Re: [Sursound] Comparison Sennheiser Ambeo mic vs. Rode NT-SF1?
They are quite different, so it’s hard to say which was better initially. The rode has more apparent depth, which is probably due to its lower noise floor and higher sensivity, but it’s difficult to tell how much difference the A to B filter is making. Hence A-Format files might give you a better idea of the original character of the capsules. We also tested the Zoom H3VR and a few of my prototypes and I was surprised how different they all sound J Sent from my iPhone > On 14 Dec 2018, at 17:22, amfmail wrote: > > B format preferred. Which mic was best/accurate sounding? > > > Sent from cell phone > Original message From: jack reynolds > Date: 12/14/18 11:03 AM (GMT-05:00) To: > Surround Sound discussion group Subject: Re: > [Sursound] Comparison Sennheiser Ambeo mic vs. Rode NT-SF1? > I have some recordings made with both microphones, plus a few others. I > will post soon with any luck. > > Would raw A-Format be preferable? > >> On Thu, 13 Dec 2018 at 11:21, Ralf R Radermacher wrote: >> >> Is there any comparison online between the two microphones mentioned in >> the title? Haven't been able to find one. >> >> Ralf >> >> -- >> Ralf R. Radermacher - Köln/Cologne, Germany >> Blog : http://the-real-fotoralf.blogspot.com >> Audio : http://aporee.org/maps/projects/fotoralf >> Web : http://www.fotoralf.de >> ___ >> 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. >> > > > -- > > 07889727365 > > 02036861372 > > 3 Swimmers Lane > Haggerston > London > E2 8FR > > > www.facebook.com/reynoldsmicrophones > > www.sohovr.co.uk > -- next part -- > An HTML attachment was scrubbed... > URL: > <https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/private/sursound/attachments/20181214/e504c203/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. > -- next part -- > An HTML attachment was scrubbed... > URL: > <https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/private/sursound/attachments/20181214/bed838bc/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] Comparison Sennheiser Ambeo mic vs. Rode NT-SF1?
Steve Boardman wrote: Apparently it uses adaptive parametric processing, ala Harpex. ... Apparently so. There has been a report that the encoder introduces unpleasant sonic artifacts if the NT-SF1 is in motion during recording. Links to recordings made that way were posted on Facebook, and I've heard them. This report is yet to be duplicated. Len Moskowitz (mosko...@core-sound.com) Core Sound LLC www.cores-sound.com Home of OctoMic and TetraMic. ___ 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] Comparison Sennheiser Ambeo mic vs. Rode NT-SF1?
B format preferred. Which mic was best/accurate sounding? Sent from cell phone Original message From: jack reynolds Date: 12/14/18 11:03 AM (GMT-05:00) To: Surround Sound discussion group Subject: Re: [Sursound] Comparison Sennheiser Ambeo mic vs. Rode NT-SF1? I have some recordings made with both microphones, plus a few others. I will post soon with any luck. Would raw A-Format be preferable? On Thu, 13 Dec 2018 at 11:21, Ralf R Radermacher wrote: > Is there any comparison online between the two microphones mentioned in > the title? Haven't been able to find one. > > Ralf > > -- > Ralf R. Radermacher - Köln/Cologne, Germany > Blog : http://the-real-fotoralf.blogspot.com > Audio : http://aporee.org/maps/projects/fotoralf > Web : http://www.fotoralf.de > ___ > 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. > -- 07889727365 02036861372 3 Swimmers Lane Haggerston London E2 8FR www.facebook.com/reynoldsmicrophones www.sohovr.co.uk -- next part -- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/private/sursound/attachments/20181214/e504c203/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. -- next part -- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/private/sursound/attachments/20181214/bed838bc/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] Comparison Sennheiser Ambeo mic vs. Rode NT-SF1?
I have some recordings made with both microphones, plus a few others. I will post soon with any luck. Would raw A-Format be preferable? On Thu, 13 Dec 2018 at 11:21, Ralf R Radermacher wrote: > Is there any comparison online between the two microphones mentioned in > the title? Haven't been able to find one. > > Ralf > > -- > Ralf R. Radermacher - Köln/Cologne, Germany > Blog : http://the-real-fotoralf.blogspot.com > Audio : http://aporee.org/maps/projects/fotoralf > Web : http://www.fotoralf.de > ___ > 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. > -- 07889727365 02036861372 3 Swimmers Lane Haggerston London E2 8FR www.facebook.com/reynoldsmicrophones www.sohovr.co.uk -- next part -- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/private/sursound/attachments/20181214/e504c203/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] Comparison Sennheiser Ambeo mic vs. Rode NT-SF1?
On 12/13/18 11:12 PM, Ralf R Radermacher wrote: Yes, but the Sennheiser has electret capsules while the Rode is a 'real' condenser mic. I do agree that electrets have come a long way in recent years. Still, I'd like to know how they compare beyond their noise level. On 12/14/18 10:47 AM, David Pickett wrote: B / DPA have been using electrets for more than 30 years. O course, these are perhaps not the same as one can buy for peanuts at Alibaba! The Ambeo uses Sennheiser K-14 if I remember the number correctly. They work very well. I guess unless you want to use a mic in really hot conditions like close to incandescent stage lights (where an electret might lose its charge) or at extremely high SPL (where you might want to use higher polarization voltage on the diaphragm), there is really no problem. Haven't used the Sennheiser mic since I tested a prototype several years ago, but it held up very well. I don't buy this "real condenser" lingo. My subjective experience with the Sennheiser was this: * slightly worse localisation than the Tetramic * slightly nicer tone color out-of-the-box than the Tm (but then there's always EQ and tastes differ) * significantly quieter than my Tm * more "neutral" and a bit less "in-your-face" than the ST450 (which sounds very cinema-y to me) * much nicer and more professional package than my first-generation Tm, easier to have confidence in... * less bulky than a similarly rugged ST450 because no pre-amp box * lighter on the boom than a ST450, but nothing beats the Tm here (if you keep the PPAs down at the or on the recorder) Can't say anything about peak SPL handling, I mostly did street and nature atmos while testing. The prototype ate through batteries like crazy due to its phantom current requirements. I was told there is a fix coming in later batches of the series, don't know what became of it. If you get the chance to test one, do run it on batteries and see if it's a problem for your use case. This is only really relevant in comparison to the Tm, the ST450 uses a lot more power due to external preamp and capsule heating. Best, Jörn -- Jörn Nettingsmeier Tuinbouwstraat 180, 1097 ZB Amsterdam, Nederland 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.
Re: [Sursound] Comparison Sennheiser Ambeo mic vs. Rode NT-SF1?
Hi Stefan One can use multiple instances to create as many beamformers as one needs to upmix or extract. One doesn't need to be constrained to 7.1 or 5.1 positions, as all beamformers can be moved. Although in pairs and a separate centre channel, which is a pain. As i mentioned earlier, it good at this, a lot better than the usual virtual first order mic. As one can suppress the rear lobe. It is definitely sharper as well. I can't compare it directly to Harpex as i don't have the full Harpex version, just the algorithm in Blue Ripples Harpex up mixer. (which i use all the time) The Rode plugin is free so try it. I am not sure why, as I think users would pay for its decording. I am now using it regularly. Best Steve > .” > > - - - - > > They don’t mention this, in fact this seems to be a kind of Facebook > speculation... > > Other sources: > https://digitalfilmmaker.net/rode-soundfield-nt-sf1-ambisonic-microphone/ > > So in my understanding you can’t simulate a high-resolution ambisonics > to 5.1 decoding (for example) with 5 virtual shotgun mikes. Because > the “shotgun capsule responses” won’t add up to a 5.1 microphone at > all... (The 5.1 mike capsule responses should be rather cardioid, and > a coincident stereophonic 5.1 microphone ain’t be good either.) > > It is even less clear how a supposed new parametric ambisonics > decoding process should work, because such a thing is neither > explained nor even mentioned by Rode - and I don’t see any function to > test... > Do I miss anything? Of course it would be quite sensational if Rode > should have invented a new form of FOA upsampling AND would give this > away “for free” in some plugin. (AND then not promoting this > sensational feature...) > > But I highly doubt it... > > Best, > > Stefan > > P.S.: But in case I should be wrong, it would have been me to provoke > a reaction from Rode which would < unveil > a very hidden and > insignificant superresolution feature. > . > -- next part -- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/private/sursound/attachments/20181214/93873a63/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] Comparison Sennheiser Ambeo mic vs. Rode NT-SF1?
B / DPA have been using electrets for more than 30 years. O course, these are perhaps not the same as one can buy for peanuts at Alibaba! David At 23:12 13-12-18, Ralf R Radermacher wrote: Am 13.12.18 um 22:44 schrieb Len Moskowitz: They're both similar in that they are both first-order microphones Yes, but the Sennheiser has electret capsules while the Rode is a 'real' condenser mic. I do agree that electrets have come a long way in recent years. Still, I'd like to know how they compare beyond their noise level. ___ 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.
