Re: [Sursound] A comparison of fifteen ambisonic microphones

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

Re: [Sursound] A comparison of fifteen ambisonic microphones

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

Re: [Sursound] A comparison of fifteen ambisonic microphones

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

Re: [Sursound] 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 spectra are quite different. That's what accounts for  the degradation when using the Zoom F8.   At low

Re: [Sursound] A comparison of fifteen ambisonic microphones

 Med venlig hilsen Søren Bendixen Audiotect Composer/Sounddesigner/guitarist (iPhone message) > Den 10. nov. 2023 kl. 11.57 skrev Panos Kouvelis : > > Although this thread is based on engineering and the scientific method, I > would like to point out that all the developers of ambisonic

Re: [Sursound] A comparison of fifteen ambisonic microphones

Am 10.11.23 um 11:56 schrieb Panos Kouvelis: I personally like to thank everybody who worked or shared input in this endeavor! Well roared, Lion, as they say here. I only own a simple Zoom H3-VR but I've had loads of fun with it. Ralf -- Ralf R. Radermacher - Köln/Cologne, Germany Blog

Re: [Sursound] A comparison of fifteen ambisonic microphones

Although this thread is based on engineering and the scientific method, I would like to point out that all the developers of ambisonic microphones are doing a great job offering tools in a sector that is difficult for the industry to follow and more difficult for the average consumer to grasp. Not

Re: [Sursound] A comparison of fifteen ambisonic microphones

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. > >

Re: [Sursound] A comparison of fifteen ambisonic microphones

Subject: Re: [Sursound] A comparison of fifteen ambisonic microphones 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

Re: [Sursound] A comparison of fifteen ambisonic microphones

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

Re: [Sursound] A comparison of fifteen ambisonic microphones

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 Home of OctoMic and TetraMic

Re: [Sursound] A comparison of fifteen ambisonic microphones

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

Re: [Sursound] A comparison of fifteen ambisonic microphones

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

Re: [Sursound] A comparison of fifteen ambisonic microphones

I have sen mkh40 and the rest of that series, plus schoeps ccm cardioids and OMNIs, along with the DPA4006. The Dpa has the individual factory measurenent trace, which makes it more useful as reference. On Sat, 4 Nov 2023, 13:48 jack reynolds, wrote: > Thanks Steven. > > Do you know the quoted

Re: [Sursound] A comparison of fifteen ambisonic microphones

On Sat, Nov 04, 2023 at 08:53:57AM +, Jack Reynolds wrote: > 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. How do you arrive at this figure ? > I also need to repeat the test with an 80 Ohm resistor load

Re: [Sursound] A comparison of fifteen ambisonic microphones

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

Re: [Sursound] A comparison of fifteen ambisonic microphones

Thank you Len Now I know it isn't that one. Glad i didn't say 'certain', and never have. If you think 'I' have, then I'm not sure why. Miss quotes aside.. My point was that one doesn't have to open the mic. One could get info, from the outside. Appologies if this has been misconstrued. If

Re: [Sursound] A comparison of fifteen ambisonic microphones

On Fri, Nov 03, 2023 at 12:34:52PM +, 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

Re: [Sursound] A comparison of fifteen ambisonic microphones

Steven Boardman wrote: One doesn't need too, they are exposed. Pretty sure they are Transound https://www.jlielectronics.com/transound/tsb-120ao I'm sure Len will correct me if wrong. "Pretty sure" is not the same as "I'm certain because the manufacturer told me." We don't discuss our

Re: [Sursound] A comparison of fifteen ambisonic microphones

Must be the cardioid version of this Transound capsule, not the omni: https://www.jlielectronics.com/microphone-capsules/jli-120a-t-43db/ There's also a similar one with slightly different sensitivity: https://www.jlielectronics.com/microphone-capsules/jli-120a-t-45db/ Best, David On Fri, 3

Re: [Sursound] A comparison of fifteen ambisonic microphones

One doesn't need too, they are exposed. Pretty sure they are Transound https://www.jlielectronics.com/transound/tsb-120ao I'm sure Len will correct me if wrong. Best Steven On Fri, 3 Nov 2023, 14:00 Ralf R Radermacher, wrote: > Am 03.11.23 um 13:34 schrieb Jack Reynolds: > > Thanks Mark. >

Re: [Sursound] A comparison of fifteen ambisonic microphones

Am 03.11.23 um 13:34 schrieb 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

Re: [Sursound] A comparison of fifteen ambisonic microphones

raMic, 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

Re: [Sursound] A comparison of fifteen ambisonic microphones

: 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

Re: [Sursound] A comparison of fifteen ambisonic microphones

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,

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

Re: [Sursound] A comparison of fifteen ambisonic microphones

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

Re: [Sursound] A comparison of fifteen ambisonic microphones

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

Re: [Sursound] A comparison of fifteen ambisonic microphones

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: > >

Re: [Sursound] A comparison of fifteen ambisonic microphones

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

Re: [Sursound] A comparison of fifteen ambisonic microphones

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

Re: [Sursound] A comparison of fifteen ambisonic microphones

Subject: [Sursound] A comparison of fifteen ambisonic microphones 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

Re: [Sursound] A comparison of fifteen ambisonic microphones

On 2023-10-17, jack reynolds wrote: It's quite a large project due to the multichannel files Quite the job, so I added the link into the Motherlode as the first outbound link:

Re: [Sursound] A comparison of fifteen ambisonic microphones

Thanks for the reply Jack, I appreciate it. Cheers! Pan *Pan Athen* SoundFellas , *MediaFlake Ltd * Digital Media Services, Content, and Tools On Thu, Oct 19, 2023 at 10:16 AM Jack Reynolds wrote: > I would also be interested to know what

Re: [Sursound] A comparison of fifteen ambisonic microphones

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

Re: [Sursound] A comparison of fifteen ambisonic microphones

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

Re: [Sursound] A comparison of fifteen ambisonic microphones

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

Re: [Sursound] A comparison of fifteen ambisonic microphones

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

Re: [Sursound] A comparison of fifteen ambisonic microphones

Awesome resource! Thanks for sharing :-) *Pan Athen* SoundFellas , *MediaFlake Ltd * Digital Media Services, Content, and Tools On Tue, Oct 17, 2023 at 12:25 PM jack reynolds wrote: > Hi All, > > In April 2022 Axel Drioli, Steven Boardman,

[Sursound] A comparison of fifteen ambisonic microphones

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