The No.1 Website for Pro Audio
 Search This Thread  Search This Forum  Search Reviews  Search Gear Database  Search Gear for sale  Search Gearslutz Go Advanced
Tags: , , , , , , , ,

Best Portable Recording Device for Binaural Ambiences Recorders, Players & Tape Machines
Old 6th February 2017
  #31
Lives for gear
 
boojum's Avatar
How does the Core Sound TetraMic compare to these mics?
Old 6th February 2017
  #32
Here for the gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Plush View Post
Jecklin or Schneider disk recordings are not binaural recordings. They are stereo recordings done with a baffle.

It's very clear that dummy head recordings are to be played back on headphones. The main revision for the Neumann KU-100 head was a modification that made it possible to playback on loudspeakers. But this is NOT how it was made to be used.

A new way to offer very good binaural recordings is to use the new Sennheiser AMBEO ambisonic mic to record. Then you convert the WXYZ channels to stereo using an ambisonic to binaural plug-in on your daw.
This is really splitting hairs if one is using a head then it is technically binaural but in what one is trying to achieve is a stereo image to the listener with the delay from each side of the "head".

Even with a binaural approach and two small mics there is the assumption that sticking the mic in a piece of foam shaped like a head and with a 6-7 inch spacing is going to produce the best results. Even with the Jecklin disc later research found that the original spacing of 6.5" was not the best and the newer recommendation was a spacing of over 13 inches. Chris Watson has done many recordings with small DPA omin mics attached to an inverted coat hanger which is providing a spacing of 15 inches or close to that of the Jecklin recommendation for the disc.

I can see the value of making a simple mold and cranking out hundreds of foam heads with the visual appeal of the head to sell the idea. But it is a stretch to say this is going to produce the best results or that somehow foam has the same sonic profile as a person's head.
Old 6th February 2017
  #33
Lives for gear
 
Plush's Avatar
Hello Carlson,

Not splitting hairs at all. Instead, talking about the basics.

Without using ear pinna and having the mics at the end of the auditory canal, the design does not qualify as a binaural microphone. So baffles, barriers, coat hangers etc. are not allowed to be called binaural mics.
Old 7th February 2017
  #34
Lives for gear
 
boojum's Avatar
From the little I know, the more like a real head the better. I have read that adding a wig helps, as does cloth below the "neck" simulating clothing.
Old 7th February 2017
  #35
Here for the gear
Quote:
Originally Posted by ramallo View Post
I did some test between the Ambeo and the SPS200. IMMO the Ambeo in soundscapes capture can be good for the job (But perform better the SPS200), but not for music (I did the tests with a symphonic orchesta), I found a hughe difference in favour of the SPS200, the SPS200 sounds better, much better.

The big point of Ambeo is the mount of the capsules, one of the closest of the market, this give a great high frequency response, but IMMO the worse point is the capsule quality, isn't a good capsule. I'll love a MKH format A microphone
Orchestra recording, Ambeo and SPS200, format A (Not good place for do the recording but in the same position)

https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B5...jEwcE9hSGtod1U

Last edited by ramallo; 7th February 2017 at 08:26 PM.. Reason: link
Old 8th February 2017
  #36
Lives for gear
 
Plush's Avatar
Hello Ramallo,

I cannot judge anything about the sounds you posted because the mics are in the wrong place. Not a good demonstration at all.

Here AMBEO sounds fantastic in my set up. Something is wrong with what you are doing.

These kind of posts are not helpful. I do not agree with your conclusions.
Old 8th February 2017
  #37
Here for the gear
Quote:
Originally Posted by Plush View Post
Hello Ramallo,

I cannot judge anything about the sounds you posted because the mics are in the wrong place. Not a good demonstration at all.

Here AMBEO sounds fantastic in my set up. Something is wrong with what you are doing.

These kind of posts are not helpful. I do not agree with your conclusions.
I'm compared in the "same position" "same source" the two mics with the same preamp (DAD AX32), the results are more than eloquent for me.

In my setup, DAD AX32 or Aeta 4Minx the ambeo doesn't sound fantastic compared with a SPS200

Of course, you don't need to agree with my conclusions.

Cheers
Old 8th February 2017
  #38
Lives for gear
 
Plush's Avatar
No. The music is garbage and the balance is garbage. Don't try to act like this is a valid test.

I hear a high fidelity sound here when I use AMBEO.
Old 11th February 2017
  #39
Lives for gear
 

I am very curious to hear results from the Ambeo. I get satisfying results from my sps200, but only after having it calibrated by coresound. The tonal balance and imaging improved enormously.
In theory the close capsules of the Ambeo could be an improvement, but if the capsules themselves proof inferior to the mbho capsules of the sps200, the result might be even less good sounding.

Has anyone done a calibration to the Ambeo?
Old 22nd February 2017
  #40
Here for the gear
Quote:
Originally Posted by Plush View Post
No. The music is garbage and the balance is garbage. Don't try to act like this is a valid test.

I hear a high fidelity sound here when I use AMBEO.
The microphones was used for do a test, in a public representation in front of the conductor and low 1,2m (Close to the strings). Wasn't the best auditorium wasn't the best position, but both had the same source.

This isn't about about the recording, is just a test with the same stimulous, sorry

Both tracks are in A format

I had doubts about the fidelity of the Ambeo (This is the reason of the tests), shares the same capsules as (And sound similar): https://en-us.sennheiser.com/recordi...rcussion-e-914

Best Regards
Old 23rd February 2017
  #41
Here for the gear
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lucas_G View Post
I am very curious to hear results from the Ambeo. I get satisfying results from my sps200, but only after having it calibrated by coresound. The tonal balance and imaging improved enormously.
In theory the close capsules of the Ambeo could be an improvement, but if the capsules themselves proof inferior to the mbho capsules of the sps200, the result might be even less good sounding.

Has anyone done a calibration to the Ambeo?
Have a close capsules are better, probably the Ambeo are one of the closest. But have a poor capsules (KE14). IMMO this make the ambeo work nice with ambiences (Close capsules), but poor with music or any complex sound (Capsules), just my opinion.

The MBHO are a great capsules, I measured the capsules of my SPS200 and are flat and matched (I did a little correction for my mic in my DAW) (The recording is without). But the capsules are far apart, this isn't good for a nice high frequency
Old 23rd February 2017
  #42
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by ramallo View Post
Have a close capsules are better, probably the Ambeo are one of the closest. But have a poor capsules (KE14). IMMO this make the ambeo work nice with ambiences (Close capsules), but poor with music or any complex sound (Capsules), just my opinion.

The MBHO are a great capsules, I measured the capsules of my SPS200 and are flat and matched (I did a little correction for my mic in my DAW) (The recording is without). But the capsules are far apart, this isn't good for a nice high frequency
Hi Ramallo,

Having the SPS200 calibrated by coresound makes a great difference. I f you are interested, you can send me one of your format A recordings with the SPS200 and then I can send you the B-format back... Just PM me when you would like to hear the difference...
Old 8th March 2017
  #43
Gear Addict
 
CharlesCola's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Plush View Post
No. The music is garbage and the balance is garbage. Don't try to act like this is a valid test.

I hear a high fidelity sound here when I use AMBEO.
LOL you really tell it how it is - you never hold back. Your arrogance always gets to me but very often you are right though not always. On this occasion I definitely agree.
Old 26th June 2018
  #44
Quote:
Originally Posted by studer58 View Post
Finally..an affordable dummy head ! Even if it were devoid of any mics whatsoever.... a bargain.

The Schoeps KFM-6 and Neumann KU100...both $8000 (and I don't care what mics and electronics they come assembled with)
Not to bring up an old thread but any updates on the how the B1-E Dummy worked out for people who have it? Strongly considering getting one for live recordings and would love any feedback- thanks!
Old 30th October 2018
  #45
Gear Nut
Quote:
Originally Posted by Plush View Post
No. The music is garbage and the balance is garbage. Don't try to act like this is a valid test.

I hear a high fidelity sound here when I use AMBEO.
Any comparative test is a valid test. If one is only used to absolute quality tests working with good quality set-ups, one may find it harder to adjust their judgement criteria for a comparison test working with poorer quality, that's all.
Old 2nd December 2018
  #46
Gear Head
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Plush View Post
Without using ear pinna and having the mics at the end of the auditory canal, the design does not qualify as a binaural microphone.
Which end? The eardrum location or the ear/pinna junction location? Based on our previous discussions on the necessity or not for ear canal replicas, I assume you mean that if one uses ear canal replicas with capsules at the eardrum location, then it doesn't qualify as a proper binaural microphone in your opinion. Did I get this right?
Old 2nd December 2018
  #47
Lives for gear
 
jimjazzdad's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by sax512 View Post
...Did I get this right?
Right or wrong, I think this parry and thrust is a bit of a zombie battle. There should be a statute of limitations on point-counterpoint. However, one of the great things about Gearslutz is the way an old thread can be reborn to spur on new dialogue. Carry on...
Old 2nd December 2018
  #48
Gear Head
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by jimjazzdad View Post
Right or wrong, I think this parry and thrust is a bit of a zombie battle. There should be a statute of limitations on point-counterpoint. However, one of the great things about Gearslutz is the way an old thread can be reborn to spur on new dialogue. Carry on...
In my ideal world, there should be a statue of limitations on people counterpointing in total disregard of the laws of physics. Alas, this is not a perfect world we live in..

It is one thing to argue about whether preserving the geometric boundary conditions for the sound wave to not be distorted before it hits the mic capsule, by employing ear canal replicas, is worth the hassle of doing some extra EQ. By the way, if one is after the most accurate recording possible (not that one absolutely has to be..) it isn't just worth it, it is NECESSARY based on the laws of physics.

It is yet another thing to claim that the ear canal approach is not even proper binaural. This is simply and totally absurd, even for somebody like Plush, whose reasoning to disqualify such approach has always been 'because Neumann does it without the ear canal'.

There is nothing new about this dialogue. Just disregard of laws of physics by someone. Frustratingly, I am carrying on..
Old 2nd December 2018
  #49
Lives for gear
 
Plush's Avatar
I do understand that there are differing approaches. Yours might lead to also a good result.

My ending comment here, however, will be that the German government, its research institutes, and Aachen and Neumann spent millions of Deutsche marks in doing the research about what makes a great binaural recording head.

Then they manufactured their designs according to the research.
Old 2nd December 2018
  #50
Gear Head
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Plush View Post
I do understand that there are differing approaches. Yours might lead to also a good result.

My ending comment here, however, will be that the German government, its research institutes, and Aachen and Neumann spent millions of Deutsche marks in doing the research about what makes a great binaural recording head.

Then they manufactured their designs according to the research.
The great thing about physics is that it doesn't care about how much money you throw at trying to make accurate something it says isn't. Placing the microphone at the canal entrance simply isn't. This is a FACT. You just need to open a physics book and come to terms with it.
Old 3rd December 2018
  #51
Lives for gear
Quote:
Originally Posted by sax512 View Post
Placing the microphone at the canal entrance simply isn't. This is a FACT.
So place it at the other end of the canal, if you insist on anatomical correctness (ie analogue of the tympanic membrane)...then eq it, just like the brain presumably does. Problem solved. One more processing step (eq-ing) in the chain, just to satisfy your demand for physical world analogue, one more possibility to get it wrong (or at least add a distortion without necessity)...oh, well...if you must ? If the ear canal were helical spiral...or v shaped...you'd insist on that too, presumably ? You can't improve on nature..or evolution..eh ?
Old 3rd December 2018
  #52
Gear Head
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by studer58 View Post
So place it at the other end of the canal, if you insist on anatomical correctness (ie analogue of the tympanic membrane)...then eq it, just like the brain presumably does. Problem solved. One more processing step (eq-ing) in the chain, just to satisfy your demand for physical world analogue, one more possibility to get it wrong (or at least add a distortion without necessity)...oh, well...if you must ? If the ear canal were helical spiral...or v shaped...you'd insist on that too, presumably ? You can't improve on nature..or evolution..eh ?
It's not that I insist on anatomical correctness. It is a necessary requirement in order to capture the pressure wave in the most accurate way possible.
It is well known, or it should be anyway by anybody attempting to engage in this conversation, that in order to measure a certain entity, one needs to use a sensing element whose mere presence causes the least disruption possible on the entity to be measured.
Therefore, an electret capsule is fine to use in the middle of a room to measure the frequency response of a speaker (and ONLY up to a certain frequency, dependent on the dimensions of the capsule), but it is not fine to use to measure a frequency response in tight corners such as in the vicinity of the eardrum, unless you put it in such a place where the disruption is minimal. That would be the eardrum location, NOT the canal entrance. If you don't believe me, ask anybody who is literate in physics.

The pressure wave one would sense at their eardrums were they in place of the binaural microphone at the moment of the recording is what we are trying to capture. Let's call it P.
If one captures P, and equalizes it -let's call this equalized pressure P1- so that when P1 is played back through a set of speakers/headphones it presents itself at the listener's eardrums as P again, you have an accurate reproduction of the real experience.
This doesn't need to involve any approximate replica of the mechanisms of the middle and inner ear (what's behind the eardrums), let alone brain processing. The listener's eardrums just need to be presented with the pressure wave as they would sense it if they were there for real.
This if course doesn't take into account any visual clues, and is the reason why the binaural mic is usually put closer than a real listener would sit if listening to the real thing, but that's another conversation altogether.

So one doesn't need useless complications such as replicas of what's behind the eardrums, but it is also true that using second rate approximations such as placing the mic at the canal entrance can cause great deviance in the accuracy of the pressure wave measurement.
Somebody pretty smart once said that everything must be made as simple as possible, but not one bit simpler.
Again, this scientific approach is necessary only if best accuracy is what one is after. If not, I have no problem with using coat hangers, baffles, spaced pairs and all that. Music is a creative process after all, so why not record it in inaccurate ways that sound pleasing to our ears? But binaural has the stated purpose of recording things the way they are in reality, therefore a binaural microphone should be made as accurate as possible.

If humans had v-shaped or spiral ear canals, one would have to necessarily use those shapes in their ear models to get as close as possible to an accurate measurement of the pressure wave. That goes without saying, yes. Why is this so shocking to you?

Main further improvement that comes to my mind to get even more accurate recordings? A mic capsule whose membrane approximates the eardrum's acoustical impedance. Would anybody do it? I doubt it. There is no money to be made. That doesn't mean it wouldn't be a measurable improvement, and if somebody were so crazy to actually do it, they shouldn't be shunned by others just because binaural microphones have been using other types of capsules up until then.
Neumann designed their microphones based on certain specifications, and I'm sure they started as close to money-no-object as possible.
From there to manufacturing it's a long road, though.
Topic:
Post Reply

Welcome to the Gearslutz Pro Audio Community!

Registration benefits include:
  • The ability to reply to and create new discussions
  • Access to members-only giveaways & competitions
  • Interact with VIP industry experts in our guest Q&As
  • Access to members-only sub forum discussions
  • Access to members-only Chat Room
  • Get INSTANT ACCESS to the world's best private pro audio Classifieds for only USD $20/year
  • Promote your eBay auctions and Reverb.com listings for free
  • Remove this message!
You need an account to post a reply. Create a username and password below and an account will be created and your post entered.


 
 
Slide to join now Processing…
Thread Tools
Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Forum Jump
Forum Jump