Re: [Sursound] A comparison of fifteen ambisonic microphones

[Jack Reynolds]

I feel I should apologise for saying Len is making himself look like a fool. 

That was uncalled for. 

The fact is, we chose the Zoom F8 because that is the most commonly used 
portable recorder, and is the recorder most likely to be used by owners of 
ambisonic microphones, due to the fact you can trim link the channel gains, the 
portability, sound quality and value for money. 

One microphone being less sensitive than another is not something needed to 
take into account as it is simply a fact of life. 

I would suggest the number of people who own a lower cost ambisonic microphone 
and also have access to a Millenia HV3 is vanishingly small and not 
representative of the real world use of the microphones we tested. 

The above is the reason we did not ‘overlook’ the low sensitivity of the 
Coresound Tetramic and Octomic we included in the comparison test. 

We used one of the recorders recommended by CoreSound on their website for use 
with the Octomic. 

The gain setting we used is on the edge of the linear EIN range of the F8 
preamp. 

If you repeated your F8 vs HV3 experiment at 38dB you would see an improvement 
over 30dB, hence my recommendation users of Octomics and F8s should avoid gain 
settings much below 40dB. 

-- next part --
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image0.jpeg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 602800 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: 

-- next part --


All mics were treated equally. 

The Millenia being a quieter, and much more expensive, preamp is not relevant 
to the study. 

I would greatly appreciate it if this discussion ended here and no further 
doubt is cast on the usefulness of the study. 

The noise improvement given by adding capsules is not relevant to this study. 

Listening to recordings of microphones is. 

Thank you. 

Jack Reynolds 

Sent from my iPhone

> On 10 Nov 2023, at 21:00, lenmoskow...@optonline.net wrote:
> 
> One additional comment:
> 
> At the very low end, the Zoom F8 is roughly 15 dB worse than the HV-316.
> 
> As you add gain on the F8, the errors get more and more audible.
> 
> 
> Len Moskowitz (mosko...@core-sound.com)
> Core Sound LLC
> www.core-sound.com
> Home of OctoMic and TetraMic
> 
> 
> -- Original Message --From: lenmoskowitz@optonline.netTo: 
> surso...@music.vt.eduSent: Friday, November 10, 2023 3:33 PMSubject: Re: A 
> comparison of fifteen ambisonic microphones
> When recording the self noise of an OctoMic using the
> Millennia Media HV-316 and Zoom F8 (both with 30 dB of
> gain), while the time domain noise levels look roughly equivalent,
> their noise spectraare quite different. That's what accounts for
> the degradation when using the Zoom F8.
> 
> At low frequencies (below 250 Hz), the F8 is five to ten dB worse
> than the HV-316. At higher frequencies (1 kHz to 20 kHz) it's around
> 5 dB worse.
> 
> You can see the noise spectra here:
> https://u.pcloud.link/publink/show?code=kZPTocVZ53w7P5SUFM5dsF0QpHlmvH6sPR8X
> 
> So the Zoom F8 penalizes mics that use low sensitivity capsules. It
> makes the self noise sound much worse than it really is.
> 
> The folks who ran the comparison test seem to have overlooked this.
> 
> 
> 
> ___
> 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] A comparison of fifteen ambisonic microphones

[Jack Reynolds]

Yes, we know that a $4000 preamp is better than a $1000 dollar preamp and 
recorder. 

What is your point?

Are you suggesting anyone who buys one of your mics should not use a Zoom F8?

That would appear to contradict the text on your website where you specifically 
recommend ….. the Zoom F8.

We also ran a second measurement at higher gain.,

What do you actually want, other than to hijack this study, again, and make it 
all about your specific microphones, noisy, low sensitivity, whatever. 

It needs to stop. 

I had to block you on Facebook for precisely this reason and you have been 
banned from several Facebook groups for similar offences. 

Please, just give it a rest. 

You are making yourself look like a fool. 

Jack

Sent from my iPhone

> On 10 Nov 2023, at 20:33, lenmoskow...@optonline.net wrote:
> 
> 
> When recording the self noise of an OctoMic using the 
> Millennia Media HV-316 and Zoom F8 (both with 30 dB of 
> gain), while the time domain noise levels look roughly equivalent, 
> their noise spectra are quite different. That's what accounts for 
> the degradation when using the Zoom F8.
>  
> At low frequencies (below 250 Hz), the F8 is five to  ten dB worse 
> than the HV-316. At higher frequencies (1 kHz to 20 kHz) it's around 
> 5 dB worse.
>  
> You can see the noise spectra here:
> https://u.pcloud.link/publink/show?code=kZPTocVZ53w7P5SUFM5dsF0QpHlmvH6sPR8X
>  
> So the Zoom F8 penalizes mics that use low sensitivity capsules. It 
> makes the self noise sound much worse than it really is.
>  
> The folks who ran the comparison test seem to have overlooked this.
> -- next part --
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: 
> <https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/private/sursound/attachments/20231110/82eeda20/attachment.htm>
> ___
> 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] A comparison of fifteen ambisonic microphones

[lenmoskowitz]

One additional comment:

At the very low end, the Zoom F8 is roughly 15 dB worse than the HV-316.

As you add gain on the F8, the errors get more and more audible.


Len Moskowitz (mosko...@core-sound.com)
Core Sound LLC
www.core-sound.com
Home of OctoMic and TetraMic


-- Original Message --From: lenmoskowitz@optonline.netTo: 
surso...@music.vt.eduSent: Friday, November 10, 2023 3:33 PMSubject: Re: 
A comparison of fifteen ambisonic microphones

When recording the self noise of an OctoMic using the
Millennia Media HV-316 and Zoom F8 (both with 30 dB of
gain), while the time domain noise levels look roughly equivalent,
their noise spectraare quite different. That's what accounts for
the degradation when using the Zoom F8.

At low frequencies (below 250 Hz), the F8 is five to ten dB worse
than the HV-316. At higher frequencies (1 kHz to 20 kHz) it's around
5 dB worse.

You can see the noise spectra here:
https://u.pcloud.link/publink/show?code=kZPTocVZ53w7P5SUFM5dsF0QpHlmvH6sPR8X

So the Zoom F8 penalizes mics that use low sensitivity capsules. It
makes the self noise sound much worse than it really is.

The folks who ran the comparison test seem to have overlooked this.



___
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] A comparison of fifteen ambisonic microphones

[lenmoskowitz]

When recording the self noise of an OctoMic using the 
Millennia Media HV-316 and Zoom F8 (both with 30 dB of 
gain), while the time domain noise levels look roughly equivalent, 
their noise spectra are quite different. That's what accounts for 
the degradation when using the Zoom F8.
 
At low frequencies (below 250 Hz), the F8 is five to  ten dB worse 
than the HV-316. At higher frequencies (1 kHz to 20 kHz) it's around 
5 dB worse.
 
You can see the noise spectra here:
https://u.pcloud.link/publink/show?code=kZPTocVZ53w7P5SUFM5dsF0QpHlmvH6sPR8X
 
So the Zoom F8 penalizes mics that use low sensitivity capsules. It 
makes the self noise sound much worse than it really is.
 
The folks who ran the comparison test seem to have overlooked this.
-- next part --
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: 
<https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/private/sursound/attachments/20231110/82eeda20/attachment.htm>
___
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] A comparison of fifteen ambisonic microphones

[Søren Bendixen]


Med venlig hilsen
Søren Bendixen
Audiotect
Composer/Sounddesigner/guitarist
(iPhone message)

> Den 10. nov. 2023 kl. 11.57 skrev Panos Kouvelis :
> 
> Although this thread is based on engineering and the scientific method, I
> would like to point out that all the developers of ambisonic microphones
> are doing a great job offering tools in a sector that is difficult for the
> industry to follow and more difficult for the average consumer to grasp.
> Not to mention that Ambisonics doesn't have the money backing and marketing
> power of commercial proprietary formats, besides the fact that it's a
> pretty elegant solution to spatial audio.
> 
> Everybody in the commercial immersive audio sector already has a difficult
> job, which sometimes seems like a dead end.
> 
> For us engineers and/or scientists, one decibel makes a difference, but we
> all should be proud and happy that we have so many nice toys to create,
> which is the ultimate cause.
> 
> I personally like to thank everybody who worked or shared input in this
> endeavor!
> 
> Major kudos! :-)
> 
> *Pan Athen*
> SoundFellas <https://soundfellas.com/>, *MediaFlake Ltd
> <http://mediaflake.com/>*
> Digital Media Services, Content, and Tools
> 
> 
>> On Fri, Nov 10, 2023 at 12:35 PM Jack Reynolds 
>> wrote:
>> 
>> Thanks Mark,
>> 
>> Much appreciated
>> 
>> I only wish Len wasn’t so defensive!
>> 
>> Cheers
>> 
>> Jack
>> 
>> Sent from my iPhone
>> 
>>> On 10 Nov 2023, at 01:18, Mark Thompson 
>> wrote:
>>> 
>>> Thanks Jack, I really appreciate the work you and your colleagues have
>> put together. It is a great resource for our community.
>>> 
>>> Kind regards,
>>> 
>>> Mark
>>> 
>> ___
>> 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/20231110/d86b2fea/attachment.htm>
> ___
> 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/20231110/e1f95661/attachment.htm>
___
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] A comparison of fifteen ambisonic microphones

[Ralf R Radermacher]

Am 10.11.23 um 11:56 schrieb Panos Kouvelis:


I personally like to thank everybody who worked or shared input in this
endeavor!


Well roared, Lion, as they say here.

I only own a simple Zoom H3-VR but I've had loads of fun with it.

Ralf

--
Ralf R. Radermacher  -  Köln/Cologne, Germany
Blog  : http://the-real-fotoralf.blogspot.com
Audio : http://aporee.org/maps/projects/fotoralf
Fotos : https://www.fotocommunity.de/user_photos/770012

___
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] A comparison of fifteen ambisonic microphones

[Panos Kouvelis]

Although this thread is based on engineering and the scientific method, I
would like to point out that all the developers of ambisonic microphones
are doing a great job offering tools in a sector that is difficult for the
industry to follow and more difficult for the average consumer to grasp.
Not to mention that Ambisonics doesn't have the money backing and marketing
power of commercial proprietary formats, besides the fact that it's a
pretty elegant solution to spatial audio.

Everybody in the commercial immersive audio sector already has a difficult
job, which sometimes seems like a dead end.

For us engineers and/or scientists, one decibel makes a difference, but we
all should be proud and happy that we have so many nice toys to create,
which is the ultimate cause.

I personally like to thank everybody who worked or shared input in this
endeavor!

Major kudos! :-)

*Pan Athen*
SoundFellas <https://soundfellas.com/>, *MediaFlake Ltd
<http://mediaflake.com/>*
Digital Media Services, Content, and Tools


On Fri, Nov 10, 2023 at 12:35 PM Jack Reynolds 
wrote:

> Thanks Mark,
>
> Much appreciated
>
> I only wish Len wasn’t so defensive!
>
> Cheers
>
> Jack
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> > On 10 Nov 2023, at 01:18, Mark Thompson 
> wrote:
> >
> > Thanks Jack, I really appreciate the work you and your colleagues have
> put together. It is a great resource for our community.
> >
> > Kind regards,
> >
> > Mark
> >
> ___
> 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/20231110/d86b2fea/attachment.htm>
___
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] A comparison of fifteen ambisonic microphones

[Jack Reynolds]

Thanks Mark, 

Much appreciated

I only wish Len wasn’t so defensive!

Cheers

Jack 

Sent from my iPhone

> On 10 Nov 2023, at 01:18, Mark Thompson  wrote:
> 
> Thanks Jack, I really appreciate the work you and your colleagues have put 
> together. It is a great resource for our community.
> 
> Kind regards,
> 
> Mark
> 
___
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.