Soundfield MarkV

[ethan_c]

Anyone use one? Comments? thanks!

[zilver]

I don't have a mark V, I have a sps 422.
It's the same microphone but with a more simple controller box (i cannot "steer" the microphone up and down and around ).

I really love this microphone. It sounds wonderfully non-agressive (sorry, don't know the english word).
The stereo image is great.
It's very easy to set up, you put it in the right spot and then "dial in" the right stereo width while listening. This works easy and quick.

With the mark V you can also record the B format on 4 channels and decide later.

The Soundfield people are very custommer friendly and professional. You can always contact them if you have questions and they reply as soon as they can.


So, I can only say good things about this mic.....

Good luck,

Hans
Amsterdam, the Netherlands

[Beech]

It's the business! But you really should demo on for yourself. Try and get to AES if your in Europe...it will be worth the trip to meet Ken Giles and his company.

[David Spearritt]

We found the Mk IV a little noisy for serious classical recording work. Imaging and focus/clarity was pretty stunning though. Have they improved the noise of the capsules in the Mk V?

[mwagener]

I used the MK V for recording drums, guitars, percussion on a 5.1 album, wonderful natural sounding mic. We didn't have any problem with noise, probably because the sourced was close and loud. If you record in B-format (4 tracks) you can "decode it later and fan it out into 5.1

High on my shopping list.

[Beech]

I have never had a problem with noise on an orchestral session and I was using about 70% of it in the mix, with just a small amount of some spot mics where necessary.

[ToddP]

Originally Posted by David Spearritt

We found the Mk IV a little noisy for serious classical recording work. Imaging and focus/clarity was pretty stunning though. Have they improved the noise of the capsules in the Mk V?

Hi David,

Yes, improvements have been made on the capsules. The first Mark Vs, which were originally released by AMS, had the same Mark IV capsules. However, since Soundfield Research, and now Soundfield Ltd., was started, the capsules were improved. They were made to be quieter and to have more low end. That was several years ago.

[Plush]

Soundfield is an excellent system whose hallmark of uniqueness is that the capsules, when used as a stereo mic, are absolutely in phase. While one can make their own set-up of crossed figure of eights, or coincident cardioids, the Soundfield gar-an-tees an excellent stereo picture.

The drawback is that perfect phase, the Soundfield's strong point, is rarely the first requirement in a recording.

I cannot agree on the noise issue, at least for the Mark V. It has plenty of output with good mic amps built into the box. Earlier versions required modification to attain acceptable noise figures.

The problem with the Soundfield is its cost/performance ratio and its performance when used close to the sound source.

We can arrange an array of Schoeps mics to emulate what the Soundfield does for less than half the money of a Soundfield.

If you require an all in one solution, give Soundfield your business.

[Haigbabe]

Originally Posted by Plush

The drawback is that perfect phase, the Soundfield's strong point, is rarely the first requirement in a recording.

The problem with the Soundfield is its cost/performance ratio and its performance when used close to the sound source.

We can arrange an array of Schoeps mics to emulate what the Soundfield does for less than half the money of a Soundfield.

Well, I actually like my recording to be in phase, so it does help to use a SF.

Yes, the extra cost of the MKV over/above the 422B can be prohibitive. But it's horses for courses with the MKV. If you don't need the control in situ, buy the 422B and the Surround Zone plug for SADiE or Nuendo etc and do it later (using the B-format files).

Why doesn't it perform when used close to a sound source? In your opinion.

Umm, I've parallel miced a number of concerts/recordings with Sonodore, Schoeps, DPA, EW etc and the SF, and mostly end up using the SF when decision time comes.

Best regards,

Haigbabe

[Plush]

Hello Haigbabe,

You didn't read my post!
I praised the Soundfield mic system.

I salute you for your good results with your Soundfield system.

We are stereo recording specialists and have not found it to be revolutionary in any sense. We simply have the skill and experience to better the Soundfield's results
with our own array.

Plush-Phonic

[David Spearritt]

The big attraction to me in using the MkV is the possibilities of getting a truly coherant set of surround source signals (B-Format). If we had more (any!) demand for classical surround recording, we would go with the Mk V.

[Haigbabe]

Originally Posted by Plush

Hello Haigbabe,

You didn't read my post!
I praised the Soundfield mic system.

I salute you for your good results with your Soundfield system.

We are stereo recording specialists and have not found it to be revolutionary in any sense. We simply have the skill and experience to better the Soundfield's results
with our own array.

Plush-Phonic

I read your post!

But this last post is mixing praise with mixed messages and a back-hander or two. (Incidentally, have you read any of MAG's papers? I would say that the tetra-h array etc is quite amazing. Not a lot of people could deny the incredible mathematics that is behind these designs).

And you haven't answered the question... in your stereo specialist opinion, why doesn't it work close to sources? And what do you call close anyway?

My best regards,

Haigbabe

[zilver]

Hello Plush,

i'm also curious why it shouldn't work good when used close to the source.



You wrote :
"We are stereo recording specialists and have not found it to be revolutionary in any sense."


But nobody said that it's a revolutionary mic. It's quite a clever system though. There's no other mic that uses the same capsule array combined with such a matrix/phase shift module.
Of course you can mimic the setting of a soundfield. Just set up a coincident stereo pair with the same stereo width/capsule geometry.
But you cannot change it at the twist of a knob.

I think one of the strong points of the system is that it's so user friendly.



In any case i'm very curious about the "not-good-close-on-the -source-thing". I await your reply.

Thanks,

Hans

[Plush]

Hello Guys,

Thanks for the good discussion here. There is really a lot that is excellent about the Soundfield design and the new improved capsules. I have used various Soundfield mics since 1984, although I've never owned one. Still I've used them a lot, so that's why I believe I can comment here.

I also had the pleasure to meet and talk with MAG several times in the early 80's.
He was demonstrating some ambisonic material at AES shows. Of course, his talk was well over my head, math wise.

To get to the question---I have had very good results with the Soundfield MK IV, ST250 and MKV at distance from an orchestra. My problems came when I attempted to move in closer to the orchestra with the mic set for crossed figure of eights.

The way the electronics were deriving the figure eights, I got a lot a anti-phase information. The left channel figure eight rear lobe picked up a lot of right channel information and the same happened on the other side---the rear of the right channel picked up a good bit of left channel signal---both out of phase from the rear lobe dontchaknow.

Of course this can happen with traditional style mics set to figure eight as well. However, with the Soundfield, this effect was exagerated.

The lesson was that I kept my distance from the orchestra and got very good results.

The best sound I ever obtained with the Soundfield was in a stone church with a lot of reverberation. The program was choir and organ. The crossed figure eights rendered the space beautifully with the most wonderful sense of depth in the recording.

Soundfield seem to be going through a rennaisance---the new company is innovative and the newer capsules and electronics are very good.
Perhaps I should join you all and become an owner---considering the SPS422B.

[ethan_c]

Thanks for all of the great feedback. I am currently trying it out and had it put up with a SF-12 and a pair of DPA 4006's recording a kit. As just a stereo pair I still like my DPA's a bit better but the flexibility of the Soundfield is fantastic. The dominance variation just kills me! I am trying to decide between the Mark V, (3) M150's or a Brauner VM1S (stereo). If anyone has any comments on these that would be fantastic as well.

Thanks!

[Plush]

We have purchased a Soundfield SPS422B for stereo and surround work with an American orchestra.

We'll keep you posted. . .

[Folkie]

I have an MKV and love it. One of the best sounding things I have recorded was a blues singer/acoustic guitarist recorded from approx. 3 feet in front and 1-2 feet above the performer in a great sounding room-very natural and great ambiance-no close mics needed. For multiple performers/instruments gather the perfomers in a semi-circle and put the Soundfield in the center (equidistant from the sound sources and then add small amounts of close individual mics if needed to balance. Awesome ambiance-like being in the room with the performance. Bill

[lampmeister]

Hey Plush,
Fancy giving us an update on how you're getting on with the Soundfield?

Cheers,
Dave.

[Brad Lunde]

Originally Posted by David Spearritt

We found the Mk IV a little noisy for serious classical recording work. Imaging and focus/clarity was pretty stunning though. Have they improved the noise of the capsules in the Mk V?

Mark 5 has completely different mic capusles, electronics, overall tone etc. The Mk4 was bright and thin I thought, the Mark 5 nails "neutral" like few mics I've heard. It has a nice extended high end without being to bright and the low end leans towards "warm". I've replaced many C24's and other vintage/high end stereo mics with SoundFields and the clients never went back. David Cheske of Cheske records has built a business on his SoundField.

SoundFields are the buy if you want imaging I think. Stereo mics seems to be what you do when you want a specific tone or a stereo image of something close miked.

Nothing images as nice as a SF as easily that I know of-especially when ambient info is key. Stereo mics, X/Y and especially ORTF have a "hole" in the middle and you fight that hole-if you widen the image to get ouside the speakers, the "hole" is too big. If you get rid of the hole it sounds small. A SoundField in comparison sounds like a solid image all the way left to right without a hole. There is a technical reason: the capsules are closer together than any stereo mic and the phase errors are pushed much higher in frequency. It is perhaps the ideal "you are there" mic.

Mark 5's and 422's sound the same. The new 422B and the Mark 5 have B format outputs for future multichannel or post steering with SF Surround Zone software. The mics also have their own built in preamps and output line level. In the low 5,000's, it seems reasonable for what it is.
Brad

[paterno]

I've purchased a Mk V recently after trying it out on a few things. I've been impressed with the results, especially the imaging. I'm still learning my way around it, but I've used it for a few different things so far -- solo acoustic gtr and voice performance, drum overheads, stereo BGV, and as the main stereo pair for a 7 piece dixieland-style band. Placement, as with any mic, is the key, and I am learning where to put the mic for the results I am after. Being able to control the amount of ambience entering the mic is pretty amazing. I'm still settling in on my favorite mic polar patttern and stereo width settings, but just the fact that you can have that much control on a box that you can place between your speakers is pretty damn cool.

I have not done any b-Format reprocessing yet. I've just been commiting as I go. One of these days I'll get to check it out...

Cheers,
john

[Plush]

Greetings Soundfield Freaks,

Indeed it has been a while since I wrote in about the 422B.

Let me start off by saying I have used MKIV, ST250, and MKV (older version).
In the old days--early 80's--we had to modify the MKIV to be quieter. The ST250 had a dumb power supply and inscrutable pattern control that made operation not so straight forward.

Our 422B has outstanding sound--even, flat and very full in the bass even in figure 8 where one would normally not expect it.

In the right spot over the orchestra, the image is holographic and better than a coincident pair because the phase is exaclty aligned by the 422 box.

I really only use it in figure 8 (Blumlein) because I feel that this config. is the mic's really strong suit.

So far it has been used as:
main stereo pair
hilight for vocal soloist
hilight for cello soloist
hilight for vln. soloist

main mic on string quartet
singer/piano combination--incredible
choir main mic
auditorium applause mic--mindblowing

in surround on orchestra with decoding on SADiE Soundfield software--unglaublisch!

As Brad Lunde says above, the former Soundfield mics were thin and tipped up in the treble. Not this current version!

A specialist mic for sure, especially at this house of Schoeps. However, for those who base their sound on a solid stereo picture, it is a secret weapon.

Best from Chicago,
PlushPhonic

[MattiMattMatt]

Great results using it far and close here.

Considering what you get for the money, it's a bargain. People see the price tag and think OMG. But if you figure on all the mics it can replace, plus pres, plus things that only it can do, it's a very good buy. I'm almost surprised that more studios, particularly in the US don't get these things. It's like a secret.

The stereo field pops out at you in 3 dimensions. It's remarkable.

It's not a warm and fuzzy mic, it's accurate and pristine.

I seem to recall reading that the guy who was recording Bjork used a Soundfield for her close-up breathy stuff. Which surprised me a little. But I've heard of others using it as a high end vocal mic and I've used it for vocals as well.

I emailed a bit with the guy who designed the mic before he died. A tremendous amount of research went into this thing. Early units were plagued by quality control, but that was years ago, and since the company was revamped, I understand that's no longer an issue. I've never had any problems.

Like any mic, it has its characteristics and may not be what you want all the time. But when I think about it, I've pretty much always been pleased with what I get from it, and I've used it on a variety of sources. I consider it an indispensable piece of gear.

-matt

[cornkraft]

Hi Guys and Girls,
Just wanted to let you know that i´m selling a AMS St-250 on Ebay right now (Artikelnummer: 300059270832).
It just got serviced here in Vienna,but it need a set of new capsules so this is why i´m starting the auction at 500€.
So if anyone´s interrested....
cheers

[waldie wave]

I am getting pulsating distorted noises on the outputs. Mic works fine when I audition the sound through the headphone socket. So the control unit seems to be the problem. I really need to get this mic back in action because it is magnificent for recording choirs, cultural groups, orchestra, drums and even vocals.
I would be grateful any advise you may have?

[mohthom]

I'm always at least a little amazed with people using the Soundfield microphone - not because of their huge pockets, but because most engineers seem to be really picky about preamplification APART from when using the Soundfield mics.

Does anyone use Soundfield mics using external preamplification? It's not too difficult to (as Plush suggested) take the outputs of 'standard' (DAV?) preamps (in A-format) and convert to B-format (for mixing) in the DAW.

When you remove the cost of the preamplification, it's not THAT expensive a solution.

MohThoM

[boojum]

Plushie - have you used the Schoeps DMS setup and if so how does it compare to the Soundfield rig(s)? The Schoeps seems pretty interesting and quite a bitr cheaper and those great Schoeps mics.

[Plush]

Hiya, Guys

Hope your summer is going great. For your Aussies, hope your (what is it, Winter??) is super.

I have not used the complex Schoeps boxes and the systems which allow changing the pattern and type of pick-up in post production. They are specialist systems and I've never even seen one. I suppose they are a good set-up, but I wonder if they are solving a problem that no one asked to have solved. ???

The Soundfield 422B we have here continues to come out on certain occasions where it really solves some problems. It is not a universal mic, but it IS outstanding in reverberant stone churchs. In fact, I hardly believe that anything else is as good on choral material in these churchs.

I have also had good luck and very good sound using the 422B on string quartets. There, besides being a quick set-up solution, it gave an excellent stereo picture on the group.

I believe that the really strong suit of the 422B is crossed figure of eights (Blumlein) in reverberant stone buildings.

for Mothom---mic amp in the Soundfield box is matched to the individual mic system. I believe there is some EQ in there for each individual mic to address and correct to flat frequency response FOR THAT MIC.
Is it the ultimate? Maybe not. However, it is very good.

[mohthom]

Originally Posted by Plush

for Mothom---mic amp in the Soundfield box is matched to the individual mic system. I believe there is some EQ in there for each individual mic to address and correct to flat frequency response FOR THAT MIC.

Plush et al,

I've asked about this individual matching before, but no-one could give me a link or any further info. Is there anyone out there that can point me to the literature on the paired preamp-microphone combos? I checked the Soundfield website (littered with errors . . . ) but to no avail. I'm genuinely interested!

MohThoM

[Brad Lunde]

Originally Posted by mohthom

Plush et al,

I've asked about this individual matching before, but no-one could give me a link or any further info. Is there anyone out there that can point me to the literature on the paired preamp-microphone combos? I checked the Soundfield website (littered with errors . . . ) but to no avail. I'm genuinely interested!

MohThoM

MohThom
You mean you want info from SoundField explaining how to build one yourself, do your own EQ so you can avoid buying it as they make it?
Brad