Re: [Sursound] Rode's Ambisonic library [was Re: Comparison Sennheiser Ambeo mic vs. Rode NT-SF1?]

2020-04-25 Thread søren Bendixen 
Cool, thanks
Been searching for amb files the last few days

Med venlig hilsen/Best regards
Søren Bendixen
Composer & Sound Designer

Listen:
https://open.spotify.com/artist/2VtMLzhkZ2AZwtuFZ7EAFr?si=9Ahj6TIQQFiBmv5Jio0X_w


> Den 25. apr. 2020 kl. 14.04 skrev David Worrall :
> 
> 
> 
> Hi All,
> 
> In case you missed it:
> 
> https://www.newsshooter.com/2020/04/24/rode-microphones-releases-free-ambisonic-sound-library/
> 
> Hope you’re all bearing up under the lock-in,
> 
> David
> 
> ---
> 
> Dr David Worrall
> 
> Professor, Audio Arts and Acoustics
> 
> Columbia College Chicago
> 
> 33 E. Ida B. Wells Drive Room 601A
> 
> Chicago, ILLINOIS, USA 60605
> 
> Wikipedia:David Worrall 
> 
> 
> Personal research/creative practice website:avatar.com.au 
> 
> 
> Some music/sonification:on soundcloud 
>  Youtube videos 
> 
> 
> New Organised Sound issue (25/1):Computation in the Sonic Arts 
> 
> 
> New Book:Sonification Design: From data to intelligible soundfields 
> (Springer)
> 
> (also available throughAmazon 
> )
>  
> 
> *From:*Sursound  > on behalf of Steven Boardman 
> mailto:boardroomout...@gmail.com>>
> *Reply-To:*Surround Sound discussion group  >
> *Date:*Friday, December 14, 2018 at 04:42
> *To:*Surround Sound discussion group  >
> *Subject:*Re: [Sursound] Comparison Sennheiser Ambeo mic vs. Rode NT-SF1?
> 
> Hi Stefan
> 
> One can use multiple instances to create as many beamformers as one needs
> 
> to upmix or extract. One doesn't need to be constrained to 7.1 or 5.1
> 
> positions, as all beamformers can be moved. Although in pairs and a
> 
> separate centre channel, which is a pain.
> 
> As i mentioned earlier, it good at this, a lot better than the usual
> 
> virtual first order mic. As one can suppress the rear lobe. It is
> 
> definitely sharper as well.
> 
> I can't compare it directly to Harpex as i don't have the full Harpex
> 
> version, just the algorithm in Blue Ripples Harpex up mixer. (which i use
> 
> all the time)
> 
> The Rode plugin is free so try it. I am not sure why, as I think users
> 
> would pay for its decording. I am now using it regularly.
> 
> Best
> 
> Steve
> 
>   .”
> 
>   - - - -
> 
>   They don’t mention this, in fact this seems to be a kind of Facebook
> 
>   speculation...
> 
>   Other sources:
> 
>   https://digitalfilmmaker.net/rode-soundfield-nt-sf1-ambisonic-microphone/
> 
>   So in my understanding you can’t simulate a high-resolution ambisonics
> 
>   to 5.1 decoding (for example) with 5 virtual shotgun mikes. Because
> 
>   the “shotgun capsule responses” won’t add up to a 5.1 microphone at
> 
>   all... (The 5.1 mike capsule responses should be rather cardioid, and
> 
>   a coincident stereophonic 5.1 microphone ain’t be good either.)
> 
>   It is even less clear how a supposed new parametric ambisonics
> 
>   decoding process should work, because such a thing is neither
> 
>   explained nor even mentioned by Rode - and I don’t see any function to
> 
>   test...
> 
>   Do I miss anything? Of course it would be quite sensational if Rode
> 
>   should have invented a new form of FOA upsampling AND would give this
> 
>   away “for free” in some plugin. (AND then not promoting this
> 
>   sensational feature...)
> 
>   But I highly doubt it...
> 
>   Best,
> 
>   Stefan
> 
>   P.S.: But in case I should be wrong, it would have been me to provoke
> 
>   a reaction from Rode which would < unveil > a very hidden and
> 
>   insignificant superresolution feature. 
> 
>   .
> 
> -- next part --
> 
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> 
> URL: 
> 
> 
> ___
> 
> 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: 
> 
> ___
> Sursound mailing list
> Sursound@music.vt.edu
> https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound - unsubscribe here, edit 
> account or options, view archives

[Sursound] Rode's Ambisonic library [was Re: Comparison Sennheiser Ambeo mic vs. Rode NT-SF1?]

2020-04-25 Thread David Worrall 



Hi All,

In case you missed it:

https://www.newsshooter.com/2020/04/24/rode-microphones-releases-free-ambisonic-sound-library/

Hope you’re all bearing up under the lock-in,

David

---

Dr David Worrall

Professor, Audio Arts and Acoustics

Columbia College Chicago

33 E. Ida B. Wells Drive Room 601A

Chicago, ILLINOIS, USA 60605

Wikipedia:David Worrall 



Personal research/creative practice website:avatar.com.au 



Some music/sonification:on soundcloud 
 Youtube videos 



New Organised Sound issue (25/1):Computation in the Sonic Arts 



New Book:Sonification Design: From data to intelligible soundfields 
(Springer)


    (also available throughAmazon 
) 



*From:*Sursound > on behalf of Steven Boardman 
mailto:boardroomout...@gmail.com>>
*Reply-To:*Surround Sound discussion group >

*Date:*Friday, December 14, 2018 at 04:42
*To:*Surround Sound discussion group >

*Subject:*Re: [Sursound] Comparison Sennheiser Ambeo mic vs. Rode NT-SF1?

Hi Stefan

One can use multiple instances to create as many beamformers as one needs

to upmix or extract. One doesn't need to be constrained to 7.1 or 5.1

positions, as all beamformers can be moved. Although in pairs and a

separate centre channel, which is a pain.

As i mentioned earlier, it good at this, a lot better than the usual

virtual first order mic. As one can suppress the rear lobe. It is

definitely sharper as well.

I can't compare it directly to Harpex as i don't have the full Harpex

version, just the algorithm in Blue Ripples Harpex up mixer. (which i use

all the time)

The Rode plugin is free so try it. I am not sure why, as I think users

would pay for its decording. I am now using it regularly.

Best

Steve

   .”

   - - - -

   They don’t mention this, in fact this seems to be a kind of Facebook

   speculation...

   Other sources:

   https://digitalfilmmaker.net/rode-soundfield-nt-sf1-ambisonic-microphone/

   So in my understanding you can’t simulate a high-resolution ambisonics

   to 5.1 decoding (for example) with 5 virtual shotgun mikes. Because

   the “shotgun capsule responses” won’t add up to a 5.1 microphone at

   all... (The 5.1 mike capsule responses should be rather cardioid, and

   a coincident stereophonic 5.1 microphone ain’t be good either.)

   It is even less clear how a supposed new parametric ambisonics

   decoding process should work, because such a thing is neither

   explained nor even mentioned by Rode - and I don’t see any function to

   test...

   Do I miss anything? Of course it would be quite sensational if Rode

   should have invented a new form of FOA upsampling AND would give this

   away “for free” in some plugin. (AND then not promoting this

   sensational feature...)

   But I highly doubt it...

   Best,

   Stefan

   P.S.: But in case I should be wrong, it would have been me to provoke

   a reaction from Rode which would < unveil > a very hidden and

   insignificant superresolution feature. 

   .

-- next part --

An HTML attachment was scrubbed...

URL: 



___

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: 

___
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.