regarding sound quality: i had my hand only at an sennheiser ambeo. did an A/B comparison with Schoeps DMS setup. while the drums i recorded sounded like drums via the Schoeps, they sounded like cardboard boxes via the ambeo. or are other ambisonic mics comparable to e.g. a ccm4 or mkh8020 ?
spatial resolution: don/t you get better resolution with a spaced array especially in the diffuse field. (and rainforest has a lot of diffuse field) in other words: is the coincidence route (ms, dms, ambisonics) really good for field recording in terms of sound quality ? in the end one could produce b-format also out of the discrete signals of a spaced array... On Thu, Oct 22, 2020 at 12:36 PM Steven Boardman <boardroomout...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > What makes you think that ORTF captures > > 'a small 8th of a sphere' ?? > > I don’t.. > > Maybe I wasn’t clear. What I meant was replacing each ORTF capsule (or M/S > pair) with an ambisonic mic, and decoding for the direction it should point. > All spaced array setups can use ambisonic mics, as they can output all the > polar patterns required. > My point was; the polar patterns would be more accurate (for a calibrated > mic) and hence the spatial accuracy better. > So yes exactly that. > > Thanks for making it clearer :) > > Steve > > > > > Sorry, this doesn't make any sense... A decoder doesn't give 'spherical > > coordinates', it outputs signals. What makes you think that ORTF captures > > 'a small 8th of a sphere' ?? > > > > Each Ambisonic mic, by suitable combination of its capsule signals [1], > > can provide the same signals as any number of conventional capsules > > (omni, cardioid, fig-of-eight,...) placed at the same point in space > > and in any direction. > > > > So you can always replace every group of (nearly) coincident conventional > > capsules (e.g. an M/S pair) by an Ambisonic one and get exactly the same > > signals. > > > > If you use a higher order AMB mic (e.g. an OctoMic) you can even get > > polar patterns for which no conventional capsule equivalent exists, and > > which certainly provide an advantage for surround. > > > > That's all there is to it. > > > > > > [1] This involves some filtering as well as just summing/subtracting > > signals, and for good reults it requires calibration of the AMB mic's > > capsules. If you experimented with Ambisonics in the way you pointed > > out, it's no surprise you got bad results. > > > > As I've stated a number of times before, there is *a lot* of completely > > bogus information on Ambisonics technology floating around. Some of this > > stuff is at the same level of intellectual integrity as e.g. flat-earth > > theories. Most of it is just the results of failing to understand basic > > things, or of simplifying things to the point that whatever remains is > > 'not even wrong'. Combine that with some people having their own agenda. > > > > Ciao, > > > > -- > > FA > > > > _______________________________________________ > > 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/20201022/22c62b1d/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.
