NASA Audio - why so bad? - Page 6 - diyAudio
Go Back   Home > Forums > General Interest > Everything Else

Everything Else Anything related to audio / video / electronics etc) BUT remember- we have many new forums where your thread may now fit! .... Parts, Equipment & Tools, Construction Tips, Software Tools......

Please consider donating to help us continue to serve you.

Ads on/off / Custom Title / More PMs / More album space / Advanced printing & mass image saving
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 27th August 2010, 06:54 PM   #51
diyAudio Member
 
jackinnj's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Llanddewi Brefi, NJ
I think they should go back to CW and transmit via lingua Navajogensis:

http://navajocodetalkers.org/
  Reply With Quote
Old 12th October 2010, 04:22 AM   #52
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Montréal
Hello to everybody, it my first post at this forum.

It is about intelligibility, they ave to be understand. When the engines are on
the Donald duck sound is OK. The Donald duck sound is all about the mic they use. They chose the mic to be sure to be understand in any sound environment they are. If something append they don’t want to change the mic because the background ( fire, explosion ) is to loud . So they keep the Donald duck mic. Frankly a sure they don’t care as long as it is super efficient.

I met a Canadian astronaut and ask her what it sound like in the shuffling, "after i fink it what a weird question???". It sound like a computer room, lot of fan.
So we tack about the quality of communication. And that it it all about super efficiency, just like 386 it as no more bugs anymore.
The only place they take care about sound, is in the space station went do interview, duplex whit school, or recording science conference in the station. It a Shure SM-58, this mic is a tank, is sound good for the kind of job.
But if you thinking about it. When it sound Donald duck, it is sounding more real, more live. If it was sounding like a "voice over", it would seem to easy to comfortable.
I find what they do up there, and mostly in all the kind of "un-welcome" situation and constraint, it is most impressive.
So the donald duck mic sound like the ambiance, and i like it.

I have been working fore 20 years at sound for a big tv network, it is not the best mic that give you the best sound track.

Well it was my first post on this forum
Buy Buy everybody.
  Reply With Quote
Old 12th October 2010, 04:35 AM   #53
Pano is offline Pano  United States
diyAudio Moderator
 
Pano's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Kona, Hawaii
Blog Entries: 4
Bonjour Chartraf et bienvenu!

Yes, they seem to want that "telephone sound." At least it is a standard that is understood. Still, I've love to have HD sound and video from the shuttle and the space station. Kubrick gave it to us in 2001.
__________________
Take the Speaker Voltage Test!
  Reply With Quote
Old 6th February 2011, 04:30 AM   #54
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
It is true about the "telephone sound." Actually, the public affairs commentator has broadcast quality audio, but the spacecraft communications still adhere to the dictum of passing only a 300 to 3000 Hz voice frequency range and using a lot of clipping.

The one good advancement, from Apollo onward, is putting most of the audio on an FM subcarrier within a microwave signal. There's not much audio noise on the C or Ku links. There's actually a good plain-language description of how the Unified S Band Space Communications and Telemetry actually works, with a lot of NASA photos and documents.

Ever wonder what the "crackle noise" was when Challenger disintegrated? It was the analog FM voice subcarrier cutting out as the whole microvave signal vanished.

The Shuttle and ISS similarly have somewhat limited comms, so that they don't interfere with the command and telemetry subcarriers. I have always hoped that they would go to full high definition for public broadcasts and just leave the crew comms alone.

NASA is probably not going to spend money to go all-out with HD multimedia.
  Reply With Quote
Old 6th February 2011, 10:39 AM   #55
diyAudio Member
 
Peckerwood's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Texas
Quote:
Not argueing about your post. Just that when the tank fires a round. The electronics probably get a very brief kick that is a lot harder than 10G I think.
I don't know about 10 Gs. Our fighters can pull more than 10Gs or I should say they could if they weren't limited to 9. 9 will make most people black out. 9 Gs sustained for even a very short time that is. Israeli F-16s are not limited at any amount of Gs though. 5Gs will make you think you are going to die and if you are not in very good physical shape make you black out. You can handle a little more if you have a good G suit and also know how to do the hick properly then you could without them but when you get up to 10 Gs almost anybody will black out no matter what. The most dangerous thing about blacking out is not the time you are out but when you come to you go into convulsions. Not really good if you are flying at 600 knots close to the ground.

In WW2 the German JU-87 Stukas had auto pilots that would automatically pull the aircraft out of a dive and level it off until the pilot woke up. They would often black out from the Gs when they started pulling up after their dive.

As for Tanks I have no idea but I do know that our M1A2 tanks weigh something like 80,000 pounds or 80,000 tons I think (I will have to look that up because now I am confused but it is safe to say they are extremely heavy) so the kick from the gun is probably not that bad. Those are our main battle tanks and they have a 120mm main gun that is smoothbore believe it or not. They can shoot them accurately while going 50 miles per hour at as fast a rate as the loader can load the rounds.

There is an old Vietnam era tank called the Sheridan tank that is very light. It is made out of aluminum and the 82nd Airborne division (the only airborne division we have left the 101st is an Air Assault Division now and the 173rd is a brigade) still uses Sheridans. Those tanks have a 151mm gun and I know when they shoot it with a conventional round (they shoot rockets out of them too) it moves the tank a lot. They can't fire it 360 degrees because it will knock the tank over. Any anti-tank round will go through Sheridan like a hot knife through butter. I wouldn't expect they ever see 10 Gs either but if anybody does it would be them. They use them because they can take them up in aircraft and drop them out with a parachute without damaging them. You couldn't do either with an M1A2. One type of aircraft (C5B Galaxy) can carry a single one but it ruins the aircraft. Puts too much stress on the airframe.

I know a guy who was in the 82nd and drove a Sheridan tank. I will ask him if he knows.
__________________
I'm trying to think but nothing happens.

Last edited by Peckerwood; 6th February 2011 at 10:46 AM.
  Reply With Quote
Old 7th February 2011, 10:22 PM   #56
Pano is offline Pano  United States
diyAudio Moderator
 
Pano's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Kona, Hawaii
Blog Entries: 4
Funny! I had missed the ink over to EE Times. Some pretty good answers over there, and it looks like from some on the inside. Cool.
  Reply With Quote
Old 8th February 2011, 01:02 PM   #57
marce is offline marce  United Kingdom
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Blackburn, Lancs
Modern vehicle intercom systems still use the telephone standard, speach intelligability being the main concern as stated, not fidelity. Plus you have to actively controll the back ground noise, especially in a tank, which can be very very loud, so the limited frequency band helps, also there is less data to transmit over a radio.
  Reply With Quote
Old 27th February 2011, 02:30 PM   #58
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
I made a mistake earlier - the audio downlink actually is all digital on S and Ku bands. There's the analog UHF too, but generally you hear the digital audio after a lot of processing. The crackle from Challenger was apparently transmitted on the downlink just before the breakup happened.

Found that info while searching for HD audio recordings of rocket sounds made around the launch site.
  Reply With Quote

Reply


Hide this!Advertise here!
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Interesting wiring guide find, thanks NASA! m6tt Tubes / Valves 9 26th February 2010 04:57 PM
NASA space-age tube for audio use makaiyumtony Tubes / Valves 14 26th December 2009 10:37 PM
Why NASA has to buy Russian rocket engines: vuki Parts 10 30th October 2009 08:30 PM


New To Site? Need Help?

All times are GMT. The time now is 10:24 AM.


vBulletin Optimisation provided by vB Optimise (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2014 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
Copyright ©1999-2014 diyAudio

Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.3.2