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: 
<https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/private/sursound/attachments/2023/bbf9bbdd/attachment.jpeg>
-- 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: 
> 
> ___
> 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]

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.

Re: [Sursound] A comparison of fifteen ambisonic microphones

[Jack Reynolds]

I’m not the sole author, but yes some of the recordings are made of microphones 
I have built, hence the name on the front of the mic and the naming of the 
audio files and my email address. I’m certainly not in any way trying to 
obscure that fact. 

It’s also important to point out that we have been absolutely impartial in our 
treatment of each microphone and Len is the only person who has pointed towards 
there being any problem with the test method or the results. 

We have taken his perceived errors into account by repeating the measurement at 
a higher gain, as Len suggested that was making his mics appear noisier than 
others due to low sensitivity. 

I am happy to rectify any problems anyone points out. 

I have just as much to lose as anyone else. 

If people listen to the recordings and hate the Reynolds mics, no problem.

The four of us did not undertake the comparison for any reason other than there 
not being this sort of resource available and hopefully people will find it 
useful and informative.

Jack Reynolds 

Sent from my iPhone

> On 9 Nov 2023, at 13:26, lenmoskow...@optonline.net wrote:
> 
> 
> In case it hasn't been clear, the author of this comparison is not impartial. 
> He is a 
> small manufacturer of ambisonic mics, and has a conflict of interest.
>  
>  
> Len Moskowitz (mosko...@core-sound.com)
> Core Sound LLC
> www.core-sound.com <http://www.core-sound.com>
> Home of OctoMic and TetraMic
> -- next part --
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: 
> <https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/private/sursound/attachments/20231109/9cf51e0b/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] More Capsules - More Self-Noise Or Less?

[Jack Reynolds]

I could refer you back to Prof Angelo Farina’s input on the subject.

He confirmed the 3dB increase in noise per order. 

Just out of interest - who designed your encoder?

The increase in signal level was when you add two back to back cardioids was 
also confirmed by someone whose opinion I suspect you would trust even more 
than Angelo. 

Perhaps Prof Farina will chime in with his opinion.

The link you posted doesn’t lead anywhere useful by the way, it just takes you 
to a particular Facebook group. 

J
Sent from my iPhone

> On 9 Nov 2023, at 12:56, lenmoskow...@optonline.net wrote:
> 
> 
>> You get a 3dB increase of noise per order of ambisonics, which is why 
>> eight-capsule hybrid second order microphones can actually sound noisier 
>> than first order microphones.
>  
> That's true only if you don't know how to properly design an HOA encoder.
>  
>  
> Len Moskowitz (mosko...@core-sound.com)
> Core Sound LLC
> www.core-sound.com 
>  
> -- next part --
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: 
> 
> ___
> 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] More Capsules - More Self-Noise Or Less?

[Jack Reynolds]

The measurements will be the source of truth. 

J

Sent from my iPhone

> On 9 Nov 2023, at 12:56, lenmoskow...@optonline.net wrote:
> 
> 
>> You get a 3dB increase of noise per order of ambisonics, which is why 
>> eight-capsule hybrid second order microphones can actually sound noisier 
>> than first order microphones.
>  
> That's true only if you don't know how to properly design an HOA encoder.
>  
>  
> Len Moskowitz (mosko...@core-sound.com)
> Core Sound LLC
> www.core-sound.com 
>  
> -- next part --
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: 
> 
> ___
> 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] More Capsules - More Self-Noise Or Less?

[Jack Reynolds]

The other thing to add to this point is the 3dB (not 9dB) improvement in signal 
to noise ratio ONLY APPLIES TO THE W CHANNEL, which ignores the noise on the 
other eight channels of your B-Format. 

You get a 3dB increase of noise per order of ambisonics, which is why 
eight-capsule hybrid second order microphones can actually sound noisier than 
first order microphones. 

Hence the various settings in A-Format to B-Format encoders that essentially 
bring down the level of the second order components to reduce the hiss, at the 
expense of a certain amount of spatial resolution. 

Cheers

Jack

Sent from my iPhone

> On 9 Nov 2023, at 08:51, Jack Reynolds  wrote:
> 
> Hi Len,
> 
> As we’ve discussed before…
> 
> This simply isn’t true.
> 
> If you add two omnidirectional microphones together you get a 6dB increase in 
> peak audio signal (voltage) but only a 3dB increase in noise because noise is 
> an average power. P=I^2*R and V=IR. The square makes the difference. 
> 
> If you double the number of capsules twice, i.e. adding eight omnis, you get 
> a 9dB increase in noise (3*3) and a 24dB increase in peak signal (3*6). 
> 
> A 15dB increase in signal to noise ratio  (SNR, the difference between the 
> peak signal and the noise power, expressed in decibels).
> 
> Adding eight cardioids together to create a single omni W channel for 
> ambisonic use is not the same thing at all. 
> 
> Cardioids are made up of an omnidirectional, pressure component and a 
> velocity, figure-of-eight component.
> 
> If you add two cardioids, pointing in opposite directions, the figure of 
> eight components cancel out, leaving just the omnidirectional components. 
> 
> The omni component is only half of the energy of the cardioid microphone, so 
> you only get half the peak signal benefit when adding cardioids arranged in 
> A-Format to produce a B-Format W channel. 
> 
> Adding eight cardioids in A-Format arrangement will give you 9dB more noise, 
> but only a 12dB (24/2) increase in peak level. An increase in signal to noise 
> ratio of 3dB. Not 9dB.
> 
> So if you are expecting a 9dB increase in SNR and your published 15dBA SNR, 
> which is equivalent to 79dB signal to noise ratio, is based on that 
> assumption, those numbers can’t possibly be accurate. 
> 
> If your mic has eight capsules and you claim you are getting a 9dB SNR 
> benefit from adding the capsules that would imply 70dB SNR per capsule 
> (79-9). 
> 
> I suspect that number should actually be more like 21dBA or 73dB SNR for the 
> W omni channel and 70dB SNR per single capsule, since you only get a 3dB SNR 
> benefit when adding eight. 
> 
> We will confirm these numbers by measuring a single Tetramic capsule on axis 
> with a known SPL white noise signal and subsequently comparing the single 
> capsule numbers to the W channel SNR.
> 
> I’m sorry to have to point these things out. I just want transparency in our 
> industry and any misleading claims or doubts cast on our mic comparison study 
> must be addressed. 
> 
> Cheers
> 
> Jack
> 
> Sent from my iPhone
> 
>> On 9 Nov 2023, at 01:37, lenmoskow...@optonline.net wrote:
>> Do Many Small Capsules Mean More Self-Noise Or Less? Less!
>> 
>> 
>> As we've discussed before, the more capsules an array microphone has, the 
>> lower its self-noise. That's because as you double the number of capsules, 
>> the combined output voltage goes up 6 dB, but the self-noise only goes up 3 
>> dB.
>> 
>> The noise increases only 3 dB  because it's uncorrelated across capsules. So 
>> each time you double the number of capsules, self-noise drops 3 dB. 
>> OctoMic's combined eight capsules have 9 dB lower self-noise than a single 
>> capsule.
>> 
>> That results in a low self-noise specification.  We specify it 
>> conservatively as 15 dBA. That's the same as DPA's wonderful 4003, or only 1 
>> dB more than Schoeps' Mk 4.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> Len Moskowitz (mosko...@core-sound.com)
>> Core Sound LLC
>> www.core-sound.com
>> Home of OctoMic and TetraMic
>> -- next part --
>> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
>> URL: 
>> <https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/private/sursound/attachments/20231108/3a4c2ad2/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] More Capsules - More Self-Noise Or Less?

[Jack Reynolds]

Hi Len,

As we’ve discussed before…

This simply isn’t true.

If you add two omnidirectional microphones together you get a 6dB increase in 
peak audio signal (voltage) but only a 3dB increase in noise because noise is 
an average power. P=I^2*R and V=IR. The square makes the difference. 

If you double the number of capsules twice, i.e. adding eight omnis, you get a 
9dB increase in noise (3*3) and a 24dB increase in peak signal (3*6). 

A 15dB increase in signal to noise ratio  (SNR, the difference between the peak 
signal and the noise power, expressed in decibels).

Adding eight cardioids together to create a single omni W channel for ambisonic 
use is not the same thing at all. 

Cardioids are made up of an omnidirectional, pressure component and a velocity, 
figure-of-eight component.

If you add two cardioids, pointing in opposite directions, the figure of eight 
components cancel out, leaving just the omnidirectional components. 

The omni component is only half of the energy of the cardioid microphone, so 
you only get half the peak signal benefit when adding cardioids arranged in 
A-Format to produce a B-Format W channel. 

Adding eight cardioids in A-Format arrangement will give you 9dB more noise, 
but only a 12dB (24/2) increase in peak level. An increase in signal to noise 
ratio of 3dB. Not 9dB.

So if you are expecting a 9dB increase in SNR and your published 15dBA SNR, 
which is equivalent to 79dB signal to noise ratio, is based on that assumption, 
those numbers can’t possibly be accurate. 

If your mic has eight capsules and you claim you are getting a 9dB SNR benefit 
from adding the capsules that would imply 70dB SNR per capsule (79-9). 

I suspect that number should actually be more like 21dBA or 73dB SNR for the W 
omni channel and 70dB SNR per single capsule, since you only get a 3dB SNR 
benefit when adding eight. 

We will confirm these numbers by measuring a single Tetramic capsule on axis 
with a known SPL white noise signal and subsequently comparing the single 
capsule numbers to the W channel SNR.

I’m sorry to have to point these things out. I just want transparency in our 
industry and any misleading claims or doubts cast on our mic comparison study 
must be addressed. 

Cheers

Jack

Sent from my iPhone

> On 9 Nov 2023, at 01:37, lenmoskow...@optonline.net wrote:
> Do Many Small Capsules Mean More Self-Noise Or Less? Less!
> 
> 
> As we've discussed before, the more capsules an array microphone has, the 
> lower its self-noise. That's because as you double the number of capsules, 
> the combined output voltage goes up 6 dB, but the self-noise only goes up 3 
> dB.
> 
> The noise increases only 3 dB  because it's uncorrelated across capsules. So 
> each time you double the number of capsules, self-noise drops 3 dB. OctoMic's 
> combined eight capsules have 9 dB lower self-noise than a single capsule.
> 
> That results in a low self-noise specification.  We specify it conservatively 
> as 15 dBA. That's the same as DPA's wonderful 4003, or only 1 dB more than 
> Schoeps' Mk 4.
> 
> 
> 
> Len Moskowitz (mosko...@core-sound.com)
> Core Sound LLC
> www.core-sound.com
> Home of OctoMic and TetraMic
> -- next part --
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: 
> 
> ___
> 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] OctoMic Self Noise (was: A comparison of fifteen ambisonic microphones)

[Jack Reynolds]

Thanks Len. 

Useful piece of information. 

And what units is the -81?

J

Sent from my iPhone

> On 8 Nov 2023, at 19:10, lenmoskow...@optonline.net wrote:
> 
> The recording is of the B-format W channel.
> 
> 
> Len Moskowitz (mosko...@core-sound.com)
> Core Sound LLC
> www.core-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.
___
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]

Hi Len,

The test has up until now been entirely focused on the B-Formats.

We are now talking about equivalent input noise, to determine whether your 
assertion regarding preamp gain affecting the performance of Tetra and Octomics 
was correct. 

I am assuming this is one of the ‘errors’ you refuse to clearly outline. 

We ran a second recording test at a higher gain level, which would appear to 
improve the noise performance, although the microphone’s self noise still 
dominates, as expected.  

It turns out the Zoom F8s preamps do get noisier below 40dB, by a very small 
amount as shown here:
-- next part --
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image0.jpeg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 290137 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: 

-- next part --


If we had made our test recordings at 15dB gain, the degradation would be 
audible, but thankfully we chose 38dB. 2dB below the linear range threshold. 

Now that we are talking about the equivalent input noise of preamps, at your 
insistence, the performance of a single capsule is absolutely relevant. Perhaps 
not for any of the other microphones in the test but since you have made 
assertions about your microphones not performing well with the F8 recorder,  
it’s extremely important that I address your concerns to avoid others doubting 
the usefulness of the study. 

One of your concerns appeared to be not recording at a high enough gain, due to 
the low sensitivity (-43dB) of the capsules you use and the noise performance 
of the F8 at certain gain settings. 

Your proposed solution is to use a $4000 preamp, which is perhaps not 
accessible to all and certainly not practical for field recording, which is 
where the majority of ambisonic microphones are used currently. 

Your other concern regarding your non-use of a particular Transound capsule 
(sold as JLI-120A-T -43dB) has been addressed and the PDF has been updated. The 
specs and appearance are remarkably similar to the capsules you use, so I’m 
sure you can understand how this error could have been made. 

If you could outline any other errors you think we may have made that would be 
greatly appreciated.

Thanks. 

Jack 


Sent from my iPhone

> On 4 Nov 2023, at 23:31, lenmoskow...@optonline.net wrote:
> Ambisonic microphones are always used as complete arrays and in B-format, so 
> that's the way they should be tested. Test results from single capsules are 
> irrelevant and misleading.
> 
> Single capsule testing doesn't include what the the A- to B-format encoder 
> modifies. Some encoders do very creative things.
> 
> So testing and evaluation should be done at B-format.
> 
> 
> Len Moskowitz (mosko...@core-sound.com)
> Core Sound LLC
> www.core-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.
___
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 Fons. 

This is exactly the kind of input we need. 

I ran an equivalent input noise test on the Zoom F8 last night, in the standard 
manner of soldering a 150 Ohm resistor across pins 2 and 3 of an XLR, for a 
dummy load. 

I can confirm relationship between input gain and mic pre noise floor is 
absolutely  linear between 55dB and 75dB of gain. I.e when you drop the gain 
5dB, the noise floor also drops 5dB. The relationships deteriorated by 1/3dB or 
so between 50dB and 40dB. 
Below 40dB gain the EIN performance deteriorates more severely.

I will update the doc in the gdrive folder to include a graph of this 
behaviour. 

The noise floor of the F8 mic pre is about about 10dB below the noise floor of 
a single tetramic capsule at 38dB gain at 1KHz.

At 58dB gain, the noise floors are 27dB apart, which is a considerable 
improvement, indicating that Tetramic and Zoom F8 owners, of which I imagine 
there are far more than tetramic and Millenia HV3 owners, should ensure they 
set their gains above 50dB to ensure best noise performance.  Using a Millenia 
pre, with 6dB better EIN than the F8 would be a further improvement. 

I will therefore use the 58dB tetramic recording as a more fair comparison in 
the test. 

I also need to repeat the test with an 80 Ohm resistor load for a more accurate 
comparison with the Tetramic as the lower output impedance may have an effect 
on the noise floor at lower gains. 

Thanks again for your input. This is the sort of discussion I hoped this study 
would produce. It’s easy to prove things one way or another when you have a 
starting point to work from. 

Just for the record, and for transparency, am I right in thinking you work 
closely with Len Moskowitz and CoreSound on the development of the Tetra VST A 
format to B Format encoder and calibration method?

Cheers

Jack


Sent from my iPhone

> On 3 Nov 2023, at 20:17, Fons Adriaensen  wrote:
> 
> On Fri, Nov 03, 2023 at 12:34:52PM +0000, Jack Reynolds wrote:
> 
>> I think the point here is we tested at two different pre-amps
>> gains, to eliminate that as a potential source of noise.
>> There was no difference in SNR, indicating the noise is generated
>> by the capsules and electronics, and not the preamp. 
> 
> Not having the required info (see below), I can't claim that the
> conclusion is wrong. But the reasoning behind it certainly is.
> 
> The Zoom F8 preamps have an EIN of -127 dBu(A) at maximum gain.
> Not bad, but not exceptional either. And that is the only spec
> we have regarding EIN.
> 
> It says NOTHING about EIN at other gain settings, in particular
> much lower ones. 
> 
> A well designed mic preamp will have its best EIN at the highest
> gain, and stay close to that value for a range of 15-20 dB below
> maximum gain. But for some the EIN will rise as soom as gain goes
> down.
> 
> As an example, have a look at 
> 
> <http://kokkinizita.linuxaudio.org/linuxaudio/einslide/ein.pdf>
> 
> This compares the measured EIN of two 8-channel preamps: the Aphex 
> 1788A and the Behringer Pro8, as a function of real gain.
> 
> At maximum gain the cheap Pro 8 ($200), is actually better than
> the Aphex ($4000). But not for long as gain is reduced.
> 
> The 65 dB gain range of the F8 is probably a combination of 
> passive attenuation, real analog gain, and (maybe) some 
> 'digital gain' as well. It's nowhere documented.
> 
> The gain used for the recordings was 38 dB, that is 37 dB
> below maximum. The real EIN at that setting is anybody's
> guess. Until it is actually measured, we just don't know.
> Even with 20 dB more gain, that is still 17 dB below max.
> 
> Making all the recordings at the same gain setting just
> doesn't make any sense. The correct way to do this is
> to use a sensible gain setting for each mic, and document
> that.
> 
> The available recordings do not include the raw (A-format)
> one for the Octomic with additional gain, and the Ambix
> ones do not have the 71 dB(SPL) noise signal. So there is
> no way to really compare them to anything else.
> 
> Ciao,
> 
> -- 
> FA
> 
> 
> ___
> 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]

Thanks Mark. 

I think the point here is we tested at two different pre-amps gains, to 
eliminate that as a potential source of noise.

There was no difference in SNR, indicating the noise is generated by the 
capsules and electronics, and not the preamp. 


Cheers

Jack

Sent from my iPhone

> On 3 Nov 2023, at 02:16, Mark Thompson  wrote:
> 
> Not sure if this helps the discussion or not, but I get the feeling this has 
> to do with the noise floor of the TetraMic capsules, and thought our own 
> independent observations may assist here. 
> 
> We have used the TetraMic for several years now, and like it. However, yes, 
> we have always had to increase pre-amp gain significantly (compared to other 
> microphone inputs) to get good input levels and as a result we meter high 
> noise levels on each capsule. It doesn't mean we've stopped using the 
> TetraMic, we just have to be mindful of this.
> 
> Kind regards,
> 
> Mark
> 
> -----Original Message-
> From: Sursound  On Behalf Of Jack Reynolds
> Sent: Friday, November 3, 2023 7:10 AM
> To: Surround Sound discussion group 
> Subject: Re: [Sursound] A comparison of fifteen ambisonic microphones
> 
> Right. I see.
> 
> Thanks for the clarification. 
> 
> You pointed out various things you thought were errors, which no-one else 
> thought were errors, and we didn’t resolve anything at all.
> 
> I think it would be the right thing to do to outline your issues here to 
> prevent any further doubt being cast on the study. The ‘discussion’ on 
> Facebook was a farce and I would rather not repeat that here. 
> 
> As I remember you thought it was an unfair comparison because your mics are 
> less sensitive, and that meant they would need more input gain and that this 
> would unfairly increase the noise floor? 
> 
> We added a second recording at an increased gain setting and proved that 
> assertion to be incorrect. If a Zoom F8 mic preamp isn’t good enough….?
> 
> Your second assertion was that comparing to a KU100 was an unfair comparison 
> because a real binaural mic has real ITD. Your solution to this was to use 
> your favourite technique of bilateral ambisonics, which would mean finding 
> two of every mic, two recorders and twice the number of channels, which seems 
> like a waste of time effort to me. 
> That point raised some interesting discussion regarding higher order mics 
> resolving ITD better than lower order, and various approaches including first 
> decoding from ambisonics to SPS/T-Designs before binaural decoding as that 
> could potentially render ITD better. 
> We tried that and it didn’t sound any better… so we went back to a straight 
> ambisonics to binaural decode using Sadie ii KU100 HRTFs. Every mic treated 
> the same way, with no exception. 
> 
> What else was there?
> 
> I seem to remember you didn’t like the Schoeps ORTF3D array being in there 
> for comparison. I’m still not sure why. It’s a spaced 3D array, which will 
> obviously sound different from the near coincident arrays, but does that 
> matter?
> 
> What else was there?
> 
> I really do want to resolve this, in public, so we can draw a line under it 
> once and for all. 
> 
> Please just say what you think should be corrected, and why. 
> Also, if you can find a single person that agrees with your assertions I 
> would love to hear their opinion. 
> From the overly lengthy discussion on Facebook I don’t recall anyone agreeing 
> with you. Hence my position that there are in fact no errors in our method. 
> 
> The recordings are there for anyone to study. 
> If your assertion that there was an error in the process, it casts doubt on 
> our study and therefore the usefulness of the files. 
> 
> If you are unable to outline what those errors are - I can only assume there 
> are in fact no errors, and you are not acting in an honourable manner. 
> 
> Apologies to the other Sursounders if this is out of line. Any input would be 
> gratefully received.
> 
> Thanks
> 
> Jack 
> 
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone
> 
>> On 2 Nov 2023, at 19:24, lenmoskow...@optonline.net wrote:
>> 
>> We discussed the multiple errors in detail in our Facebook discussion.
>> 
>> That you didn't correct the comparison study, and actually added more 
>> incorrect information has made it clear that further discussion won't 
>> improve the outcome.
>> 
>> 
>> Len Moskowitz (mosko...@core-sound.com) Core Sound LLC 
>> www.core-sound.com Home of OctoMic and TetraMic
>> 
>> ___
>> Sursound mailing list
>> Sursound@music.vt.edu
>> https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound 

Re: [Sursound] A comparison of fifteen ambisonic microphones

[Jack Reynolds]

It was on the Spatial Audio in VR/AR/MR group, saved for posterity!

There’s a PDF on the google drive along with files in the original post that 
describes the method.

We recorded a piece of music, played back over a 32 speaker array, on fifteen 
different microphones, at the same gain setting, converted to B-Format with the 
appropriate software and gain matched binaural decodes. That’s it. 

J

Sent from my iPhone

> On 2 Nov 2023, at 19:59, eric benjamin  wrote:
> 
> Where did that facebook discussion appear? I'm interested in the mechanism
> by which microphone comparisons are made.
> 
>> On Thu, Nov 2, 2023 at 12:24 PM  wrote:
>> 
>> We discussed the multiple errors in detail in our Facebook discussion.
>> 
>> That you didn't correct the comparison study, and actually added more
>> incorrect information has made it clear
>> that further discussion won't improve the outcome.
>> 
>> 
>> Len Moskowitz (mosko...@core-sound.com)
>> Core Sound LLC
>> www.core-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.
>> 
> -- next part --
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: 
> 
> ___
> 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]

Right. I see.
 
Thanks for the clarification. 

You pointed out various things you thought were errors, which no-one else 
thought were errors, and we didn’t resolve anything at all.

I think it would be the right thing to do to outline your issues here to 
prevent any further doubt being cast on the study. The ‘discussion’ on Facebook 
was a farce and I would rather not repeat that here. 

As I remember you thought it was an unfair comparison because your mics are 
less sensitive, and that meant they would need more input gain and that this 
would unfairly increase the noise floor? 

We added a second recording at an increased gain setting and proved that 
assertion to be incorrect. If a Zoom F8 mic preamp isn’t good enough….?

Your second assertion was that comparing to a KU100 was an unfair comparison 
because a real binaural mic has real ITD. Your solution to this was to use your 
favourite technique of bilateral ambisonics, which would mean finding two of 
every mic, two recorders and twice the number of channels, which seems like a 
waste of time effort to me. 
That point raised some interesting discussion regarding higher order mics 
resolving ITD better than lower order, and various approaches including first 
decoding from ambisonics to SPS/T-Designs before binaural decoding as that 
could potentially render ITD better. 
We tried that and it didn’t sound any better… so we went back to a straight 
ambisonics to binaural decode using Sadie ii KU100 HRTFs. Every mic treated the 
same way, with no exception. 

What else was there?

I seem to remember you didn’t like the Schoeps ORTF3D array being in there for 
comparison. I’m still not sure why. It’s a spaced 3D array, which will 
obviously sound different from the near coincident arrays, but does that matter?

What else was there?

I really do want to resolve this, in public, so we can draw a line under it 
once and for all. 

Please just say what you think should be corrected, and why. 
Also, if you can find a single person that agrees with your assertions I would 
love to hear their opinion. 
From the overly lengthy discussion on Facebook I don’t recall anyone agreeing 
with you. Hence my position that there are in fact no errors in our method. 

The recordings are there for anyone to study. 
If your assertion that there was an error in the process, it casts doubt on our 
study and therefore the usefulness of the files. 

If you are unable to outline what those errors are - I can only assume there 
are in fact no errors, and you are not acting in an honourable manner. 

Apologies to the other Sursounders if this is out of line. Any input would be 
gratefully received.

Thanks

Jack 



Sent from my iPhone

> On 2 Nov 2023, at 19:24, lenmoskow...@optonline.net wrote:
> 
> We discussed the multiple errors in detail in our Facebook discussion.
> 
> That you didn't correct the comparison study, and actually added more 
> incorrect information has made it clear
> that further discussion won't improve the outcome.
> 
> 
> Len Moskowitz (mosko...@core-sound.com)
> Core Sound LLC
> www.core-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.
___
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]

Hi Len,

Perhaps there were no serious errors after all? 

Your input would be greatly appreciated. 

We put a great deal of effort into this test and your sowing doubt is not 
appreciated. 

Cheers

Jack  



Sent from my iPhone

> On 19 Oct 2023, at 03:01, lenmoskow...@optonline.net wrote:
> 
> For the record, this comparison has serious errors regarding TetraMic and 
> OctoMic.
> 
> Jack, Steve and I have discussed this before. I'm disappointed that the 
> errors have not been corrected.
> 
> 
> Len Moskowitz (mosko...@core-sound.com)
> Core Sound LLC
> www.core-sound.com
> Home of TetraMic and OctoMic
> ___
> 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]

Dear Len,

I would be grateful if you could detail the errors you mentioned regarding
your microphones in this study.

I look forward to hearing from you.

Thanks in advance.

Jack Reynolds

On Thu, 19 Oct 2023 at 03:01,  wrote:

> For the record, this comparison has serious errors regarding TetraMic
> and OctoMic.
>
> Jack, Steve and I have discussed this before. I'm disappointed that the
> errors have not been corrected.
>
>
> Len Moskowitz (mosko...@core-sound.com)
> Core Sound LLC
> www.core-sound.com
> Home of TetraMic and OctoMic
> ___
> 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/20231022/3b07424e/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]

Hi Sampo,

I think there’s about 15gb there, which you are welcome to download and host if 
you wish. 

Otherwise The files are publicly available on my google drive. 

I will share the repo with you now.

J

Sent from my iPhone

> On 19 Oct 2023, at 21:33, Sampo Syreeni  wrote:
> 
> On 2023-10-17, jack reynolds wrote:
> 
>> It's quite a large project 
>> <https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1w0UZt9XCPCQOkxoZBRRiVfwnkohUhnd-?usp=share_link>
>>  due to the multichannel files
> 
> Quite the job, so I added the link into the Motherlode as the first outbound 
> link: http://decoy.iki.fi/dsound/ambisonic/motherlode/index.en.html . If 
> you're willing to ship me the actual files, and to have them shown publicly, 
> I *think* I can host a gigabyte or two. Terabytes I can't.
> 
> (I'm woefully late on this project of mine/ours, but at least the base
> material stays online.)
> -- 
> Sampo Syreeni, aka decoy - de...@iki.fi, http://decoy.iki.fi/front
> +358-40-3751464, 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.
___
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]

I would also be interested to know what kind of errors we made, Panos.

I’m sure Mr Moskowitz will enlighten us and we can discuss whether his 
assertions are valid or not. 

Cheers

Jack

Sent from my iPhone

> On 19 Oct 2023, at 07:54, Panos Kouvelis  wrote:
> 
> What kinds of errors should we look for when listening?
> 
> Thank you for pointing that out :-)
> 
> *Pan Athen*
> SoundFellas , *MediaFlake Ltd
> *
> Digital Media Services, Content, and Tools
> 
> 
>> On Thu, Oct 19, 2023 at 5:01 AM  wrote:
>> 
>> For the record, this comparison has serious errors regarding TetraMic
>> and OctoMic.
>> 
>> Jack, Steve and I have discussed this before. I'm disappointed that the
>> errors have not been corrected.
>> 
>> 
>> Len Moskowitz (mosko...@core-sound.com)
>> Core Sound LLC
>> www.core-sound.com
>> Home of TetraMic and OctoMic
>> ___
>> 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: 
> 
> ___
> 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]

Please feel free to outline where you think the errors lie, Len.

We have certainly had discussions but I don’t recall you pointing out errors 
other than your assertion that preamp gain would have a negative effect on the 
noise performance of your microphones, which we proved to be incorrect by 
repeating the measurement and two different gain settings.  You will find both 
recordings in the Reaper project and you will see both have precisely the same 
noise floor in the silence preceding the music. A much higher noise floor than 
any of the other mics tested, I might add, making the effect more obvious in 
comparison to the low level background noise of the studio and the -127 
equivalent input noise of the zoom f8 preamp. 

It’s a pretty straightforward test - 
Record the same input signal, kindly produced by Steven Boardman, at the same 
input gain on multiple microphones. Then loudness match the recordings to play 
back at the same level and listen to the results. 

You also suggested the test would only be fair if we used bilateral ambisonics, 
which is frankly nonsense.

I look forward to your response and the input of other experts to identify 
where we may have made errors.

With kind regards. 

Jack Reynolds


> On 19 Oct 2023, at 03:01, lenmoskow...@optonline.net wrote:
> 
> For the record, this comparison has serious errors regarding TetraMic and 
> OctoMic.
> 
> Jack, Steve and I have discussed this before. I'm disappointed that the 
> errors have not been corrected.
> 
> 
> Len Moskowitz (mosko...@core-sound.com)
> Core Sound LLC
> www.core-sound.com
> Home of TetraMic and OctoMic
> ___
> 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.

[Sursound] A comparison of fifteen ambisonic microphones

[jack reynolds]

Hi All,

In April 2022 Axel Drioli, Steven Boardman, John Leonard and I carried out
an experiment comparing fifteen ambisonic microphones.

We have arranged the recordings into a Reaper project set up to make the
comparison as easy and fair as possible and we hope this resource is useful
to the community.

We are all busy people, hence the delay in releasing these files!

I look forward to seeing how these recordings can be used to make further
comparisons.

It's quite a large project
<https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1w0UZt9XCPCQOkxoZBRRiVfwnkohUhnd-?usp=share_link>
due to the multichannel files....

Cheers

Jack Reynolds

07889727365

02036861372

3 Swimmers Lane
Haggerston
London
E2 8FR


www.reynoldsmicrophones.com
-- next part --
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: 
<https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/private/sursound/attachments/20231017/908fa13a/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] MSG sphere beamforming sound

[Jack Reynolds]

I’ve heard it a few times now, the beamforming is quite remarkable. 

J

Sent from my iPhone

> On 7 Jul 2023, at 19:17, Augustine Leudar  wrote:
> 
> Anyone else bristling with skepticism? Some are claiming one seat can hear
> one language, the adjacent seat a totally different language with no
> "bleeding" anyone heard this? Id love it to be true but 
> 
> https://www.archpaper.com/2018/02/behold-msg-sphere-precision-sound-las-vegas/
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> Artist website: www.augustineleudar.com
> -- next part --
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: 
> 
> ___
> 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] Designing Audio Experiences: Art, Science and Production - new interdisciplinary MA at UCL

[Jack Reynolds]

Yay! Well done Angela. 
I’m so glad you got the job.
Looking forward to working with you in the near future. 
Cheers
Jack

Sent from my iPhone

> On 28 Mar 2023, at 19:29, Angie M  wrote:
> 
> 
> For those seeking an exciting new, truly interdisciplinary postgraduate 
> course about spatial sound (perception, tech, art, cultures of listening, 
> storytelling etc) delivered with industry partners and based in UCL’s 
> renowned dept of anthropology - I’m leading this unique MA starting Sept 
> 2023. 
> 
> Please consider sharing this to people in your networks.
> 
> From binaural, to ambisonics, from next gen audio CODECs to VBAP - this is a 
> course unlike any other to get you the technical and imaginary skills for 
> tomorrow’s most inspiring projects
> https://www.ucl.ac.uk/prospective-students/graduate/taught-degrees/designing-audio-experiences-art-science-and-production-ma
>  
> 
>  
> 
> The course is based at the brand new UCL East campus in East London, home to 
> partners such as the V&A and BBC Music, as well as state-of-the-art 
> facilities including media studios, exhibition, performance and curating 
> spaces, and a 160-seater surround-sound cinema
> 
> -- next part --
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: 
> 
> ___
> 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] [off-topic] Spirals

[Jack Reynolds]

Any chance you could take your aeroplane based discussions offline?

Sent from my iPhone

> On 7 Mar 2023, at 23:26, Fernando Lopez-Lezcano  
> wrote:
> 
> On 3/7/23 3:08 PM, Panos Kouvelis wrote:
>> I recently subscribed to this mailing list for insightful discussions on
>> surround sound.
>> Up 'till now, the material I have received is about aviation.
>> Am I in the wrong place?
> 
> Hi Panos, you are in the right place, please stay, there will be eventually 
> insightful posts about surround sound. I've seen it happen!
> 
> -- Fernando
> 
> 
>>> On Wed, Mar 8, 2023 at 1:03 AM Sampo Syreeni  wrote:
 On 2023-02-22, Fons Adriaensen wrote:
>>> 
 And in many cases the aircraft may very well be unstable in that axis:
 if left alone, the roll angle will slowly increase.
>>> 
>>> Actually, most modern aircraft are stable in the bank axis as well. 
> ... [MUNCH]
> 
> ___
> 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] HOA mic comparison

[Jack Reynolds]

Myself and several colleagues have recently tested most of the ambisonic mics 
available at the moment. 

I intend to initially run a blind listening test soon comparing  fixed binaural 
renders, then we will subsequently publish all the the A-Formats and B-Formats 
for everyone to compare on their own systems. 

We included the ZM1 and EM32 as well as the Rode NTSF1, Sennheiser Ambeo, 
Soundfield ST350 and 450, H3VR, Reynolds A-Type 4, Coresound Tetramic, 
Coresound Octomic, Voyage Spatial Mic and Reynolds AType8. And a KU100 and 
Earthworks and DPA omnis as reference. 

Captured at Stephen Boardman’s Boardroom 36 speaker studio

Jack

Sent from my iPhone

> On 1 Oct 2022, at 10:55, Gabriel Wolf  wrote:
> 
> Hi all!
> 
> had anyone the opportunity to compare the em32 with the ZM-1? Is mhacoustics 
> still facturing? Wrote them an email and got no response... ;-)
> 
> Best from Berlin,
> Gabriel Wolf
> 
> -- next part --
> A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
> Name: OpenPGP_0x7C8C51E72320D322.asc
> Type: application/pgp-keys
> Size: 29147 bytes
> Desc: OpenPGP public key
> URL: 
> 
> -- next part --
> A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
> Name: OpenPGP_signature
> Type: application/pgp-signature
> Size: 495 bytes
> Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
> URL: 
> 
> ___
> 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] basic questions

[Jack Reynolds]

Yes, you need to convert to B-Format with the Ambeo A to B convertor plugin

Sent from my iPhone

> On 31 May 2022, at 12:07, Carôt, Alexander - Prof. Dr. 
>  wrote:
> 
> Hello all,
> 
> I am a newbie regarding suround but hightly interested and motivated to 
> investigate it. In that regard I did some R&D already but get stuck due to a 
> couple of basic questions I would like to come up with here:
> 
> 1.) I have a Sennheiser Ambeo Mic which gives me 4 channel Ambisonics 
> A-Format. In order to achieve 2-channel binaural Sound via Headphones I have 
> to use a respective binaural decoder (as part of e.g. 
> https://github.com/videolabs/libspatialaudio), however, is it correct that I 
> first have to convert it from A to B-Format ?
> 
> 2.) If 1.) applies what is the best way to convert it ? I found this: 
> http://www.matthiaskronlachner.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/2012-09-27-Kronlachner-homepage.pdf
> 
> and it states quite straight-forward equations to do it:
> 
> W = 0.5 * (A + B + C + D);
> X = (A + C) - (B + D);
> Y = (A + B  - (C + D);
> Z = (A + D) - (B + C);
> 
> Is this correct and is B-Format what is typically called the Ambisonics Sound 
> field ?
> 
> Thanks in advance,
> best
> 
> Alex
> --
> http://www.carot.de
> Email : 
> alexan...@carot.de
> Tel.: +49 (0)177 5719797
> 
> -- next part --
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: 
> 
> ___
> 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] format convention of Ambisonic Sound Library Files

[Jack Reynolds]

As far as the know each file has the format in the file name.

J

Sent from my iPhone

> On 23 May 2022, at 13:16, Alan Kan  wrote:
> 
> Hi,
> 
> I was wondering if anyone could tell me whether the audio examples in the 
> Ambisonic Sound Library on https://library.soundfield.com/ are in FuMa or 
> AmbiX format? I couldn't find this detail on the website.
> 
> Thanks
> 
> Alan
> ---
> Dr. Alan Kan, PhD (he/his/him)
> Research Fellow
> School of 
> Engineering
>  | Macquarie University
> Level 1, 50 Waterloo Road, Macquarie Park, NSW 2113, Australia
> T: +61 (2) 9850 2247
> 
> ECHO Lab | Macquarie University 
> Hearing
>  | Australian Hearing Hub
> Room 1.626, 16 University Avenue, Macquarie University, NSW 2109, Australia
> T: +61 (2) 9850 4520
> 
> E:  alan@mq.edu.au
> W: www.mq.edu.au/research/echolab | 
> researchers.mq.edu.au/en/persons/alan-kan
> L: www.linkedin.com/in/alan-kan
> 
> [cid:image003.png@01D86EF2.BAFAA8C0]
> 
> CRICOS Provider 2J. ABN: 90 952 801 237.
> 
> This message is intended for the addressee named and may contain confidential 
> information. If you are not the intended
> recipient, please delete the message and notify the sender. Views expressed 
> in this message are those of the individual
> sender and are not necessarily the views of Macquarie University and its 
> controlled entities.
> 
> -- next part --
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: 
> 
> -- next part --
> A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
> Name: image003.png
> Type: image/png
> Size: 35128 bytes
> Desc: image003.png
> URL: 
> 
> ___
> 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] Reynolds mics

[Jack Reynolds]

Hi Sampo!

I am here if there’s anything you want to know. 

My marketing approach so far has been word of mouth really. 

I have been developing the designs with much field testing help from Axel and 
intended the mics to be as quiet and clean sounding as possible and also to be 
very difficult to break while camped out in the jungle. Waterproof Lemo 
connectors and 3D printed nylon makes for a much more robust product than the 
soundfields.

They are based on the classic tetrahedron of cardioids and there’s not much 
more going on that. 

Cheers

Jack


Sent from my iPhone

> On 6 Apr 2022, at 01:03, Sampo Syreeni  wrote:
> 
> On 2022-03-26, Chris Woolf wrote:
> 
>> Jack has been conversing with me since then off-list, and I've clearly 
>> managed a bit of unintentional promo on his behalf!
> 
> A bit of promo is not bad in these circles: quite obviously ambisonic (and 
> other principled high order) technologies need a bit of a commercial and 
> social boost nowadays.
> 
> But why don't you then bring Jack back into the fold, too? It'd be a *hoot* 
> to discuss his technical and marketing choices in here. Maybe have a bit of 
> to-and-fro abotu them. :) <3
> -- 
> Sampo Syreeni, aka decoy - de...@iki.fi, http://decoy.iki.fi/front
> +358-40-3751464, 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.
___
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] Reynolds mics

[Jack Reynolds]

Hi Chris,
The 3D printing does have several advantages from a design point of view. I can 
make structures that would be impossible with traditional methods.
I nickel coat the nylon SLS parts with very good shielding results. 
The nylon also doesn’t get as ‘cold’ as metal bodied mics so that and IP67 
waterproof LEMO connectors makes them very good for outdoor use. 

For windshields I have custom made Rycote BBGs that sit the array at the centre 
of the windshield. 

I have some demo mics available if you want to try one out. 

Cheers

Jack

Sent from my iPhone

> On 25 Mar 2022, at 12:58, Chris Woolf  wrote:
> 
> He may well do!
> 
> But I was intrigued by the use of 3D printing for what are always going to be 
> very low sales numbers, and how efficient the electrostatic screening was 
> likely to be. I also wondered about the pop screening efficiency too.
> 
> Chris Woolf
> 
> 
>> On 25/03/2022 12:55, Tim Cowlishaw wrote:
>> I've not used the mic, but I do know Jack Reynolds who makes them, he's now 
>> working at BBC R&D in the audio dept, and he's a good guy and knows his 
>> stuff! I suspect he might also lurk on here... :-)
>> 
>> On Fri, 25 Mar 2022 at 13:24, Chris Woolf  wrote:
>> 
>>A friend asked me about this mic. Have to admit I have never heard of
>>it, or of the company.
>> 
>>Does anyone on the list have any knowledge, thoughts or comments?
>> 
>>Chris Woolf
>> 
>>___
>>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/20220325/413ed843/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] the facebook group

[Jack Reynolds]

I still haven’t had much luck finding it

Sent from my iPhone

> On 8 Jan 2022, at 04:59, Sampo Syreeni  wrote:
> 
> On 2022-01-02, Sigmund Gudvangen wrote:
> 
>> Bad idea! Not everybody have Facebook accounts. I wouldn't want one even if 
>> I got paied for it.
> 
> The idea always was to have the FB groop as a secondary to the list. Which it 
> is, and how it remains.
> -- 
> Sampo Syreeni, aka decoy - de...@iki.fi, http://decoy.iki.fi/front
> +358-40-3751464, 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.
___
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] the facebook group

[Jack Reynolds]

Facebook doesn’t have to be awful.

We have a number of successful Facebook group pages that have been immensely 
beneficial for the spatial audio community. 

As mentioned above, I couldn’t find the sursound Facebook page, so a link would 
be useful.

Cheers

Jack

Sent from my iPhone

> On 2 Jan 2022, at 09:29, and...@avinjar.no wrote:
> 
> Hi Sampo, others
> 
>> 2 Jan 2022 - Sampo Syreeni :
> 
>S> Hi. How about if you all also join the Facebook-group,
> 
> Though i'm not the most active poster here, following the discussions
> and pointers to info in this group is extremely useful for my own work,
> and i beleive for many others who as me are not always very active.
> 
> I really hope the exchange in sursound can continue in a simple and easy
> accessible way, preferably in this email list, and not move to a closed
> channel where it won't be accessible any more.
> 
> Happy new year!
> 
> -anders
> ___
> 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] ORTF-3D With Higher-order Ambisonics

[Jack Reynolds]

Sorry, I should made that more clear. 
The 7kHz limit is for your average first order ambisonic mic, which has been 
improved on by second order mics. 

Sent from my iPhone

> On 23 Oct 2020, at 03:16, moskowitz  wrote:
> 
> Steven Boardman wrote:
> 
>> Have you tried it with first order?
>> I would of thought using one Harpexed octomic to synthesise all the spaced
>> mics, would be a bit blurry, did you try with two?
> 
> Harpex only operates at first-order.
> 
> We used OctoMic's first-order B-format as input to Harpex.
> 
> We've used two OctoMics for ORTF. Since OctoMic's cardioid patterns are so 
> stable and consistent, and because pointing angles can be fine-tuned in post, 
> two OctoMics make probably the world's finest ORTF array.
> 
> 
> Len Moskowitz (mosko...@panix.com)
> Core Sound LLC
> www.core-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.
___
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] Recorder for ORTF-3D OUTDOOR SET

[Jack Reynolds]

I upmix to third order and then use the Blue Ripple Spotlight plugin to isolate 
on half of the sound field from each mic and then combine the two into a single 
third order ambix signal to decode binaurally. It’s sound really nice. 
I’ll post a session with some files of a dawn chorus recording when I get a 
chance.
J

Sent from my iPhone

> On 22 Oct 2020, at 17:00, Fons Adriaensen  wrote:
> 
> On Thu, Oct 22, 2020 at 04:42:28PM +0100, Jack Reynolds wrote:
> 
>> I have had great results with a pair of spaced first order ambisonic mics
>> for binaural decoding. 
> 
>> Taking the left hemisphere of one of the mics, and right hemisphere of the 
>> other
> 
> How do you obtain only one hemisphere from a first order AMB mic ?
> By linear processing the only possible way would just be a virtual
> cardioid or something near. At higher order you could obtain something
> closer to a hemisphere. 
> So did you use some non-linear process (e.g. Harpex) ?
> 
> -- 
> FA
> 
> 
> ___
> 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] Recorder for ORTF-3D OUTDOOR SET

[Jack Reynolds]

I have had great results with a pair of spaced first order ambisonic mics for 
binaural decoding. Taking the left hemisphere of one of the mics, and right 
hemisphere of the other, then combining the two.  The decorellation does add 
something nice and spacious to the sound. 

Sent from my iPhone

> On 22 Oct 2020, at 16:32, Fons Adriaensen  wrote:
> 
> On Thu, Oct 22, 2020 at 12:36:38PM +0100, jack reynolds wrote:
> 
>> The only problem with using ambisonics mics is the high frequency limit
>> above which they stop working properly. A second order ambi mic reduces
>> this problem, but above about 7Khz the not quite coincident capsules
>> becomes a problem.
> 
> First order responses from an OctoMic are near perfect up to 11 kHz or so,
> and not perfect but still very usable even at 15 kHz. I doubt very much
> if there is any 'real' cardioid' doing better at that frequency and above.
> Certainly not if you take diffraction / reflection from the mic body and
> clamp into account.
> 
> Anyway, have you ever considered the sort of frequency and polar response
> you get by combining signals from capsules spaced more than 10 cm apart ?
> You'll find they look quite horrible if you care to compute or measure
> them.
> 
> You could of course object that those should never be combined, just each
> one sent to its own speaker. But that would mean that such a one to one 
> mapping is the only possible way to use such signals if you want to preserve
> sound quality. No downmixing or anything similar (e.g. binaural) allowed.
> 
> But we all know that this is not true, we all have heard very nice music
> recordings done with spaced mics. Even those in theory horrible frequency
> or polar responses resulting from spaced mics can sound quite well. Wich
> in turn means that this whole 'imperfect polar responses' debate is mostly
> academic if not irrelevant.
> 
> 
> Ciao,
> 
> -- 
> FA
> 
> ___
> 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] Recorder for ORTF-3D OUTDOOR SET

[jack reynolds]

The only problem with using ambisonics mics is the high frequency limit
above which they stop working properly. A second order ambi mic reduces
this problem, but above about 7Khz the not quite coincident capsules
becomes a problem.

J

On Thu, 22 Oct 2020 at 11:36, Steven Boardman 
wrote:

>
> > What makes you think that ORTF captures
> > 'a small 8th of a sphere' ??
>
> I don’t..
>
> Maybe I wasn’t clear. What I meant was replacing each ORTF capsule (or M/S
> pair) with an ambisonic mic, and decoding for the direction it should point.
> All spaced array setups can use ambisonic mics, as they can output all the
> polar patterns required.
> My point was; the polar patterns would be more accurate (for a calibrated
> mic) and hence the spatial accuracy better.
> So yes exactly that.
>
> Thanks for making it clearer :)
>
> Steve
>
> >
> > Sorry, this doesn't make any sense... A decoder doesn't give 'spherical
> > coordinates', it outputs signals. What makes you think that ORTF captures
> > 'a small 8th of a sphere' ??
> >
> > Each Ambisonic mic, by suitable combination of its capsule signals [1],
> > can provide the same signals as any number of conventional capsules
> > (omni, cardioid, fig-of-eight,...) placed at the same point in space
> > and in any direction.
> >
> > So you can always replace every group of (nearly) coincident conventional
> > capsules (e.g. an M/S pair) by an Ambisonic one and get exactly the same
> > signals.
> >
> > If you use a higher order AMB mic (e.g. an OctoMic) you can even get
> > polar patterns for which no conventional capsule equivalent exists, and
> > which certainly provide an advantage for surround.
> >
> > That's all there is to it.
> >
> >
> > [1] This involves some filtering as well as just summing/subtracting
> > signals, and for good reults it requires calibration of the AMB mic's
> > capsules. If you experimented with Ambisonics in the way you pointed
> > out, it's no surprise you got bad results.
> >
> > As I've stated a number of times before, there is *a lot* of completely
> > bogus information on Ambisonics technology floating around. Some of this
> > stuff is at the same level of intellectual integrity as e.g. flat-earth
> > theories. Most of it is just the results of failing to understand basic
> > things, or of simplifying things to the point that whatever remains is
> > 'not even wrong'. Combine that with some people having their own agenda.
> >
> > Ciao,
> >
> > --
> > FA
> >
> > ___
> > 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.
>


-- 

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: 

___
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] Recorder for ORTF-3D OUTDOOR SET

[jack reynolds]

Sound devices Mix Pre 10ii will work well.

Linked gains and very nice preamps.

That's what I would use at least.

Jack


On Mon, 19 Oct 2020 at 16:34, Augustine Leudar 
wrote:

> Hi there,
> can someone recommend a recorder that would work well with the ORTF-3D
> OUTDOOR SET
>
>
>
> --
> Artist website: www.augustineleudar.com
> Business website: www.magikdoor.net
> -- next part --
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: <
> https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/private/sursound/attachments/20201019/ecc1e227/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.
>


-- 

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: 

___
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] Rode NT SF1

[Jack Reynolds]

You can set the output of the Røde plugin to B-Format ambiX. You may also want 
to experiment with something like harpex for upmixing to higher order 
ambisonics for loudspeaker playback. 

Sent from my iPhone

> On 24 Jun 2020, at 10:35, Ross Adams  wrote:
> 
> Hi Martin,
> Great thank you!
> I'm sure i'll be back with questions.
> Much appreciated,
> Franco
> +45 42 50 07 40
> 
> 
> 
>> On Wed, 24 Jun 2020 at 11:18, PARKER Martin  wrote:
>> 
>> Hi all/Franco, you can use this template to help, see attached.
>> You'll see the røde Aformat plugin is set to have input as the mic, and
>> output as bformat ambix.
>> You'll need the wonderful IEM suite installed for decoding to binaural,
>> 5.1 and to a fancier/custom space as shown https://plugins.iem.at/.
>> You can simply bounce the bformatAmbix track to perform the conversion
>> from a- to- bformatAmbix.
>> 
>> 
>> Best
>> 
>> Martin~
>> 
>> 
>> ---
>> 
>> Dr Martin Parker
>> 
>> Programme Director MSc Sound Design
>> 
>> Reid School of Music
>> 
>> Edinburgh College of Art
>> 
>> University of Edinburgh
>> 
>> +44(0)7813 217092
>> 
>> +44(0)131 650 2333
>> 
>> skype: tinpark
>> 
>> 
>> Room 3.07
>> 
>> Alison House
>> 
>> 12 Nicolson Square
>> 
>> Edinburgh, EH8 9DF
>> 
>> Scotland, UK
>> 
>> 
>> map:
>> https://goo.gl/maps/trpjm55HiorwpreWA
>> 
>> 
>> www.soundeducation.net
>> 
>> www.tinpark.com
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> From: Sursound  on behalf of Ross Adams <
>> ross.adams...@gmail.com>
>> Sent: 24 June 2020 09:59
>> To: Surround Sound discussion group 
>> Subject: [Sursound] Rode NT SF1
>> 
>> Hello,
>> 
>> I will be recording ambient sounds using the Rode NT SF1 for a multispeaker
>> performance. It is the first time i have used such a microphone and worked
>> with ambisonics.
>> Could someone please point me towards or offer information on turning the
>> A-format recordings into B-Format and alternative ways to play back the
>> b-format field recordings in Reaper without using the Soundfield Rode
>> PLugin Processor. I may be totally wrong but it only seems to offer 5.1 or
>> 7.1 etc and I wish to just play the files back as b-format files.
>> 
>> I think my understanding of this is right...please do corect me.
>> 
>> Thank you in advance,
>> Franco
>> +45 42 50 07 40
>> -- next part --
>> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
>> URL: <
>> https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/private/sursound/attachments/20200624/f52dd2cb/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.
>> The University of Edinburgh is a charitable body, registered in Scotland,
>> with registration number SC005336.
>> -- next part --
>> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
>> URL: <
>> https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/private/sursound/attachments/20200624/f3043b03/attachment.html
>>> 
>> -- next part --
>> A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
>> Name: Rode-To-Fancy_template.RPP.zip
>> Type: application/zip
>> Size: 7443 bytes
>> Desc: Rode-To-Fancy_template.RPP.zip
>> URL: <
>> https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/private/sursound/attachments/20200624/f3043b03/attachment.zip
>>> 
>> ___
>> 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: 
> 
> ___
> 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] OctaThingy .stl Files

[Jack Reynolds]

Where are they hosted? I can have a go.

Jack

Sent from my iPhone

> On 19 Mar 2020, at 21:09, John Leonard Main  wrote:
> 
> Hello chaps,
> 
> As all my work has now been cancelled, thanks to Covid-19, I have time on my 
> hands and a new 3D printer to play with. I’d like to experiment with building 
> a couple of the SpHEAR microphones, but I can’t seem to work out how to 
> download the SCAD files so that I convert them to .STL format. 
> 
> Has anyone done this? Got the files to share? Any info gratefully received.
> 
> Thanks, and remember to wash your hands…
> 
> John
> ___
> 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] Ambisonic Audio - Interactive Installation

[jack reynolds]

The new Bose headphones have 6dof tracking, but the accelerometers are not
terribly accurate, so they are more 3dof really, unless you implement ARKit
or similar.



On Mon, 30 Sep 2019 at 15:29, Hector Centeno  wrote:

> I've been wanting to create work in this way for a while now (6DOF
> audio-only augmented reality). This audio augmentation is what I found
> appealing when I tried the Magic Leap AR headset for the first time since
> it's very well implemented there (as opposed to the disappointing visual
> quality). I wish someone will soon produce headphones with 6DOF tracking
> (will require cameras to perform SLAM). In the meantime, I'm also waiting
> for Intel to add Android support to their RealSense Tracking Camera T265 [
> https://www.intelrealsense.com/tracking-camera-t265 ] which they claim is
> on the works. This would allow strapping one of those sensors to a pair of
> headphones and running an Android app that does the spatialization (I
> agree with Przemyslaw that using a game engine such as Unity or Unreal
> would make things very easy, even in this scenario or in a sever based
> one).
>
> Cheers,
>
> Hector
>
>
> On Mon, Sep 30, 2019 at 3:31 AM Przemysław Danowski <
> przemyslaw.danow...@chopin.edu.pl> wrote:
>
> > Michelle,
> >
> > You could look at game engines like Unreal or Unity, and if you can get
> > headtrackers send OSC to the engine you will get coordinates for the
> > position of the players head. You can use native multiplayer feature of
> the
> > engines. You could employ Kinect camera to trace position of the players
> in
> > the room.
> >
> > It would be very easy to implement using VR/AR 6DoF headsets, where you
> > have room position tracking and headtracking combined and the SDK ready
> to
> > use.
> >
> > best,
> >
> >
> > Przemyslaw Danowski
> > Sound Engineering Department
> > Fryderyk Chopin University of Music
> > mob.+48603700626
> > www.chopin.edu.pl 
> >
> > UMFC VR : virtual exhibition
> > http://fb.me/umfcvr 
> > > Wiadomość napisana przez Michelle Irving <
> > michelle.irv...@soleilsound.com  >>
> > w dniu 27.09.2019, o godz. 19:22:
> > >
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > I'm working with an artist who wants to explore Ambisonic Audio
> > > and use the Audeze Mobius headphones in an audio installation.
> > > The soundscape will consist of recordings of various individual vocals
> > > spatialized
> > > throughout the "room". There is a video projection overhead. Hard sync
> is
> > > not required.
> > >
> > > Questions:
> > > 1.Is it possible to exploit the headtracking of the Mobius headphones
> to
> > > give each person and individualized experience of the audio
> composition.
> > > ie. Person A is in the far left front corner and hearing a particular
> > voice
> > > in close proximity while Person B is in the far back right corner
> barely
> > > hearing what Person A is hearing?
> > >
> > > 2.If the Answer to 1. is YES - would you recommend using Max/Msp or
> > Arduino
> > > for configuring hte individual playbacks (mappings between headphones
> and
> > > some sort of player)
> > >
> > > 3.I've looked at the Waves NX toolkit and I don't see a feature to
> > > determine virtual room size?Am I missing something or is there other
> tech
> > > that could allow me to map the headtracker to a specific roomsize?
> > >
> > > 4.Open to better ideas how to achieve an interactive Ambisonic audio
> > > soundscape that works with multiple headsets.
> > >
> > > thanks!
> > > Michelle
> > >
> > > --
> > >
> > > Michelle Irving
> > >
> > > Post-Audio Supervisor
> > >
> > > 416-500-1631
> > >
> > > 507 King St. East
> > >
> > > Toronto, Ontario
> > >
> > > www.soleilsound.com 
> > > -- next part --
> > > An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> > > URL: <
> >
> https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/private/sursound/attachments/20190927/8046a93b/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/20190930/cb9fd2f1/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/20190930/ed44fed2/attachment.html
> >
> ___
> Sursound mailing list
> Sursound@music.vt.edu
> https://mail.music.vt.edu/mai

Re: [Sursound] Software Oscillator

[Jack Reynolds]

Or REW is always a good one. 

https://www.roomeqwizard.com/

Sent from my iPhone

> On 22 Aug 2019, at 21:27, Bill de Garis  wrote:
> 
> Thanks for the replies for portable telephones but how about good old Win10?
> 
> Bill (Billy d) de Garis
> Sound etc
> d...@shaw.ca
> 604 469-6015
> 
> Do not go gentle into that good night,
> Old age should burn and rave at close of day;
> Rage, rage against the dying of the light.
> Dylan Thomas
> 
>> On 22/8/19 8:22 am, Bill de Garis wrote:
>> Would someone recommend a free software oscillator for me?
>> I would like to calibrate my playback system (6.0 flat) cobbled together 
>> from odds and ends.
>> I have a high zoot Radioshack sound level meter.
>> 
>> Bill
>> 
>> Do not go gentle into that good night,
>> Old age should burn and rave at close of day;
>> Rage, rage against the dying of the light.
>> Dylan Thomas
>> 
>> 
> 
> ___
> 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: 

___
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] Software Oscillator

[Jack Reynolds]

https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/p/tone-generator/9wzdncrdhjqn


Sent from my iPhone

> On 22 Aug 2019, at 21:27, Bill de Garis  wrote:
> 
> Thanks for the replies for portable telephones but how about good old Win10?
> 
> Bill (Billy d) de Garis
> Sound etc
> d...@shaw.ca
> 604 469-6015
> 
> Do not go gentle into that good night,
> Old age should burn and rave at close of day;
> Rage, rage against the dying of the light.
> Dylan Thomas
> 
>> On 22/8/19 8:22 am, Bill de Garis wrote:
>> Would someone recommend a free software oscillator for me?
>> I would like to calibrate my playback system (6.0 flat) cobbled together 
>> from odds and ends.
>> I have a high zoot Radioshack sound level meter.
>> 
>> Bill
>> 
>> Do not go gentle into that good night,
>> Old age should burn and rave at close of day;
>> Rage, rage against the dying of the light.
>> Dylan Thomas
>> 
>> 
> 
> ___
> 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: 

___
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] Software Oscillator

[jack reynolds]

I use an iphone app called Tone Gen Pro, connected by Bluetooth to whatever
i need to test.

I think it might be 99p!

Jack

On Thu, 22 Aug 2019 at 16:22, Bill de Garis  wrote:

> Would someone recommend a free software oscillator for me?
> I would like to calibrate my playback system (6.0 flat) cobbled together
> from odds and ends.
> I have a high zoot Radioshack sound level meter.
>
> Bill
>
> Do not go gentle into that good night,
> Old age should burn and rave at close of day;
> Rage, rage against the dying of the light.
> Dylan Thomas
>
> ___
> 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: 

___
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] Zoom H3-VR: new Facebook users' group

[Jack Reynolds]

Where else?

Sent from my iPhone

> On 21 Aug 2019, at 22:31, Ralf R Radermacher  wrote:
> 
>> Am 21.08.19 um 23:15 schrieb Courville, Daniel:
>> 
>> I've started a new Facebook users' group dedicated to the Zoom H3-VR
> 
> On Facebook. Pity, really.
> 
> 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.
___
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] Passive small speaker advice

[Jack Reynolds]

Genelec The Ones if you can stretch to it. 
Jack

Sent from my iPhone

> On 9 Jan 2019, at 17:29, Augustine Leudar  wrote:
> 
> Hi Bruce
> PMC TB2S+ or smaller db1 are a good match for the flying mole amps. They do
> studio and hi versions not the flattest but time based response is really
> good.
> They were often sold with the flying me amps too so there's that
> 
> 
>> On Wednesday, 9 January 2019, Bruce Wiggins  wrote:
>> 
>> Hello Sursounders (and Happy New Year!)
>> 
>> For many years, we've been running our Sounds in Space research symposium
>> using lots of old passive minipod speakers (as Peter Lennox had lots of
>> these at the time of our first symposium, an we've been using them ever
>> since https://www.podspeakers.com/)
>> 
>> However, it's come to the time where we really need to invest in a
>> replacement for these, essentially hifi, speakers!
>> 
>> We have a large number of flying mole amplifiers (100W into 8ohm - like
>> these https://www.flyingmole.co.jp/new_en/products/new_product/
>> dadm100pro2/
>> ) and are looking for advice on small speakers we could use to replace the
>> minipods with.
>> 
>> We'll be wanting around 30 of them, and need to fly them on truss for a 3D
>> rig and sounds level wise, the minipods have actually been ok but are a
>> little under-spec'ed (having lots of subs on the floor helps!)
>> 
>> Anyone got any good suggestions/experiences they'd be happy to share?
>> 
>> Sounds in Space last year:
>> https://www.brucewiggins.co.uk/?page_id=1119
>> 
>> cheers
>> 
>> Bruce Wiggins
>> Derby
>> UK
>> -- next part --
>> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
>> URL: > attachments/20190109/ac6eed0e/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.
>> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> Dr. Augustine Leudar
> Artistic Director Magik Door LTD
> Company Number : NI635217
> Registered 63 Ballycoan rd,
> Belfast BT88LL
> www.magikdoor.net
> +44(0)7555784775
> -- next part --
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: 
> 
> ___
> 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?

[Jack Reynolds]

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?

[jack reynolds]

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: 

___
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] Rode NT-SF1 and Zylia ZM-1

[Jack Reynolds]

Flux Evo Channel is fave for this sort of thing.

https://www.flux.audio/project/evo-channel/

Sent from my iPhone

> On 22 Oct 2018, at 09:14, eduardo.patricio zylia.pl 
>  wrote:
> 
> 
> This is an interesting equalizer for HOA:
> 
> https://www.ssa-plugins.com/product/aXequalizer/
> Trial download: https://www.ssa-plugins.com/demo-plugins/
> 
> 
> Eduardo 
> 
> 
> 
>> On October 21, 2018 at 6:21 PM "Courville, Daniel" 
>>  wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> Matthias Kronlachner « mcfx_filter » from his mcfx suite of multichannel 
>> plug-ins. http://www.matthiaskronlachner.com/?p=1910
>> 
>> You can try EQing the A-Format.
>> 
>> He also makes a suite of Ambisonics plug-ins, ambiX. 
>> http://www.matthiaskronlachner.com/?p=2015
>> 
>> Le 21 oct. 2018 12:00 -0400, sursound@music.vt.edu , 
>> a écrit :
>> 
>> Yes, and the ZM-1 could probably benefit from a smidge of EQ (any
>> suggestions?).
>> -- next part --
>> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
>> URL: 
>> 
>> ___
>> 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.
-- next part --
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: 

___
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] MEMS SNR Specifications

[Jack Reynolds]

Are you sure the Ambeo has 110dB SNR?

Sent from my iPhone

> On 17 Aug 2018, at 23:56, Paul Hodges  wrote:
> 
> --On 17 August 2018 14:55 -0700 Ralph Jones 
> wrote:
> 
>> Some folks posting here have seemed to suggest that this level of
>> noise might possibly be acceptable.
> 
> Well, firstly we don't know the actual specification of the devices
> used by Zylia.  And secondly, using an array of nineteen to generate an
> output gives the possibility of significant improvement, because the
> sound source signals are correlated and the noise is uncorrelated.  
> 
> How this holds up in practice at higher orders and higher frequencies I
> will attempt to judge when I get my hands on the ZM-1 rather than just
> predicting failure in advance (which is not consistent with the reviews
> I've seen heard and read).
> 
> Paul
> 
> -- 
> Paul Hodges
> 
> ___
> 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] Looking for mic advice

[jack reynolds]

couple of recordings of a thunder storm i recorded last week.

https://drive.google.com/open?id=1ZaSPOwYvmnojtB8-F-06MpIr6Co2nA6s

On 11 August 2018 at 18:43, Søren Bendixen  wrote:

> Link to audio clip recorded with Mr. Reynolds mic?
> And a hint about price..?
> No info on website but the other mics look beautiful
>
> Med venlig hilsen/Best regards
> Søren Bendixen
> Composer & Producer
> soerenbendixen.com
>
> > Den 11. aug. 2018 kl. 19.29 skrev Axel Drioli :
> >
> > Jack's mic sounds amazing, the soundfield is so clear and less
> > 'in-your-face', as opposed to most FOA mics.
> >
> >
> >
> > On Sat, 11 Aug 2018 at 19:16 jack reynolds 
> > wrote:
> >
> >> I use 14mm electrets, so you can still get them pretty close together.
> They
> >> naturally have a lower noise floor and wide dynamic range.
> >>
> >> Jack
> >>
> >>> On 11 August 2018 at 14:42, Chris Woolf 
> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>> On 11/08/2018 10:59, Axel Drioli wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> ...  I use
> >>>> a prototype made by Reynolds Microphones. ... This mic has much lower
> >>>> self-noise than any other ambi mic you find around.
> >>>>
> >>>> But is that done using large diaphragm capsules? With the inevitable
> >>> consequences in terms of coincidence?
> >>>
> >>> Chris Woolf
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> ---
> >>> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
> >>> https://www.avast.com/antivirus
> >>>
> >>> ___
> >>> 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/20180811/504f69e2/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.
> >>
> > --
> > *Axel Drioli <http://www.axeldrioli.com/>*
> >
> > *Immersive Audio Designer and Producer for 360 Videos, VR and
> Installations*
> >
> >
> > *Tel-Facetime: +44 7460 223640 *
> > *Skype: axel.drioli*
> > *Website: *
> > *axeldrioli.com <http://axeldrioli.com/>*
> > *E-mail: 3dso...@axeldrioli.com <3dso...@axeldrioli.com>*
> >
> >
> > *LDN. UK*
> > -- next part --
> > An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> > URL: <https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/private/sursound/
> attachments/20180811/c2006be3/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.
>



-- 

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/20180812/2c35ae5b/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] Looking for mic advice

[jack reynolds]

I use 14mm electrets, so you can still get them pretty close together. They
naturally have a lower noise floor and wide dynamic range.

Jack

On 11 August 2018 at 14:42, Chris Woolf  wrote:

>
> On 11/08/2018 10:59, Axel Drioli wrote:
>
>> ...  I use
>> a prototype made by Reynolds Microphones. ... This mic has much lower
>> self-noise than any other ambi mic you find around.
>>
>> But is that done using large diaphragm capsules? With the inevitable
> consequences in terms of coincidence?
>
> Chris Woolf
>
>
> ---
> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
> https://www.avast.com/antivirus
>
> ___
> 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: 

___
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] RIR measuring, how to capture a higher order Ambisonic room responce?

[jack reynolds]

you are right fons.

it is an octohedron with the top four rotated 45 degrees.

but i would have thought two tetramic IRs at 90 rotated 90 degress from
each other would give you quite good coverage.

rotated 45, 90 and 135 would be even better! Plus another couple for up and
down?

J



On 23 April 2018 at 19:50, Fons Adriaensen  wrote:

> On Mon, Apr 23, 2018 at 07:18:33PM +0100, jack reynolds wrote:
>
> > indeed. apologies, it is 90 degrees.
>
> Again no. To cover all the directions of the Octomic capsules
> with a Tetramic you need 4 orientations of the Tetramic (and
> you get another 8 directions as a bonus).
>
> Ciao,
>
> --
> FA
>
>
> ___
> 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/20180423/f1a5166f/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] RIR measuring, how to capture a higher order Ambisonic room responce?

[jack reynolds]

indeed. apologies, it is 90 degrees.

On 23 April 2018 at 18:31, Bo-Erik Sandholm  wrote:

> As I see it to capture the signals for the upper layers of octomic with a
> tetra mic you rotate the mic 90 degrees between the takes..
> To capture the lower octomic  elements layer go back to initial position,
> then rotate Tetra mic 45 degrees and then 90 degrees for 2  recordings.
>
> So 4 rotation direction to place the tetra mic elements in same positions
> as the 8 Octomic capsules.
>
> select the 8 A signals that corresponds to the octomic positions...
>
> Then get our hands on the octomic software if possible and hopefully
> translate the tetramic calibration file in to a octomic calibration file,
> might be possible.
>
> This has only a chance to work for IR measurements and if the rotation of
> the tetramic is done without moving the center point of the mic head.
>
> I hope this is possible, it should be a great new use of a tetramic to be
> able with a little work to create second order room Impulse responses.
>
>  Bo-Erik
>
> 2018-04-23 19:10 GMT+02:00 Fernando Lopez-Lezcano <
> na...@ccrma.stanford.edu>
> :
>
> > On 04/23/2018 04:24 AM, jack reynolds wrote:
> >
> >> The new coresound octomic is based on two tetramics, with one rotated 45
> >> degrees from the other,
> >>
> >
> > Hmm, does not look like that to me. If you, for example, take any two
> > opposite capsules in the upper ring as part of one tetrahedral
> microphone,
> > there are no capsules in the lower ring that would match the lower half
> of
> > that microphone (they are rotated 45 degrees from where they should be).
> >
> > -- Fernando
> >
> >
> > so if you could work out how the second order
> >> B-format is extracted from the octomic array, you could potentially take
> >> an
> >> A-format reponse with your tetramic, rotate the mic 45 degrees and
> capture
> >> another, then process all eight channels?
> >> Just a thought.
> >>
> >> Jack
> >>
> >> On 23 April 2018 at 11:51, Bo-Erik Sandholm 
> wrote:
> >>
> >> Have never used Max, I need just 2, but probably 4 sound source
> positions
> >>> and one listening position.
> >>> But the listening position should have full spherical  ambisonic
> >>> soundfield.
> >>> But the result should be ambisonic IR's for these 4 sources.
> >>>
> >>> The question is could upsampling be used ?
> >>>
> >>> BR Bo-Erik
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> 2018-04-23 10:47 GMT+02:00 Hyunkook Lee :
> >>>
> >>> Indeed HIRT is the best IR capture package for Max.  There is also
> HAART,
> >>>> which is a standalone Max application we developed using HIRT. This
> >>>> software is all in one box for multichannel IR capture (24 mics x 24
> >>>> sources), acoustic parameter analysis and binauralisation. The
> analysis
> >>>> part is still under development, but the IR capture and
> binauralisation
> >>>> parts are fully working. You can download it here
> >>>>
> >>>> http://eprints.hud.ac.uk/id/eprint/24579/
> >>>>
> >>>> Also as Pierre mentioned, we captured over 2000 IRs of 39 multichannel
> >>>>
> >>> mic
> >>>
> >>>> array configurations from stereo to 9ch 3D using HAART. The library
> >>>> comes
> >>>> with a Max renderer where you can convolve dry sources or signals fed
> >>>>
> >>> from
> >>>
> >>>> DAW with the mic array IRs for simultaneous comparisons between
> >>>>
> >>> techniques.
> >>>
> >>>>
> >>>> https://github.com/APL-Huddersfield/MAIR-Library-and-Renderer
> >>>>
> >>>> Best,
> >>>> Hyunkook
> >>>> =
> >>>> Dr Hyunkook Lee, BMus(Tonmeister), PhD, MAES, FHEA
> >>>> Senior Lecturer in Music Technology
> >>>> Leader of the Applied Psychoacoustics Laboratory (APL)
> >>>> http://www.hud.ac.uk/apl
> >>>> http://www.hyunkooklee.com
> >>>> Phone: +44 (0)1484 471893
> >>>> Email: h@hud.ac.uk
> >>>> Office: CE 2 /14a
> >>>> School of Computing and Engineering
> >>>> University of Huddersfield
> >>>> Huddersfield
> >>>> HD1 3DH
&

Re: [Sursound] RIR measuring, how to capture a higher order Ambisonic room responce?

[jack reynolds]

or yes, take a first order B-Format IR and upsample using Harpex is another
possibility.

J

On 23 April 2018 at 12:24, jack reynolds  wrote:

> The new coresound octomic is based on two tetramics, with one rotated 45
> degrees from the other, so if you could work out how the second order
> B-format is extracted from the octomic array, you could potentially take an
> A-format reponse with your tetramic, rotate the mic 45 degrees and capture
> another, then process all eight channels?
> Just a thought.
>
> Jack
>
> On 23 April 2018 at 11:51, Bo-Erik Sandholm  wrote:
>
>> Have never used Max, I need just 2, but probably 4 sound source positions
>> and one listening position.
>> But the listening position should have full spherical  ambisonic
>> soundfield.
>> But the result should be ambisonic IR's for these 4 sources.
>>
>> The question is could upsampling be used ?
>>
>> BR Bo-Erik
>>
>>
>>
>> 2018-04-23 10:47 GMT+02:00 Hyunkook Lee :
>>
>> > Indeed HIRT is the best IR capture package for Max.  There is also
>> HAART,
>> > which is a standalone Max application we developed using HIRT. This
>> > software is all in one box for multichannel IR capture (24 mics x 24
>> > sources), acoustic parameter analysis and binauralisation. The analysis
>> > part is still under development, but the IR capture and binauralisation
>> > parts are fully working. You can download it here
>> >
>> > http://eprints.hud.ac.uk/id/eprint/24579/
>> >
>> > Also as Pierre mentioned, we captured over 2000 IRs of 39 multichannel
>> mic
>> > array configurations from stereo to 9ch 3D using HAART. The library
>> comes
>> > with a Max renderer where you can convolve dry sources or signals fed
>> from
>> > DAW with the mic array IRs for simultaneous comparisons between
>> techniques.
>> >
>> > https://github.com/APL-Huddersfield/MAIR-Library-and-Renderer
>> >
>> > Best,
>> > Hyunkook
>> > =
>> > Dr Hyunkook Lee, BMus(Tonmeister), PhD, MAES, FHEA
>> > Senior Lecturer in Music Technology
>> > Leader of the Applied Psychoacoustics Laboratory (APL)
>> > http://www.hud.ac.uk/apl
>> > http://www.hyunkooklee.com
>> > Phone: +44 (0)1484 471893
>> > Email: h@hud.ac.uk
>> > Office: CE 2 /14a
>> > School of Computing and Engineering
>> > University of Huddersfield
>> > Huddersfield
>> > HD1 3DH
>> > United Kingdom
>> >
>> > 
>> > From: Sursound [sursound-boun...@music.vt.edu] on behalf of Pierre
>> > Alexandre Tremblay [tremb...@gmail.com]
>> > Sent: 23 April 2018 09:29
>> > To: Surround Sound discussion group
>> > Subject: Re: [Sursound] RIR measuring, how to capture a higher order
>> > Ambisonic room responce?
>> >
>> > If you use Max, try the very versatile HIRT.
>> >
>> > 2nd order with a tetramic is not possible as far as I am aware through…
>> we
>> > have done (mega)multimic IRs (24 channels of inputs, of which a 1st
>> order
>> > ambisonic) of 3 different spaces with our kit, and it was fun and
>> > productive to train the ear on difference of multichannel mic techniques
>> > (Hyunkook Lee has a cool setup and papers on them, and I was mostly
>> > interested in DPA LCR omni vs coincident vs MS)
>> >
>> > We did many stage positions too. I can investigate if I can share the
>> > files if that interests anyone.
>> >
>> > p
>> >
>> >
>> > > On 23 Apr 2018, at 08:37, Bo-Erik Sandholm 
>> wrote:
>> > >
>> > > I want to measure the RIR of a medium size good listening room at
>> least
>> > up
>> > > to second order Ambisonic RIR.
>> > >
>> > > The IR result is to incorporate the responce and reflections of the
>> > > speakers and their positions.
>> > >
>> > > I have a tetramic.
>> > >
>> > > Can several measurements and rotation of the tetra mic between them be
>> > > combined to create the measurements that comes closer to a second
>> order
>> > mic?
>> > >
>> > > I know the basics of using Audacity, and a audio sweep and creating a
>> IR
>> > > from this.
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > Bo-Erik Sandholm
>> > > Stockholm
>> > &g

Re: [Sursound] RIR measuring, how to capture a higher order Ambisonic room responce?

[jack reynolds]

The new coresound octomic is based on two tetramics, with one rotated 45
degrees from the other, so if you could work out how the second order
B-format is extracted from the octomic array, you could potentially take an
A-format reponse with your tetramic, rotate the mic 45 degrees and capture
another, then process all eight channels?
Just a thought.

Jack

On 23 April 2018 at 11:51, Bo-Erik Sandholm  wrote:

> Have never used Max, I need just 2, but probably 4 sound source positions
> and one listening position.
> But the listening position should have full spherical  ambisonic
> soundfield.
> But the result should be ambisonic IR's for these 4 sources.
>
> The question is could upsampling be used ?
>
> BR Bo-Erik
>
>
>
> 2018-04-23 10:47 GMT+02:00 Hyunkook Lee :
>
> > Indeed HIRT is the best IR capture package for Max.  There is also HAART,
> > which is a standalone Max application we developed using HIRT. This
> > software is all in one box for multichannel IR capture (24 mics x 24
> > sources), acoustic parameter analysis and binauralisation. The analysis
> > part is still under development, but the IR capture and binauralisation
> > parts are fully working. You can download it here
> >
> > http://eprints.hud.ac.uk/id/eprint/24579/
> >
> > Also as Pierre mentioned, we captured over 2000 IRs of 39 multichannel
> mic
> > array configurations from stereo to 9ch 3D using HAART. The library comes
> > with a Max renderer where you can convolve dry sources or signals fed
> from
> > DAW with the mic array IRs for simultaneous comparisons between
> techniques.
> >
> > https://github.com/APL-Huddersfield/MAIR-Library-and-Renderer
> >
> > Best,
> > Hyunkook
> > =
> > Dr Hyunkook Lee, BMus(Tonmeister), PhD, MAES, FHEA
> > Senior Lecturer in Music Technology
> > Leader of the Applied Psychoacoustics Laboratory (APL)
> > http://www.hud.ac.uk/apl
> > http://www.hyunkooklee.com
> > Phone: +44 (0)1484 471893
> > Email: h@hud.ac.uk
> > Office: CE 2 /14a
> > School of Computing and Engineering
> > University of Huddersfield
> > Huddersfield
> > HD1 3DH
> > United Kingdom
> >
> > 
> > From: Sursound [sursound-boun...@music.vt.edu] on behalf of Pierre
> > Alexandre Tremblay [tremb...@gmail.com]
> > Sent: 23 April 2018 09:29
> > To: Surround Sound discussion group
> > Subject: Re: [Sursound] RIR measuring, how to capture a higher order
> > Ambisonic room responce?
> >
> > If you use Max, try the very versatile HIRT.
> >
> > 2nd order with a tetramic is not possible as far as I am aware through…
> we
> > have done (mega)multimic IRs (24 channels of inputs, of which a 1st order
> > ambisonic) of 3 different spaces with our kit, and it was fun and
> > productive to train the ear on difference of multichannel mic techniques
> > (Hyunkook Lee has a cool setup and papers on them, and I was mostly
> > interested in DPA LCR omni vs coincident vs MS)
> >
> > We did many stage positions too. I can investigate if I can share the
> > files if that interests anyone.
> >
> > p
> >
> >
> > > On 23 Apr 2018, at 08:37, Bo-Erik Sandholm 
> wrote:
> > >
> > > I want to measure the RIR of a medium size good listening room at least
> > up
> > > to second order Ambisonic RIR.
> > >
> > > The IR result is to incorporate the responce and reflections of the
> > > speakers and their positions.
> > >
> > > I have a tetramic.
> > >
> > > Can several measurements and rotation of the tetra mic between them be
> > > combined to create the measurements that comes closer to a second order
> > mic?
> > >
> > > I know the basics of using Audacity, and a audio sweep and creating a
> IR
> > > from this.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Bo-Erik Sandholm
> > > Stockholm
> > > -- next part --
> > > An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> > > URL:  > attachments/20180423/ee496094/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.
> > University of Huddersfield inspiring tomorrow's professionals.
> > [http://marketing.hud.ac.uk/_HOSTED/EmailSig2014/EmailSigFooter.jpg]
> >
> > This transmission is confidential and may be legally privileged. If you
> > receive it in error, please notify us immediately by e-mail and remove it
> > from your system. If the content of this e-mail does not relate to the
> > business of the University of Huddersfield, then we do not endorse it and
> > will accept no liability.
> > ___
> > Sursound mailing list

Re: [Sursound] Ambix to FuMa conversion

[Jack Reynolds]

AmbiX is more common these days
___
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] Steinberg and Multichannel files

[Jack Reynolds]

RF64 is also an option for 64bit WAV files via libsndfile. 
I am attempting to add BW64 to the library for ADM purposes, but it’s taking a 
while. 
J
___
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] Ambix to FuMa conversion

[Jack Reynolds]

FuMa is WXYZ and ambiX is WYZX with SN3D normalisation. 
I forget the gains off the top of my head, but will have a look and get back if 
no one else has chipped in. 
J
___
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] Rode Soundfield NT-SF1

[Jack Reynolds]

That’s what I thought.
I have also heard that a radius smaller than 15mm or so has detrimental effects 
on the low end
___
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] Rode Soundfield NT-SF1

[Jack Reynolds]

So is a larger radius A-Format mic not a problem then? I always thought the 
radius dictated the upper frequency limit for spatial aliasing.  
___
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] Rode Soundfield NT-SF1

[Jack Reynolds]

There is an optimum radius of about 15mm, below which the bottom end begins to 
suffer I’m told. 
___
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] ***UNCHECKED*** Zoom H2N - thoughts?

[jack reynolds]

I've just noticed the second order function in A2B_matrix.m!

On 10 April 2018 at 16:49, jack reynolds  wrote:

> Fernando - is your A2B matrix for the octathingy first order?
>
> On 10 April 2018 at 06:37, Fernando Lopez-Lezcano <
> na...@ccrma.stanford.edu> wrote:
>
>> On 04/09/2018 01:49 PM, Augustine Leudar wrote:
>>
>>> My guess would be the AD converters are not great - DA converters are
>>> generally flat as a pankake these days but AD converters are not always
>>> on
>>> cheaper stuff. I tried it with various different microphones and was
>>> never
>>> happy - several other sI know found the same. Of course they dont have
>>> phantom power either ...
>>>
>>
>> But the internal capsules do have phantom power! Which can lead to SpHEAR
>> Franken-Microphones like the one in the attached picture[*] :-) That was
>> the first prototype, works fine (too bad the H2N does not store four
>> channel recordings in "native" format, makes things more difficult). One
>> hole on one the side and the right connectors and you are in (and a lot of
>> work, mind you). I have yet to finish assembling the second. Only so many
>> hours in a day (24, last time I checked, too few).
>>
>> -- Fernando
>>
>> [*] part of the SpHEAR project:
>> https://cm-gitlab.stanford.edu/ambisonics/SpHEAR/
>>
>>
>> On 9 April 2018 at 21:43, David Pickett  wrote:
>>>
>>> At 22:36 09-04-18, Augustine Leudar wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> PS thats with the onboard capsules though - the AD converter is a mini
>>>>>
>>>> jack
>>>>
>>>>> in and terrible quality.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Why is this? It is counter-intuitive. I mean, the actual input level and
>>>> impedance may be non-standard and need some accommodation, but having
>>>> taken
>>>> care of that, why should the quality be worse than using the microphione
>>>> mounted on the side?
>>>>
>>> -- next part --
>> A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
>> Name: sphear_h2n.jpg
>> Type: image/jpeg
>> Size: 171373 bytes
>> Desc: not available
>> URL: <https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/private/sursound/attachme
>> nts/20180409/356a8598/attachment.jpg>
>> -- next part --
>> A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
>> Name: h2n_windscreen_off.png
>> Type: image/png
>> Size: 40244 bytes
>> Desc: not available
>> URL: <https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/private/sursound/attachme
>> nts/20180409/356a8598/attachment.png>
>> -- next part --
>> A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
>> Name: h2n_windscreen.png
>> Type: image/png
>> Size: 227255 bytes
>> Desc: not available
>> URL: <https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/private/sursound/attachme
>> nts/20180409/356a8598/attachment-0001.png>
>>
>> ___
>> 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
>
>
>


-- 

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/20180410/e1dbaccf/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] ***UNCHECKED*** Zoom H2N - thoughts?

[jack reynolds]

Fernando - is your A2B matrix for the octathingy first order?

On 10 April 2018 at 06:37, Fernando Lopez-Lezcano 
wrote:

> On 04/09/2018 01:49 PM, Augustine Leudar wrote:
>
>> My guess would be the AD converters are not great - DA converters are
>> generally flat as a pankake these days but AD converters are not always on
>> cheaper stuff. I tried it with various different microphones and was never
>> happy - several other sI know found the same. Of course they dont have
>> phantom power either ...
>>
>
> But the internal capsules do have phantom power! Which can lead to SpHEAR
> Franken-Microphones like the one in the attached picture[*] :-) That was
> the first prototype, works fine (too bad the H2N does not store four
> channel recordings in "native" format, makes things more difficult). One
> hole on one the side and the right connectors and you are in (and a lot of
> work, mind you). I have yet to finish assembling the second. Only so many
> hours in a day (24, last time I checked, too few).
>
> -- Fernando
>
> [*] part of the SpHEAR project:
> https://cm-gitlab.stanford.edu/ambisonics/SpHEAR/
>
>
> On 9 April 2018 at 21:43, David Pickett  wrote:
>>
>> At 22:36 09-04-18, Augustine Leudar wrote:
>>>
 PS thats with the onboard capsules though - the AD converter is a mini

>>> jack
>>>
 in and terrible quality.

>>>
>>> Why is this? It is counter-intuitive. I mean, the actual input level and
>>> impedance may be non-standard and need some accommodation, but having
>>> taken
>>> care of that, why should the quality be worse than using the microphione
>>> mounted on the side?
>>>
>> -- next part --
> A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
> Name: sphear_h2n.jpg
> Type: image/jpeg
> Size: 171373 bytes
> Desc: not available
> URL:  nts/20180409/356a8598/attachment.jpg>
> -- next part --
> A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
> Name: h2n_windscreen_off.png
> Type: image/png
> Size: 40244 bytes
> Desc: not available
> URL:  nts/20180409/356a8598/attachment.png>
> -- next part --
> A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
> Name: h2n_windscreen.png
> Type: image/png
> Size: 227255 bytes
> Desc: not available
> URL:  nts/20180409/356a8598/attachment-0001.png>
>
> ___
> 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: 

___
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] ***UNCHECKED*** Zoom H2N - thoughts?

[jack reynolds]

if you just want a stereo binaural file to hand over, you are probably
better off with a binaural mic.

monitoring just one channel of the A-format is just listening to one of the
capsules, which will be pointing in a particular direction. Or you could
monitor the two front facing capsules and get quasi stereo.

The advantage of A-Format is it picks up the full soundfield, so you can
decide which direction you want your binaural render to be facing after you
have recorded it.

On 10 April 2018 at 14:05, Oddity Medium  wrote:

> yeah, binaurally
>
> the new firmware on the mixpre allows live monitoring on the sennheiser
> ambeos. i'm not comparing the two systems, as they are very different price
> points (4 times apart) but i am asking, what does monitoring one channel of
> A-format mean?
> there is no W or omni in A-format right?
>
> also i'm getting too pedantic maybe. a simpler question is, in practical
> usage for you field recordists/musicians/sound designers out there, how
> much of a hassle is this really?
> the fact that at the end of the recording i cant just hand off the SD card
> to someone with a ready stereo mix, but have to wait till i reach a
> computer?
>
> sorry if this is too personal
>
> On Tue, Apr 10, 2018 at 3:02 PM, jack reynolds 
> wrote:
>
> > do you want monitor live binaurally?
> >
> > you can monitor the individual channels, but I don't know of any way of
> > monitoring ambisonics live except for one of the Soundfield mics, which
> had
> > this built in to the controller
> >
> > On 10 April 2018 at 12:52, Oddity Medium  wrote:
> >
> > > but i cannot monitor live? isnt this a problem?
> > >
> > > On Tue, Apr 10, 2018 at 1:36 PM, umashankar manthravadi <
> > > umasha...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Or get an approximate idea of what you are recording by listening to
> > the
> > > > front pair.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > umashankar
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Sent from Mail<https://go.microsoft.com/fwlink/?LinkId=550986> for
> > > > Windows 10
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > 
> > > > From: Sursound  on behalf of Jack
> > > Reynolds
> > > > 
> > > > Sent: Tuesday, April 10, 2018 4:56:13 PM
> > > > To: Surround Sound discussion group
> > > > Subject: Re: [Sursound] ***UNCHECKED*** Zoom H2N - thoughts?
> > > >
> > > > It’s just four cardioids pointing outwards from a central point, so
> you
> > > > can use them as individual signals if you want. Or encode them to
> > > B-Format
> > > > or any number of other virtual microphone arrangements.
> > > > ___
> > > > Sursound mailing list
> > > > Sursound@music.vt.edu
> > > > https://eur02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=
> > > > https%3A%2F%2Fmail.music.vt.edu%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%
> > > > 2Fsursound&data=02%7C01%7C%7C463f3cfe87ab46a2595c08d59ed5e92a%
> > > > 7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435%7C1%7C0%
> 7C636589563929200753&sdata=
> > > > zAWUKEh0iR4aR5qUHh25rY%2BT0BhZ3H7mvkbGbj2eV4Y%3D&reserved=0 -
> > > 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/20180410/25f8f3dd/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/20180410/41e8f03a/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.
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> >
> > 07889727365
> >
> > 02036861372

Re: [Sursound] ***UNCHECKED*** Zoom H2N - thoughts?

[jack reynolds]

do you want monitor live binaurally?

you can monitor the individual channels, but I don't know of any way of
monitoring ambisonics live except for one of the Soundfield mics, which had
this built in to the controller

On 10 April 2018 at 12:52, Oddity Medium  wrote:

> but i cannot monitor live? isnt this a problem?
>
> On Tue, Apr 10, 2018 at 1:36 PM, umashankar manthravadi <
> umasha...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Or get an approximate idea of what you are recording by listening to the
> > front pair.
> >
> >
> >
> > umashankar
> >
> >
> >
> > Sent from Mail<https://go.microsoft.com/fwlink/?LinkId=550986> for
> > Windows 10
> >
> >
> >
> > 
> > From: Sursound  on behalf of Jack
> Reynolds
> > 
> > Sent: Tuesday, April 10, 2018 4:56:13 PM
> > To: Surround Sound discussion group
> > Subject: Re: [Sursound] ***UNCHECKED*** Zoom H2N - thoughts?
> >
> > It’s just four cardioids pointing outwards from a central point, so you
> > can use them as individual signals if you want. Or encode them to
> B-Format
> > or any number of other virtual microphone arrangements.
> > ___
> > Sursound mailing list
> > Sursound@music.vt.edu
> > https://eur02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=
> > https%3A%2F%2Fmail.music.vt.edu%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%
> > 2Fsursound&data=02%7C01%7C%7C463f3cfe87ab46a2595c08d59ed5e92a%
> > 7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435%7C1%7C0%7C636589563929200753&sdata=
> > zAWUKEh0iR4aR5qUHh25rY%2BT0BhZ3H7mvkbGbj2eV4Y%3D&reserved=0 -
> 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/20180410/25f8f3dd/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/20180410/41e8f03a/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.
>



-- 

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/20180410/6704c84e/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] ***UNCHECKED*** Zoom H2N - thoughts?

[Jack Reynolds]

It’s just four cardioids pointing outwards from a central point, so you can use 
them as individual signals if you want. Or encode them to B-Format or any 
number of other virtual microphone arrangements. 
___
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] ***UNCHECKED*** Zoom H2N - thoughts?

[Jack Reynolds]

I recently built a tetrahedral array into a zoom h2n, but had problems with the 
m/s encoding of the first two channels eating into the already limited headroom 
of the mic pres. The signals are added together on the m channel and the 
resulting recording levels are very different on the first two channels when 
compared to channels 3 and 4. 
I do with you could record channels 1 and 2 raw, like you can when in two 
channel m/s mode.

Jack 
___
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 little )help needed for ambisonics museum project

[jack reynolds]

This is the first one i found, but it will give you an idea.

J

http://www2.spsc.tugraz.at/people/georgios/publications/papers/marentakis_2014c.pdf


On 27 March 2018 at 10:27, Augustine Leudar 
wrote:

> Sorry Im a bit busy so didnt read all. I did quite a similar project with
> two concentric rings of speakers one inside the other. My advice would be
> to not use ambisonics but Vbap or some form of amplitude panning - sweet
> spot is less of an issue. I do a lot of walk around installations and
> occasionally for museums,
> best,
> Gus
>
> On 27 March 2018 at 08:01, Jack Reynolds 
> wrote:
>
> > As far as I know, higher order ambisonics over loudspeakers has a quite
> > confined sweet spot. Higher order spherical harmonics produce an in phase
> > and out of phase signal in opposite speaker pairs. So if you pan a signal
> > towards a particular speaker, the opposite speaker will produce a lower
> > level antiphase signal, which will work when you are positioned
> equidistant
> > from both speakers, causing a certain amount of nulling of the air
> pressure
> > at that spot, but positive particle velocity, like a figure 8 mic
> pattern.
> > So as you move around the room, the sonic image will change because of
> the
> > opposite pairs of speakers.
> > It’s also very difficult to isolate a sound in a single speaker, unless
> > you are working at seventh order ambisonics, with a 64 channel signal.
> > So I am wondering why you are considering ambisonics over vbap?
> >
> > I use the Blue Ripple Sound third order ambisonic plug-ins in Reaper and
> > have also been experimenting with the IEM seventh order plugins which
> could
> > be worth experimenting with. Reaper and Nuendo are the only DAWs which
> will
> > give you 64 channel busses for 7th order, and IEM have just launched a
> > customisable speaker array decoding plugin. You can also try MATHIAS
> > Kronlachers 7th order ambiX suite for binaural decoding at the same time.
> > They also free, so you could experiment for nothing!
> > PTHD has just updated to 16 channel busses but logic can only do 8, so
> > first order only, which won’t give you much positional accuracy.
> >
> > Hope this helps!
> >
> > Cheers
> >
> > Jack
> >
> >
> > Sent from my iPhone
> >
> > > On 27 Mar 2018, at 00:17, Søren Bendixen 
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > Hello
> > > I need some advice!
> > >
> > > I’ve been doing music/sounddesign for museums for a while now (read:
> > https://www.asoundeffect.com/museum-sound-design/ <
> > https://www.asoundeffect.com/museum-sound-design/>). My next project
> > could be the one using ambisonics!…
> > > I have never really used ambisonics but have been reading a lot lately,
> > and demoing plug ins - up til now only in headphones converting stuff to
> > binaural.
> > > And in the next few days I´ll test some ambisonics over my speakers. I
> > did that a while back and it sounded very cool.
> > > I have a studio with 8 ch out, 8 speakers (and a sub) - but hope I can
> > get my hands on 8 more channels and 8 more speakers.
> > >
> > > I have logic Pro x, ableton live 9 (upgrading soon..) and Reaper. I do
> > most of my work in Logic Pro X, and would like to stay in Logic - the
> > exhibition opens in less than three months…so digging deep into another
> DAW
> > is difficult.
> > >
> > > I’m a composer and I compose music and sounddesign.I tend to use
> > standard technical configurations in odd ways (parallel stereo, some
> > sourround configs), Mostly it is ways of composing and arranging every
> > sound as a part of a symphony. It do that in different ways - and I
> started
> > out working this way because I was asked to do 3 compositions/sounddesign
> > playing in the same room - (please read the article from asoundeffect).
> > >
> > > Exhibition rooms are also often odd designs - and so is speaker
> > placement.
> > > But this time I have the possibility to work in 3 circles and this is
> > what want to do:
> > >
> > > - Inner circle: Speak in headphones + two sounddesigns: one related to
> > the speak, the other layers from the sounddesign from the two other
> > circles. I want this sounddesign to be 3D/Binaural.
> > >
> > > - Middle circle: 8 speakers hanging from a rig about 4 - 5 meters up
> > pointing down into the circle.(45 degrees i guess..). This sounddesign
> will
> > consist of music, local sound related to object/themes in this part of
> the
> > exhibition. This sho

Re: [Sursound] (a little )help needed for ambisonics museum project

[Jack Reynolds]

As far as I know, higher order ambisonics over loudspeakers has a quite 
confined sweet spot. Higher order spherical harmonics produce an in phase and 
out of phase signal in opposite speaker pairs. So if you pan a signal towards a 
particular speaker, the opposite speaker will produce a lower level antiphase 
signal, which will work when you are positioned equidistant from both speakers, 
causing a certain amount of nulling of the air pressure at that spot, but 
positive particle velocity, like a figure 8 mic pattern. So as you move around 
the room, the sonic image will change because of the opposite pairs of 
speakers. 
It’s also very difficult to isolate a sound in a single speaker, unless you are 
working at seventh order ambisonics, with a 64 channel signal.
So I am wondering why you are considering ambisonics over vbap? 

I use the Blue Ripple Sound third order ambisonic plug-ins in Reaper and have 
also been experimenting with the IEM seventh order plugins which could be worth 
experimenting with. Reaper and Nuendo are the only DAWs which will give you 64 
channel busses for 7th order, and IEM have just launched a customisable speaker 
array decoding plugin. You can also try MATHIAS Kronlachers 7th order ambiX 
suite for binaural decoding at the same time. They also free, so you could 
experiment for nothing! 
PTHD has just updated to 16 channel busses but logic can only do 8, so first 
order only, which won’t give you much positional accuracy. 

Hope this helps!

Cheers

Jack


Sent from my iPhone

> On 27 Mar 2018, at 00:17, Søren Bendixen  wrote:
> 
> Hello
> I need some advice!
> 
> I’ve been doing music/sounddesign for museums for a while now (read: 
> https://www.asoundeffect.com/museum-sound-design/ 
> ). My next project could 
> be the one using ambisonics!…
> I have never really used ambisonics but have been reading a lot lately, and 
> demoing plug ins - up til now only in headphones converting stuff to binaural.
> And in the next few days I´ll test some ambisonics over my speakers. I did 
> that a while back and it sounded very cool.
> I have a studio with 8 ch out, 8 speakers (and a sub) - but hope I can get my 
> hands on 8 more channels and 8 more speakers.
> 
> I have logic Pro x, ableton live 9 (upgrading soon..) and Reaper. I do most 
> of my work in Logic Pro X, and would like to stay in Logic - the exhibition 
> opens in less than three months…so digging deep into another DAW is difficult.
> 
> I’m a composer and I compose music and sounddesign.I tend to use standard 
> technical configurations in odd ways (parallel stereo, some sourround 
> configs), Mostly it is ways of composing and arranging every sound as a part 
> of a symphony. It do that in different ways - and I started out working this 
> way because I was asked to do 3 compositions/sounddesign playing in the same 
> room - (please read the article from asoundeffect).
> 
> Exhibition rooms are also often odd designs - and so is speaker placement.
> But this time I have the possibility to work in 3 circles and this is what 
> want to do:
> 
> - Inner circle: Speak in headphones + two sounddesigns: one related to the 
> speak, the other layers from the sounddesign from the two other circles. I 
> want this sounddesign to be 3D/Binaural.
> 
> - Middle circle: 8 speakers hanging from a rig about 4 - 5 meters up pointing 
> down into the circle.(45 degrees i guess..). This sounddesign will consist of 
> music, local sound related to object/themes in this part of the exhibition. 
> This should be in ambisonics. some of this sounddesign will appear in 
> headphones as binaural sounds. I can be two different audiofiles (managed by 
> Qlab).
> 
> - Outer circle: 8 speakers placed on the walls - the room is square but we 
> will try to create an illusion that it is circular by projecting movies on 
> the walls. Here I want another sounddesign consisting of mainly season 
> related sound (spring, summer, winter - storm, rain, wind, and just the sound 
> of a cold cold morning..).
> his sounddesign should be ambisonics too.
> If possible I would like sounds from ex. horses (or people walking or wind 
> blowing) wander from the outer circle into the middle circle and into 
> headphones. and back.
> 
> The sounddesign/music from the middle circle and the outer circle will blend 
> (and should blend) and when you put on headphones you will hear layers of the 
> middle and outer circle designs - so you never leave what I call the overall 
> sounddesign.
> 
> So how do I do that..?
> 
> First I need to know: Is it true that Ambisonics does not “aim for” a sweet 
> spot - Paul Virostek says it does 
> (https://www.creativefieldrecording.com/2017/03/01/explorers-of-ambisonics-introduction/#more-16883
>  
> )
>  a lot says it doesn’t..?
> It is very importing to find out about, because an ex

Re: [Sursound] A submittal for a patent on Ambisonics?

[Jack Reynolds]

I’m sure that the pinna must have an affect at close range. 
I’m really looking forward to multiple distance HRTFs become a reality, as this 
is one of the limitations currently.
Similarly, mulitiple A to B microphone filters, measured at different distances 
would be nice!

Sent from my iPhone

> On 23 Jan 2018, at 12:16, Augustine Leudar  wrote:
> 
> Hi Jack,
> Aside from ILDs, ITDs, I also wondered if the pinna was able to distinguish
> very close sound sources due to the fact the wavefront would be much more
> curved almost spherical to the degree that it would be different pressure
> present at different folds of the pinna (ie  very close up  sound slike a
> mosquito) . I dont think theres been much done on that...
> 
> On 23 January 2018 at 11:58, jack reynolds 
> wrote:
> 
>> It looks like a method for binaural rendering with multiple distance HRTFs.
>> 
>> Ambisonics could be one of the inputs, but it seems to be aimed more at
>> object based virtual reality, where the listener is more likely to come
>> very close to an audio source.
>> 
>> Most HRTFs are currently measured at 1m distance, so any objects closer
>> than 1m are not currently rendered correctly.
>> 
>> Far field HRTFs are closer to plane waves, whereas close up audio objects
>> emit more spherical waves, creating greater differences in interaural time
>> difference (ITD).
>> 
>> Jack
>> 
>> On 23 January 2018 at 11:18, Bearcat Şándor 
>> wrote:
>> 
>>> I don't know a lot about patent law, but is this an attempt to tie up our
>>> beloved Ambisonics?
>>> 
>>> http://www.freepatentsonline.com/y2017/0366912.html
>>> 
>>> If so, can we do anything about it?
>>> -- next part --
>>> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
>>> URL: <https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/private/sursound/
>>> attachments/20180123/8502d237/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.
>>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> --
>> 
>> 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/20180123/0de2f264/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.
>> 
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> Dr. Augustine Leudar
> Artistic Director Magik Door LTD
> Company Number : NI635217
> Registered 63 Ballycoan rd,
> Belfast BT88LL
> -- next part --
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: 
> <https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/private/sursound/attachments/20180123/909ab7e4/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] A submittal for a patent on Ambisonics?

[jack reynolds]

It looks like a method for binaural rendering with multiple distance HRTFs.

Ambisonics could be one of the inputs, but it seems to be aimed more at
object based virtual reality, where the listener is more likely to come
very close to an audio source.

Most HRTFs are currently measured at 1m distance, so any objects closer
than 1m are not currently rendered correctly.

Far field HRTFs are closer to plane waves, whereas close up audio objects
emit more spherical waves, creating greater differences in interaural time
difference (ITD).

Jack

On 23 January 2018 at 11:18, Bearcat Şándor  wrote:

> I don't know a lot about patent law, but is this an attempt to tie up our
> beloved Ambisonics?
>
> http://www.freepatentsonline.com/y2017/0366912.html
>
> If so, can we do anything about it?
> -- next part --
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL:  attachments/20180123/8502d237/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.
>



-- 

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: 

___
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] MEMS speakers

[Jack Reynolds]

Like wavefield synthesis

Sent from my iPhone

> On 21 Jan 2018, at 11:55, Justin Bennett  wrote:
> 
> 
>> On 20 Jan 2018, at 18:00, sursound-requ...@music.vt.edu wrote:
>> 
>> Message: 6
>> Date: Sat, 20 Jan 2018 15:36:43 +
>> From: Augustine Leudar 
>> To: Surround Sound discussion group 
>> Subject: Re: [Sursound] MEMS speakers
>> 
>> 
>> Youd have to have "patches" of mems working in unison  I guess to get the
>> lower frequencies . You might be abvle to do soemthing interesting with the
>> ultrasonic methods the directional "zone" speakers use as well….
> 
> That would be pretty cool - an adaptive system where for lower frequencies 
> you use more audiopixels,
> for higher frequencies you use less, and of course the higher the frequency 
> the more accurate localisation would be.
> 
> best, Justin
> 
> 
> Justin Bennett
> 
> jus...@justinbennett.nl
> www.justinbennett.nl
> http://jubilee-art.org/
> 
> 
> 
> ___
> 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] Simple Software to Play a 6-channel WAV File (Windows)?

[Jack Reynolds]

Ah. Perhaps it’s not out yet. 
The betas are available here:
https://nightlies.videolan.org/

They have also announced a collaboration with 3D sound labs, which could be 
very interesting.
No specific dates at the moment tho

Sent from my iPhone

> On 25 Dec 2017, at 12:39, Len Moskowitz  wrote:
> 
> Jack Reynolds wrote:
> 
>> VLC 3.0 has been available as one of their nightly betas for a while, but I 
>> think it has just been release proper
> 
> The VLC Home Page still shows v2.2.8.
> 
> 
> Len Moskowitz (mosko...@core-sound.com)
> Core Sound LLC
> www.core-sound.com
> Home of TetraMic and OctoMic
> 
-- next part --
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: 
<https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/private/sursound/attachments/20171225/88d1b88a/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] Simple Software to Play a 6-channel WAV File (Windows)?

[Jack Reynolds]

VLC 3.0 has been available as one of their nightly betas for a while, but I 
think it has just been release proper

Sent from my iPhone

> On 24 Dec 2017, at 21:37, Len Moskowitz  wrote:
> 
> Alex Drioli wrote:
> 
>> Wouldn t you be able to use VLC?
> 
> 
> The consensus seems to be that the current release of VLC 2.2.8 can't do it 
> easily, if at all.
> If you disagree, would you please provide us with clear instructions how to 
> do it? We'd love to know!
> 
> 
> 
> Len Moskowitz (mosko...@core-sound.com)
> Core Sound LLC
> www.core-sound.com
> Home of TetraMic and OctoMic
> 
> 
> -- next part --
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: 
> 
> ___
> 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] How to find best fit of SOFA files from CIPRIC?

[Jack Reynolds]

Antti,
I would love to try out your app!
Is it available on the iPhone?

Cheers

Jack 

Sent from my iPhone

> On 6 Oct 2017, at 14:37, Antti Vanne  wrote:
> 
> Would you be interested trying out our mobile phone scanning, see e.g.
> https://medium.com/@nahkiz/the-holy-grail-in-audio-and-how-we-found-it-c3e55ccdf37a
> 
>> On Oct 6, 2017 16:26, "Bo-Erik Sandholm"  wrote:
>> 
>> I am looking for information on how to find the best fit from public/Free
>> SOFA databases.
>> 
>> I think one criteria could be the inter ear distance?
>> How would I for example find the best fit in the CIPRIC SOFA database for
>> my headwith.
>> 
>> I do not really want to test all available SOFA files by listening with
>> them.
>> 
>> And for me the process of getting a personal SOFA seems still to be too
>> expensive or at least hard to do.
>> 
>> Bo-Erik
>> Stockholm Sweden
>> -- next part --
>> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
>> URL: > attachments/20171006/42573cb9/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: 
> 
> ___
> 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.