Re: [Sursound] Modified SoundField Mk IV
On 2015-10-20, Richard Lee wrote: #641 & #650 refer to posts on the Gearslutz page [...] Is there then any method to this madness? -- Sampo Syreeni, aka decoy - de...@iki.fi, http://decoy.iki.fi/front +358-40-3255353, 025E D175 ABE5 027C 9494 EEB0 E090 8BA9 0509 85C2 ___ Sursound mailing list Sursound@music.vt.edu https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound - unsubscribe here, edit account or options, view archives and so on.
Re: [Sursound] Modified SoundField Mk IV
Something weird going on here - both #641 and #650 come up as identical! And that's even if I view #641 in safari and #650 in Firefox. Puzzled of East Cheam On 20 October 2015 at 05:45, Richard Lee wrote: > #641 & #650 refer to posts on the Gearslutz page > > https://www.gearslutz.com/board/remote-possibilities-acoustic-music-loca > tion-recording/547304-soundfield-mic-stereo-application-22.html > > #641 describes his initial mods to the stick .. very similar (??!) to Ken's > Mk5 > > #650 describes putting the FETs on the capsule backplate. This gives > probably the most improvement. > > When I emerged from the bush, I toyed with the idea of offering a similar > souping up service for Soundfields. But the risk of damage in transit due > to the flimsy tetrahedron is very high and I have no access to matched > capsule sets. > > I strengthened the tetrahedron while I was at Calrec ... but not enough :( > > -- > From: Dave Malham[SMTP:dave.mal...@york.ac.uk] > Sent: Mon, 19 October 2015 17:48 > To: rica...@justnet.com.au; Surround Sound discussion group > Subject:Re: [Sursound] Modified SoundField Mk IV > > What's the difference between #641 and #650?? > >Dave > > On 19 October 2015 at 06:38, Richard Lee wrote: > > > > Interesting: https://www.gearslutz.com/board/11410162-post650.html > > > > I endorse Rudy's mods described in #641 and #650 > > > > Ken Farrar did something similar to his #641 mods in the Mk5 > > > > ... but I think his post should be titled "Where Beach Bums & Angels fear > > to Tread" :) > > ___ > Sursound mailing list > Sursound@music.vt.edu > https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound - unsubscribe here, > edit account or options, view archives and so on. > -- As of 1st October 2012, I have retired from the University. These are my own views and may or may not be shared by the University Dave Malham Honorary Fellow, Department of Music The University of York York YO10 5DD UK 'Ambisonics - Component Imaging for Audio' -- next part -- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/private/sursound/attachments/20151019/0e8787e0/attachment.html> ___ Sursound mailing list Sursound@music.vt.edu https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound - unsubscribe here, edit account or options, view archives and so on.
Re: [Sursound] Advice on new loudspeaker array... Genelec 8010 speakers?
There is very good availability of speakers that are low Cost and designed for 80Hz and upp... They usually come in 5 pack and include one sub woofer ☺ The are usually not powered except for The subwoofer. I use Kef eggs... The decoding of low frequency signals is not really relevant for small venues. Many of us knows this... Br Bo-Erik Den 17 okt 2015 10:42 fm skrev "Jörn Nettingsmeier" < netti...@stackingdwarves.net>: > > On 10/16/2015 08:34 PM, Fons Adriaensen wrote: >> >> Next Ambdec (already in use here, and to be released soon) >> can do this. > > <..> >> >> 1. Bandsplitting, four options: >> >>- single band >>- single band with sub xover >>- dual band >>- dual band with sub xover >> >>so in the latter case you'd have 3 bands. The >>sub filter is 4th order. >> >> 2. For each band you can add as many matrices >> as you want, each of them handling user >> defined subsets of inputs and outputs. >> >> 3. Matrix outputs are added, near-field compensation, >> delay and gain control are done for each output. >> >> Processing can be multi-threaded on SMP hardware. >> >> The 'sub' band you could use to drive subs, or to >> crossover to a lower order decode using the full- >> range speakers. Of course if you want to do both >> and dual band as well, you'd need four bands. >> I'll consider that if there is some press^H^H^H^H^H >> interest. > > > Consider this interest :-D Where do I sign up as alpha tester? (a lousy one since I don't have too many speakers at the moment...) > > I don't think four bands are strictly necessary... If there are subs, it seems an odd choice to additionally spread the low-mids across mid-hi speakers. Better to move the xover a bit higher if the mid-hi speakers need some more help. > > > -- > Jörn Nettingsmeier > Lortzingstr. 11, 45128 Essen, Tel. +49 177 7937487 > > Meister für Veranstaltungstechnik (Bühne/Studio) > Tonmeister VDT > > http://stackingdwarves.net > > ___ > Sursound mailing list > Sursound@music.vt.edu > https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound - unsubscribe here, edit account or options, view archives and so on. -- next part -- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/private/sursound/attachments/20151019/e821f718/attachment.html> ___ Sursound mailing list Sursound@music.vt.edu https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound - unsubscribe here, edit account or options, view archives and so on.
Re: [Sursound] Modified SoundField Mk IV
#641 & #650 refer to posts on the Gearslutz page https://www.gearslutz.com/board/remote-possibilities-acoustic-music-loca tion-recording/547304-soundfield-mic-stereo-application-22.html #641 describes his initial mods to the stick .. very similar (??!) to Ken's Mk5 #650 describes putting the FETs on the capsule backplate. This gives probably the most improvement. When I emerged from the bush, I toyed with the idea of offering a similar souping up service for Soundfields. But the risk of damage in transit due to the flimsy tetrahedron is very high and I have no access to matched capsule sets. I strengthened the tetrahedron while I was at Calrec ... but not enough :( -- From: Dave Malham[SMTP:dave.mal...@york.ac.uk] Sent: Mon, 19 October 2015 17:48 To: rica...@justnet.com.au; Surround Sound discussion group Subject:Re: [Sursound] Modified SoundField Mk IV What's the difference between #641 and #650?? Dave On 19 October 2015 at 06:38, Richard Lee wrote: > > Interesting: https://www.gearslutz.com/board/11410162-post650.html > > I endorse Rudy's mods described in #641 and #650 > > Ken Farrar did something similar to his #641 mods in the Mk5 > > ... but I think his post should be titled "Where Beach Bums & Angels fear > to Tread" :) ___ Sursound mailing list Sursound@music.vt.edu https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound - unsubscribe here, edit account or options, view archives and so on.
Re: [Sursound] Advice on new loudspeaker array... Genelec 8010 speakers?
> Martin - > > To clarify the use of the subs within a tetrahedral array, it would > require > the subs to be elevated off the floor? Given the weight of most subs, this > seems a bit difficult in practice. Thoughts? > At the worst/best ... only one needs lifting. So just a bit of fishing* line for that one ... (?). But p'haps I should let Martin reply ... twas his proposal. Michael *if you fish for sharks ... > thanks, > Charles > > > > On Fri, Oct 16, 2015 at 10:55 AM, Martin Leese < > martin.le...@stanfordalumni.org> wrote: > >> Charles Veasey wrote: >> > Thanks everyone for the information! >> > >> > Using four subs was mentioned a couple of times. I've never used or >> > experienced more than two in an array. What is the justification? I >> assume >> > that given a square room, you'd place one in each corner? >> >> With Ambisonics, using three subs (arranged >> in a triangle) you can decode to 360° >> horizontal-only. Using four subs (arranged in >> a tetrahedron) you can decode to full-sphere. >> Note that, because the subs are sent only low >> frequencies, you can use a single-band >> "velocity" decoder. >> >> With a dual-band Ambisonic decoder, which >> also handles higher frequencies, you need >> more speakers than three/four. >> >> Regards, >> Martin >> -- >> 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 - unsubscribe here, >> edit account or options, view archives and so on. >> > -- next part -- > An HTML attachment was scrubbed... > URL: > <https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/private/sursound/attachments/20151019/d287a0a8/attachment.html> > ___ > Sursound mailing list > Sursound@music.vt.edu > https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound - unsubscribe here, > edit account or options, view archives and so on. > ___ Sursound mailing list Sursound@music.vt.edu https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound - unsubscribe here, edit account or options, view archives and so on.
Re: [Sursound] Advice on new loudspeaker array... Genelec 8010 speakers?
Martin - To clarify the use of the subs within a tetrahedral array, it would require the subs to be elevated off the floor? Given the weight of most subs, this seems a bit difficult in practice. Thoughts? thanks, Charles On Fri, Oct 16, 2015 at 10:55 AM, Martin Leese < martin.le...@stanfordalumni.org> wrote: > Charles Veasey wrote: > > Thanks everyone for the information! > > > > Using four subs was mentioned a couple of times. I've never used or > > experienced more than two in an array. What is the justification? I > assume > > that given a square room, you'd place one in each corner? > > With Ambisonics, using three subs (arranged > in a triangle) you can decode to 360° > horizontal-only. Using four subs (arranged in > a tetrahedron) you can decode to full-sphere. > Note that, because the subs are sent only low > frequencies, you can use a single-band > "velocity" decoder. > > With a dual-band Ambisonic decoder, which > also handles higher frequencies, you need > more speakers than three/four. > > Regards, > Martin > -- > 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 - unsubscribe here, > edit account or options, view archives and so on. > -- next part -- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/private/sursound/attachments/20151019/d287a0a8/attachment.html> ___ Sursound mailing list Sursound@music.vt.edu https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound - unsubscribe here, edit account or options, view archives and so on.
Re: [Sursound] Modified SoundField Mk IV
What's the difference between #641 and #650?? Dave On 19 October 2015 at 06:38, Richard Lee wrote: > > Interesting: https://www.gearslutz.com/board/11410162-post650.html > > I endorse Rudy's mods described in #641 and #650 > > Ken Farrar did something similar to his #641 mods in the Mk5 > > ... but I think his post should be titled "Where Beach Bums & Angels fear > to Tread" :) > ___ > Sursound mailing list > Sursound@music.vt.edu > https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound - unsubscribe here, > edit account or options, view archives and so on. > -- As of 1st October 2012, I have retired from the University. These are my own views and may or may not be shared by the University Dave Malham Honorary Fellow, Department of Music The University of York York YO10 5DD UK 'Ambisonics - Component Imaging for Audio' -- next part -- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/private/sursound/attachments/20151019/6697fcd0/attachment.html> ___ Sursound mailing list Sursound@music.vt.edu https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound - unsubscribe here, edit account or options, view archives and so on.
