Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

High Def Microphone for Mobile Computing

Posted by ryuzaki0 on from the we-just-compress-them-for-vent-anyway dept.

morpheus83 writes "Akustica today introduced the first High Definition Microphone that enables HD voice quality in laptop PCs and other broadband mobile devices. The AKU2103 is a digital-output microphone with a guaranteed wideband frequency response. It is the first digital microphone to guarantee compliance with the TIA-920 audio performance requirement for wideband transmission in applications such as Voiceover-Internet Protocol (VoIP)."

12 of 72 comments (clear)

  1. High Def Audio? by kybred · · Score: 3, Insightful
    Is it 720p or 1080i?

    The term High Def should not be applied to audio.

    Oh, the article is already /.ed.

    1. Re:High Def Audio? by Daniel+Rutter · · Score: 4, Informative

      The term High Def should not be applied to audio.
      It does mean something, but it doesn't seem to mean much. Instead of the 3kHz-ish bandwidth of your normal voice phone link, this standard provides 150Hz to 6.8kHz audio bandwidth.

      That, of course, is very well within the abilities of all kinds of crappy five-dollar microphones. This gadget is an integrated device with mic module, A/D converter and other jazz, but there doesn't seem to be anything else special about it.

      There's nothing stopping software VOIP systems from providing DC-to-daylight audio bandwidth if you've got the link bandwidth to support it. I would be very surprised if you couldn't get a zero-dollar VOIP connection today that sounds better than this new "improved" standard, if you use even half-decent mics at either end.

    2. Re:High Def Audio? by iluvcapra · · Score: 3, Informative

      Hello, I am a Sound Designer for motion pictures.

      In my context, "high-definition" is mostly a marketing term, so that people who procure our gear and only know about video are enticed to buy "high-definition" audio equipment as well. OTOH, we usually apply the term "high-definition" to audio recordings that exceed 48 kHz sampling rate or 24 bit sample size. Many sound effects (and much film music nowadays) is originated at 96 kHz or 192 kHz so that we have more bandwidth to play with when we do pitch shifting, and in anticipation of the 96 kHz presentation formats (if and when they are ever introduced.) We don't do any audio professionally at 32 bit, unfortunately, but wider sample sizes allow much more dynamic work with recordings (basically, it can make mixes louder, and quiet mixes sound better).

      --
      Don't blame me, I voted for Baltar.
  2. Voiceover Internet? by mikkelm · · Score: 2, Funny

    So who's the narrator?

  3. What the hell? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    > High Definition Microphone?

    What is this supposed to mean?

    > that enables HD voice quality in laptop PCs and other broadband mobile devices.

    Meaningless, I use mics from cheap Chinese dynamics to rare vintage U47's. The acoustic environment and relative position of mic to sound source has more effect on the sound than the design.

    > a digital-output microphone

    It may have a digital output but it is not a digital output microphone! No more than there is any such a thing as digital headphones.

  4. HD voice quality by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    HD voice quality is an oxymoron. Anyway, there are lots of microphones that are capable of Music quality. Maybe I'm missing the point but this doesn't seem like a big deal.

    In any audio application, more is not always better. Past a certain point, more frequency response and dynamic range does not increase clarity. Clarity is what we're after with voice transmission. Plain old telephone service gives more than adequate clarity for most applications and it's quite band limited.

    1. Re:HD voice quality by Fnordulicious · · Score: 2, Interesting

      There are a number of languages that use clicks, ejectives, and other less common consonants for which the POTS 4 kHz bandwidth is insufficient. Linguists routinely analyse spectrograms of consonants in the 5 to 15 kHz range to determine specific features of articulation. For languages which differentiate consonants in the > 4 kHz spectrum, POTS is unusable. I have had this very experience in discussions over the telephone with speakers of Na-Dené languages, for example, where neither I nor the consultant could effectively communicate a particular word because the frequency band was cut off before some determinant frequency in a consonant. In effect, the limited bandwidth reduced some words to homonyms although they are not in normal speech. So although POTS is sufficient for most languages, there are still some out there which require more bandwidth.

    2. Re:HD voice quality by NoMaster · · Score: 2, Interesting

      In any audio application, more is not always better. Past a certain point, more frequency response and dynamic range does not increase clarity.
      And for other reasons than you might suspect too.

      One of the exercises we did when I was a 'prentice telco tech involved bandpass filtering at 300Hz-6kHz. Turns out it's worse for speech comprehension than filtering to 300Hz-3.4kHz because not only does it let lots of sibilants through, it also cuts lots out - specifically, ones that help your brain interpret the ones left behind. Psychoacoustic test results showed that particular doubling of bandwidth decreased speech intelligibility by ~25%...

      --
      What part of "a well regulated militia" do you not understand?
  5. So... by RattFink · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Judging by goggling other announcements they combine the microphone element into the CODEC claiming to have less interference from RF sources. This certainly isn't as big a deal as they are making it out to be, any decent designers already aim to keep the CODEC as close to the MIC as possible where quality and will couple and filter the output to minimize this. On consumer devices MIC interference just isn't such a big deal and in professional applications I don't see this getting the dynamic range that microphones have with 1" or larger elements and properly balanced connections that are used today. Really the only use I see for this is to help space save on cell phones, which is a killer feature in itself to cell phone manufacturers if the price is right.

    --
    "I don't necessarily agree with everything I say." - Marshall McLuhan
  6. DRM rebranded as HiDef by La+Gris · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Cutting on the analog hole.

    Same HD crapware with sole goal of rebranding DRM.

    --
    Léa Gris
  7. Buzzword bingo by AC-x · · Score: 4, Insightful

    How many buzzwords can you fit into an unrelated product press release?

    [ ] Digital
    [ ] High Definition
    [ ] VOIP
    [ ] Broadband
    [ ] Mobile
    [ ] Network
    [ ] Internet
    [ ] High speed
    [ ] i

    Anyone got any more?

    At any rate it doesn't even say what type of microphone it is (condenser, dynamic?) and what's all that rubbish about being the first to have "L/R-user select function", because using 2 microphones to capture left and right separately has obviously /never/ been done before

    Who posted this? Honestly!

    1. Re:Buzzword bingo by Giloo · · Score: 2, Informative

      If it was only about buzzwords... I had to watch carefully through the ads to see the no-content on this device... Why not link http://www.akustica.com/products/digitalmic.asp instead ?