Re: [Sursound] Modified SoundField Mk IV

2015-10-20 Thread Dave Malham 
Yes! A good night's sleep with a eureka moment in the middle revealed the
truth to me! Actually, I was due to me thinking, rather foolishly, that the
url was constructed in a relatively sane manner. An old codger like me
would think that https://www.gearslutz.com/board/11410162-post641.html
pointed to post #641 and
https://www.gearslutz.com/board/11410162-post650.html HOWEVER in fact,
post650 tells the gearslutz server what to call the page it serves out, NOT
what the page actually is, which is determined by the
https://www.gearslutz.com/board/11410162 bit of it.  I would describe that
as too clever by half. Anyway, mystery solved, back to audio...

 Dave

On 20 October 2015 at 01:00, Sampo Syreeni  wrote:

> On 2015-10-20, Richard Lee wrote:
>
> #641 & #650 refer to posts on the Gearslutz page [...]
>>
>
> Is there then any method to this madness?
> --
> Sampo Syreeni, aka decoy - de...@iki.fi, http://decoy.iki.fi/front
> +358-40-3255353, 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.
>



-- 

As of 1st October 2012, I have retired from the University.

These are my own views and may or may not be shared by the University

Dave Malham
Honorary Fellow, Department of Music
The University of York
York YO10 5DD
UK

'Ambisonics - Component Imaging for Audio'
-- 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] Modified SoundField Mk IV

2015-10-19 Thread Dave Malham 
What's the difference between #641 and #650??

   Dave

On 19 October 2015 at 06:38, Richard Lee  wrote:

> > Interesting: https://www.gearslutz.com/board/11410162-post650.html
>
> I endorse Rudy's mods described in #641 and #650
>
> Ken Farrar did something similar to his #641 mods in the Mk5
>
> ... but I think his post should be titled "Where Beach Bums & Angels fear
> to Tread" :)
> ___
> 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.
>



-- 

As of 1st October 2012, I have retired from the University.

These are my own views and may or may not be shared by the University

Dave Malham
Honorary Fellow, Department of Music
The University of York
York YO10 5DD
UK

'Ambisonics - Component Imaging for Audio'
-- 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] Modified SoundField Mk IV

2015-10-19 Thread Dave Malham 
Something weird going on here - both #641 and #650 come up as identical!
And that's even if I view #641 in safari and #650 in Firefox.

   Puzzled of East Cheam

On 20 October 2015 at 05:45, Richard Lee <rica...@justnet.com.au> wrote:

> #641 & #650 refer to posts on the Gearslutz page
>
> https://www.gearslutz.com/board/remote-possibilities-acoustic-music-loca
> tion-recording/547304-soundfield-mic-stereo-application-22.html
>
> #641 describes his initial mods to the stick .. very similar (??!) to Ken's
> Mk5
>
> #650 describes putting the FETs on the capsule backplate.  This gives
> probably the most improvement.
>
> When I emerged from the bush, I toyed with the idea of offering a similar
> souping up service for Soundfields.  But the risk of damage in transit due
> to the flimsy tetrahedron is very high and I have no access to matched
> capsule sets.
>
> I strengthened the tetrahedron while I was at Calrec ... but not enough :(
>
> --
> From:   Dave Malham[SMTP:dave.mal...@york.ac.uk]
> Sent:   Mon, 19 October 2015 17:48
> To:     rica...@justnet.com.au; Surround Sound discussion group
> Subject:Re: [Sursound] Modified SoundField Mk IV
>
> What's the difference between #641 and #650??
>
>Dave
>
> On 19 October 2015 at 06:38, Richard Lee <rica...@justnet.com.au> wrote:
>
> > > Interesting: https://www.gearslutz.com/board/11410162-post650.html
> >
> > I endorse Rudy's mods described in #641 and #650
> >
> > Ken Farrar did something similar to his #641 mods in the Mk5
> >
> > ... but I think his post should be titled "Where Beach Bums & Angels fear
> > to Tread" :)
>
> ___
> 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.
>



-- 

As of 1st October 2012, I have retired from the University.

These are my own views and may or may not be shared by the University

Dave Malham
Honorary Fellow, Department of Music
The University of York
York YO10 5DD
UK

'Ambisonics - Component Imaging for Audio'
-- next part --
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: 
<https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/private/sursound/attachments/20151019/0e8787e0/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] Modified SoundField Mk IV

2015-10-19 Thread Richard Lee 
#641 & #650 refer to posts on the Gearslutz page

https://www.gearslutz.com/board/remote-possibilities-acoustic-music-loca  
tion-recording/547304-soundfield-mic-stereo-application-22.html

#641 describes his initial mods to the stick .. very similar (??!) to Ken's 
Mk5

#650 describes putting the FETs on the capsule backplate.  This gives 
probably the most improvement.

When I emerged from the bush, I toyed with the idea of offering a similar 
souping up service for Soundfields.  But the risk of damage in transit due 
to the flimsy tetrahedron is very high and I have no access to matched 
capsule sets.

I strengthened the tetrahedron while I was at Calrec ... but not enough :(

--
From:   Dave Malham[SMTP:dave.mal...@york.ac.uk]
Sent:   Mon, 19 October 2015 17:48
To: rica...@justnet.com.au; Surround Sound discussion group
Subject:    Re: [Sursound] Modified SoundField Mk IV

What's the difference between #641 and #650??

   Dave

On 19 October 2015 at 06:38, Richard Lee <rica...@justnet.com.au> wrote:

> > Interesting: https://www.gearslutz.com/board/11410162-post650.html
>
> I endorse Rudy's mods described in #641 and #650
>
> Ken Farrar did something similar to his #641 mods in the Mk5
>
> ... but I think his post should be titled "Where Beach Bums & Angels fear
> to Tread" :)

___
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] Modified SoundField Mk IV

2015-10-19 Thread Sampo Syreeni 

On 2015-10-20, Richard Lee wrote:


#641 & #650 refer to posts on the Gearslutz page [...]


Is there then any method to this madness?
--
Sampo Syreeni, aka decoy - de...@iki.fi, http://decoy.iki.fi/front
+358-40-3255353, 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.

Re: [Sursound] Modified SoundField Mk IV

2015-10-18 Thread Richard Lee 
> Interesting: https://www.gearslutz.com/board/11410162-post650.html

I endorse Rudy's mods described in #641 and #650

Ken Farrar did something similar to his #641 mods in the Mk5

... but I think his post should be titled "Where Beach Bums & Angels fear to 
Tread" :)
___
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.