SPL Atmos 5.1 system

[CaptCrunch]

Has anyone tried this system? If so, could you please share your experience with the results and how/what you've used in the same situation.

EDIT: I should add that this is for live performances of a range of performers from adult contemporary to jazz to solo artists. All performances are in the same club and recorded to Radar S-Nyquist. However, I would also be inclined to try it in my studio as well.

[Remoteness]

a lil' bumpage...

Anyone?

[CaptCrunch]

Originally Posted by Remoteness

a lil' bumpage...

Anyone?

Thanks for the bump Steve.

Bump for self. Anyone????

[Plush]

The ATMOS is a joke.

Technically, it is incorrect in mic spacing and the features for built-in surround are flawed.

The unit is unuseable and priced very high.

It started life as a promo vehicle for Dirk Brauner and the ATMOS toy boiz.

The ATMOS is zeroed out here in my book.

[Folkie]

How about a Soundfield mic (SoundField: Welcome to SoundField)?

1. costs much less
2.no phase problems going from surround to stereo to mono
3.record B-format (4 tracks) and you can decode later with software in DAW (Protools, Nuendo) to mono, stereo, 5.1, 7.1...)
4.can decode to any mic pattern from omni through figure 8
5.can in with preamp/processor (MKV) or with software in DAW(all Soundfield mics) "virtually" repoint the mic in any direction including up/down, in 360 deg

I have the MKV and ST-350 and love them for minimalist stereo recording-love the decode versatility in the DAW. I don't have a surround set-up so no personal experience with surround but you can check out Ambisonic Surround Sound. Ambisonics, 5.1, audio recordings — Ambisonic Surround Sound. Ambisonics, 5.1, audio recordings for some downloadable surround recordings many of which were recorded with Soundfield mics.
Bill

[huub]

Trying one out for a dvd recording this weekend in denmark,
will let all know my experience..

It'll be a stadium sized dj thing..

[Plush]

Soundfield is, of course, an outstanding system. I think the new mics sound better than ever. The software for B-format is good. Here we own and use the 422B stereo mic. It is tremendously useful.

One of the things it is good at is "testing" a room's acoustics. Set it up in Blumlein and listen to the room. What you hear is what you will get because the Soundfield is the most perfect Blumlein array that is possible.

It is totally endorsed.

[SPL]

Hi Plush,

would you let us know how you came to your evaluation of the Atmos?

Technically, it is incorrect in mic spacing and the features for built-in surround are flawed.

The mic spacing follows a configuration called INA 5. The (German) acronym INA could be translated into english like "ideal cardioid (mic) configuration". This configuration was the result of an extensive academic research by Volker Henkels and Ulf Herrmann. INA 5 has proven its quality especially in localisation against other techniques in the Henkels/Hermann survey.
The product pages of the Atmos system list many recordings and further information about miking techniques etc. (http://www.soundperformancelab.com/Atmos/in_detail.html)

Reg. the built-in surround features (of the old Atmos 5.1 system) ... what's "flawed" there?

The unit is unuseable

No.
Neither the old Atmos system nor the new one (http://www.soundperformancelab.com/a...inshort_E.html).
Most users are using it in live recording. The old system was launched already in 1998, recordings were made for Toto, Stones, Sting, Berliner Philharmoniker ... it is also used in studio and live recordings for music and movie productions and we even did broadcast productions of Formula 1 races (2006 in Germany). Not that this is our reference soundwise ... but it shows versatility and the capability to also succeed in extremely demanding situations.

and priced very high.

Yes. The old Atmos 5.1 package was a fully featured recording system at a hi-end quality standard -- 5 decent Brauner VM1 mics alone are an investment.
The new Atmos system is reduced to preamps and LFE channel composer and alternatively to the Brauner ASM5 it can be ordered with a Microtech Gefell array. This system is less expensive.
When the old system was designed about 10 years ago, our idea was a complete surround miking package. Now we know we can do without the surround features of the old system as mixing and panning features are not necessary at this stage.

It started life as a promo vehicle for Dirk Brauner and the ATMOS toy boiz.

Where do you get that from? Anyway, it was indeed a great promotion for both Brauner and SPL. But I don't think that a joke or toy could achieve that in our industry.

The ATMOS is zeroed out here in my book.

Good ... because the Atmos system you are talking about is not produced anymore. Take a look at the successor we've just launched this year ;-)

Best regards,
Paul

[Plush]

Hello Paul at SPL,

I am pleased to learn that the new ATMOS system has been updated over the one I made my comments about.

My opinions above were indeed drawn from actual usage of the system.

I became acquainted with the ATMOS at the Tonmeistertagung in 1998 in Karlsruhe. It was, at the time, an innovative system. Subsequent to the exhibition, we tested the unit for some weeks at Tonstudio van Geest in Sandhausen near Heidelberg. During those tests is when I arrived at my stated opinions of the system. In particular, the mic array, INA 5, was found to be spaced in such a way as to not provide enough time of arrival differences for useable surround. This INA technique today has been supplanted by other such as ie. OCT, Hamasaki, double ms, etc.

The quotation about it being a "showpiece for Brauner and the ATMOS toy boiz" came directly from the mouth of Dirk Brauner as I was talking to him that day. So you'd have to ask Dirk why he characterized the box that way.

I am familiar with your company's high quality products so I am sure that some may indeed find the new ATMOS to be a good turnkey solution.

Thank you for the response and for the opportunity to clarify my statements above.

best from Chicago,

Phlush Phonic

[David Rick]

Ditto the previous remarks on INA5. Truly a shame to waste such fine mics on such an inferior surround array.

It would be interesting to see a block diagram for the new ATMOS box. I remember some routing issues with the old one, but I'm vague about the details now.

David L. Rick
Seventh String Recording

[SPL]

Hi Phlush, David,

thanks for your comments. I am glad to read that you take into account that the first system was an 10 years old development and that you agree that there was some innovation to it at the time. Sounds better to me than calling it "a joke".

You certainly can imagine we are into these main mic array discussions since day one ... and it has never been our mission to claim that the INA5 solution beats any other technique in every aspect or in any situation ... as a consequence the Atmos is designed for example to use the array with further spot or room mics. Or with another mic setup ...
Anyway, we can refer to many, many successful projects and very satisfied users in virtually any area of professional recording. We can not believe this could be achieved with an "inferior" array, you do -- no problem, you got choices. In this context I thank you for a factual discussion, it helps you to choose and maybe us to improve something.

David, at the moment I have no block diagramm I can post here. The engineers still have to generate it (very busy with another project, so we could not yet finish documentation).
We don't know or remember any routing issues with the old machine. But I am also not sure if I understand correctly what kind of "routing issues" you are talking about... do you remember any details? The new Atmos essentially is a 6-channel preamp with LFE generator and headphone monitor, maybe routing is no issue here?

Best,
Paul

[muziekschuur]

I would love some comments from people here why SPL choose the particular system. Is there any available documentation about the theories involved.

In 2003/2004 I completed an SAE mixingproject and I did it in stereo & 5.1 into DVD-A on cd & DVD. The surroundmix was excluded by SAE Rotterdam because: "it was not in their end exam statutes".

This was very discouraging. My books and notes were stolen (probably by students themselves) prior to my theory exams. So my final theory test came back with a 5. Because of my 5.1. interest and the exclusion of my work for the exam I stepped back allthough encouraged to do a re-exam.

For this end exam I had allso contacted Philips Eindhoven to be able to create a DVD-A/SACD disc for final evaluation. Philips Eindhoven did not want to participate allthough a german DVD/SACD reproductionplant was willing to produce the disc.

I found it very discouraging at the time but decided to procede and better my skills in surround mixage.

I welcome any documentation on surroundmixage and recording for learningpurposes. I am very happy SPL and other companies like SOUNDFIELD to create products so engineers are able to easier grab recordings. I just want to point out to these companies that sharing knowledge about this subject is needed for young engineers to be able to skill themselves.

I do hope one day there will be a decent endproduct (blue ray/HD DVD/surround WMA(?) for sale wich will get at least uncoded 96khz/24bit audio to the endconsumer for them to enjoy.

My point here is, on gearslutz there are many skilled professionals, being mixing engineers & manufacturers. There still are many hurdles to be taken by people interested in this line of work, but very limited acces to documentation.

Thanks everybody for reading this.


Muziekschuur

[SPL]

Hi Muziekschuur

the theory of the academic studies from Hermann and Henkels are, as far as as I know, all in German. Anyway, try to google it, maybe they also did it in english.
Our decision was based on personal experience with experiments our Engineer Wolfgang Neumann has made over many years ... he was dealing with surround/multichannel experiments already in the 80ies and 90ies. In the end, his setup was very close to the INA5 setup.
So our approach was not a theoretical, but a practical one, "simply" based upon many years of experiments and experience. Our lack of theory has always been critized by "scientists" in this field, but rarely by users or clients.
I can recommend one (of many) theory page called "www.hauptmikrofon.de". It is in some sort of english . You'll find a bit theory there, hope it helps...
They also link to the ORF (Austrian Broadcasters) tests that were made in 2000 with various systems. If anyone knows younger theories, I'm sure Muziekschuur would appreciate some info.
You can download all the ORF results ... this quote is from their documentation.
"Despite its minor theoretical shortcomings the Brauner system catches up very well indeed. The different capsules (large membrane, tube amplification) make it more difficult for the judgement not to be influenced by their sound. Interestingly, it was judged to be the most precise system, followed by the Decca-Tree (even more surprising)."

I know they tried to reduce everything on some aspects to compare, but still funny for us to try "a judgement not influenced by sound" in this context.

Best,
Paul

[Martin Kantola]

Originally Posted by Plush

What you hear is what you will get because the Soundfield is the most perfect Blumlein array that is possible. It is totally endorsed.

Would claim that a two real figure-8's (such as two ribbons) would be much closer to Blumlein perfection, especially at higher frequencies.

Martin

[Plush]

Originally Posted by Martin Kantola

Would claim that a two real figure-8's (such as two ribbons) would be much closer to Blumlein perfection, especially at higher frequencies.

Martin

Well, certainly you might claim that. However, the Soundfield system has the advantage of being as perfectly phase coherent as any Blumlein can be. This is part of the success of the Soundfield design. That advantage is not available in other arrays.

Indeed, one of the reasons we use the Soundfield is so that we do not have to fiddle with two figure 8 ribbons aligning them perfectly and getting the perfect angle.

[mohthom]

Plush,

I don't disagree with you - the Soundfield is a beauty (as well as being designed and built just up the road from me, less than an hours drive).

I don't know if I agree with your comment about the most perfect blumlein array possible; there are other microphones that do this as well, so you'd have to merit them equal first. Something like the Line Audio QM12 (quad) or the Core Sound Tetramic offer the same pattern (blumlein), without 'hav[ing] to fiddle with two figure 8 ribbons aligning them perfectly and getting the perfect angle.'

You also say
'That advantage is not available in other arrays.'
It's not the only off-the-shelf blumlein array available, so please be aware - other brands are available. It's not even the only ambisonic microphone available . . .

MohThoM

[Plush]

Greetings MoThom,

You have cordially pointed out some other good mics that are made to offer Blumlein pick-up. Indeed, you have turned me on to the Swedish Line Audio models.

The difference is, however, marked with Soundfield as the most accurate in phase and exact alignment of the figure of eight pattern. The reason is that the Soundfield's Blumlein pick-up is electronically generated and phase aligned (adjusted for each individual microphone) and this is why one can point to its accuracy of pattern and phase response.

As far as I am aware, the other mics are mechanical builds that offer a figure of eight pattern.

Originally Posted by mohthom

Plush,

I don't disagree with you - the Soundfield is a beauty (as well as being designed and built just up the road from me, less than an hours drive).

I don't know if I agree with your comment about the most perfect blumlein array possible; there are other microphones that do this as well, so you'd have to merit them equal first. Something like the Line Audio QM12 (quad) or the Core Sound Tetramic offer the same pattern (blumlein), without 'hav[ing] to fiddle with two figure 8 ribbons aligning them perfectly and getting the perfect angle.'

You also say
'That advantage is not available in other arrays.'
It's not the only off-the-shelf blumlein array available, so please be aware - other brands are available. It's not even the only ambisonic microphone available . . .

MohThoM

[Martin Kantola]

Originally Posted by Plush

Well, certainly you might claim that. However, the Soundfield system has the advantage of being as perfectly phase coherent as any Blumlein can be.

These are measurements of the Soundfield MKV, by Angelo Farina in a paper called "Anechoic measurement of the polar plots of a Soundfield MKV B-format microphone". His website has more details. The two polar plots on the bottom are for 8kHz and 16kHz. The red plot is the fig-8 (X) and the blue one is the omni (W).

Indeed, one of the reasons we use the Soundfield is so that we do not have to fiddle with two figure 8 ribbons aligning them perfectly and getting the perfect angle.

This is a good point, but there are also microphones such as the Royer stereo ones (SF-12 and SF-24) that provide a solution.

Martin

[Martin Kantola]

Plush, any thoughts on the measurements above? BTW, forgot that the Royers are not symmetrical, wonder what that does to a Blumlein setup?

Best,

Martin

[mohthom]

Plush,

You say that "Soundfield's Blumlein pick-up is electronically generated and phase aligned". Do you mean that the outputs are decoded? Isn't this the case for all B-format captures and recordings? Whenever moving from the 4-channel B-format to another (fixed) format (like G-format) the pickups have to be electronically generated don't they?

Is phase alignment all that important (real question - not rhetorical!)? It's never been a problem for M/S and Blumlein recordings I've done in the past - have I just been lucky or is it not the case for this type of recordings?

Looking forward to enlightenment!

MohThoM

[Plush]

The above measurements are fairly typical but there is more to this story than just the polar plots. Angelo Farina sent his Soundfield mics into Soundfield UK for checking and they needed repair.

Plots typically are not great at high frequency.

Each Soundfield has , in it's control box, an electronic eq network specifically adjusted for THAT mic. That means it acts on frequency response with a smoothing and flattening effect. Good phase is a given with Soundfield because the pattern is derived from the four capsules electronically with the possibility to use good math to make sure phase is as good as can be. Phase needs to be very good in the Soundfield because, in Ambisonics, accurate phase relationships help to place the sound object in the 3D plane.

So no, I'm not claiming that the outputs are decoded in any m/s or ambisonic aspect of decoding. I'm merely saying that the mic SYSTEM does not rely on just the mic to produce it's even sound and good phase response.

The Soundfield is not the best mic in the world. However, it is an excellent and flexible system going far beyond an SM-69, individual mics or even a wrongly set up Blumlein array.

[Martin Kantola]

Originally Posted by Plush

The above measurements are fairly typical but there is more to this story than just the polar plots. Angelo Farina sent his Soundfield mics into Soundfield UK for checking and they needed repair.

I see... would you have some polar plots to share of a properly working Soundfield microphone? Couldn't find any on their website.

Plots typically are not great at high frequency.

Do you mean for the Soundfield or microphones in general? Was looking at some Neumann polar plots and they were pretty decent.

Good phase is a given with Soundfield because the pattern is derived from the four capsules electronically with the possibility to use good math to make sure phase is as good as can be.

So are you saying that practically speaking there is no better (more accurate) Blumlein (or figure-8) than a Soundfield system?

The Soundfield is not the best mic in the world.

In your opinion, what is the main weakness?

Martin

[Roland]

The soundfield is not a fig 8 microphone, nor is it possibly the best Blumlien system, it is a tetrahydral array that uses clever summing to offer a very flexible system. Soundwise it can be a little on the "polite, british" sounding side. I've heard sports broadcasts where it has been used to supply the crowd sound in surround and it is truly wonderful in this role. As a main mic/pair it works very well, however personally I've found in most situations there is something else I prefer, i.e. for me it always seems to be the second best choice.

For fig 8 mics and Blumlien techniques I would consider Sennheiser MKH30's, MKH80/800's, 4038's, Royers, etc.

The closest thing to the sound field (apart from possibly a custom home grown array) is the holophone, however in my opinion I don't think it sounds as good, it is a lot more expensive and doesn't have anywhere near the flexibility the soundfield offers, of course YMMV.

Regards


Roland

[mohthom]

I thought directional information was most accurately interpreted at high frequencies. It seems strange that a microphone design that prides itself on localisation (within 3D environments no less) should be so inaccurate at high frequencies.

I'd love to hear why I'm wrong!

MohThoM

[Martin Kantola]

There's a paper by Michael Gerzon titled "THE DESIGN OF PRECISELY COINCIDENT MICROPHONE ARRAYS FOR STEREO AND SURROUND SOUND". It is interesting reading, and it does mention prototypes "being effectively coincident to about 7kHz". The necessary spacing between the cardioid capsules and the filtering applied in the Soundfield will surely have some effect on the resulting sound.

Martin

[Plush]

Hiya MoThom,

I think you're getting ahead of yourself in this discussion. You're assuming things and then going on to make a new conclusion from your assumptions.

Directionality is determined mostly by midrange sounds and not by high frequencies.
As humans, we cannot get away from our heritage and genetics. Our relatives, the cavemen, heard a twig snap in the forest and could tell if an animal or competitor for food was near--behind them or ahead of them. We are the same. We determine directionality by the frequency of the snapping twig.

on a different subject. . .
Mic polar plots show generally poor uniformity for high frequencies. This is for all mics, not just the Soundfield. The plots posted above are typical.

If you're curious about Soundfield, go rent one and experience it for yourself.

[cajonezzz]

Really happy to stumble on this thread!

can anyone point me to a rental house that would have a soundfield, or the Holophone mic to rent in Los Angeles or Orange County?


thanks !

[Martin Kantola]

Originally Posted by Plush

Mic polar plots show generally poor uniformity for high frequencies. This is for all mics, not just the Soundfield. The plots posted above are typical.

Have to disagree on this, as I have not seen a polar plot anywhere that looks similar to these... Here's a Neumann fig-8 at 16kHz from their website, smoothed no doubt but still:



Martin

[Roland]

You are displaying a fig of 8 response from a mono (dual capsule) microphone. Couple with this that it is a classic Neumann and you would expect it to have good characteristics (this is why Neumanns have there reputation). I'm sure that it is significantly smoothed and if you look at responses such as cardioid and omni it doesn't hold up so well, but then other mic's don't either. Now add into the equation that this is a mono mic and it's response would be different if taken as part of an array. I agree totally with Plush's asessment of the Soundfield, as a single point surround, solution it is the best out there without a doubt. Like everything in audio, there are compromises, however the soundfield has balanced these sensibly to the point that it does work, has very good imaging and offers a range of post production options other systems don't. Couple with this that as a system it has survived about 30 years there must be something "right" with it.

Regards



Roland

[Remoteness]

Originally Posted by huub

Trying one out for a dvd recording this weekend in denmark,
will let all know my experience..

It'll be a stadium sized dj thing..

huub,

How did your DVD recording in Denmark workout?

Who was the artist/DJ?

Did did the Atmos 5.1 system hold up to your standards?