Re: [Sursound] Rode VideoMic SoundField
Well there may be a few problems to solve before this can become a commercial product. Peiter has only been with Rode for a short while so the development of the array and processing card is probably not complete yet. I'll predict that the handling and windnoise of the array won't be too brilliant with the set-up as shown, and may need some further improvement. And getting the channel gains right with a calibration routine that fits in with the Rode factory production system could need some original thought. I suspect it ~will~ appear as a product - there's likely to be a good market - but it make take a few more months. Chris Woolf On 21/01/2017 07:49, Bob Burton wrote: The introduction was done at a press event at NAMM. Yet neither Rode nor Freedman exhibited at NAMM. Curious. On Fri, Jan 20, 2017 at 8:16 PM, Gary Gallagher wrote: The propaganda video https://youtu.be/SQm0U_Mtweo Gary -- next part -- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/private/sursound/ attachments/20170121/096931a5/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. ___ 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] Rode Soundfield NT-SF1
On 11/04/2018 18:40, Paul Hodges wrote: ... I wonder how the capsules will compare with those on the SPS-200, given that the projected cost is a mere fraction of that (if the price quoted in the video is in Australian dollars, then it's only a quarter of the price of the SPS-200!). While I have been sceptical in the past about Rode products I have to admit that many of their more recent ones have been remarkably good for the price. The company's willingness to commit to a lot of capital expenditure in automating manufacture, on the presumption of being able to sell high volumes, has made low cost manufacture possible. They seem able to compete with Far East pricing, yet maintain Western engineering values - a scary feat. They've also bought Peter Schillebeeckx with the Soundfield remnants, so they do have some proper expertise too. Only time will tell if the product really works, but it can't be dismissed out of hand now. Chris Woolf --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus ___ 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] Rode Soundfield NT-SF1
I'd be very interested to know the argument behind that. Although bass response is affected by size in speakers I don't know of any reason for that in microphones. Chris Woolf On 13/04/2018 18:58, Fernando Lopez-Lezcano wrote: On 04/13/2018 10:23 AM, Jack Reynolds wrote: That’s what I thought. I have also heard that a radius smaller than 15mm or so has detrimental effects on the low end The is probably related to the size of the capsules. As you bring the radius down you have to use smaller capsules and the low frequency response will suffer (for example, I can see a big difference in low end response between microphones I have built using 10mm capsules - array radius of 9.2mm - vs. 14mm capsules - array radius 11mm, but that is because of the capsules themselves). -- Fernando ___ 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. --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus ___ 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] Multi-channel Dante Mic Pre?
Grace Design M108 with a Dante card? Not cheap but mic amps that behave very nicely. Chris Woolf On 09/08/2018 14:45, Len Moskowitz wrote: Does anyone know of an 8 (or more than 8) channel mic pre that operates over Dante networks? All leads appreciated! Len Moskowitz (mosko...@core-sound.com) Core Sound LLC www.core-sound.com Home of TetraMic and OctoMic ___ 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. --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus ___ 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] Looking for mic advice
When I reviewed the Sennheiser Ambeo some while ago I was distinctly underwhelmed by many aspects of it. A shame, but I got the feeling it wasn't something that the company felt any deep interest in. Røde did indeed buy the Soundfield company, but perhaps more importantly bought Pieter Shillebeeckx and have given him freedom and budget to develop stuff. I suspect the NT-SF1 will be a lot more intersting as well as inexpensive. Chris Woolf On 10/08/2018 19:37, Søren Bendixen wrote: Hi I´m in the same situation, want to record nature (and other things) in ambisonics. and I have no experience - and waiting for the new Røde(Rode) NT- SF1 - I will be just below 1000 USD Røde took over Soundfield and then bought some knowledge about Ambisonics equipment and this microphone would be the result ... In Denmark, for example, Sennheiser ambeo costs around 1900 usd They announced the NT - SF1 almost 6 months ago - so.. BR Søren Bendixen Den 10. aug. 2018 kl. 20.22 skrev Drew Kirkland : Hi guys We have recently decided to record nature in ambisonic format with a additional specific mono and stereo recordings added in at edit stage. I would be interested in current ambisonic mic choice, we don't have loads of cash but want to get as transparent a sound field as possible. We have all had experience over the last 30 years or so of using standard mics and have our favourites for particular situations but have never had experience of usi g ambisonic mics and relevant field recorders. Advice welcome Drew Drew Kirkland 1 campbleton cottage Hunterston Estate KA23 9QF 07876238608 -- next part -- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/private/sursound/attachments/20180810/3ceb1f7b/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. Med venlig hilsen/Best regards Søren Bendixen Composer/Sound Designer/Producer Company: Audiotect New Exhibition sound design " På Djengis Khans stepper - Mongoliets Nomader", - Moesgaard Museum, 19 june 2018 - 7 april 2019 - National Museum of Denmark: From june 2019 Jyllandsposten: 5 (out of 6) Stars: “The illusion of a railroad journey is underpinned by the sceneries that stand outside the windows. Sound and image are in exemplary harmony, which is just as consistent completed when you attend the exhibition. the room is generally enhanced by a rather fascinating sound design” (22 juni 2018) -- next part -- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/private/sursound/attachments/20180810/8f5743a1/attachment.html> -- next part -- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: IMG_4363.jpeg Type: image/jpeg Size: 20401 bytes Desc: not available URL: <https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/private/sursound/attachments/20180810/8f5743a1/attachment.jpeg> ___ 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. --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus ___ 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] Looking for mic advice
On 11/08/2018 10:59, Axel Drioli wrote: ... I use a prototype made by Reynolds Microphones. ... This mic has much lower self-noise than any other ambi mic you find around. But is that done using large diaphragm capsules? With the inevitable consequences in terms of coincidence? Chris Woolf --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus ___ 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] Looking for mic advice
On 11/08/2018 18:16, jack reynolds wrote: I use 14mm electrets, so you can still get them pretty close together. They naturally have a lower noise floor and wide dynamic range. Thanks for the clarification - I'd only seen your large diaphragm mics. 14mm capsules sounds fine. Chris Woolf Jack On 11 August 2018 at 14:42, Chris Woolf wrote: On 11/08/2018 10:59, Axel Drioli wrote: ... I use a prototype made by Reynolds Microphones. ... This mic has much lower self-noise than any other ambi mic you find around. But is that done using large diaphragm capsules? With the inevitable consequences in terms of coincidence? Chris Woolf --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus ___ 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.
Re: [Sursound] MEMS SNR Specifications
I think there is indeed some confusion in this discussion between the signal-to-noise ratio of these mics, and dynamic range. The first is conventionally related to 1Pa/94dB SPL, and one then needs to add in a Max SPL figure to get the dynamic range. We need both bits of information to understand the practicality of any mic. A noise floor of 24dBA (related to 1Pa) is about par for a small personal electret mic. A dynamic range of >115dB is what one would wish for in decent professional mics - that would be a noise floor of 15dBA and a max SPL of >130dB (with a distortion figure of 3 or 5%). Chris Woolf (ex editor of Microphone Data) On 18/08/2018 08:41, Bo-Erik Sandholm wrote: According to the document linked to below that relates self noise values to real world applications 110 SNR cannot be related to the commonly used reference sound level. 110 dBA SNR would be 16 dB below absolute quiet. If the value 70dBA that I found for the infineon dual membrane MEMS mic is related to 1 Pascal, then it's self noise is around 24 dB which is not strictly studio quality. But not really horrible. If it is related to max 10% distortion which is at 135 dBA thats not a realistic comparison value as the result is a self noise of 65 dBA. That would be a noise source not a microphone :-) ! So a bit of apples and oranges comparison is going on 😎 http://www.neumann.com/homestudio/en/what-is-self-noise-or-equivalent-noise-level SIGNAL-TO-NOISE RATIO Another way to document the noise performance is to specify the signal-to-noise ratio. But relative to what signal? The reference sound pressure level for noise measurements is 94 dB (which equals a sound pressure of 1 pascal). So you can simply calculate: Signal-to-noise (db-A) = 94 dB – self-noise (dB-A) The actual signal-to-noise ratio in use, of course, depends on the sound pressure level of your sound source. Bo-Erik On Sat, 18 Aug 2018 01:37 Jack Reynolds, wrote: Are you sure the Ambeo has 110dB SNR? Sent from my iPhone On 17 Aug 2018, at 23:56, Paul Hodges wrote: --On 17 August 2018 14:55 -0700 Ralph Jones wrote: Some folks posting here have seemed to suggest that this level of noise might possibly be acceptable. Well, firstly we don't know the actual specification of the devices used by Zylia. And secondly, using an array of nineteen to generate an output gives the possibility of significant improvement, because the sound source signals are correlated and the noise is uncorrelated. How this holds up in practice at higher orders and higher frequencies I will attempt to judge when I get my hands on the ZM-1 rather than just predicting failure in advance (which is not consistent with the reviews I've seen heard and read). Paul -- Paul Hodges ___ 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. -- next part -- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/private/sursound/attachments/20180818/40e5ff31/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. --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus ___ 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] Zoom H3-VR
Marc L said: What I'm still waiting for is a free (as in speech) Ambisonics microphone like the ones being developed by the SpHEAR project: https://cm-gitlab.stanford.edu/ambisonics/SpHEAR/ I want something affordable, that I can build, fix and calibrate myself, without two PhDs and access to a nuclear-powered anechoic chamber. I want a modest gear and enough knowledge Marc The great problem, of course, is that these things are only "affordable" if they can be mass-produced and sold in the tens of thousands. In DIY quantities for enthusiasts they may be excellent in quality, but they really cannot be inexpensive. For low cost the Zooms and the Rode's are the only plausible future, because they can amortise their enormous research, set-up and machining costs over sufficient numbers. The interesting point is that the sort of accuracy and tolerance feasible during their style of mass-production is beginning to equate to that of the specialists of bygone years. How open these sort of products can be in terms of internal architecture and calibration is another (commercial) problem. At least some secrecy is essential to their business model, to avoid making reverse engineering too easy... and therefore losing the mass market that their product has to be based on. None of this appeals to the artisan in most of us, but the reality of it cannot be ignored either. Chris Woolf --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus ___ 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] Zoom H3-VR
On 15/09/2018 16:12, hacklava wrote: On Sat, 15 Sep 2018 14:52:03 +0100 Chris Woolf wrote: How open these sort of products can be in terms of internal architecture and calibration is another (commercial) problem. At least some secrecy is essential to their business model, to avoid making reverse engineering too easy... and therefore losing the mass market that their product has to be based on. I read your "it's the economy, stupid" argument. Now there's a market. Hallelujah. Consumers of the world, praise secrecy. Put it this way; I understand how the audio market works, having been a designer for bits of it over the decades. Personally I love the artisan aspect, but I have to accept that patents and keeping some things hidden has been what has paid my for my bread crusts over the years. My point is that all the hardware is available to build an Ambisonics microphone, But selling you 4 matched capsules as an individual, and selling them as part of a finished ambisonics recorder, is a very different commercial matter. ... There's probably more plastic than anything else in this microphone. Oh, don't dismiss plastic! It can be a far better material than metal, used in the right place. Nor is it cheap to design and tool - it is just cheap as a part, when you make 100,000. I have countless arguments about the use of foam i n windshields, which people assume must be cheap because they see something like it in packaging. They never realise how hard it is to engineer on a 3-axis high speed CNC. Like sound, reality have directional components; we're in 2018, not in 1980, and there's alternatives. There are Chris Woolf --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus ___ 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] Soundfield by Rode plugin
On 17/12/2018 09:39, Dave Hunt wrote: How might they phase/time align the capsules ?? This must indeed be highly complex, as it is frequency dependent (low frequencies have smaller phase differences than high frequencies) as well as source directionally (across multiple blind sources) dependent. Surely this is just multiple beam-forming - taking the different signal levels of single events at each capsule and correcting them in the time domain to be aligned as closely as possible. Yes, that's frequency dependent so has to be done narrow band, but can be done for multiple events, a multiple number of times. This seems to be an approach that's been used by at least two mic manufacturers that I know of (Audio Technica and Schoeps) to improve directivity of axial mics. With increasing processing power the ability to generate more simultaneous beams allows this to be done for multiple directions. The ones that I know use this technique use flat arrays and limit the beams to a 180° arc, but I don't see any reason not to extend the technique to 360° or a full orb. I should state that this is entirely supposition - I have no actual knowledge of doing this. Chris Woolf --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus ___ 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] Soundfield by Rode plugin
On 17/12/2018 10:10, David Pickett wrote: A "time-frequency adaptive approach" What? Unless it works spectacularly well, I would suspect the application of snake oil. If this is a 3D version of the sort of technique used to improve the directivity of an axial mic then it can sound pretty good. The Schoeps SuperCMIT produces excellent sound quality with gentle processing help, and only starts to show faint artefacts when things are pushed very hard indeed. Chris Woolf --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus ___ 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] wifi audio (was Re: Deconstructing soundbar marketing B.S.)
On 28/05/2019 19:47, Marc Lavallée wrote: Le 28/05/2019 à 13:48, mgraves mstvp.com a écrit : The latency is not only caused by the packetization; the transmission chain looks like: (microphone -> ADC -> encoding -> BT transmission) -> (BT reception -> decoding) -> (SIP + encoding -> IP transmission) -> (IP reception -> SIP + decoding) -> (DAC -> loudspeaker) True enough, but the ADC, encoding, decoding and DAC elements can be reduced to <3ms (as happens with some of the best recent digital radio mics), which does indeed indicate that the intermediate stages are the ones that really do the harm. A while back I had to make a short range speech reinforcer for a friend with a damaged larynx. It had to use an analogue pathway because no (affordable at the time) digital path had anything like low enough latency to permit normal, unstilted conversation. A target figure ~has~ to be <10ms to avoid disturbing speech, and for most people/environments must be <<5ms. I find it laughable that "low latency" frequently seems to mean 30-50ms. Chris Woolf --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus ___ 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] wifi audio (was Re: Deconstructing soundbar marketing B.S.)
Answering this specific question... On 30/05/2019 10:42, Augustine Leudar wrote: ... I had some walkie talkies that had a range of one KM with admitedly terrible audio (surely this could be improved) . Whereas Senheiser in ear monitors have a really short distance range of around 40 metres and use much higher electromagnetic frequencies ((863 mhz) . Why is it something cant be done with the same sort of range as the walkie talkies but for.multichammel audio (according to wikipedia 30 - 400 mhz) ? Walkie talkies run on a 12.5kHz narrow band, and need ~50kHz of channel space. Broadcast quality FM (as in radio mics) uses a channel space of ~250kHz. Given than channel "skirts" are quite a bit wider multiple local channels cannot sit close to each other, and are commonly spaced ~500kHz apart. They also have to avoid numerical frequencies which would cause intermodulation. Thus remarkably few analogue radio channels can fit into a single (8MHz) TV channel space. The usual answer is ~12 at best. Some claim more but range and mutual interference may suffer. With digital modulation this can improve to ~20 because the effects of interference are reduced. Range is directly related to bandwidth, transmission power, and RF signal-to-noise limitations of the receiver. Narrow band with limited audio bandwidth and restricted (audio) signal-to-noise is a much easier task with a couple of AA cells than 20kHz audio with 100dB (companded) dynamic range. Digital radio mics have been even harder to make that can modulate something that equates to full broadcast bandwidth and dynamic range into the the same 250kHz bandwidth as analogue, and with roughly the same range/battery power. I've no idea what the .multichannel audio is - can you elaborate? And I can't imaging that there is any spectrum clear in the 30-400MHz region. Chris Woolf --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus ___ 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] wifi audio (was Re: Deconstructing soundbar marketing B.S.)
On 30/05/2019 17:51, mgraves mstvp.com wrote: The RF issue of range, carrier frequency, channel width is quite separate from the deliverable audio path. The Opus audio codec has revolutionized audio coding. It's able to deliver full-bandwidth audio at bitrates not much more than what was once typical of a telephone call. This means that the RF band need not be large to deliver high quality audio over a digital link. This answer is quite revealing of the different approaches and requirements within our audio field. My background is broadcast audio, so for origination purposes any digital coding has to be lossless, and latency has to be ~very~ low. Lossy coding is fine as a delivery format (and so would be OK for speaker feeds) but if the sound has to be processed en route the psychoacoustic stuff doesn't stand up. Likewise latency of 5-10ms can begin to alter performance, depending upon how the foldback is returned to an artist. I don't know Opus but having read up its spec (on Wikipedia) it is lossy and so can only be used as a delivery format. I had to smile at 30ms latency being reported as adequate for musicians to feel "in-time" - not for the ones I've ever worked with. Likewise the suggestion that 45-100ms is acceptable for lipsync is laughable - that's up to 5 TV frames adrift. Maybe audiences have become inured to low quality standards. Latency for "live interaction" at each end of a phone line, and face-to-face a few feet apart in a room require very different standards - Opus's suggestion of 150ms for VOIP might just be acceptable for the first, but it would destroy the second application. I don't doubt that it is a clever and well-designed codec, and that it is extremely useful, but one must keep in mind what it ~actually~ is rather than what it sounds like. Opus doesn't deliver full bandwidth audio, any more than other digitally compressed systems do. It delivers something that convinces most ears that it is a full bandwidth, full dynamic range signal, but it must always be remembered what is missing. If you used such a system to deliver sound to speakers (assuming there is a technique for maintaining multichannel phase coherence) it should work perfectly well. If you used it for passing the output channels of a microphone I doubt you would not remain happy for long. Which also means that the statement "the RF issue of range, carrier frequency, channel width is quite separate from the deliverable audio path" must be very carefully qualified - it is only correct in very specific circumstances. Chris Woolf --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus ___ 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] Deconstructing soundbar marketing B.S.
On 28/05/2019 13:34, David Pickett wrote: ... I tell myself that it should not be too difficult to make decent hi-res transmit and receive modules. I could use these for links from spot mikes in concerts where these have to pass the audience to get to the recorder, and also between my monitor output and the four speakers I use. Getting rid of cables from the ground would be terrific in both situations; but I am not prepared to accept any degradation of the signal, particularly not any modification of the dynamic range. Has anyone looked into IR distribution systems? I know Shure has one that is multichannel capable, and as far as I can see can handle full bandwidth (uncompressed) audio. Being able to avoid the crowded RF spectrum allows considerably greater freedom. The only spec I can find doesn't mention dynamic range or latency but there's no reason to suppose that either are compromised. Chris Woolf --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus ___ 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] Deconstructing soundbar marketing B.S.
On 31/05/2019 20:57, Bo-Erik Sandholm wrote: https://fmarques.org/ronja-diy-optical-data/ If you want to diy instead of buying, seems like a complete design. Optical distribution of data/digital sound. Thanks for the link, and the research. While line-of-sight is a limitation I have been impressed by how well conference translation systems using IR headphones have worked in practice, and can imagine that a little planning and elevation could overcome this issue. I'm deeply ~unimpressed~ by how poor 5GHz Wi-Fi signals are at penetrating solid walls and diffracting or reflecting round objects. Chris Woolf --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus ___ 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] Deconstructing soundbar marketing B.S.
On 01/06/2019 22:25, Augustine Leudar wrote: by line of sght - I mean we do installations that have walls , dence trees and foliage , all sorts of stuff in the way - so IR , though it looks like a neat idea and I think preferable to wifi in some ways - wouldnt work for us Even wifi fails in some situations where walls are thick. Indeed not an easy task. Exploring the Shure system they would seem to deal with this sort of problem using multiple radiators - so some cabling, but much more limited than to every individual speaker. Delving into the user guide specs it doesn't appear to be compressed or hint at significant latency, and for 16 (mono) channel use (the maximum) has a bandwidth of 20-20kHz (-3dB) and 80dB dynamic range. Of course, I have just invented an ultra-broadband distribution system that uses quantum vacuum effects to communicate between atmospheric nitrogen atoms - just needs a few million dollars (payable directly to me) to commercialise the concept;} Chris Woolf --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus ___ 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] the facebook group
I heartily agree. Facebook is at best a terrible nuisance, and I do everything I can to avoid being mired in it. Chris Woolf On 02/01/2022 09:13, Fons Adriaensen wrote: On Sun, Jan 02, 2022 at 06:19:03AM +0200, Sampo Syreeni wrote: Hi. How about if you all also join the Facebook-group, corresponding to this one? Because it'd be nice as always... ;) So you suggest to support a platform * that systematically amplifies division, extremism, and polarization around the world, * where you are the product to be sold, for any purpose including manipulation of elections, * is owned by a sociopath who thinks that you have no right to privacy, and has consistently lied about Facebook's policies. The sooner FB disappears the better it will be for all of us. -- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus ___ 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] Reynolds mics
A friend asked me about this mic. Have to admit I have never heard of it, or of the company. Does anyone on the list have any knowledge, thoughts or comments? Chris Woolf ___ 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] Reynolds mics
He may well do! But I was intrigued by the use of 3D printing for what are always going to be very low sales numbers, and how efficient the electrostatic screening was likely to be. I also wondered about the pop screening efficiency too. Chris Woolf On 25/03/2022 12:55, Tim Cowlishaw wrote: I've not used the mic, but I do know Jack Reynolds who makes them, he's now working at BBC R&D in the audio dept, and he's a good guy and knows his stuff! I suspect he might also lurk on here... :-) On Fri, 25 Mar 2022 at 13:24, Chris Woolf wrote: A friend asked me about this mic. Have to admit I have never heard of it, or of the company. Does anyone on the list have any knowledge, thoughts or comments? Chris Woolf ___ 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. -- next part -- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/private/sursound/attachments/20220325/413ed843/attachment.htm> ___ 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] Reynolds mics
Thank you, sir, for some helpful answers. My apologies for my ignorance of your work;} I'll continue some of the conversation off list... Chris On 25/03/2022 13:17, Jack Reynolds wrote: Hi Chris, The 3D printing does have several advantages from a design point of view. I can make structures that would be impossible with traditional methods. I nickel coat the nylon SLS parts with very good shielding results. The nylon also doesn’t get as ‘cold’ as metal bodied mics so that and IP67 waterproof LEMO connectors makes them very good for outdoor use. For windshields I have custom made Rycote BBGs that sit the array at the centre of the windshield. I have some demo mics available if you want to try one out. Cheers Jack Sent from my iPhone On 25 Mar 2022, at 12:58, Chris Woolf wrote: He may well do! But I was intrigued by the use of 3D printing for what are always going to be very low sales numbers, and how efficient the electrostatic screening was likely to be. I also wondered about the pop screening efficiency too. Chris Woolf On 25/03/2022 12:55, Tim Cowlishaw wrote: I've not used the mic, but I do know Jack Reynolds who makes them, he's now working at BBC R&D in the audio dept, and he's a good guy and knows his stuff! I suspect he might also lurk on here... :-) On Fri, 25 Mar 2022 at 13:24, Chris Woolf wrote: A friend asked me about this mic. Have to admit I have never heard of it, or of the company. Does anyone on the list have any knowledge, thoughts or comments? Chris Woolf ___ 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. -- next part -- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/private/sursound/attachments/20220325/413ed843/attachment.htm> ___ 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.
Re: [Sursound] Reynolds mics
Thank you all for filling in my lack of knowledge of Jack Reynolds.
Truly, I was just asking because I had been contacted by a friend and
user of an old Soundfield about these mics, and I had to admit total
ignorance;}
Jack has been conversing with me since then off-list, and I've clearly
managed a bit of unintentional promo on his behalf! Good to hear how
many of you are using his kit and how favourable so many reactions are.
I'm not in the world of making recordings nowadays but I do feel a
little more up-to-date - such are the benefits of this list.
Chris Woolf
On 26/03/2022 11:39, Axel Drioli wrote:
Hi Chris
I've been using almost every prototype stage of Jack's mics since that
first day he showed me a 3d printed array frame.
I've used them in so many scenarios, I have 4x of them. Do you have
any specific recordings you would like to hear? I'll provide them in A
format and also upsampled AmbiX 3rd order.
Axel
On Fri, 25 Mar 2022 at 19:09, Drew Kirkland wrote:
I have one, I can send some recordings. It is a flatter response
than the
sennheiser Ambo. It's very light and the capsules are reasonably well
matched.
I use it mostly for wild landscape receding with a mix pre10
Drew
On Fri, 25 Mar 2022, 12:24 Chris Woolf,
wrote:
> A friend asked me about this mic. Have to admit I have never
heard of
> it, or of the company.
>
> Does anyone on the list have any knowledge, thoughts or comments?
>
> Chris Woolf
>
> ___
> 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.
>
-- next part --
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/private/sursound/attachments/20220325/b85c491a/attachment.htm>
___
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.
--
*Axel Drioli*
/*SpatialAudioLabs.com <http://spatialaudiolabs.com/>*/
/
/
/Creating sonic immersive experiences for XR and installations./
/
/
/SoundingWild.com <http://soundingwild.com/> for Wildlife and
Conservation immersive experiences.//
/
/
/
*
*/Tel-Facetime:/*+44 7460 223640
*
*
/*E-mail: a...@spatialaudiolabs.com <mailto:a...@spatialaudiolabs.com>*/
*
/'Life On The Edge', a Sounding Wild
<http://www.soundingwild.com/> x Spatial Audio Labs production for
Wildlife Alliance <https://www.wildlifealliance.org/> is part of
*EarthXR 2020 <https://earthx.org/expo/main-attractions/earthxr/>
*official selection and Finalist at *SXSW2020 Virtual Noise Showcase*/
/
/
/
/
/
/
//
-- next part --
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/private/sursound/attachments/20220326/6b846cc7/attachment.htm>
___
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] 3 point XY - Anyone ever heard about this?
Michael Williams is undoubtedly an oddity in our audio world, but he is a great experimenter and his ideas are all grounded in solid science. I've known him for a great many years and he's never come up with hogwash or snake-oil in all that time. Chris Woolf On 05/12/2022 13:50, Fons Adriaensen wrote: On Mon, Dec 05, 2022 at 07:07:08AM +0200, Sampo Syreeni wrote: On 2022-12-04, Thorsten Michels wrote: Does anyone ever heard of a system described as "3 point XY"? Sounds like hogwash and snakeoil. It certainly is not. If the three mics are coincident (in the horizontal plane), you can combine their signals to obtain - An omni response - A front/back fig-8 - A left/right fig-8 and these three in turn can be mixed to obtain any first order mic with an horizontal axis. ___ 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] Dave Malham
Does anyone have a current email address for Dave Malham, please? I have someone who wants to contact him about an old article in Microphone Data. Chris Woolf ___ 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] So long CIPIC HRTF?
On 30/12/2022 18:33, brian.k...@sorbonne-universite.fr wrote: It must be repeated that our auditory system adapts to our own local changes, in clothing, hair style, etc. and we are not significantly thrown off by such things (at least after adaptive listening for a bit). ions, view archives and so on. Great to see that mentioned. It has always struck me that we can indeed adapt remarkably quickly to local changes in our personal HTRF, and that therefore this needs to be considered as a dynamic affair, rather than a purely static one. If you suffer a temporarily blocked ear - after swimming, say - your stereo perception may be bent out of accuracy for a few minutes, but the (extreme gain/frequency inaccuracy gets accounted for within our brains and we soon find visual and aural alignment back more or less correctly. Likewise putting on wooly hat, a coat with a thick collar, or a heavy scarf - all objects that should wreck the accuracy of a static HTRF - have only the most limited of effects on positional accuracy. So how much precision is really needed for an HRTF? And how inaccurate can it be for our normal correction ability to deal with it? Chris Woolf ___ 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] So long CIPIC HRTF?
Such a good point. Thank you.
I'm too rooted in the film and TV world, where a visual anchor
invariably exists.
Chris Woolf
On 01/01/2023 09:21, Bo-Erik Sandholm wrote:
The problem for us with ambisonics is in most cases we do not have
any visual reference to confirm or adjust the acoustic cues to any
reference.
There exists papers showing that the we humans locks in to visual cues
and our experience and allows vision to win.
Bo-Erik
Den lör 31 dec. 2022 16:04Chris Woolf skrev:
On 30/12/2022 18:33, brian.k...@sorbonne-universite.fr wrote:
> It must be repeated that our auditory system adapts to our
own local changes, in clothing, hair style, etc. and we are not
significantly thrown off by such things (at least after adaptive
listening for a bit). ions, view archives and so on.
Great to see that mentioned.
It has always struck me that we can indeed adapt remarkably
quickly to
local changes in our personal HTRF, and that therefore this needs
to be
considered as a dynamic affair, rather than a purely static one.
If you suffer a temporarily blocked ear - after swimming, say - your
stereo perception may be bent out of accuracy for a few minutes,
but the
(extreme gain/frequency inaccuracy gets accounted for within our
brains
and we soon find visual and aural alignment back more or less
correctly.
Likewise putting on wooly hat, a coat with a thick collar, or a heavy
scarf - all objects that should wreck the accuracy of a static HTRF -
have only the most limited of effects on positional accuracy.
So how much precision is really needed for an HRTF? And how
inaccurate
can it be for our normal correction ability to deal with it?
Chris Woolf
___
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.
-- next part --
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/private/sursound/attachments/20230101/e7c4f435/attachment.htm>
___
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] So long CIPIC HRTF?
You add some attractive academic thought to this problem - more organised than my original poke. Can I throw in another silly thought? The "training" to cope with a modified HRTF - say, putting on a tilted wide-brimmed hat and pulling a thick scarf round one's neck - seems to take place almost instantly. As someone mentioned on this list before, this is probably because there are visual clues that allow us to re-calibrate our direction sensing, most particularly if the changes are within a range that we have often met before. That familiarity seems necessary, because I've noticed that if one of my ears is temporarily blocked for some reason, I can still make the directional re-calibration but it definitely takes longer - long enough for me to be conscious of doing it. The silly thought is, do we just need a short-term feedback correction? A brief visual cue, which can subsequently be dropped, because our neural correction system retains the re-calibration until something else occurs to convince our brain that it needs to correct again. No idea how you might experiment with that Chris Woolf On 15/02/2023 13:43, Sampo Syreeni wrote: On 2022-12-31, Chris Woolf wrote: It has always struck me that we can indeed adapt remarkably quickly to local changes in our personal HTRF, and that therefore this needs to be considered as a dynamic affair, rather than a purely static one. By the way, there are even more remarkable examples of that adaptability in psychophysics. Perhaps the most dramatic I know of is the one of inverting goggles. Apparently, if you consistently wear a headset which flips your vision upside down, in about two to three weeks your circuits adjust to compensate, and then back again once you stop the experiment. That happens even if you're an adult, so that this is not an example of early childhood, low level plasticity and the irreversibility that comes with it. (Pace kittens only shown vertical stripes and that sort of thing.) So how much precision is really needed for an HRTF? And how inaccurate can it be for our normal correction ability to deal with it? Perhaps even more to the point, what precisely are the mechanisms which enable us to compensate like that? Because if we really understood what they are, maybe we could take conscious advantage of them, to rapidly train people to work with a generalized HRTF set, instead of going the hard way of measuring or modelling individualized head, torso and pinna responses. One obvious answer is feedback. I'd argue the main reason head tracking works so well is that we're tuned to correlate how we move with the sensory input provoked by the movement. That's for instance how children appear to learn first occlusion and then by extension object constancy. In audition, I've had the pleasure of trying out a research system in which different kinds of head tracked binaural auralization methods were available for side by side comparison. The system worked surprisingly well even with no HRTF's applied, but just amplitude and delay variation against an idealized pair of point omni receivers. I also adapted to it *really* fast, like in ten minutes or so. But is there more? Head tracking, especially in a directionally solid and low latency form, isn't exactly an over the counter solution yet. So could you perhaps at least partially substitute the learning from feedback with something like synchronized visual or tactile cues, in a training session? Because if you could, you'd suddenly gain a lower cost yet at least somewhat effective version of binaural rendering; there would be money to be made. ___ 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] [off-topic] Spirals
Bringing things round in a circle (rather than a spiral) Anyone any ideas how one could provide an audio horizon that could be a mimic of the gyro artificial horizon? That could presumably add an additional warning of unintentional spiralling, and one that would signal a discrepancy between gravitational/centrifugal pull and absolute vertical. I can see the problems of providing a height dimension with headphones, and also a question of what audio signals would have sufficient rate to provide the frequency of stimulus needed. ATC and TCAS would be some help but I think you would need rather more than just that. This is just coffee-time thoughts - I'm not planning to go flying any time soon;} Chris Woolf On 08/03/2023 13:23, t.mich...@posteo.de wrote: Hi Panos! First of all: Welcome! Second: YES you are definitely in the right place. Third: If you have any question, feel invite to ask. :-) Take care and stay healthy Cheers Thorsten Am 08.03.2023 00:08 schrieb Panos Kouvelis: I recently subscribed to this mailing list for insightful discussions on surround sound. Up 'till now, the material I have received is about aviation. Am I in the wrong place? :-) *Pan Athen* SoundFellas <https://soundfellas.com/>, *MediaFlake Ltd <http://mediaflake.com/>* Digital Media Services, Content, and Tools On Wed, Mar 8, 2023 at 1:03 AM Sampo Syreeni wrote: On 2023-02-22, Fons Adriaensen wrote: > And in many cases the aircraft may very well be unstable in that axis: > if left alone, the roll angle will slowly increase. Actually, most modern aircraft are stable in the bank axis as well. Part of why they have swept wings, bent wings and wingtips and the like, is to this regard. (Part of: most of it has to with approaching transonic flight. But not all.) The thing is though, and as you say below, the pilot won't feel anything weird when approaching a spiral. The built in stability of the airplane will keep everybody in their seat at 1g acceleration perpendicular to the floor, evenas the airplane banks to something approaching 90 degrees, and loses all of its lift. Then it just falls, sideways. When that happens, you're in what's called a "death spiral", because it's extremely difficult to recover from the condition, and you typically don't even know you've entered one. When you do, you as a pilot are already in a state of spatial disorientation; you *literally* don't know which way is up and which down, and since the plane is by now basically half-way inverted, with now absolutely no lift, losing altitude like a falling rock, you as the pilot have very little possibility of correcting. *Technically*, in *theory*, you often *could* recover, if you have enough altitude, speed and sturdiness of airframe; even I have run it through in a game. But in practice, recovery from a well developed death spiral is mostly beyond human ability. Especially once you lose height, because at low altitudes, already going nose down, you can't even convert high air speed/energy into a corrective manoeuvre before you hit the terrain, and there will only be seconds to lose. This is then why the pilot flying is supposed to only look at the instrumentation, and why there are auditory warnings about bank angle on the modern jets. The Swedish commercial midsize Boeing pilot, Mentour, on YouTube, is first rate in explaining all of this stuff. Okay, so, finally, how would you recover from a well developed death spiral, presuming you realized you were in one? Well, the optimum way would be to use all of the airfoils at the pilot's control at the same time to convert kinetic and potential energy of the frame into first 1) orientation, and then 2) into safe height in level flight. The optimum control trajectory going there is universally wild, so that you can't even practice for it in a simulator. It can even be chaotic, in the true mathematical sense. Many of the attempts at automated recovery I known of literally crashed on that point; you can't do optimum control here, because it leads you into an unstable calculation. Instead, you have to have your algoritm flying off the optimum path, in order to keep a stability margin. (Knowing how much off the optimum path it should be, and what a stability margin even *is*, is to date an unknown as well. It's difficult to quantify.) So, how would I fly out of a death spiral, suddenly and against expectation fully knowing I was in one? Fully knowing which way, how fast, at which height, I and my aeroplane was going? Well, obviously, I would have to regain lift, evenas I was falling. I'd use ailerons to gain "level flight" evenwhile falling. While that was done, I'd yoke up, no matter the orientation of the airframe (assuming I wasn't downright inverted), in order to gain altitude and *true* level flight. I'd put the engi
Re: [Sursound] [off-topic] Spirals
Ta - looks interesting - there's always someone who's been there before;} Chris Woolf On 08/03/2023 16:21, Marc Lavallée wrote: The article is freely available here: https://ntrs.nasa.gov/citations/20080042307 Marc Le 2023-03-08 à 11 h 15, Picinali, Lorenzo a écrit : Hello Chris, this might be interesting for you! https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/154193120805200103?casa_token=CptzIp9vOaQA:fG10j5X-vgVL92L3YHFjBTRAyYUCHfVpsuYDrU3DcGX4wPgzym4ZZoLHSh2I2AfvIZrEyKpIQ54 I remember they also presented this work at ICAD in Paris in 2008, and if I remember well they won the best paper award! Best Lorenzo -- Lorenzo Picinali Reader in Audio Experience Design<https://www.axdesign.co.uk/> Dyson School of Design Engineering Imperial College London Dyson Building Imperial College Road South Kensington, SW7 2DB, London E: l.picin...@imperial.ac.uk http://www.imperial.ac.uk/people/l.picinali https://www.axdesign.co.uk/ https://www.sonicom.eu/ From: Sursound on behalf of Chris Woolf Sent: 08 March 2023 16:03 To: sursound@music.vt.edu Subject: Re: [Sursound] [off-topic] Spirals *** This email originates from outside Imperial. Do not click on links and attachments unless you recognise the sender. If you trust the sender, add them to your safe senders list https://spam.ic.ac.uk/SpamConsole/Senders.aspx to disable email stamping for this address. *** Bringing things round in a circle (rather than a spiral) Anyone any ideas how one could provide an audio horizon that could be a mimic of the gyro artificial horizon? That could presumably add an additional warning of unintentional spiralling, and one that would signal a discrepancy between gravitational/centrifugal pull and absolute vertical. I can see the problems of providing a height dimension with headphones, and also a question of what audio signals would have sufficient rate to provide the frequency of stimulus needed. ATC and TCAS would be some help but I think you would need rather more than just that. This is just coffee-time thoughts - I'm not planning to go flying any time soon;} Chris Woolf On 08/03/2023 13:23, t.mich...@posteo.de wrote: Hi Panos! First of all: Welcome! Second: YES you are definitely in the right place. Third: If you have any question, feel invite to ask. :-) Take care and stay healthy Cheers Thorsten Am 08.03.2023 00:08 schrieb Panos Kouvelis: I recently subscribed to this mailing list for insightful discussions on surround sound. Up 'till now, the material I have received is about aviation. Am I in the wrong place? :-) *Pan Athen* SoundFellas <https://soundfellas.com/>, *MediaFlake Ltd <http://mediaflake.com/>* Digital Media Services, Content, and Tools On Wed, Mar 8, 2023 at 1:03 AM Sampo Syreeni wrote: On 2023-02-22, Fons Adriaensen wrote: And in many cases the aircraft may very well be unstable in that axis: if left alone, the roll angle will slowly increase. Actually, most modern aircraft are stable in the bank axis as well. Part of why they have swept wings, bent wings and wingtips and the like, is to this regard. (Part of: most of it has to with approaching transonic flight. But not all.) The thing is though, and as you say below, the pilot won't feel anything weird when approaching a spiral. The built in stability of the airplane will keep everybody in their seat at 1g acceleration perpendicular to the floor, evenas the airplane banks to something approaching 90 degrees, and loses all of its lift. Then it just falls, sideways. When that happens, you're in what's called a "death spiral", because it's extremely difficult to recover from the condition, and you typically don't even know you've entered one. When you do, you as a pilot are already in a state of spatial disorientation; you *literally* don't know which way is up and which down, and since the plane is by now basically half-way inverted, with now absolutely no lift, losing altitude like a falling rock, you as the pilot have very little possibility of correcting. *Technically*, in *theory*, you often *could* recover, if you have enough altitude, speed and sturdiness of airframe; even I have run it through in a game. But in practice, recovery from a well developed death spiral is mostly beyond human ability. Especially once you lose height, because at low altitudes, already going nose down, you can't even convert high air speed/energy into a corrective manoeuvre before you hit the terrain, and there will only be seconds to lose. This is then why the pilot flying is supposed to only look at the instrumentation, and why there are auditory warnings about bank angle on the modern jets. The Swedish commercial midsize Boeing pilot, Mentour, on YouTube, is first rate in explaining all of this stuff. Okay, so, finally, how would you recover from
