Topic: RØDE NT-SF1

[chk]

I’m looking forward to checking this mic out. I’ve never used an ambisonic before, and am wondering from anyone that has, specifically with respect to decoding from A format to B format via software. How involved is post-production for what we do (generally mixing to stereo)?  I presume it’s sort of like anything else, you get the hang of it and it becomes routine?  Curious as this seems to be a pretty compelling, modern application of the Soundfield expertise in an affordable package.  I’ve done a couple blumlein onstage recordings with the LSD2 and I am really impressed with what that mic can do, and have listened to a ton of Soundfield st-250 recordings and love those, the ability to manipulate the height, etc.

[heathen]

A format to B format is easy.  In fact, some recorders will pretty much record directly to B format, but that may depend on the specific mic.  I know the Zoom F8 (and I believe also the F4) will save to B format with the Sennheiser Ambeo.

I use a Core Sound TetraMic, and the post production is definitely more intensive than with a pair of mics, but it's also not all that daunting.

What makes you interested in the Rode mic in particular?

[chk]

The Rode mic interests me for a couple main reasons: the Soundfield pedigree and price point of $999 w/ all accessories including software (thanks to Rode’s scale and ability to produce quality at reasonable cost, of course TBD how well they’ll execute).  I know there are others out there but this seems pretty attractive and worth checking out.

[EmRR]

Still curious about this one.  Doesn't look like much ambisonics talk around here recently at all.  I keep building horizontal only B format arrays out of 3 mics, but it'd be nice to get up/down if the quality drop is minimal.

[Gutbucket]

In my experience with the Tetramic I found up/down tilt control quite nice to have as a form of fine-tuning, using it to home in on the best angle for clarity or timbre, yet found that the degree of vertical angle adjustment needed for doing that was generally not overly large and remained about the same regardless of polar pattern and horizontal angle between the virtual stereo pair for most taper situations.  Exception is on-stage close to a drum-kit, with the microphone positioned low in front, in which case vertical angle adjustment can change sound radically - point up for focus on cymbal shimmer, down for kick and tom whump.

In contrast, typical adjustment of horizontal angle ranges much more widely, because in addition to horizontal angle controlling general orientation of the virtual pair, it also controls the angle between the virtual mics, which tends to correlate quite strongly with choice of polar pattern.  That is to say, for any particular polar pattern, a rather narrow range of adjustment of inclusive angle between the pair tends to be optimal.. switch to a different pattern and a different narrow range becomes appropriate.  Working the other way, if a significantly wider or narrower inclusive angle is desired, then virtual polar pattern needs to be modified to accommodate.

^ Does this description of the horizontal aspect ring true with regards to your experience building and using native 3-mic ambisonic arrays?

The convenience factor of a single microphone able to achieve a virtual coincident stereo pair that can be optimized later is pretty compelling.

[EmRR]

Yes, that all makes perfect sense.  The one application in which I might go more severely up/down would be in multitrack situations where I'm using it for pure ambience intended to mix with other sources.  There've been a couple of times I had an array in the middle of a group who were rehearsing, and used multiple copies of the WXY to make multiple virtual mics.  The Z would definitely come in handy there.   A few times close on a solo singer/guitarist I've turned it sideways so it was WXZ instead.