Re: [Sursound] HARPEX-B Plus First Order Mic vs. Third Order
Brian, It has always been my intentions to support OSX. My plugins are released identically for Windows and Mac. I also have the standalone player for Windows only, but now the Harpex player can do a similar job in OSX. Yes, mine will do A-format conversion, but neither will record, so other software must be used for that. The recording options I use day to day are all pretty much bi-platform. I use Reaper, Bidule, Nuendo - my own plugins (including unreleased stuff) and the other free ambisonic VST's from York, etc. All cheap to free and all nearly identical on both platforms. (OK, I actually record almost everything on my DR-680 now. The old MIO-2882 is sadly neglected.) I would love to support ProTools or even SoundBlade, but so far I have not managed to invest $5-10K in an audio system purely for plugin development. When and if I do, you can bet I'll be charging real money for those versions. Meanwhile, as others have mentioned, there are some cheap and functional options available today for OSX. The plugins and templates for the platforms I mentioned are all available at vvaudio.com/downloads I'll be happy to help you get one of these options working or continue to work with you on some other option, though debugging platforms I don't have is going to go a little slower. David McGriffy On 4/7/2011 10:01 AM, Brian C. Peters wrote: Yes if i had Bidule or Nuendo or a compiled version! Neither of which I have. I have the PC tools running in emulation or boot camp but to decode while I record has never been possible in OSX. I use a Sonic 305 and or a ULN8 with the record panel for sessions/concerts and edit in SoundBlade. Reaper may be a choice. But tools that run directly in OSX (not plugins)? Best regards, Brian C. Peters Tech Valley Audio b...@ieee.org On Apr 7, 2011, at 10:27 AM, Fons Adriaensen wrote: On Thu, Apr 07, 2011 at 06:39:22AM -0400, Brian C. Peters wrote: I've been waiting two years or more for your mic to become usable in OSX. That's must be your choice then for it has been usable in OSX all the time. -- FA ___ Sursound mailing list Sursound@music.vt.edu https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound ___ Sursound mailing list Sursound@music.vt.edu https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound ___ Sursound mailing list Sursound@music.vt.edu https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound
Re: [Sursound] HARPEX-B Plus First Order Mic vs. Third Order
I've been waiting two years or more for your mic to become usable in OSX. Dave has not helped much and your vapor hardware has turned me right off. Best regards, Brian C. Peters Tech Valley Audio b...@ieee.org On Apr 6, 2011, at 2:06 PM, Len Moskowitz wrote: I've been playing with Svein's player. It looks and sounds good. One claim he's making is that his parametric decoding method allows a first-order soundfield microphone (like our TetraMic) to provide direction cues that are equal to or better that what's available from a third-order soundfield microphone. Also, presumably the sweet spot is comparable in size to the one we'd expect from a third-order microphone. If you've been using the HARPEX-B player or plug-in, do you think the claims are reasonable? Len Moskowitz (mosko...@core-sound.com) ___ Sursound mailing list Sursound@music.vt.edu https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound ___ Sursound mailing list Sursound@music.vt.edu https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound
Re: [Sursound] HARPEX-B Plus First Order Mic vs. Third Order
I've been using the TetraMic happily in OSX for a while now. Initially in Bidule, where all the software worked well, and lately in Nuendo, where the latest version of the software also works well. At the moment, I'm listening to a recording of a Jonathan Dove mini-opera called Seven Angels made with the TetraMic and being decoded using VVTetraVST and Harpex-B in 5.1 surround. The mic was close to the edge of the stage with the two performers in front, and Hugh Webb, the harpist, effectively behind and to the left of the microphone. The sense of space and image is startlingly good. I spent quite a bit of last Sunday in Manhattan with a DR-680 and a TetraMic making location recordings which are also excellent. I agree that the non-appearance of the 4-Mic processor was disappointing, but I also know and understand how it came about and I'm sure Len will be happy to tell you as well. Regards, John On 7 Apr 2011, at 11:39, Brian C. Peters wrote: I've been waiting two years or more for your mic to become usable in OSX ___ Sursound mailing list Sursound@music.vt.edu https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound
Re: [Sursound] HARPEX-B Plus First Order Mic vs. Third Order
I'd be very interested in hearing what people think about this too. I should point out that I haven't gone quite as far as to say that Harpex will turn a TetraMic into a 3rd order microphone. What we've stated in our papers is that in two sets of formal listening tests, Harpex scores equally high or higher than a third-order system. However, both the first, second, third and fifth order systems in these tests comprised synthesized sound scenes. Full-bandwidth fifth- order recordings are hard to come by. We haven't made any quantitative study of the effects of deviations from ideal microphone characteristics. We've done a lot of informal listening, though, and as I said, I'd be interested in hearing about other people's informal results as well. If you want to read the papers, they're found under documentation at harpex.net. Svein On 6. april. 2011, at 20:06, Len Moskowitz wrote: I've been playing with Svein's player. It looks and sounds good. One claim he's making is that his parametric decoding method allows a first-order soundfield microphone (like our TetraMic) to provide direction cues that are equal to or better that what's available from a third- order soundfield microphone. Also, presumably the sweet spot is comparable in size to the one we'd expect from a third-order microphone. If you've been using the HARPEX-B player or plug-in, do you think the claims are reasonable? Len Moskowitz (mosko...@core-sound.com) ___ Sursound mailing list Sursound@music.vt.edu https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound ___ Sursound mailing list Sursound@music.vt.edu https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound
Re: [Sursound] HARPEX-B Plus First Order Mic vs. Third Order
Fons' Tetraproc for A-B conversion works on Mac OSX too (needs to be compiled by hand, though) and I believe he can give you the calibration files if you provide the serial number of your TetraMic. Best, Hector On Thu, Apr 7, 2011 at 8:04 AM, John Leonard j...@johnleonard.co.uk wrote: I've been using the TetraMic happily in OSX for a while now. Initially in Bidule, where all the software worked well, and lately in Nuendo, where the latest version of the software also works well. At the moment, I'm listening to a recording of a Jonathan Dove mini-opera called Seven Angels made with the TetraMic and being decoded using VVTetraVST and Harpex-B in 5.1 surround. The mic was close to the edge of the stage with the two performers in front, and Hugh Webb, the harpist, effectively behind and to the left of the microphone. The sense of space and image is startlingly good. I spent quite a bit of last Sunday in Manhattan with a DR-680 and a TetraMic making location recordings which are also excellent. I agree that the non-appearance of the 4-Mic processor was disappointing, but I also know and understand how it came about and I'm sure Len will be happy to tell you as well. Regards, John On 7 Apr 2011, at 11:39, Brian C. Peters wrote: I've been waiting two years or more for your mic to become usable in OSX ___ Sursound mailing list Sursound@music.vt.edu https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound ___ Sursound mailing list Sursound@music.vt.edu https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound
Re: [Sursound] HARPEX-B Plus First Order Mic vs. Third Order
On Thu, Apr 07, 2011 at 06:39:22AM -0400, Brian C. Peters wrote: I've been waiting two years or more for your mic to become usable in OSX. That's must be your choice then for it has been usable in OSX all the time. -- FA ___ Sursound mailing list Sursound@music.vt.edu https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound
Re: [Sursound] HARPEX-B Plus First Order Mic vs. Third Order
Yes if i had Bidule or Nuendo or a compiled version! Neither of which I have. I have the PC tools running in emulation or boot camp but to decode while I record has never been possible in OSX. I use a Sonic 305 and or a ULN8 with the record panel for sessions/concerts and edit in SoundBlade. Reaper may be a choice. But tools that run directly in OSX (not plugins)? Best regards, Brian C. Peters Tech Valley Audio b...@ieee.org On Apr 7, 2011, at 10:27 AM, Fons Adriaensen wrote: On Thu, Apr 07, 2011 at 06:39:22AM -0400, Brian C. Peters wrote: I've been waiting two years or more for your mic to become usable in OSX. That's must be your choice then for it has been usable in OSX all the time. -- FA ___ Sursound mailing list Sursound@music.vt.edu https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound ___ Sursound mailing list Sursound@music.vt.edu https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound
Re: [Sursound] HARPEX-B Plus First Order Mic vs. Third Order
Thank you from a cranky engineer. I will try it out. It is the least expensive way and i like your routing. With a ULN8 it will be equally easy. Although SB used to barf at VVTetraVST so I had to remove it. It may be ok now. Even though SB is multichannel it would crash on launch after seeing that plug. Not the plugs fault. Best regards, Brian C. Peters Tech Valley Audio b...@ieee.org On Apr 7, 2011, at 1:30 PM, John Leonard wrote: It's just taken me fifteen minutes in Bidule to set up the following: TetraMic into 2882, A-format out to VVTetraVST with side-chain out from 2882 outputs to four channel recorder, with files going to a folder called A-Format VVTetraVST to VVMicVST with side-chain out from VVTetraVST to a second four channel recorder, with files going to a recorder called B-Format VVMicVST set to decode to XY stereo to DAW returns 1 2 on the 2882 with a side-chain out to a two channel recorder called Stereo DAW returns 1 2 on 2882 sent a bus and thence to cans for monitoring. Trigger bidule set to start all three recorders running simultaneously in record mode from a single click. At the end of recording, I have three folders containing the original A-Format files pre-VVTetraVST, the B-Format files post VVTetraVST and a stereo decode post VVMicVST, plus I've been able to monitor the stereo output on cans. If I wanted to, I'd have been able to monitor a 5.1 output on speakers, just by changing the patch. Bidule is a free download to try out and then not exactly expensive if you want to buy it. Why not download it and see what it can do? I think you might be surprised. Regards, John On 7 Apr 2011, at 16:01, Brian C. Peters wrote: I have the PC tools running in emulation or boot camp but to decode while I record has never been possible in OSX. ___ Sursound mailing list Sursound@music.vt.edu https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound ___ Sursound mailing list Sursound@music.vt.edu https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound
[Sursound] HARPEX-B Plus First Order Mic vs. Third Order
I've been playing with Svein's player. It looks and sounds good. One claim he's making is that his parametric decoding method allows a first-order soundfield microphone (like our TetraMic) to provide direction cues that are equal to or better that what's available from a third-order soundfield microphone. Also, presumably the sweet spot is comparable in size to the one we'd expect from a third-order microphone. If you've been using the HARPEX-B player or plug-in, do you think the claims are reasonable? Len Moskowitz (mosko...@core-sound.com) ___ Sursound mailing list Sursound@music.vt.edu https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound
Re: [Sursound] HARPEX-B Plus First Order Mic vs. Third Order
Hello, Not related to a comparison with a third order mic but related to directional cues: I did a quick check using the demo plugin decoding some tetrahedral mic recordings to binaural. I loaded it into a Max/MSP patch and did A-B comparisons between two combos consisting of Tetraproc-Harpex and Tetraproc-Ambdec-SPAT (SPAT for the binaural virtual speakers). To my ears, this comparison revealed that directionality was much precise and clear with the TAS combo than with Harpex. This was particularly noticeable with a recording of birds singing from tree branches located above the mic. With Harpex some of the bird calls would jump around spatially as the spectral content of the call changed whereas with TAS it remained focused and well localized within a discernible location. I haven't done a test decoding over speakers so I'm not sure if this would be only related to binaural decoding. Best, Hector Centeno On Wed, Apr 6, 2011 at 2:06 PM, Len Moskowitz lenmoskow...@optonline.net wrote: I've been playing with Svein's player. It looks and sounds good. One claim he's making is that his parametric decoding method allows a first-order soundfield microphone (like our TetraMic) to provide direction cues that are equal to or better that what's available from a third-order soundfield microphone. Also, presumably the sweet spot is comparable in size to the one we'd expect from a third-order microphone. If you've been using the HARPEX-B player or plug-in, do you think the claims are reasonable? Len Moskowitz (mosko...@core-sound.com) ___ Sursound mailing list Sursound@music.vt.edu https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound ___ Sursound mailing list Sursound@music.vt.edu https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound
Re: [Sursound] HARPEX-B Plus First Order Mic vs. Third Order
dear hector is there some way one can access the b format recordings of the birds? umashankar i have published my poems. read (or buy) at http://stores.lulu.com/umashankar Date: Wed, 6 Apr 2011 18:27:57 -0400 From: i...@hcenteno.net To: sursound@music.vt.edu Subject: Re: [Sursound] HARPEX-B Plus First Order Mic vs. Third Order Hello, Not related to a comparison with a third order mic but related to directional cues: I did a quick check using the demo plugin decoding some tetrahedral mic recordings to binaural. I loaded it into a Max/MSP patch and did A-B comparisons between two combos consisting of Tetraproc-Harpex and Tetraproc-Ambdec-SPAT (SPAT for the binaural virtual speakers). To my ears, this comparison revealed that directionality was much precise and clear with the TAS combo than with Harpex. This was particularly noticeable with a recording of birds singing from tree branches located above the mic. With Harpex some of the bird calls would jump around spatially as the spectral content of the call changed whereas with TAS it remained focused and well localized within a discernible location. I haven't done a test decoding over speakers so I'm not sure if this would be only related to binaural decoding. Best, Hector Centeno On Wed, Apr 6, 2011 at 2:06 PM, Len Moskowitz lenmoskow...@optonline.net wrote: I've been playing with Svein's player. It looks and sounds good. One claim he's making is that his parametric decoding method allows a first-order soundfield microphone (like our TetraMic) to provide direction cues that are equal to or better that what's available from a third-order soundfield microphone. Also, presumably the sweet spot is comparable in size to the one we'd expect from a third-order microphone. If you've been using the HARPEX-B player or plug-in, do you think the claims are reasonable? Len Moskowitz (mosko...@core-sound.com) ___ Sursound mailing list Sursound@music.vt.edu https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound ___ Sursound mailing list Sursound@music.vt.edu https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound -- next part -- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/private/sursound/attachments/20110407/33eae940/attachment.html ___ Sursound mailing list Sursound@music.vt.edu https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound
