe | combine the spatially limited frequency information from both | channels for higher accuracy? | | For example: voxel 10,10,10 is determined (by the audio system) | to have a high amount of coherent sound with a fundamental | frequency of 2khz. Can that 2khz + 10,10,10 be passed to the | video system to do something.... cool? useful? If we know that | sound of a certain spectral profile is coming from a specific | region, is it useful to amplify (or deaden) video motion with a | same frequency? | epmaybe wrote: | Motion and color amplification from wu et Al are underused in | my opinion. Maybe because under patent? | johndough wrote: | Patents will expire starting from 2035 up to 2040 depending | on the method used. | londons_explore wrote: | I'd like to see this done with a single microphone and a moving | 'sound mirror' like a fan. | | The fan blades should cause doppler shift and changing amplitude | that varies based on the location of the sound. | | I suspect that after just a few seconds, this would give better | information than an array of 16 microphones. | jcims wrote: | That would work for amplitude-based location but this is using | phase correlation to find time of flight difference to each | microphone. With a fan idea you would get a lot of phase drop | outs and smearing that I think would make that difficult. | | Not to say wouldn't work, you would get results, but they will | be based in a different strategy. | londons_explore wrote: | But the phase smearing is useful information... | | Sure, the maths is complex... But there is only one source | soundwave and location which causes a given smearing. The | challenge is to find it... | thatsadude wrote: | Not a single microphone but there is acoustic vector sensor | which can also give you the sound's direction. Very expensive | though, several Israel companies use them for detecting | gunshot's direction. | https://www.ese.wustl.edu/~nehorai/research/avs/avssensor.ht... | loxias wrote: | Do you know anything about these "acoustic vector sensors"? | | When I first saw a popular science article about them, I got | excited about incorporating them into an array, but couldn't | find any technical details, just a lot of what looked like | vaporware. Is it anything more than three orthogonal pressure | sensors? (aka.... 3 microphones?) | dendrite9 wrote: | Microflown makes one, it uses very small temperature | differences. You can look for acoustic particle velocity | sensor to find more about how they work. I can't remember | the paper, otherwise I'd provide a better link. | https://www.microflown.com/products/standard-probes | | This PDF may be helpful http://past.isma- | isaac.be/downloads/isma2010/papers/isma2010... | loxias wrote: | _temperature_ differences. Ah. Thanks for that paper, | it's enlightening. | cameron_b wrote: | Somehow I'm imagining doing the inverse kinematic model of | a Leslie speaker cabinet by measuring a single point of spl | over time | [deleted] | amelius wrote: | I'd like to see a video with an acoustic mirror. | maxcan wrote: | Is it possible to tune this to specific frequencies to detect | mosquitos? Their audio signal is pretty weak but its also a very | specific frequency. This would definitely help in the hunting and | killing of the little bastards. | potatoman22 wrote: | If the mosquito frequency is less than half of the sampling | rate of these mics, then yes. Very basically, these algorithms | work by looking at the delay between each mic picking up a | certain frequency, and calculating the direction of the sound | wave from that. | dylan604 wrote: | No need for the hi-tech equipment for finding mosquitoes. Just | take me to the spot you're looking, and they will find me. | pmontra wrote: | A mosquito racket increases efficiency at least 10 times. If | you direct the output of that camera to a VR visor you can | chase and zap them in the dark. | loxias wrote: | Yes. One surprising result is that weak sounds, even some below | the threshold of hearing, are easy to detect, provided you have | clear line of sight and no turbulence. | wcfields wrote: | Following Someone1234's comment[1] Stupid idea(?): Attach a | mid-power laser to zap bugs, could even be a DIY project with | an arduino and an PTZ mount. | | [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29015202 | mLuby wrote: | Just be careful not to blind yourself. Even a narrow | flashlight cone could be enough for you to find and kill the | bug by hand. | | Link to a previous post about this mosquito turret concept: | https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27552516 | loxias wrote: | I'm not the original author, however, ages ago I invented what's | now being called "acoustic camera". (Specifically, the SOTA on | the math side for precision, accuracy.) | | The resolution is fine enough that with COTS parts, I can record | my signature simply by sketching it out with my fingernail on a | table. | | Every few years I dust this off and play with it, wondering if | there's some application or other way to "turn this into money" | (an increasing concern in the coming months...<tiny>PLZ HIRE | ME</>), but I'm not a "product guy". | | I'll answer some questions about the technology, but would really | love to know if anyone here has advice on somehow using this | achievement to pay rent. :) | jbay808 wrote: | It would be great if I could point something at a noisy machine | and find out precisely which panel is loose and vibrating! | loxias wrote: | Really? Would it be "great" enough that you'd pay for such a | device? If so how much? (would love to continue over email) | joshmarlow wrote: | I have absolutely no knowledge about this domain, so this idea | 1) might not be viable and 2) is not a full developed product | idea - but I thought it would be fun to get your thoughts. | | Could you put some sound sensors _inside_ of some mechanical | structure and use the acoustics to figure out where some | physical contact is happening on the _outside_ of the | structure? | | Specific Application: prosthetics devices that can - with only | a few acoustic sensors - determine where the 'touch' was on the | outside of the device. | | If viable, it may be similarly useful for robots - or any | machine in general - that needs a low-hardware (and thus low | cost) method of getting course tactile information around it's | boundary. | cameron_b wrote: | Videoconferencing applications are implementing this in | conjunction with face detection to "steer" wide angle cameras | into "talking head" shots. | | The current tech is spooky trash, parlor trick-quality from | what I've used. Every time we use some of the automatic gizmos | in conference rooms, we get tickets to make it stop. | | Pick your favorite top video conferencing platform or camera | maker and they'll want to improve what they have. The Creepy - | "Just works" jump is a big one. | | PS., the industry trade show is happening RIGHT NOW at | https://www.infocommshow.org/ | robmiller wrote: | I am an acoustics consultant who designs buildings with | architects, then sees them through construction. Doors intended | to isolate noisy rooms regularly underperform, whether due to | manufacturing or installation problems. Lots of fingerpointing | when we call it out on project sites, and having a camera show | the weaknesses due to the perimeter gasketing, frame, door | leaf, or wall construction surrounding the door would provide | the necessary visual for contractors to see the problems we are | pointing out. | _spduchamp wrote: | You want to pay the rent? Don't make a product, make a service, | mainly, "WHERE IS THAT ANNOYING SOUND COMING FROM? SERVICE". | People will pay you to locate sources of irritating sounds. | loxias wrote: | I have "inverse aptitude" at knowing what should be a | product. :) Never trust me to know what would sell or not. In | fact, "bet against whatever I think". ;) | | In my ideal (and in the best jobs I've had in the past), | someone finds me (or I find someone) who I can share a list | of "cool things I've figured out how to do, but don't know | the usefulness of", and that person then tells me what to | build. | | For your "where is that annoying sound coming from?" service, | what sort of scale do you imagine, and what form factor? | | A handheld consumer device with a range of ~10m which points | in the direction of the loudest thing? | | How much would you pay for such a device? (would love your | thoughts in email) | _trampeltier wrote: | In industrial maintenace are such cameras in use to find air | leaks in pneumatic. The model from Fluke is something like 20k | USD. Because of this super high price, I don't know anybody who | has a such model. So ask another company, if they are | interested. | paulirwin wrote: | Not saying it's exactly the same thing, as I don't think a | video overlay was involved, but I know someone that got their | PhD in this area in the 1970s and had a long career working for | a U.S. military contractor doing this. The U.S. military has a | significant interest in acoustic beamforming, both in the air | and underwater, for obvious reasons. | loxias wrote: | Oh absolutely! Sorry, I was excited in my typing. It's not | every day you see "your baby" on HN :) Everything I built was | on the shoulders of giants, and lol, I didn't invent | beamforming itself (of course). | | The problem I have trying to find the niche application is | that there's not much (at least, that I could think of) where | you can have high quality audio data, but where a simple | camera wouldn't work. Also, full imaging (as opposed to just | tracking the largest/loudest source via TDOA) is quite | different math, stupendously more computationally intensive. | R0b0t1 wrote: | Industrial automation monitoring is a major commercial | application. I was going to look at | https://www.minidsp.com/products/usb-audio- | interface/uma-16-... for doing it. Do you know what limits | of detection you could get, and on what equipment? | | Monitoring structural vibrations is also useful, and I | think is an ongoing research area. I mention this because | it's possible to sell it _and_ research it at the same | time. | | What about synchronized cameras in different locations? | nyanpasu64 wrote: | How does this compare with commercial ultrasonic flaw detection | systems for physical objects? | loxias wrote: | No idea! For a few month's stipend and cost of ultrasonic | parts, I can find out for you. :) | jcun4128 wrote: | That's pretty cool as far as adding to a sensor fusion stack | xattt wrote: | Coupled with a VR headset, this would recreate the sound goggles | that were featured in the halloween Magic School Bus special 30 | or so years ago. | garyfirestorm wrote: | wow this is amazing. i directly work in automotive and we use | super expensive stuff which does exactly this (for 500k) lol | loxias wrote: | > $500k | | Are you kidding me???! It costs so... so... so... much less. I | thought automotive might be a good application, considering all | the doors opened by using more DSP tricks layered in addition | to source localization. (I can localize coherent sound | _patterns_ s well as coherent sound) | | I would love to chat with you, happy to buy a coffee or beer | for your time. My email's on my profile. | dendrite9 wrote: | Some of these devices for automotive are large enough to | surround a car on 3-4 sides, with several hundreds of | microphones and the associated cables and positioning arms. | Depending on where the devices he mentioned are being used, | there are things like mannequins with heads and models of how | humans hear for identifying sources inside a car. | | Here's an article about a large installation at Porsche. | https://www.azom.com/article.aspx?ArticleID=18378 | loxias wrote: | > there are things like mannequins with heads and models of | how humans hear for identifying sources inside a car. | | HRTF stuff is fun, if that's what you're referring to! :) | I've worked with some of that stuff before, including the | stupidly overpriced mannequin heads. | | > Some of these devices for automotive are large enough to | surround a car on 3-4 sides, with several hundreds of | microphones and the associated cables and positioning arms. | Depending on where the devices he mentioned are being used, | there are things like mannequins with heads and models of | how humans hear for identifying sources inside a car. | | Do you work in a field that would benefit from the same | results, for a fraction of the cost? Or, if not, do you | have any advice on how to find and talk to these mythical | industries that could pay me? It looks like Porsche wanted | to build their own, in house, but I'm hoping if it costs | less than a tenth as much, maybe more people would want | one. | dendrite9 wrote: | Do you mind if I send you an email later at the address | in your profile? | loxias wrote: | Please do!!! I spent about 10 years of my life obsessed | with this problem/area of research, and, when I have | ability to pay rent and eat, it's the problem I'll go | back to. | buildsjets wrote: | These are very commonly used in manufacturing plants to find | leaks in compressed air lines. I had a Fluke vendor visit the | ol' airplane factory to see if we could use their tools to find | air leaks in low-pressure ECS system ducting. | | But c'mon, they are not $500k. More like $20K. | | https://www.fluke.com/en-us/product/industrial-imaging/sonic... | loxias wrote: | How many times cheaper would a competing product need to be | for you to consider buying one? | | Obviously, Fluke, and the positive reputation that brand is | known for, and reliable product support are worth a LOT, but | I'm sure there's some $$ divisor beyond which you/someone | like you would take a risk on something substantially | cheaper. | 6gvONxR4sf7o wrote: | Am I understanding it correctly that this is not using anything | analogous to a lens? How does this not need a lens when optical | cameras need them? | seiferteric wrote: | Audio is low enough frequency that you can process the signal | directly. The time delay/phase information between each mic | allows you to know which direction the sound is coming from. | This is essentially the opposite of beam forming. Theoretically | you could do it with visible light and not need a lens if you | had a computer and sensors that could operate fast enough. But | optical sensors typically only tell you the amplitude of light | and not phase for example. | | Edit: To clarify, the "opposite" of beam forming means using | processing you can choose which direction you want to listen at | any one time, like a beam. Then you can scan the beam across | x,y and make an image. | marginalia_nu wrote: | Wouldn't a light version of this basically just be a fancy | camera obscura? | photonic37 wrote: | The light version of this would be closer to a light field | camera [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Light_field_camera] | | The major difference between a microphone array and an | imaging sensor is the availability of phase information for | the received wave. A microphone oscillates with the sound | pressure wave, and that oscillation is translated directly | to a voltage. Your software can see the full time series of | that wave, so the information about it is 'complete'. | | An optical image sensor, essentially, turns photons into | electrons. The optical wave is too fast to turn into a | voltage time series, so you only see the wave's amplitude | at a given sample in time. Therefore, in order to turn it | into an image, you need to recover some fraction of the | phase information in some way. | | A pinhole is one way to do that. One way to think of a | pinhole is that it maps every source point to a distinct | imaging plane point, so the phase of the wave doesn't | matter as much to the final image. It acts as a filter that | cuts out ambiguous information that phase would have | disambiguated. | | A lens performs a similar operation by interacting with the | light wave's phase to bend wavefronts in a way that maps | points on the object to an imaging plane. | | Those approaches don't recover 100% of the phase | information, but they recover or filter enough to form the | image you care about. Light field cameras attempt to | recover more complete phase information through various | ways better explored in the wikipedia link. | | Could you create a sound blocking plane with a pinhole that | makes an acoustic camera that follows similar principles to | an optical camera obscura? I bet at some level you could, | but I also bet it would not be very advantageous. You still | need a microphone array to act as the imagine plane. The | size of the pinhole is probably very constrained by sound | wave diffraction (it's a pretty long wave after all, | compared to light). Using the directly available acoustic | phase information is more compact and efficient. | marginalia_nu wrote: | I figured if you were to create an optical camera on the | same principles of an acoustic camera you would get into | trouble with the very short coherence length of sunlight. | It's easy enough to build something that can deal with a | laser, but sunlight has a coherence length of just a | couple of dozen micrometers. If you are working on a | larger scale than that, the phase information effectively | becomes useless. | 6gvONxR4sf7o wrote: | Thanks! | _Microft wrote: | Fun fact: we manage to record amplitude and phase of | radiowaves, though. That allows us to record them at | different points on Earth, ship the recorded data to a | datacenter and computationally merge them to get a planet- | wide virtual telescope dish with a much better angular | resolution that a single telescope dish ever could have. | ddalex wrote: | we don't record phase, there is no way to recover the | phase from a single signal | | what we do we make sure that all receivers are | synchronized, i.e take samples at the exact same time | | then you can correlate the signal received between dishes | (which will arrive at different times due to delays in | propagation), and find out the time difference of the | signal which then points out to signal origin (beam | forming) - this is how phased radar works | | once you align the signals you can use the minute | differences in the signals to compute a synthetic | aperture, i.e improving the angular resolution | madengr wrote: | It is analogous to a lens, in that the lens has a large | aperture that allows a narrow, columnated beam. | | This has smaller elements arrayed over a large aperture, and | controlling the magnitude and phase of individual elements | allows you to steer that columnated beam. | | A bigger aperture gets you a narrower beam; lens, reflector, or | array, it's all the same. | thatsadude wrote: | There are two main ways to do it: algorithms based on time | difference of arrival and algorithms based on estimation of | sound energy on a predefined grid. You can also estimate the | distance but it will not as accurate as the direction. | thatsadude wrote: | In fact, you can use some lens such as parabolic reflector but | it will make the problem very complicated to solve. | onion2k wrote: | This could be really useful for finding birds in trees when I'm | out with my camera... | loxias wrote: | Would work! One of the first applications I made was a | processing layer returning, in spherical coordinates centered | at an arbitrary reference point, what the system determined as | the "primary sound source". | | In demo, the two angles drove a pair of servos steering a laser | pointer. Followed the loudest object around the room :) | | IME, finding a way to communicate the information to the user | is often non-intuitive. That is to say, once a device has | located birds in trees, how would you like it to inform you? | onion2k wrote: | My first thought is for something like an arrow visible | through the viewfinder, a bit like a damage indicator in an | FPS game like Halo. | loxias wrote: | Hm. Doable. I think the hard part for that then might be | getting the real time information about the position and | orientation of the viewfinder in high enough resolution. | | Keep in mind "the black box" can output the position in 3 | space (x,y,z, measured in mm) of coherent sound sources, | but to know _where_ those are relative to the camera, so | that once can draw a little arrow, can be hard. | | I'd like to try hooking it up to a VR/AR headset, since I | imagine those already handle the task of knowing precisely | where my head is and where it's looking. | zlsa wrote: | I think this might be possible with a phone that has AR | support - you'd scan a QR code on the sound camera to | capture its position relative to the world, then the | phone could display a 3D view through the camera of where | the sound source(s) are. | loxias wrote: | Oh that's interesting! Is your thinking something like: | | 1. mount the array on a tripod somewhere in the frame of | the camera 2. the array is covered with an assortment of | fiducials, 3. software uses the known intrinsics and | extrinsics of the camera to figure out the array position | relative to the camera 4. do the obvious thing with | chaining transforms until you get the sound source | position relative to the camera | | If so, I think that would work, but would be a lot of | coding to do all that CV... | | > phone that has AR support | | I take it cell phones now do much of this work? | modeless wrote: | This is super cool. I was thinking about making a 4x4 mems mic | array on pcb exactly like that one. I had no idea you could just | buy one off the shelf these days. Has anyone put four together to | make a 64 mic 3D acoustic camera? | Someone1234 wrote: | Stupid idea(?): Back-project onto some sunglasses (or | corners/edge for behind), and give deaf people some basic level | of sound-based situational awareness. Combine with some voice -> | text tech, and you could have something pretty interesting. | ampdepolymerase wrote: | There is a long trail of dead startups attempting this. But | don't let this dissuade you, please do a Show HN when you | launch. | marginalia_nu wrote: | Probably requires the technology to reach some tipping point. | It was the same with VR and motion tracking. We've been able | to do those things for nearly half a century, but it hasn't | been anywhere near commercially viable until recently. | fragmede wrote: | The tipping point is the availability of quality, | affordable AR glasses. Until recently, AR has been too | niche, so even if the acoustic camera technology is fine, | the company also has to build AR glasses to go with the | other part of the system. Whenever Apple comes out with AR | glasses, then writing an acoustic camera app is almost | trivial in comparison to having to also having to design | some AR glasses. Not having to design the glasses makes | acoustic camera technology overlay software way more | commercially viable. | vdqtp3 wrote: | > availability of quality, affordable AR glasses | | And since Intel, Google, Facebook etc keep buying | startups that produce cool things and preventing them | from producing more cool things (North Focals being the | most recent I'm aware of) it's gonna be a while | rogerbinns wrote: | Have a look at Microsoft Research's Seeing AI. It is still | under development but can describe scenes and objects within, | plus a bunch of other stuff such as documents, people, light, | colour, currency, products etc. The app is only on Apple (no | Android!) but the home page does have videos of each feature. | | https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/ai/seeing-ai | jcims wrote: | One application for those that I think might be interesting is to | record a scene and retain all of the raw audio. On playback, | allow people to click on parts of the image and use beamforming | to focus on that part of the audio. | | Does anyone know if the array used here supports timestamped | samples and/or clock sync to support multiple arrays? Or is it a | single 16-channel stream? | | Having done some very primitive dabbling with this stuff, the DSP | programming is always the most interesting part to me. These | folks are killing it with some really cool 3D scanning | integration to the acoustic analysis | | https://youtube.com/user/gfaitechgmbh | loxias wrote: | >On playback, allow people to click on parts of the image and | use beamforming to focus on that part of the audio. | | You _can_ do that, but the gain isn 't as pronounced as you'd | like. A 12-16dB gain doesn't sound that dramatic. | | Now, combined with some other newfangled math, like neural | source separation, you might be able to do something | spectacular... | acjohnson55 wrote: | That would be a lot of data. Instead of a few bytes of color | data per pixel per frame, you'd need a thousands of samples per | second per unit of spatial resolution. | | Another approach to this is the Ambisonics method of capturing | the directional soundfield at a point. But you'd need to use a | high degree multipole expansion to get resolution anywhere | closer to video. | | https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ambisonics | awinter-py wrote: | finally hardware to nail the guy who leans on his car horn | outside my place | IshKebab wrote: | FYI if you put your microphones in a random pattern you can | reduce aliasing artefacts. It's basically the same as dithering / | noise shaping. | loxias wrote: | This took me years to figure out. :) Even cooler is that you | can put them in a random pattern AND have the system determine | its own geometry w/o measurements. | [deleted] | supermatt wrote: | Are there any inexpensive microphone arrays? | | I was interested in making my own alexa-like device, but it seems | mic arrays are sooooo expensive - more than the cost of an alexa | device for the least expensive one i can find :/ | loxias wrote: | > Are there any inexpensive microphone arrays? | | Not that I can find! Building the array is way more expensive | than it needs to be. | | I have limited EE knowledge, so have been stumbling through it | on my own, building my first array out of reference | microphones, another with $10 omnis from guitar center, and one | with 8x, cheap, repurposed webcams. | | Right now, my limiting factor on driving the cost of a future | array down is that I haven't figured out how to get a lot (at | least 8) I2S inputs to a micro-controller. If that were solved, | it would be easier. | rasz wrote: | https://www.hackster.io/sandeep-mistry/create-a-usb- | micropho... | | main limitation is USB 1.1 IO, so ~1MB/s. Pico itself can | interface 15 microphones with no sweat. | adolph wrote: | The mike hardware used in the UMA-16 USB mic array [0] is the | Knowles SPH1668LM4H-1 which runs about a buck and a quarter | [1]. The DSP, SHARC ADSP21489, is pricier as an eval board | >$500 [2]. | | 0. https://www.minidsp.com/products/usb-audio- | interface/uma-16-... | | 1. | https://www.digikey.com/en/products/detail/knowles/SPH1668LM... | | 2. https://www.digikey.com/en/products/detail/analog-devices- | in... | thatsadude wrote: | UMA-16 main audio processor is XMOS though. | ghostly_s wrote: | The post links to an inexpensive array at the end. I don't | really get why the 16-mic one he used is so expensive, those | smd mics can't be more than $1 or so each... | supermatt wrote: | Yeah, the respeaker ones i have looked at - but at $25+ they | still feel very expensive to me. Are they that | complicated/expensive to make? | qazxcvbnmlp wrote: | It's probably a niche enough product that the engineering / | marketing work that goes into it is a higher fraction of | the cost than the raw components. | Anechoic wrote: | _those smd mics can 't be more than $1 or so each_ | | The actual mic capsules are likly far cheaper than $1 a piece | (probably closer to $0.10 than $1) but the mics in an array | need to be phased-matched. The two approaches to getting | phased microphones are 1) building them using precision | techniques so they are phased-match from the start (which is | expensive and why pro phase-matched mics are around $1,000 | each), or 2) get a whole pile of cheap mic, test them one-by- | one (or really, pair-by-pair) and select the mics that are | best phased-match to use them in the array. The #2 approach | is cheaper, but does add cost. | loxias wrote: | IME, the array only needs phased matched mics if you're | doing SDB, or something else that cares _deeply_ about | audio fidelity. | | I've never used phased matched mics in my arrays (can't | afford it!) and also have never needed to "bin" them. | ("pair-by-pair" testing). | bytK7 wrote: | I don't know enough about this so maybe dumb question, but | couldn't you use DSP to correct phase between microphones | if you knew their relative differences? | loxias wrote: | Yes you can. Another problem though is that the | microphones need to have a common timebase, unless you | have More Magic. | 323 wrote: | Couldn't one instead record at a higher sample rate (192 | KHz+) and then align in software instead of phase matching | the mics? | atoav wrote: | The mics are probably cheap but 16x ADC in decent quality | with decent power supply and low time offset between | channels? How much is a 16chn audio interface with 16 mic | preamps these days? | loxias wrote: | It can be done w/o phase locked ADCs :D it just takes... | More Cleverness. | | I made a 16 mic array out of a bunch of trash-picked and | cheap 4ch ADCs. | thatsadude wrote: | You can estimate 2D direction with 2 microphones (most of | phones and laptops have at least 2 mic). | causi wrote: | I feel like there has to be a cheaper way to do this than a $275 | acoustic array. It's only 16 elements. You couldn't do this with | 16 cheap microphones? | fragmede wrote: | How cheap do you want them? $275/16 = $17 per microphone, or | $15 per + $35 worth of additional materials to make it into an | array. Or $10 mics + $115 of metal and plastic. | | $275 doesn't really seem exorbitant for niche hardware given | than you need 16 decently high quality microphones. I eagerly | await a ShowHN using $2 mics and cardboard instead! | loxias wrote: | > given that you need 16 decently high quality microphones... | | But... you don't. :) The challenge I find is getting the data | into the computer. That's what always costs the most. I've | done it with 8x $1 mics and a used $100 sound card. | cozzyd wrote: | Can't you buy a bunch of i2s microphones and use a cheap | FPGA dev board with a USB interface?' | | I may just order a bunch of i2s microphones... | jack_pp wrote: | Is this sensitive enough to find flying insects in a room? | davidb_ wrote: | I think with some filtering it definitely could be. | mshockwave wrote: | visualize that would be super cool | dghughes wrote: | They usually find me. | loxias wrote: | Not speaking to OP's device, but yes, I was able to track a | loud fly buzzing through a room in real-time. ~cm accuracy, but | that can be improved on. | herval wrote: | I imagine this + AR glasses can become quite the lifesaver for | deaf folks. Throw in some voice recognition and you can have | real-life speech bubbles! | awinter-py wrote: | fwiw they did this in world war I with microphone arrays + | seismometer tape (picture of tape on p5) | | https://acousticstoday.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/06/Battle... | CamperBob2 wrote: | Awesome article. Deserves a spot on the front page by itself! | Makes me want to learn a lot more about W. L. Bragg's physics | exploits, along with those of his father. | transistor-man wrote: | Awesome work! How computationally intensive is Acoular / how | complex would doing this from a live feed instead of recorded | files be? Thanks for posting your project. | loxias wrote: | I'm not familiar with Acoular*, but the math involved in | computing the sound coherence function over a large space is | quite involved! | | In my implementation, there are multiple stages using a | dataflow approach with lots of compile time optimization. In | 2011 I could image a roughly 2m^3 space using 8 microphones at | ~10fps in real time on 3 desktop computers, 2015 I was able to | do 12mics, 3m^3 space, on 2 laptops, but that involved a LOT of | custom numeric programming to shave cycles. | | If I had access, I'd love to see what could be done given a | well tuned implementation and modern GPUs. An efficient scatter | gather OP (like what AVX3 has) would increase performance by an | order of magnitude. | | *OK, I've skimmed Acoular. ___________________________________________________________________ (page generated 2021-10-27 23:00 UTC)