Re: [Sursound] Re. Re: Re Re: Ambisonic Mic Comparison

Interesting work you are doing. Any thoughts on the Nagra vs the Sound devices recorders ? also do you have any stereo or mono mic recommendations for natural field recordings ? On 26 June 2017 at 16:25, John Leonard wrote: > Well, of course, the ULN-8 isn’t just a pre-amp:

Re: [Sursound] Re. Re: Re Re: Ambisonic Mic Comparison

Sampo Syreeni wrote: On 2017-06-26, David Pickett wrote: This whole business of low noise microphones and preamps is in my experience a non-issue in the vast majority of cases. Very few environments are quiet enough to be softer than the noise level of most microphones. Agreed, and thanks

Re: [Sursound] Re. Re: Re Re: Ambisonic Mic Comparison

On 2017-06-26, David Pickett wrote: This whole business of low noise microphones and preamps is in my experience a non-issue in the vast majority of cases. That said, I was upset to discover that MOTU publish no details on their website of the 4Pre that can be construed as truly technical.

Re: [Sursound] Re. Re: Re Re: Ambisonic Mic Comparison

On 2017-06-26, David Pickett wrote: This whole business of low noise microphones and preamps is in my experience a non-issue in the vast majority of cases. Very few environments are quiet enough to be softer than the noise level of most microphones. Agreed, and thanks for pointing that

Re: [Sursound] Re. Re: Re Re: Ambisonic Mic Comparison

At 21:57 26/06/2017, David Pickett wrote: This whole business of low noise microphones and preamps is in my experience a non-issue in the vast majority of cases. That said, I was upset to discover that MOTU publish no details on their website of the 4Pre that can be construed as truly

Re: [Sursound] Re. Re: Re Re: Ambisonic Mic Comparison

http://www.johnleonard.co.uk I look forward to seeing you enter into the market. Regards, John Please note new email address & direct line phone number email: j...@johnleonard.uk phone +44 (0)20 3286 5942 > On 26 Jun 2017, at 20:09, Sampo Syreeni wrote: > > Granted, that.

Re: [Sursound] Re. Re: Re Re: Ambisonic Mic Comparison

This whole business of low noise microphones and preamps is in my experience a non-issue in the vast majority of cases. Very few environments are quiet enough to be softer than the noise level of most microphones. This is true in most cases of recording nature sounds and very few recording

Re: [Sursound] Re. Re: Re Re: Ambisonic Mic Comparison

On 2017-06-26, John Leonard wrote: Well, of course, the ULN-8 isn’t just a pre-amp: it happens to have eight very nice low-noise high-gain mic pre-amps as part of the package, that’s all. Nowadays even the highest of the highest spheres in operational amplifier technology costs something

Re: [Sursound] Re. Re: Re Re: Ambisonic Mic Comparison

Well, of course, the ULN-8 isn’t just a pre-amp: it happens to have eight very nice low-noise high-gain mic pre-amps as part of the package, that’s all. Also, rather obviously, I didn’t buy the Tetramic and then the ULN-8. The ULN-8 has been at the centre of my studio set-up for many years and

Re: [Sursound] Re. Re: Re Re: Ambisonic Mic Comparison

I use Zoom H2 and H2N and Motu interfaces (ultralite and 24 ao with ada8200) the pres are fine - the line/mic in on a zoom h2n ,a little minijack input, are quite noisy however - so I usually prefer to use the onboard mics than an external with this device. On 26 June 2017 at 15:10, David

Re: [Sursound] Re. Re: Re Re: Ambisonic Mic Comparison

At 14:44 26/06/2017, Steven Boardman wrote: >I use the Motu 4pre (with a tablet for on the fly decodes), with a >Zoom F8 in the field. I also have a RME Fireface in the studio. >None have problems with the noise floor being louder than that of the mic. >The noise of the Tetramic is only a

Re: [Sursound] Re. Re: Re Re: Ambisonic Mic Comparison

> On 26 Jun 2017, at 12:26, David Pickett wrote: > > There is something not quite right here. It seems quite crazy to have to > spend over USD 3000 for a preamp/AD convertor to use with a microphone > (Tetramic) which is designed to sell for USD 1300 (i.e. much cheaper than

Re: [Sursound] Re. Re: Re Re: Ambisonic Mic Comparison

On 2017-06-26, David Pickett wrote: I am not a MOTU user, but at USD 449, the MOTU 4Pre presumably has a quite adequate noise specification, or the highly competent Tetramic engineers would not have mentioned it in the same sentence as the more expensive options. Furthermore, on the digital

Re: [Sursound] Re. Re: Re Re: Ambisonic Mic Comparison

At 10:48 26/06/2017, Enda Bates wrote: >In our test, the mic preamps were quite modest (the MOTU 8m) although >still fairly representative of the types of mic pres often used with >these types of mics, hence the issue. So, as John also mentioned, when >using the TetraMic with modest mic pres

[Sursound] Re. Re: Re Re: Ambisonic Mic Comparison

Hi Sampo, well the objective directional analysis we're discussing here was not of course, but yeah all of the listening tests on audio quality were naturally double blind. In terms of the TetraMic, our experience was that in general the output from this mic was a much lower level signal,