The QTC CM3 is not the same as Line Audio CM3 http://www.lineaudio.se/linemicdata.htm
Yes you can buy chinese mic pairs for £34 but quality is not as consistent as for the LineAudio mics. The Line Audio Mic's are probably more selected and individially tuned than the QTC ones. The Line audio do have a little more noise than but the now spectra in not so intrusive. Regards Bo-Erik -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Augustine Leudar Sent: den 17 januari 2011 21:46 To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [Sursound] good quality low noise yet miraculously cheap cardiod/unidirectional microphones ? Thanks for all the suggestions - just reiterate this is for a bespoke sound installation and I will not be using current ambisonic formats or tetrahedral microphones but require min five microphones tied together (Ive tried and tested this over the years and works best for my purposes - though I would be happy to discuss the pros and cons of this it on another thread if anyone is interested) . Bo-Erik Sandholm - can this really be true : http://www.htfr.com/more-info/MR331311 !!!! Two microphones for £34 ?????????? and they are good - has Jesus returned to Earth ? Whats the catch ???? On 17 January 2011 17:00, <[email protected]> wrote: > Send Sursound mailing list submissions to > [email protected] > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > [email protected] > > You can reach the person managing the list at > [email protected] > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > than "Re: Contents of Sursound digest..." > > > When replying, please remember to edit your Subject line to that of > the original message you are replying to, so it is more specific than "Re: > Contents of Sirsound-list digest..." > > > Today's Topics: > > 1. Re: Sursound Digest, Vol 30, Issue 10 (Aart Nienhuis) > 2. Re: good quality low noise yet miraculously cheap > cardiod/unidirectional microphones ? (Ronald C.F. Antony) > 3. Re: Sursound Digest, Vol 30, Issue 10 (John Leonard) > 4. Re: Available UHJ encoders? (Geoffrey Barton) > 5. Re: good quality low noise yet miraculously cheap > cardiod/unidirectional microphones ? (Bo-Erik Sandholm) > 6. Re: good quality low noise yet miraculously cheap > cardiod/unidirectional microphones ? (Ronald C.F. Antony) > 7. Re: good quality low noise yet miraculously cheap > cardiod/unidirectional microphones ? (J?rn Nettingsmeier) > 8. Re: good quality low noise yet miraculously cheap > cardiod/unidirectional microphones ? (Paul Hodges) > 9. Re: good quality low noise yet miraculously cheap > cardiod/unidirectional microphones ? (J?rn Nettingsmeier) > 10. Re: good quality low noise yet miraculously cheap > cardiod/unidirectional microphones ? (Ronald C.F. Antony) > 11. Re: good quality low noise yet miraculously cheap > cardiod/unidirectional microphones ? (J?rn Nettingsmeier) > 12. Re: good quality low noise yet miraculously cheap > cardiod/unidirectional microphones ? (J?rn Nettingsmeier) > 13. Re: good quality low noise yet miraculously cheap > cardiod/unidirectional microphones ? (Ronald C.F. Antony) > 14. Re: good quality low noise yet miraculously cheap > cardiod/unidirectional microphones ? (J?rn Nettingsmeier) > 15. Re: good quality low noise yet miraculously cheap > cardiod/unidirectional microphones ? (Ronald C.F. Antony) > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Message: 1 > Date: Sun, 16 Jan 2011 18:44:17 +0100 > From: Aart Nienhuis <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: [Sursound] Sursound Digest, Vol 30, Issue 10 > To: [email protected] > Message-ID: <[email protected]> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed > > > > > > > >Message: 6 > >Date: Sat, 15 Jan 2011 19:53:05 +0100 > >From: J?rn Nettingsmeier <[email protected]> > >Subject: Re: [Sursound] Sursound Digest, Vol 30, Issue 9 > >To: [email protected] > >Message-ID: <[email protected]> > >Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed > > > >On 01/15/2011 06:24 PM, Aart Nienhuis wrote: > > > > >> oh come on. decent webspace is cheap, there is no reason to annoy > users > > >> with that kind of crap. plus i was using a friend's windows > > >> machine, which makes me kinda wary of malware. > > > > > > You seem to be annoyed pretty easy if one popup makes you go into > > > stress...... > > > >two popups, each time one visits your page, one with unrelated > >advertising crap, and the other telling me repeatedly i'm the > >100000th user of your site and can claim a prize. sorry, but that's > >a) fraudulent and b) an insult to my intelligence. > > Fraudulent ? Man, grow up ! No one is stealing anything from you, no > one is trying to get anything from you.... > And besides that I gave you a link without popups , but you keep on > nagging about them....... > > > > >> i have since browsed it from my own machine, only to find that > > >> you > have > > >> chosen to trap right clicks throughout the page, taking my > > >> context > menu > > >> away. very annoying. particularly so since you decided to do > > >> without navigation elements. > > > > > > Yep, I did that because I found some of the stuff we developed > appearing > > > on another website as a direct copy including pictures...... but > > > not mentioning where it came from and who made it........ I know > > > this protection isn't very safe, but for noobs it is. > > > >congratulations, you have just protected your site from utter morons > >wishing to rip you off, making it unusable for everyone else who > >might take a legitimate interest in your site. > > RIDICULOUS ! Never heard that anyone couldn't navigate my site or > found it unusable..... > Really ridiculous. > > > > > > No navigation elements ? You're kidding, right ? So you're still > > > stuck at the indexpage ? ROTFL ! > > > >of course not. but you force me to follow your idea of reading flow > >and navigation, throwing me back to your index page all the time (for > >which i have to scroll down to find your backlink, because you > >screwed with my context menu), which is, um, a little eighties :) > >pretty much akin to saying "this website has been optimized for > >netscape navigator gold 3.0". we don't do that anymore :) > > The idea behind my site is to teach methods to make surround out of > stereo , so yes there is a quite logiocal flow you have to follow. > But just like you can avoid the popups, you can avoid the stream I > want newbies to follow and jump directly to the content you want to see. > It's has nothing to do with being optimized for, as far as I know it > works the same on every browser. > > Hey dude, take a look at www.kraftwerk.com ...... I bet you have > plenty of comment on that website too ! > (IMHO it's a work of Art !) > > > > > > >> Meister f?r Veranstaltungstechnik (B?hne/Studio), > > >> Elektrofachkraft > > > I can nag too if you want...... what is Meister f?r ? And B?hne ? > > > This is an English mailinglist, never thought of characters with > > > an Umlaut might become unreadable on such a list ? Must I say now > > > , like you did, that that is the reason for me not to look at > > > anything else from you ????? > > > And for sure doesn't look very professional to me either........ > > > >it's called a diacritical mark, or, as you observed correctly, an > >umlaut. it happens to be part of my language, and since it is not > >part of the 7bit character set, i send my mails as utf-8. in > >replying, my mailer falls back to my correspondent's choice of > >character encoding, which, in the case of this thread, happens to be > >ISO-8859-1. your mailer (or the digest mechanism of this list) > >wrongly assumes us-ascii, and consequently displays "?" as > >placeholders. clearly somebody else's problem, but thanks for the heads-up. > > OK, someone elses problem, not yours....... > So when I post in full HTML here or simply make a Word document with > different fonts, heights etc and post it here, it becomes unreadable, > but isn't my problem, but someone elses ? > It would suit you to make it fuer instead of f?r...... > > But anyway, I always thought this was a mailing list about Ambi and > related stuff, not a mailing list for HTML issues.... > > >Message: 11 > >Date: Sat, 15 Jan 2011 22:52:59 +0100 > >From: [email protected] > >Subject: Re: [Sursound] Sursound Digest, Vol 30, Issue 9 > >To: [email protected] > >Message-ID: <20110115215259.GB4186@zita2> > >Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 > > > >On Sat, Jan 15, 2011 at 07:53:05PM +0100, J?rn Nettingsmeier wrote: > > > > > a) fraudulent > > > b) an insult to my intelligence. > > > >Couldn't agree more. And while I could ignore b), a) remains what it > >is regardless of my or any interpretation. > > Ridiculous remark ! If that's your idea of fraud...... well, I can > think of better ways..... > > > > > > > it's called a diacritical mark, or, as you observed correctly, an > > > umlaut. it happens to be part of my language > > > >And also, along with others, of Dutch which I suspect is the native > >language of the OP. Any mail reader not able to display these > >characters is living in the 70s'. > > Ridiculous again...... never thought of that it might be this > mailinglist which doesn't display Umlauts when you have an English OS > and characterset ??? When you use a German one, yes you will have no > problems..... > But I want to make a bet with you that EVERYONE who uses this with a > setup like mine, will get the same result...... It has nothing to do > with the mailreader, more with the structure of this list. > Living in the 70's ? Oh wow, you already had a mail reader back then ? > I'm really impressed.......... > But to take you out of your dreams : latest version of Eudora........ > > Instead of all this nagging about HTML, popups or charactersets, some > serious talk about the content would be appreciated a lot more. (or > are you too not able to navigate and read ?) > > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 2 > Date: Sun, 16 Jan 2011 13:56:47 -0500 > From: "Ronald C.F. Antony" <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: [Sursound] good quality low noise yet miraculously cheap > cardiod/unidirectional microphones ? > To: Surround Sound discussion group <[email protected]> > Message-ID: <[email protected]> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii > > On 16 Jan 2011, at 09:28, John Leonard wrote: > > > I saw this too, but I noticed that the unit is build-to-order and > > there's > no other information at all that I can find regarding this product, > which seems to have appeared in the Octava catalogue four years ago. I > can't find any user reports, either, which makes me a bit suspicious > of whether anyone's actually used one in anger. > > I guess the calibration would be the issue, otherwise the various > A-to-B format conversion tools could be used. > Ronald > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 3 > Date: Sun, 16 Jan 2011 19:57:54 +0000 > From: John Leonard <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: [Sursound] Sursound Digest, Vol 30, Issue 10 > To: Surround Sound discussion group <[email protected]> > Message-ID: <[email protected]> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii > > Guys, > > If you want to fight, please take it off list. > > Thanks. > > John > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 4 > Date: Mon, 17 Jan 2011 08:46:04 +0000 > From: Geoffrey Barton <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: [Sursound] Available UHJ encoders? > To: [email protected] > Message-ID: <[email protected]> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii > > > > > > > Message: 5 > > Date: Sat, 15 Jan 2011 19:44:05 +0100 > > From: [email protected] > > Subject: Re: [Sursound] Available UHJ encoders? > > To: Surround Sound discussion group <[email protected]> > > Message-ID: <20110115184405.GA4117@zita2> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii > > > > On Sat, Jan 15, 2011 at 06:19:33PM +0000, [email protected] wrote: > > > >> problem with Fon's code is that the filter poles are pre-optimised > >> for a limited range of sample rates (44.1/88.2 and 48/96) and I'd > >> like more even more choice. > > > > 192 kHz ??? > > > >> It shows a little bit more phase > >> difference variance at the higher frequencies than the CSound > >> implementation but unless I am missing something it is only a four > >> pole per leg implementation, as opposed to CSounds (and Geoffrey's) > >> 6 poles per leg. > > > > Yes, 2 second order sections in series. > > > >> In both cases, however, the low end (under a hundred Hz) becomes > >> problematic at the higher sampling rates, > > > > Are you sure ? > > > > I measure +/- 4 degrees error in the range 20Hz .. 20kHz, even at 96 > > kHz. Below 20Hz it gets worse of course. > > > UHJ needs all the help it can get, and the analogue design Dave > referred to is 6 pole/zeroes in each of the 0 and 90 degree sections, > designed for a phase ripple of <1degree 20~20k. Too much ripple gives > blurring and mis-location in the images. IMHO 4 degrees is way too much. > > rgds, > Geoffrey > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 5 > Date: Mon, 17 Jan 2011 10:48:14 +0100 > From: Bo-Erik Sandholm <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: [Sursound] good quality low noise yet miraculously cheap > cardiod/unidirectional microphones ? > To: Surround Sound discussion group <[email protected]> > Message-ID: > < > E023323B1AD21D44AF70273B35E7501501081667CF@ESESSCMS0356.eemea.ericsson > .se> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" > > http://www.lineaudio.se/linemicdata.htm > CM3 is extremely well regarded here in sweden, and a won a recent > comparision in The stockholm based "Ljud tekniska s?llskapet" > > Regards > Bo-Erik > > -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected] > [mailto:[email protected]] > On Behalf Of John Leonard > Sent: den 14 januari 2011 17:24 > To: Surround Sound discussion group > Subject: Re: [Sursound] good quality low noise yet miraculously cheap > cardiod/unidirectional microphones ? > > Can you specify a target price? > > Thanks, > > John > > > On 14 Jan 2011, at 15:52, Augustine Leudar wrote: > > > Hello - could anyone recommend a good uni/cardioid directional > > microphones for use with the Tascam DR 680 ? > > _______________________________________________ > Sursound mailing list > [email protected] > https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 6 > Date: Mon, 17 Jan 2011 05:44:09 -0500 > From: "Ronald C.F. Antony" <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: [Sursound] good quality low noise yet miraculously cheap > cardiod/unidirectional microphones ? > To: Surround Sound discussion group <[email protected]> > Message-ID: <[email protected]> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 > > Anyone using their QM12i QUAD for a Nimbus-Halliday type setup? > It would seem that with the four cardioids stacked up on top of each > other, the rest would just be creating proper sum and difference > signals, or running the whole signal through a proper convolver. > Right? > > Ronald > > On 17 Jan 2011, at 04:48, Bo-Erik Sandholm wrote: > > > http://www.lineaudio.se/linemicdata.htm > > CM3 is extremely well regarded here in sweden, and a won a recent > comparision in > > The stockholm based "Ljud tekniska s?llskapet" > > > > Regards > > Bo-Erik > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 7 > Date: Mon, 17 Jan 2011 14:08:33 +0100 > From: J?rn Nettingsmeier <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: [Sursound] good quality low noise yet miraculously cheap > cardiod/unidirectional microphones ? > To: [email protected] > Message-ID: <[email protected]> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed > > On 01/17/2011 11:44 AM, Ronald C.F. Antony wrote: > > Anyone using their QM12i QUAD for a Nimbus-Halliday type setup? It > > would seem that with the four cardioids stacked up on top of each > > other, the rest would just be creating proper sum and difference > > signals, or running the whole signal through a proper convolver. > > Right? > > if you want to use cardioids, your best bet will be three at 120? angles. > i've played around with such a setup (recorded by fons with three > km184), and i found it works quite well. haven't had the chance to use > it myself yet. > > -- > J?rn Nettingsmeier > Lortzingstr. 11, 45128 Essen, Tel. +49 177 7937487 > > Meister f?r Veranstaltungstechnik (B?hne/Studio), Elektrofachkraft > Audio and event engineer - Ambisonic surround recordings > > http://stackingdwarves.net > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 8 > Date: Mon, 17 Jan 2011 13:33:16 +0000 > From: Paul Hodges <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: [Sursound] good quality low noise yet miraculously cheap > cardiod/unidirectional microphones ? > To: Surround Sound discussion group <[email protected]> > Message-ID: <[email protected]> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed > > --On 17 January 2011 14:08 +0100 J?rn Nettingsmeier > <[email protected]> wrote: > > > if you want to use cardioids, your best bet will be three at 120? angles. > > As briefly used by Michael Gerzon: > <http://www.michaelgerzonphotos.org.uk/microphones-calrecs.html> > > Paul > > -- > Paul Hodges > > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 9 > Date: Mon, 17 Jan 2011 14:45:46 +0100 > From: J?rn Nettingsmeier <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: [Sursound] good quality low noise yet miraculously cheap > cardiod/unidirectional microphones ? > To: [email protected] > Message-ID: <[email protected]> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed > > On 01/17/2011 02:33 PM, Paul Hodges wrote: > > --On 17 January 2011 14:08 +0100 J?rn Nettingsmeier > > <[email protected]> wrote: > > > >> if you want to use cardioids, your best bet will be three at 120? > angles. > > > > As briefly used by Michael Gerzon: > > <http://www.michaelgerzonphotos.org.uk/microphones-calrecs.html> > > interesting. i would have stacked them, for perfect horizontal coincidence. > if used like this, does the array require correction filters? > and isn't it a problem that frontal sound hits the "front" microphone > after the "rear" ones, or can it be corrected? > if it can be corrected, why aren't we all using four schoeps or b+k > cardioids in an inverted tetrahedron, i.e. pointing inwards? > > > -- > J?rn Nettingsmeier > Lortzingstr. 11, 45128 Essen, Tel. +49 177 7937487 > > Meister f?r Veranstaltungstechnik (B?hne/Studio), Elektrofachkraft > Audio and event engineer - Ambisonic surround recordings > > http://stackingdwarves.net > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 10 > Date: Mon, 17 Jan 2011 08:51:28 -0500 > From: "Ronald C.F. Antony" <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: [Sursound] good quality low noise yet miraculously > cheap > cardiod/unidirectional microphones ? > To: Surround Sound discussion group <[email protected]> > Message-ID: <[email protected]> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 > > Well, four cardioids at 90 deg. angles could be used to create both > two > fig8 signals at 90deg from each other, plus an omni by summing all > four. So wouldn't that already be more or less account for horizontal-only > B-format? > > Ronald > > On 17 Jan 2011, at 08:08, J?rn Nettingsmeier wrote: > > > On 01/17/2011 11:44 AM, Ronald C.F. Antony wrote: > >> Anyone using their QM12i QUAD for a Nimbus-Halliday type setup? It > >> would seem that with the four cardioids stacked up on top of each > >> other, the rest would just be creating proper sum and difference > >> signals, or running the whole signal through a proper convolver. > >> Right? > > > > if you want to use cardioids, your best bet will be three at 120? angles. > > i've played around with such a setup (recorded by fons with three > > km184), > and i found it works quite well. haven't had the chance to use it > myself yet. > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 11 > Date: Mon, 17 Jan 2011 15:20:17 +0100 > From: J?rn Nettingsmeier <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: [Sursound] good quality low noise yet miraculously > cheap > cardiod/unidirectional microphones ? > To: [email protected] > Message-ID: <[email protected]> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"; Format="flowed" > > On 01/17/2011 02:51 PM, Ronald C.F. Antony wrote: > > Well, four cardioids at 90 deg. angles could be used to create both > > two fig8 signals at 90deg from each other, plus an omni by summing > > all four. So wouldn't that already be more or less account for > > horizontal-only B-format? > > it would, but so would three, so why waste one? > > i've played around a bit with gnuplot (hope the attachment makes it > through): three cardioids at 120? sum up to a perfect omni, and also > to figures of eight (only one given here, for clarity. > (note i had to cheat a bit with the last two functions, because in > polar plotting, there's no concept of an "inverted polarity" lobe, > instead r is negative, which means that both halves of the eight are > congruent on the positive side). > > > -- > J?rn Nettingsmeier > Lortzingstr. 11, 45128 Essen, Tel. +49 177 7937487 > > Meister f?r Veranstaltungstechnik (B?hne/Studio), Elektrofachkraft > Audio and event engineer - Ambisonic surround recordings > > http://stackingdwarves.net > > -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was > scrubbed... > Name: tricard.png > Type: image/png > Size: 64360 bytes > Desc: not available > URL: < > https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/private/sursound/attachments/2011011 > 7/9f4dfadc/attachment.png > > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 12 > Date: Mon, 17 Jan 2011 15:22:02 +0100 > From: J?rn Nettingsmeier <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: [Sursound] good quality low noise yet miraculously > cheap > cardiod/unidirectional microphones ? > To: [email protected] > Message-ID: <[email protected]> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed > > On 01/17/2011 03:20 PM, J?rn Nettingsmeier wrote: > > On 01/17/2011 02:51 PM, Ronald C.F. Antony wrote: > >> Well, four cardioids at 90 deg. angles could be used to create both > >> two fig8 signals at 90deg from each other, plus an omni by summing > >> all four. So wouldn't that already be more or less account for > >> horizontal-only B-format? > > > > it would, but so would three, so why waste one? > > > > i've played around a bit with gnuplot (hope the attachment makes it > > through): three cardioids at 120? sum up to a perfect omni, and also > > to figures of eight (only one given here, for clarity. > > (note i had to cheat a bit with the last two functions, because in > > polar plotting, there's no concept of an "inverted polarity" lobe, > > instead r is negative, which means that both halves of the eight are > > congruent on the positive side). > > ah well, it didn't... > > http://stackingdwarves.net/download/tricard.png > > -- > J?rn Nettingsmeier > Lortzingstr. 11, 45128 Essen, Tel. +49 177 7937487 > > Meister f?r Veranstaltungstechnik (B?hne/Studio), Elektrofachkraft > Audio and event engineer - Ambisonic surround recordings > > http://stackingdwarves.net > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 13 > Date: Mon, 17 Jan 2011 09:43:24 -0500 > From: "Ronald C.F. Antony" <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: [Sursound] good quality low noise yet miraculously > cheap > cardiod/unidirectional microphones ? > To: Surround Sound discussion group <[email protected]> > Message-ID: <[email protected]> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" > > > On 17 Jan 2011, at 09:20, J?rn Nettingsmeier wrote: > > > On 01/17/2011 02:51 PM, Ronald C.F. Antony wrote: > >> Well, four cardioids at 90 deg. angles could be used to create both > >> two fig8 signals at 90deg from each other, plus an omni by summing > >> all four. So wouldn't that already be more or less account for > >> horizontal-only B-format? > > > > it would, but so would three, so why waste one? > > Easy: because there is a mic with four of them stacked, precisely > aligned in 90 degree angles. > There is no such mic with three capsules at 120 degree angles. > So the three mic solution would require custom mounting, allow for > easy misalignment, etc. > If anyone can convince them to do one of these mics with three > capsules at 120 degree, it would be a different story. > > Also the fig8 is easier to do just in a mixer with a phase flip and > sum of two signals IIRC. > With fewer signals involved in the fig8 part, it might have better > impulse preservation and that might help localization; however, that's > just speculation on my part. > > The main reason is simply that this is a mic that can be bought off > the shelf that seems to ave what it takes and costs well under $1k > including cables and shipping. > > Ronald > > PS: thanks for the plot and the math. Might be useful in the future. > > > i've played around a bit with gnuplot (hope the attachment makes it > through): three cardioids at 120? sum up to a perfect omni, and also > to figures of eight (only one given here, for clarity. > > (note i had to cheat a bit with the last two functions, because in > > polar > plotting, there's no concept of an "inverted polarity" lobe, instead r > is negative, which means that both halves of the eight are congruent > on the positive side). > -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was > scrubbed... > Name: attachment.png > Type: image/png > Size: 64360 bytes > Desc: not available > URL: < > https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/private/sursound/attachments/2011011 > 7/f586d8ca/attachment.png > > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 14 > Date: Mon, 17 Jan 2011 16:48:11 +0100 > From: J?rn Nettingsmeier <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: [Sursound] good quality low noise yet miraculously > cheap > cardiod/unidirectional microphones ? > To: [email protected] > Message-ID: <[email protected]> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed > > On 01/17/2011 03:43 PM, Ronald C.F. Antony wrote: > > > > On 17 Jan 2011, at 09:20, J?rn Nettingsmeier wrote: > > > >> On 01/17/2011 02:51 PM, Ronald C.F. Antony wrote: > >>> Well, four cardioids at 90 deg. angles could be used to create > >>> both two fig8 signals at 90deg from each other, plus an omni by > >>> summing all four. So wouldn't that already be more or less account > >>> for horizontal-only B-format? > >> > >> it would, but so would three, so why waste one? > > > > Easy: because there is a mic with four of them stacked, precisely > > aligned in 90 degree angles. > > ah, i see. didn't catch that this thing actually contains four > independent cardioid mikes. > > > Also the fig8 is easier to do just in a mixer with a phase flip and > > sum of two signals IIRC. > > good point. > > > The main reason is simply that this is a mic that can be bought off > > the shelf that seems to ave what it takes and costs well under $1k > > including cables and shipping. > > has anyone here used the quad mike? any comments? > > > PS: thanks for the plot and the math. Might be useful in the future. > > don't ever rely on my math :) but gnuplot is nice in that you can > figure out stuff "by eye" to get a grasp of things... > > -- > J?rn Nettingsmeier > Lortzingstr. 11, 45128 Essen, Tel. +49 177 7937487 > > Meister f?r Veranstaltungstechnik (B?hne/Studio), Elektrofachkraft > Audio and event engineer - Ambisonic surround recordings > > http://stackingdwarves.net > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 15 > Date: Mon, 17 Jan 2011 11:51:18 -0500 > From: "Ronald C.F. Antony" <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: [Sursound] good quality low noise yet miraculously > cheap > cardiod/unidirectional microphones ? > To: Surround Sound discussion group <[email protected]>, J?rn > Nettingsmeier <[email protected]> > Message-ID: <[email protected]> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252" > > On 17 Jan 2011, at 10:48, J?rn Nettingsmeier wrote: > > ah, i see. didn't catch that this thing actually contains four > independent cardioid mikes. > > See here: > > http://www.lineaudio.se/linemic.htm > http://www.lineaudio.se/qm12man.htm > > Price with cable translates into roughly $900. All the "processing" to > get B-Format from that can be trivially done in the +DSP setup of a > MIO 2882, pair of ULN2 or ULN8, all of which I have at my disposal > > > QM12i QUAD / Multi Mic (Quadruple cartridges / 12 membranes) 5100 > > SEK > excl VAT/moms (excl. cable) > > This microphone is actually four complete/independent SM3Ls in one > > body > with each membrane angled 90 degrees. > > 5 meters of cable (with QM12 multiconnector to 4x XLR wip): 795 SEK > > excl > VAT/ plus moms. Other cable lengths are available on request. > > > > ? QM12i picks up true QUADRAPHONIC/SURROUND! > > ? Stereo: X/Y. > > ? Mono: CARDIOID. > > -Additionally, with the help of a good mixing desk it can also pick > > up > the following stereo and mono patterns: > > ? Stereo: BLUMLEIN (crossed figure eight), M/S, omni X/Y. > Recordings can be made Quadraphonically with the stereomatrix > manipulated at a later stage, finding out the best settings not before > recording, but afterwards. This reduce the risk of mistakes and > enables post production perfection of the stereo image/ambience, not > possible with standard techniques. > > ? Mono: Any pattern between OMNI-CARDIOID-SUPER CARDIOD-FIGURE > EIGHT. > > > > SMi / STi / QMi SERIES SPECIFICATIONS: > > TYPE Prepolarized condenser microphone PHANTOM POWER 40-52V FREQ. > > RESPONSE 20 - 20000 Hz (70-15000Hz +-1.2dB on axis!) IMPEDANCE < 100 > > Ohm 1KHz SENSITIVITY 10mV/PA (SM3L/ST6L 7mV/PA -44dB S/N ratio > > (DIN/CCIR) 83dB(A)/73dB Noise level:11dB(A) MAX SPL 130dB CURRENT > > CONSUMPTION 3.5 mA CONNECTOR 3 PIN XLR (pin1 GND, pin 2+, pin3 -) > > SIZE 140mm x 47mm / 170mm x 47mm WEIGHT 320g (microphone only) > > > -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was > scrubbed... > Name: SMiSTiQMiPLOTS.gif > Type: image/gif > Size: 34164 bytes > Desc: not available > URL: < > https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/private/sursound/attachments/2011011 > 7/ba1b4fde/attachment.gif > > > -------------- next part -------------- > > > > ------------------------------ > > _______________________________________________ > Sursound mailing list > [email protected] > https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound > > > End of Sursound Digest, Vol 30, Issue 11 > **************************************** > -- 07812675974 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/private/sursound/attachments/20110117/6a9375f6/attachment.html> _______________________________________________ Sursound mailing list [email protected] https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound _______________________________________________ Sursound mailing list [email protected] https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound
