Re: [Sursound] SoundField: from Calrec to MBHO, what year?

[Richard Lee]

Daniel, Lynne wasn't the only girl assembling & covering the capsules but 
she was the best.

> The capsules, though, do seem to have had a makeover, at least as far as 
I can see through the grill with the aid of my trusty LED keyring torch. 
The front edges of these are now bevelled, unlike those in the earlier 
versions, portable or otherwise - although they are still using the same 
illustration in the 450 manual as is in the 350 manual, which shows the 
earlier design.

The bevelled edge is on the support spider which is common to the ST350 and 
much stronger than earlier ones.  This was my most heinious sin on the 
Soundfield.  I strengthened the spider while at Calrec but could have done 
more.  Mea maxima culpa.

The capsules are still the same except for Gold flashed diaphragms.
__

Anyone prepared to measure the electrical response of their ST450?  Any 
capsule (actually the LEMO connector) to W and then to either X Y or Z. 
 I'm planning a file processor to improve B format recordings made with 
ST350s & ST450s.

Email me if you are game and I can provide details depending on what gear 
you've got.

___
Sursound mailing list
Sursound@music.vt.edu
https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound

Re: [Sursound] [ot] another patent

[Stefan Schreiber]

Michael Chapman wrote:


Sorry, ... but: No.

It would be useful if people replied to the points posted,
and not to what they wished people (seeming, regarded as
opponents;-(> had said.

Michael
 



What I wrote was:


Sorry, no. This thread started with a lot of wrong assumptions on
"another patent", so it is not a good start to discuss whole the IP
system,  "as such".



I didn't write:


Sorry, ... but: No.
 





What I wanted to say was that this thread has started in a biased way, 
and under some wrong assumptions. The discussion has been amplified, < 
for me > actually in some impressing way...(The initial impression which 
was given was that the patent system is kind of stupid, can't work etc. 
Just re-read...)


I am certainly not the only one who is/was pointing this out:

This thread was about 
an invalid patent; we're happy that it was rejected, and we can now all move 
 


along.


(Marc Lavallée)

I was actually answering to this:


It would have been interesting to discuss some of the points
that this thread has raised. That seems to be a lost hope.



So, what actually IS this thread about? Is it "another patent", or the 
"copyright and patent system"?



Either we didn't stick to the thread topic at all (first posting), or we 
actually have discussed some of the points you wanted to have discussed. 
Where is the lost hope, then?!


I don't want to seem pedantic  :-D , but we see a different thread 
topic, how it seems.


Just to clarify why I wrote "Sorry, no", which refered exactly to the 
two cited phrases above.


I admit that this was not an ideal way of answering, because this was a 
little bit unclear. (My English is obviously not native.)



It would be useful if people replied to the points posted,
and not to what they wished people (seeming, regarded as
opponents;-(> had said.


I actually thought I did...  :-[ :-)


That seems to be a lost hope.



But if we would have some clear thread topic (which already has "OT" 
included), maybe there would have been  far less room for any 
misunderstandings?



Best,

Stefan Schreiber


___
Sursound mailing list
Sursound@music.vt.edu
https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound

Re: [Sursound] SoundField: from Calrec to MBHO, what year?

[Martin Leese]

Dave Malham  wrote:
...
> PS A little bit more historical stuff from the manual
>
> "Early SoundField prototype models were developed using Gerzon?s theory in
> conjunction with the
> National Research Development Corporation of Great Britain and Calrec Audio.
> Chief Designer at
> Calrec, Ken Farrar, and colleagues played a leading role in turning Gerzon?s
> theory into a real
> product and Ken Farrar?s contribution was later recognised by his
> appointment as a Fellow of the
> Institution of Electrical Engineers (F.I.E.E.).

This is a minor point, but Ken Farrar would
not have been granted the post nominals FIEE
(now FIET) for *just* this contribution; visit:
http://www.theiet.org/membership/types/fiet/fellow-criteria.cfm

Regards,
Martin, MIET
-- 
Martin J Leese
E-mail: martin.leese  stanfordalumni.org
Web: http://members.tripod.com/martin_leese/
___
Sursound mailing list
Sursound@music.vt.edu
https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound

Re: [Sursound] SoundField: from Calrec to MBHO, what year?

[Dave Malham]

Hi Daniel,
I just had a quick look at the discussion on sounddesigners. We've just bought an ST450 based on 
reports from people we trust who have had pre-production units. I've not personally done anything 
serious with it yet as it's been marking season here, so I can't comment directly on it yet other 
than to say it seems very quiet and a seriously professional piece of kit, much better built than 
our existing ST250. I like the fact that whilst it still uses Lemo connectors on the mic lead as 
first seen on the ST350 (I think) they've got both the stereo and the B format outputs on XLR's, 
rather than having the B Format signals on another Lemo. Note that if you've only used the ST250, a 
welcome surprise is that (like the 350), stereo and B format are output on separate connectors. The 
capsules, though, do seem to have had a makeover, at least as far as I can see through the grill 
with the aid of my trusty LED keyring torch. The front edges of these are now bevelled, unlike those 
in the earlier versions, portable or otherwise - although they are still using the same illustration 
in the 450 manual as is in the 350 manual, which shows the earlier design. The only thing I miss is 
a test oscillator, which I, personally, think is an even more important facility on portable kit 
like this than it is on the studio units.


Dave

PS A little bit more historical stuff from the manual

"Early SoundField prototype models were developed using Gerzon’s theory in conjunction with the 
National Research Development Corporation of Great Britain and Calrec Audio. Chief Designer at 
Calrec, Ken Farrar, and colleagues played a leading role in turning Gerzon’s theory into a real 
product and Ken Farrar’s contribution was later recognised by his appointment as a Fellow of the 
Institution of Electrical Engineers (F.I.E.E.). In 1993, the company SoundField Ltd. was formed 
specifically to manufacture and further develop the range of products and their application in both 
stereo and multichannel audio environments"


On 25/09/2011 19:54, Daniel Courville wrote:

Le 11-09-25 02:36, Richard Lee a écrit :


Why do you ask, Daniel?

Well, it's related to this discussion over at Sounddesigners.org
  about the SoundField.

I was really convinced that the SoundField/MBHO partnership had been going
on for a while longer and, rather than to put my foot even farther in my
mouth, I thought I would do some fact checking over here.

- Daniel


___
Sursound mailing list
Sursound@music.vt.edu
https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound


--
 These are my own views and may or may not be shared by my employer
/*/
/* Dave Malham   http://music.york.ac.uk/staff/research/dave-malham/ */
/* Music Research Centre */
/* Department of Music"http://music.york.ac.uk/";   */
/* The University of York  Phone 01904 432448*/
/* Heslington  Fax   01904 432450*/
/* York YO10 5DD */
/* UK   'Ambisonics - Component Imaging for Audio'   */
/*"http://www.york.ac.uk/inst/mustech/3d_audio/"; */
/*/

___
Sursound mailing list
Sursound@music.vt.edu
https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound