You normally think of fiber optic as something used in network cables. However, scientists employ dedicated fibers to detect earthquakes. In simple terms, they fire a laser down the fiber and watch…
There are problems with the material components used. Fiber optics are used in places where they will be stationary for a long time, not have excessive bends that exceed their bend radius, and where there is a requirement for environmental/weather proofing. Drops, bumps, or other stressors that a regular microphone would survive don’t necessarily work for fiber optics because when you get right down to it they’re fragile.
They’re also more expensive than regular copper or aluminum wiring, and in this case I suspect that their required proximity would be a downside.
They’re also more expensive than regular copper or aluminum wiring, and in this case I suspect that their required proximity would be a downside.
I think I’m going to have to say “citation needed” here.
There are different grades of fiber optic cable, but for short distances you can generally use the lowest grade, so that’s probably what would be used if they were just components in a device, and that stuff is dirt cheap.
On the other hand, currently audio equipment tends to need higher end copper wiring, shielded cables, gold plated connectors, etc. digital interfaces are much less demanding of course, s/pdif or HDMI for example.
As for your comment about being vulnerable to drops and bumps, yeah I think you’re certainly right about that. And honestly, there are some other potential issues with the idea too. Foremost, a microphone like this would probably require a whole lot more analysis and signal processing than you really want for a simple audio input.
The cost isn’t just in the actual fiber cable here but in the connection end points and their termination, plus the device you’d be hooking it up to and the size of said device to decode whatever you needed decoded into actual sound you can hear. The optics device ads cost (which I probably should have mentioned). Repair is also more expensive which is why generally we cap and install along side instead of attempting repair. When you add in the cost of manufacturing or installing it, comparitively copper isn’t just cheaper by raw material (that cheapness depends on the scale), but also because of everything that goes into installing and using it.
This is why there is a cost trade off where you get benefits:
Less Weight,
Immunity to Electronic Noise,
Stronger Signal,
Electrical Isolation,
Environmental Protection,
Improved Safety
Overall System Economy,
Long Term Cost Benefits.
But a device the size of a regular covert microphone would still need other components. I may have made the mistake of comparing this to like a button hole mic or something similar rather than a professional microphone (which is also expensive as hell).
Besides, how much more copper do you think you’d be using in a traditional mic than in a fiber optic equivalent?
There are problems with the material components used. Fiber optics are used in places where they will be stationary for a long time, not have excessive bends that exceed their bend radius, and where there is a requirement for environmental/weather proofing. Drops, bumps, or other stressors that a regular microphone would survive don’t necessarily work for fiber optics because when you get right down to it they’re fragile.
They’re also more expensive than regular copper or aluminum wiring, and in this case I suspect that their required proximity would be a downside.
I think I’m going to have to say “citation needed” here.
There are different grades of fiber optic cable, but for short distances you can generally use the lowest grade, so that’s probably what would be used if they were just components in a device, and that stuff is dirt cheap.
On the other hand, currently audio equipment tends to need higher end copper wiring, shielded cables, gold plated connectors, etc. digital interfaces are much less demanding of course, s/pdif or HDMI for example.
As for your comment about being vulnerable to drops and bumps, yeah I think you’re certainly right about that. And honestly, there are some other potential issues with the idea too. Foremost, a microphone like this would probably require a whole lot more analysis and signal processing than you really want for a simple audio input.
The cost isn’t just in the actual fiber cable here but in the connection end points and their termination, plus the device you’d be hooking it up to and the size of said device to decode whatever you needed decoded into actual sound you can hear. The optics device ads cost (which I probably should have mentioned). Repair is also more expensive which is why generally we cap and install along side instead of attempting repair. When you add in the cost of manufacturing or installing it, comparitively copper isn’t just cheaper by raw material (that cheapness depends on the scale), but also because of everything that goes into installing and using it.
This is why there is a cost trade off where you get benefits: Less Weight, Immunity to Electronic Noise, Stronger Signal, Electrical Isolation, Environmental Protection, Improved Safety Overall System Economy, Long Term Cost Benefits.
But a device the size of a regular covert microphone would still need other components. I may have made the mistake of comparing this to like a button hole mic or something similar rather than a professional microphone (which is also expensive as hell).
Besides, how much more copper do you think you’d be using in a traditional mic than in a fiber optic equivalent?
I mean we’re talking flockweights not dollars so tomato tomato