Acoustic Surveillance Device Comparative Assessment Report: Background
Acoustic Surveillance Device Comparative Assessment Report: Background
Acoustic Surveillance Device Comparative Assessment Report: Background
2007 System Assessment and Validation for Emergency Responders (SAVER)
Summary
Acoustic Surveillance Device Comparative
Assessment Report
In order to provide emergency responders with information on currently
available acoustic surveillance device (ASD) technologies, capabilities, and
The U.S. Department of Homeland Security limitations, the Space and Naval Warfare Systems Center (SPAWARSYSCEN),
(DHS) established the System Assessment Charleston, conducted a comparative assessment of commercially available
and Validation for Emergency Responders ASDs for the SAVER Program in November 2006. Detailed findings are
(SAVER) Program to assist emergency provided in the Acoustic Surveillance Device Comparative Assessment
responders making procurement decisions.
Located within the Science and Technology Report, which is available by request at https://www.rkb.us/saver.
Directorate (S&T) of DHS, the SAVER
Program conducts objective operational tests
Background
on commercial equipment and systems and Law enforcement agencies use ASDs to assess threats, identify suspects,
provides those results along with other monitor suspicious activity, and evaluate incidents. An ASD is a microphone
relevant equipment information to the
emergency response community in an that can be connected to a radio transmitter, recorder, or set of headphones,
operationally useful form. SAVER provides and is designed to collect and relay or record information. Effective
information on equipment that falls within the deployment of ASDs, integrated with additional sensor technologies
categories listed in the DHS Authorized (e.g., thermal imaging devices, video cameras), provides realtime data
Equipment List (AEL). The SAVER Program
necessary for agency response to criminal activities or emergency incidents.
mission includes:
• Conducting impartial, practitioner- ASDs are used in both tactical and nontactical law enforcement situations.
relevant, and operationally oriented Tactical situations involve activities where law enforcement practitioners, the
assessments and validations of general public, or hostages may be in danger. Nontactical situations involve
emergency responder equipment; surveillance, investigative, and observation activities where there is no
• Providing information that enables immediate threat to life or property.
decision makers and responders to
better select, procure, use, and Assessment
maintain emergency responder
equipment.
Prior to the assessment, SPAWARSYSCEN, Charleston, conducted a market
survey in order to compile information on commercial offtheshelf (COTS)
Information provided by the SAVER Program ASDs and included results in a product and vendor list. Then, two focus
will be shared nationally with the responder
community, providing a life-saving and groups consisting of 18 emergency response practitioners from various
cost-saving asset to DHS, as well as to regions of the country met in February 2006 to identify equipment selection
federal, state, and local responders. criteria for the assessment, determine evaluation criteria, and recommend
The SAVER Program is supported by a assessment scenarios.
network of technical agents who perform Each product identified in the product and vendor list was scored based on
assessment and validation activities. Further,
SAVER focuses primarily on two main how well it met selection criteria identified by the focus group. The contact
questions for the emergency responder microphones, parabolic dish microphones, and body wires that received the
community: “What equipment is available?” highest scores for each of the participating vendors were selected for
and “How does it perform?” assessment. In some cases, multiple vendors provided information on devices
To contact the SAVER Program developed by the same manufacturer. In those cases, the least expensive
Support Office device was procured.
Telephone: 877-336-:75:
E-mail: [email protected] The selected devices included four contact microphone sets, four parabolic
Visit the SAVER Web site: dish microphones, and two radio frequency (RF) body wires. The two RF
https://www.rkb.us/saver body wires required a receiver to complete the system. The Citation 20
Receiver/Recorder from Tactical Technologies Inc., compatible with both RF
body wires, was procured for the comparative
assessment. The devices included: SAVER Program Category Definitions
Affordability: This category groups criteria related to
● Super Sensitive Audio Probe 1Watt Amp lifecycle costs of a piece of equipment or system.
(ASV1) contact microphone (The Spy Store
Capability: This category groups criteria related to the
Inc.) power, capacity, or features available for a piece of
● Tactical Audio Kit CM30 contact microphone equipment or system to perform or assist the
(Daniel Technology Inc.) responder in performing one or more
● Fiber Optical Stethoscope (FOS) contact responderrelevant tasks.
microphone (Optoacoustics Ltd.) Deployability: This category groups criteria related to
● Delsar Life Detector (LD3) contact the movement, installation, or implementation of a
microphone (Search Systems Inc.) piece of equipment or system by responders at the site
● Dan Gibson 18inch parabolic dish of its intended use.
microphone (Mace Homeland Security Group Maintainability: This category groups criteria related
Inc.) to the maintenance and restoration of a piece of
equipment or system to operational conditions by
● Detect Ear 20inch parabolic dish microphone responders.
(BrickHouse Electronics Inc.)
● Parabolic Acoustical Listening Device Usability: This category groups criteria related to the
quality of the responders’ experience with the
(PALD06) 6inch parabolic dish microphone operational employment of a piece of equipment or
(Sound and Optics Systems Inc.) system. This includes the relative ease of use,
● SCIBIONIC 12inch parabolic dish efficiency, and overall satisfaction of the responders
microphone (Spy Chest Inc.) with the equipment or system.
● Covert Transcorder JOEY 2 Transcorder
(CTR758) RF body wire (Tactical 2, and 3. Higher scores indicate better equipment
Technologies Inc.) performance.
● 1Watt Synthesized Transmitter/Digital
The following paragraphs provide a brief summary of
Recorder (LEA 97178) RF body wire (Law
evaluator comments on each device. The equipment is
Enforcement Associates Inc.)
listed by composite score (highest to lowest). For the
The ASD assessment scenarios concentrated on purposes of the SAVER Summary, SAVER Program
detecting, identifying, and recognizing a sound source. category scores are normalized and rounded to the
In the scenarios, controlled variables were introduced, nearest whole number. The full assessment report
including distances between the sound source and the includes a breakdown of evaluator ratings by
ASD, movement and positioning of the sound source individual criterion.
and ASD, and introduction of discrete noises. The
variables introduced in each scenario were dependent Contact Microphones
upon the type of ASD. The least expensive contact microphone, the ASV1,
In addition, the evaluation criteria were dependent received the highest overall product rating of the
upon the device type, resulting in three sets of contact microphones assessed. The CM30, FOS, and
evaluation criteria for the comparative assessment. LD3, however, were not far behind as shown in
The contact microphones and parabolic dish table 1.
microphones’ evaluation criteria fall within four ASV1
SAVER Program categories—affordability, capability,
At a cost of $299.00 and $42.00 for shipping and
deployability, and usability. RF body wires’
handling at the time of purchase, the affordability of
evaluation criteria fall within three SAVER Program
the ASV1 was considered very good to excellent.
categories—affordability, capability, and usability.
One practitioner commented that the ASV1 works
Assessment Results very well for the cost. Capability and usability were
evaluated as adequate to very good, although the
Evaluators rated the ASD components on the criteria
ASV1 was only marginal to adequate at filtering out
established by the focus group. Each criterion was
background noise. One practitioner remarked that he
prioritized within the SAVER Program categories and
heard static when listening for the sound source.
was then assigned a weighting factor. The SAVER
Another practitioner noted that the ASV1’s
category and composite scores are shown in tables 1,
2
Table 1. Contact Microphones Assessment Results
Composite Affordability Capability Deployability Maintainability Usability
Model Score (31% Weighting) (28% Weighting) (15% Weighting) (N/A) (26% Weighting)
● Too many switches and buttons Other practitioners mentioned that the Detect Ear was
simple to operate with limited operator training, and
Cons the headphones were very comfortable. The six
parabolic dish snapin panels and release tabs,
CM30 Composite Assessment Score: 65
however, were not very durable. The plastic snapin
panels were easy to assemble, but two of the six tabs
Parabolic Dish Microphones broke when the Detect Ear was disassembled for
The Dan Gibson and the Detect Ear received the storage. One practitioner commented that he was
highest overall product ratings of the parabolic dish satisfied with the quality of the Detect Ear and it could
microphones assessed as shown in table 2. The have potential use in urban areas during the night.
PALD06 and the SCIBIONIC received the lowest Although there was slight distortion, the practitioners
Table 2. Parabolic Dish Microphones Assessment Results
4
were able to identify the sound source at all SCIBIONIC
assessment distances. At a cost of $219.99, including shipping and handling,
Very good to excellent affordability
●
the affordability of the SCIBIONIC was considered
Adequate
● to very good capability marginal to adequate. Capability and usability were
Pros and usability also evaluated as marginal to adequate, although the
● Simple to operate SCIBIONIC was poor to marginal at filtering out
● Comfortable headphones
background noise. One practitioner commented that
the SCIBIONIC kept picking up ambient sounds from
Background and ambient noise
●
all directions without allowing the operator to
interfered with capability
● Too large for stealth deployment determine the direction of origin and thus scrambled
Cons
● Not very durable snap-in panels the target. Sound quality degradation was caused by
environmental noise and any traffic in the vicinity. In
Detect Ear Composite Assessment Score: 73
the deployability category, the SCIBIONIC was
Dan Gibson evaluated as adequate to very good.
At a cost of $795.00 and $85.00 for shipping and The same practitioner who commented on the
handling, the affordability of the Dan Gibson was simplicity and effectiveness of the Dan Gibson and the
considered adequate to very good. Capability and potential usefulness of the Detect Ear noted that the
usability were also evaluated as adequate to very SCIBIONIC did not seem to provide much gain over
good, although the size of the device resulted in a the naked ear. Another practitioner commented that
marginal rating for stealth deployment. One he had difficulty hearing the sound source and was
practitioner commented that the Dan Gibson sound unable to identify the sound source at 300 feet. The
quality was very good when there was no traffic and first SCIBIONIC parabolic dish microphone received
little ambient sound. Using the “V” setting on the from Spy Chest Inc. was defective and did not operate.
equalizer, he was able to identify the sound source at Spy Chest Inc. provided a replacement unit within
all assessment distances without any strain. Another 2 days.
practitioner noted that he was very impressed with the
● Adequate to very good deployability
simplicity and effectiveness of the Dan Gibson. Other
● Short replacement time
practitioners remarked, however, that the Dan Gibson
Pros
was extremely affected by ambient sound and the
headphones were just okay. In the deployability
Marginal to adequate affordability,
●
category, the Dan Gibson was evaluated as very good capability, and usability
to excellent.
Cons ● Unable to filter out ambient sounds
Microphone sensitivity was an issue for the Dan SCIBIONIC Composite Assessment Score: 54
Gibson and, as discussed in the instruction manual, the
practitioners noted less selfnoise when wearing a PALD06
glove while holding the device. The Dan Gibson took
At a cost of $2,450.00, including shipping and
3 weeks to procure, which was at least 2 weeks longer
handling, the affordability of the PALD06 was
than the procurement time of the other devices.
considered poor to marginal. Capability and usability
● Very good to excellent deployability
were also evaluated as poor to marginal, although the
size of the device resulted in an adequate rating for
● Good sound quality
Pros ● Simple and effective stealth deployment. One practitioner noted that the
● Adequate to very good affordability headphones were extremely comfortable and he liked
the appearance of the product. Other practitioner
● Affected by ambient sound comments emphasized poor sound quality and
● Long procurement lead time interference from background noises. In the
Cons ● Too large for stealth deployment
deployability category, the PALD06 was evaluated as
Dan Gibson Composite Assessment Score: 71 adequate.
The same practitioner who commented on the
simplicity and effectiveness of the Dan Gibson and the
potential usefulness of the Detect Ear noted that he
5
found no practical use for the PALD06 as assessed.
The JOEY 2 performed well overall and had an
The practitioners noted during the assessment that the
effective transmission range of four tenths of a mile as
PALD06 performed poorly. The sound detected by
demonstrated in the moving vehicle scenario.
the device was distorted with excessive background
noise even at relatively short distances. Another Very good to excellent capability
●
practitioner commented that the PALD06 was only a and usability
little clearer than the unaided ear as used in the Pros ● Adequate to very good affordability
assessment, but thought the PALD06 could be useful
in a night operation where there was little noise. ● Sound was intermittent and static
was heard at 450 feet from receiver
● Adequate for stealth deployment Cons
● Extremely comfortable headphones
JOEY 2 Composite Assessment Score: 83
Pros
LEA 97178
Poor to marginal affordability,
●
At a cost of $2,595.00, including shipping and
capability, and usability
Cons ● Poor sound quality
handling, the affordability of the LEA 97178 was
● Background noise interference considered adequate to very good. Capability was
evaluated as very good. One practitioner noted,
PALD06 Composite Assessment Score: 37
however, that there was a big difference in the sound
Radio Frequency Body Wires fidelity going from 350 to 450 feet, although he was
still able to identify the sound source at 65 dB.
Both of the assessed RF body wires performed Another practitioner commented that he heard static at
exceptionally well. However, the more expensive RF 450 feet. Usability was evaluated as very good to
body wire, the JOEY 2, received a slightly better excellent, although the LEA 97178 does require use of
overall product rating than the LEA 97178 as shown a computer to reprogram the transmitting frequency,
in table 3. which is a potential drawback to field operations. One
JOEY 2 practitioner commented that the LEA 97178 did not
work well in windy conditions and traffic affected the
At a cost of $4,156.70, including shipping and quality of reception. She also mentioned that the
handling, the affordability of the JOEY 2 was LEA 97178 was very comfortable to wear, but it did
considered adequate to very good. Capability and get warm.
usability were evaluated as very good to excellent, and
two practitioners commented that it sounded just as The LEA 97178 performed well overall and had an
good from 450 feet as it did from 50 feet. However, at effective transmission range of one quarter of a mile as
450 feet, a couple of practitioners noted that the sound demonstrated in the moving vehicle scenario.
was intermittent and there was static and popping. Practitioner comments were favorable noting that the
LEA 97178 worked better than body wires used by
their particular police departments.
Table 3. RF Body Wires Assessment Results
6
● Adequate to very good affordability
QuickLook Snapshots
● Very comfortable to wear
Pros ● Very good to excellent usability Contact Microphones
● Very good capability
Did not work well in windy conditions
●
Static at 450 feet from receiver
●
Cons Requires use of computer to
●
reprogram transmitting frequency
● Traffic affected quality of reception
● Unit got warm
LEA 97178 Composite Assessment Score: 76
Conclusion
The results of the ASD comparative assessment are
intended to assist law enforcement and emergency
response agencies with acquisition and operational
decisions.
The least expensive contact microphone, the ASV1,
received the highest overall product rating of very
good. The CM30, FOS, and LD3, however, were not
far behind with adequate to very good overall product
ratings.
There is a separation between the ratings of the top
two and bottom two parabolic dish microphones. Of
the parabolic dish microphones assessed, the Dan
Gibson and the Detect Ear received the highest overall Parabolic Dish
product ratings. The PALD06 and the SCIBIONIC
received the lowest overall product ratings of the
parabolic dish microphones assessed.
Both of the assessed RF body wires performed
exceptionally well. The overall product ratings for the
JOEY 2 and the LEA 97178 were very similar.
However, the more expensive RF body wire, the
JOEY 2, received a somewhat better overall product
rating of very good to excellent. Using the same RF
receiver for both body wires ensured a controlled
variable for the reception and processing of the
transmission. Use of either device with a different
make or model receiver may result in different
conclusions.
7
QuickLook Snapshots (Continued)
RF Body Wires
Note: The SAVER QuickLook, available on the SAVER website, allows
users to select the SAVER categories that are most important to their
department and view results according to their specific needs.
All reports in the series, as well as reports on other
technologies, are available by request at
https://www.rkb.us/saver.
8