Not sure if this helps the discussion or not, but I get the feeling this has to do with the noise floor of the TetraMic capsules, and thought our own independent observations may assist here.
We have used the TetraMic for several years now, and like it. However, yes, we have always had to increase pre-amp gain significantly (compared to other microphone inputs) to get good input levels and as a result we meter high noise levels on each capsule. It doesn't mean we've stopped using the TetraMic, we just have to be mindful of this. Kind regards, Mark -----Original Message----- From: Sursound <sursound-boun...@music.vt.edu> On Behalf Of Jack Reynolds Sent: Friday, November 3, 2023 7:10 AM To: Surround Sound discussion group <sursound@music.vt.edu> 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 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 the study. The ‘discussion’ on Facebook was a farce and I would rather not repeat that here. As I remember you thought it was an unfair comparison because your mics are less sensitive, and that meant they would need more input gain and that this would unfairly increase the noise floor? We added a second recording at an increased gain setting and proved that assertion to be incorrect. If a Zoom F8 mic preamp isn’t good enough….? Your second assertion was that comparing to a KU100 was an unfair comparison because a real binaural mic has real ITD. Your solution to this was to use your favourite technique of bilateral ambisonics, which would mean finding two of every mic, two recorders and twice the number of channels, which seems like a waste of time effort to me. That point raised some interesting discussion regarding higher order mics resolving ITD better than lower order, and various approaches including first decoding from ambisonics to SPS/T-Designs before binaural decoding as that could potentially render ITD better. We tried that and it didn’t sound any better… so we went back to a straight ambisonics to binaural decode using Sadie ii KU100 HRTFs. Every mic treated the same way, with no exception. What else was there? I seem to remember you didn’t like the Schoeps ORTF3D array being in there for comparison. I’m still not sure why. It’s a spaced 3D array, which will obviously sound different from the near coincident arrays, but does that matter? What else was there? I really do want to resolve this, in public, so we can draw a line under it once and for all. Please just say what you think should be corrected, and why. Also, if you can find a single person that agrees with your assertions I would love to hear their opinion. From the overly lengthy discussion on Facebook I don’t recall anyone agreeing with you. Hence my position that there are in fact no errors in our method. The recordings are there for anyone to study. If your assertion that there was an error in the process, it casts doubt on our study and therefore the usefulness of the files. If you are unable to outline what those errors are - I can only assume there are in fact no errors, and you are not acting in an honourable manner. Apologies to the other Sursounders if this is out of line. Any input would be gratefully received. Thanks Jack Sent from my iPhone > On 2 Nov 2023, at 19:24, lenmoskow...@optonline.net wrote: > > 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 > www.core-sound.com Home of OctoMic and 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. _______________________________________________ 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.
