I'd be very interested in hearing what people think about this too. I
should point out that I haven't gone quite as far as to say that
Harpex will turn a TetraMic into a 3rd order microphone. What we've
stated in our papers is that in two sets of formal listening tests,
Harpex scores equally high or higher than a third-order system.
However, both the first, second, third and fifth order systems in
these tests comprised synthesized sound scenes. Full-bandwidth fifth-
order recordings are hard to come by. We haven't made any quantitative
study of the effects of deviations from ideal microphone
characteristics. We've done a lot of informal listening, though, and
as I said, I'd be interested in hearing about other people's informal
results as well. If you want to read the papers, they're found under
"documentation" at harpex.net.
Svein
On 6. april. 2011, at 20:06, Len Moskowitz wrote:
I've been playing with Svein's player. It looks and sounds good.
One claim he's making is that his parametric decoding method allows a
first-order soundfield microphone (like our TetraMic) to provide
direction
cues that are equal to or better that what's available from a third-
order
soundfield microphone. Also, presumably the "sweet spot" is
comparable
in size to the one we'd expect from a third-order microphone.
If you've been using the HARPEX-B player or plug-in, do you think
the claims are reasonable?
Len Moskowitz ([email protected])
_______________________________________________
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
