Re: [Sursound] Anyone know anything about this?

[Stefan Schreiber]

Jörn Nettingsmeier wrote:


On 04/08/2016 04:26 PM, Marc Lavallee wrote:


On Fri, 8 Apr 2016 15:13:16 +0200
Jörn Nettingsmeier  wrote:




They might have very pragmatic reasons: if they know their equivalent
input noise is at 30 dB SPL and their capsules barf at 120, then
restricting the word length to 96 dB is a perfectly reasonable
decision, given the extremely cramped space and the thermal
challenges inside the sphere. It does not leave much room for error
though, so they better get their analog gains right.



It makes sense. Thanks.

So what 96kHz refers to?



96 kHz is probably due to the marketing department looking for 
something that suggests "hi-resolution"...



48kHz makes a lot of sense, and is actually the film and TV standard.

It also makes sense to go a bit higher, and then probably to 48kHz * 2. 
(Which you can convert easily to 44.1kHz, if required.)


This is such an old story, and has been discussed so many times here...


Best,

St.

P.S.: And how is 5.1 usually recorded, just as an academic question? 
:-D


They support (also) 5.1 output, at least at 1st view.
___
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] Anyone know anything about this?

[Politis Archontis]

Just a note that direct beamforming is not necessarily worse than 
encoding/decoding, it can be used for example to approximate in an optimal 
(least-squares) sense the directional patterns of an ambisonic decoder for some 
target speaker setup.

I haven’t met personally the people in the company, but I’ve heard good things 
about them from colleagues who spoke with them in conferences, both about their 
enthusiasm and their technical knowledge. And a second higher-order microphone 
in the market other than the Eigenmike (and probably cheaper) doesn’t harm..

Regards, 
Archontis Politis

> On 09 Apr 2016, at 14:02, Paul Hodges  wrote:
> 
> --On 08 April 2016 18:14 +0200 Jörn Nettingsmeier
>  wrote:
> 
>> a casual glance over the site seems to suggest direct beamforming
>> without an intermediate b-format.
> 
> But note, in the FAQ (under VR):
> "Audio is recorded in the higher order ambisonic format which allows
> precise representation of the 3D audio scene."
> 
> 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] Anyone know anything about this?

[Paul Hodges]

--On 08 April 2016 18:14 +0200 Jörn Nettingsmeier
 wrote:

> a casual glance over the site seems to suggest direct beamforming
> without an intermediate b-format.

But note, in the FAQ (under VR):
"Audio is recorded in the higher order ambisonic format which allows
precise representation of the 3D audio scene."

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.

Re: [Sursound] Anyone know anything about this

[len moskowitz]

John Leonard write:


This info came through from a colleague in the USA, although the 
company appears to based in Poland.







http://audioimmersion.pl/







Anyone else been contacted? 


 
I saw it at AES and am on their mailing list.


It has a rather large diameter.


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


___
Sursound mailing list
Sursound@music.vt.edu
https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound - unsubscribe here, edit 
account or options, view archives and so on.

Re: [Sursound] Anyone know anything about this?

[Jörn Nettingsmeier]

On 04/08/2016 04:26 PM, Marc Lavallee wrote:

On Fri, 8 Apr 2016 15:13:16 +0200
Jörn Nettingsmeier  wrote:



They might have very pragmatic reasons: if they know their equivalent
input noise is at 30 dB SPL and their capsules barf at 120, then
restricting the word length to 96 dB is a perfectly reasonable
decision, given the extremely cramped space and the thermal
challenges inside the sphere. It does not leave much room for error
though, so they better get their analog gains right.


It makes sense. Thanks.

So what 96kHz refers to?


96 kHz is probably due to the marketing department looking for something 
that suggests "hi-resolution"...


--
Jörn Nettingsmeier
Lortzingstr. 11, 45128 Essen, Tel. +49 177 7937487

Meister für Veranstaltungstechnik (Bühne/Studio)
Tonmeister VDT

http://stackingdwarves.net

___
Sursound mailing list
Sursound@music.vt.edu
https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound - unsubscribe here, edit 
account or options, view archives and so on.

Re: [Sursound] Anyone know anything about this?

[umashankar manthravadi]

They do mention ambisonics

umashankar

Sent from Mail<https://go.microsoft.com/fwlink/?LinkId=550986> for Windows 10

From: Marc Lavallee<mailto:m...@hacklava.net>
Sent: Friday, April 8, 2016 7:57 PM
To: sursound@music.vt.edu<mailto:sursound@music.vt.edu>
Subject: Re: [Sursound] Anyone know anything about this?

On Fri, 8 Apr 2016 15:13:16 +0200
Jörn Nettingsmeier <netti...@stackingdwarves.net> wrote:

> On 04/08/2016 02:10 PM, Marc Lavallée wrote:
> > On Fri, 8 Apr 2016 13:00:20 +0200,
> > Jörn Nettingsmeier <netti...@stackingdwarves.net> wrote :
> >
> >> On 04/07/2016 08:13 PM, Marc Lavallee wrote:
> >>>
> >>> The FAQ says:
> >>> "audio is recorded in 96 KHz/16 bit quality"
> >>>
> >>> I would prefer 48 KHz/24 bit.
> >>
> >> let's not discuss matters of taste, but rather keep things
> >> scientific.
> >>
> >> 96/16 = 6
> >> 48/24 = 2
> >>
> >> so theirs is clearly 3x better than yours!
> >
> > Of course! Hertz per bit... Or is it bit per hertz?
> > What's better for marketing? More bits of more hertz?
>
> More per bit per second!
>
> They might have very pragmatic reasons: if they know their equivalent
> input noise is at 30 dB SPL and their capsules barf at 120, then
> restricting the word length to 96 dB is a perfectly reasonable
> decision, given the extremely cramped space and the thermal
> challenges inside the sphere. It does not leave much room for error
> though, so they better get their analog gains right.

It makes sense. Thanks.

So what 96kHz refers to?

For the record, the Eigenmike is bandlimited to 20kHz, and the
recommended sampling frequency is 44.1kHz.

--
Marc
___
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/20160408/1c9b7389/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] Anyone know anything about this?

[Marc Lavallee]

On Fri, 8 Apr 2016 15:13:16 +0200
Jörn Nettingsmeier  wrote:

> On 04/08/2016 02:10 PM, Marc Lavallée wrote:
> > On Fri, 8 Apr 2016 13:00:20 +0200,
> > Jörn Nettingsmeier  wrote :
> >  
> >> On 04/07/2016 08:13 PM, Marc Lavallee wrote:  
> >>>
> >>> The FAQ says:
> >>> "audio is recorded in 96 KHz/16 bit quality"
> >>>
> >>> I would prefer 48 KHz/24 bit.  
> >>
> >> let's not discuss matters of taste, but rather keep things
> >> scientific.
> >>
> >> 96/16 = 6
> >> 48/24 = 2
> >>
> >> so theirs is clearly 3x better than yours!  
> >
> > Of course! Hertz per bit... Or is it bit per hertz?
> > What's better for marketing? More bits of more hertz?  
> 
> More per bit per second!
> 
> They might have very pragmatic reasons: if they know their equivalent 
> input noise is at 30 dB SPL and their capsules barf at 120, then 
> restricting the word length to 96 dB is a perfectly reasonable
> decision, given the extremely cramped space and the thermal
> challenges inside the sphere. It does not leave much room for error
> though, so they better get their analog gains right.

It makes sense. Thanks.

So what 96kHz refers to?

For the record, the Eigenmike is bandlimited to 20kHz, and the
recommended sampling frequency is 44.1kHz. 

--
Marc
___
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] Anyone know anything about this?

[Bo-Erik Sandholm]

Multi direction binaurals?s?

http://recordinghacks.com/microphones/T-H-E-Audio/BS-3D

Or beamforming ?
http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpl/login.jsp?tp==5346535=http%3A%2F%2Fieeexplore.ieee.org%2Fxpls%2Fabs_all.jsp%3Farnumber%3D5346535

http://www.mhacoustics.com/products

Bo-Erik
On 8 Apr 2016 16:06, "David Pickett"  wrote:

> At 15:13 08-04-16, Jörn Nettingsmeier wrote:
>
> They might have very pragmatic reasons: if they know their equivalent
>> input noise is at 30 dB SPL and their capsules barf at 120, then
>> restricting the word length to 96 dB is a perfectly reasonable decision,
>> given the extremely cramped space and the thermal challenges inside the
>> sphere. It does not leave much room for error though, so they better get
>> their analog gains right.
>>
>
> It is not clear to me what exactly they are aiming to record with this
> device.
>
> David
>
> ___
> 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] Anyone know anything about this?

[John Leonard]

Well, according to the FAQ, anything and everything! The demo video just shows 
two people sitting opposite one another with almost complete separation, but it 
would seem that surround is also an option via software. Just out of interest, 
I’ve applied to join the beta team, but haven’t heard anything as yet.

If anything does turn up, I’ll report back.

Cheers,

John

Please note new email address & direct line phone number
email: j...@johnleonard.uk
phone +44 (0)20 3286 5942


> On 8 Apr 2016, at 15:00, David Pickett  wrote:
> 
> At 15:13 08-04-16, Jörn Nettingsmeier wrote:
> 
>> They might have very pragmatic reasons: if they know their equivalent input 
>> noise is at 30 dB SPL and their capsules barf at 120, then restricting the 
>> word length to 96 dB is a perfectly reasonable decision, given the extremely 
>> cramped space and the thermal challenges inside the sphere. It does not 
>> leave much room for error though, so they better get their analog gains 
>> right.
> 
> It is not clear to me what exactly they are aiming to record with this device.
> 
> David
> 
> ___
> 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.
> 
> __This email has been 
> scanned by Netintelligencehttp://www.netintelligence.com/email
> 

___
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] Anyone know anything about this?

[David Pickett]

At 15:13 08-04-16, Jörn Nettingsmeier wrote:

They might have very pragmatic reasons: if they 
know their equivalent input noise is at 30 dB 
SPL and their capsules barf at 120, then 
restricting the word length to 96 dB is a 
perfectly reasonable decision, given the 
extremely cramped space and the thermal 
challenges inside the sphere. It does not leave 
much room for error though, so they better get their analog gains right.


It is not clear to me what exactly they are aiming to record with this device.

David

___
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] Anyone know anything about this?

[Jörn Nettingsmeier]

On 04/08/2016 02:10 PM, Marc Lavallée wrote:

On Fri, 8 Apr 2016 13:00:20 +0200,
Jörn Nettingsmeier  wrote :


On 04/07/2016 08:13 PM, Marc Lavallee wrote:


The FAQ says:
"audio is recorded in 96 KHz/16 bit quality"

I would prefer 48 KHz/24 bit.


let's not discuss matters of taste, but rather keep things scientific.

96/16 = 6
48/24 = 2

so theirs is clearly 3x better than yours!


Of course! Hertz per bit... Or is it bit per hertz?
What's better for marketing? More bits of more hertz?


More per bit per second!

They might have very pragmatic reasons: if they know their equivalent 
input noise is at 30 dB SPL and their capsules barf at 120, then 
restricting the word length to 96 dB is a perfectly reasonable decision, 
given the extremely cramped space and the thermal challenges inside the 
sphere. It does not leave much room for error though, so they better get 
their analog gains right.




--
Jörn Nettingsmeier
Lortzingstr. 11, 45128 Essen, Tel. +49 177 7937487

Meister für Veranstaltungstechnik (Bühne/Studio)
Tonmeister VDT

http://stackingdwarves.net

___
Sursound mailing list
Sursound@music.vt.edu
https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound - unsubscribe here, edit 
account or options, view archives and so on.

Re: [Sursound] Anyone know anything about this?

[umashankar manthravadi]

It still hertz – Wireless World headline in the 60s

umashankar

Sent from Mail<https://go.microsoft.com/fwlink/?LinkId=550986> for Windows 10

From: Marc Lavallée<mailto:m...@hacklava.net>
Sent: Friday, April 8, 2016 5:40 PM
To: sursound@music.vt.edu<mailto:sursound@music.vt.edu>
Subject: Re: [Sursound] Anyone know anything about this?

On Fri, 8 Apr 2016 13:00:20 +0200,
Jörn Nettingsmeier <netti...@stackingdwarves.net> wrote :

> On 04/07/2016 08:13 PM, Marc Lavallee wrote:
> >
> > The FAQ says:
> > "audio is recorded in 96 KHz/16 bit quality"
> >
> > I would prefer 48 KHz/24 bit.
>
> let's not discuss matters of taste, but rather keep things scientific.
>
> 96/16 = 6
> 48/24 = 2
>
> so theirs is clearly 3x better than yours!

Of course! Hertz per bit... Or is it bit per hertz?
What's better for marketing? More bits of more hertz?

> (i held it during the april foolery, but now it must out :)

(it's never too late for a 3 times better joke)
--
Marc


___
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/20160408/9f10c545/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] Anyone know anything about this?

[Marc Lavallée]

On Fri, 8 Apr 2016 13:00:20 +0200,
Jörn Nettingsmeier  wrote :

> On 04/07/2016 08:13 PM, Marc Lavallee wrote:
> >
> > The FAQ says:
> > "audio is recorded in 96 KHz/16 bit quality"
> >
> > I would prefer 48 KHz/24 bit.
> 
> let's not discuss matters of taste, but rather keep things scientific.
> 
> 96/16 = 6
> 48/24 = 2
> 
> so theirs is clearly 3x better than yours!

Of course! Hertz per bit... Or is it bit per hertz?
What's better for marketing? More bits of more hertz?

> (i held it during the april foolery, but now it must out :)

(it's never too late for a 3 times better joke) 
--
Marc


___
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] Anyone know anything about this?

[Jörn Nettingsmeier]

On 04/07/2016 08:13 PM, Marc Lavallee wrote:


The FAQ says:
"audio is recorded in 96 KHz/16 bit quality"

I would prefer 48 KHz/24 bit.


let's not discuss matters of taste, but rather keep things scientific.

96/16 = 6
48/24 = 2

so theirs is clearly 3x better than yours!

(i held it during the april foolery, but now it must out :)


--
Jörn Nettingsmeier
Lortzingstr. 11, 45128 Essen, Tel. +49 177 7937487

Meister für Veranstaltungstechnik (Bühne/Studio)
Tonmeister VDT

http://stackingdwarves.net

___
Sursound mailing list
Sursound@music.vt.edu
https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound - unsubscribe here, edit 
account or options, view archives and so on.

Re: [Sursound] Anyone know anything about this?

[Marc Lavallee]

The FAQ says:
"audio is recorded in 96 KHz/16 bit quality"

I would prefer 48 KHz/24 bit.

--
Marc


On Thu, 7 Apr 2016 11:00:14 -0700
Charlie Richmond  wrote:

> First I've seen of it - looks interesting (not sure if it will sound
> interesting ;-)
> 
> C-)
> 
> On 7 April 2016 at 10:58, John Leonard  wrote:
> 
> > This info came through from a colleague in the USA, although the
> > company appears to based in Poland.
> >
> > http://audioimmersion.pl/
> >
> > Anyone else been contacted?
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > John
> >
> >
> > Please note new email address & direct line phone number
> > email: j...@johnleonard.uk
> > phone +44 (0)20 3286 5942
> >
> >
> > ___
> > 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] Anyone know anything about this?

[Charlie Richmond]

First I've seen of it - looks interesting (not sure if it will sound
interesting ;-)

C-)

On 7 April 2016 at 10:58, John Leonard  wrote:

> This info came through from a colleague in the USA, although the company
> appears to based in Poland.
>
> http://audioimmersion.pl/
>
> Anyone else been contacted?
>
> Regards,
>
> John
>
>
> Please note new email address & direct line phone number
> email: j...@johnleonard.uk
> phone +44 (0)20 3286 5942
>
>
> ___
> 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.
>



-- 
* Charlie Richmond - http://www.RichmondSoundDesign.com

* Viber: +16047159441 Skype, LinkedIn & Twitter: charlierichmond
* facebook: charlie.richmond
* facebook.com/pages/Richmond-Sound-Design-Ltd/130195960832

* google.com/+CharlieRichmond google.com/+Richmondsounddesign
-- 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] Anyone know anything about this?

[John Leonard]

This info came through from a colleague in the USA, although the company 
appears to based in Poland.

http://audioimmersion.pl/

Anyone else been contacted?

Regards,

John


Please note new email address & direct line phone number
email: j...@johnleonard.uk
phone +44 (0)20 3286 5942


___
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.