Topic: SoundField SPS200

[J.T.L]

Here is another sample of it getting a workout. Black Crowes fob action fo' that ass...

http://bt.etree.org/details.php?id=520010 [SoundField SPS200 (Mid-Side) > Oade R-44]
http://bt.etree.org/details.php?id=519997 [Schoeps MK4 (ORTF) > KC5 > CMC6 > Lunatec V3 > Marantz PMD-671]

...Jimbo was there with his ST250 on the stand next me so look for his source any moment now...









...any moment now...




...

[J.T.L]

Ok, for the people who do not want to download both torrents for comparison, I am hosting 2 tracks from the show for anyone who wants to hear the difference. Granted, this is a loose comp but an interesting listen. From the included info file...

Black Crowes - Good Friday
2008-11-08
Street Stage Raleigh, NC

SoundField SPS200 (Mid-Side) > Oade R-44
Schoeps MK4 (ORTF) > KC5 > CMC6 > Lunatec V3 > Marantz PMD-671

fob/dfc/8'

- both setups were on the same stand, the schopes were a few inches higher, the soundfield was a few inches closer

http://the-home-team.org/other/schoeps_vs_soundfield.zip

...Thank you to RDunn for Schoeps source. There were a few other setups of varying tastes/styles and I'll try to add them here once they pop-up...except Jimbo's.

[F.O.Bean]

...Jimbo was there with his ST250 on the stand next me so look for his source any moment now...









...any moment now...




...

  ZING!!! SNAP!!! BOING!!! DING!!!!

Thanks for hosting those 2 tracks JTL I will def give them a THOROUGH LISTEN later today when I wake up +T

[J.T.L]

Anyone? Thoughts?

[F.O.Bean]

Anyone? Thoughts?

I'll bite First off, I think the levels were a BIT OFF. Yours seemed a TAD HIGHER in output levels, but overall, they were pretty even I guess.

Schoeps recording - Obviously a little bit "darker" than your recording, and overall VERY NICE. Great lowend response, clear and pristine vocals, not alot of chatter at all, and super smooth highs. Overall an A+ recording IMO1

Soundfiled/MBHO recording - Well, The Highs are CRISP AS HELL and are as SMOOTH AS BUTTA, the mids are just as consistent, and the lowend is very steady and consistent without being "dark" or "muddy" at all. What REALLY CAPTURES ME and why I like YOUR RECORDING BETTER, is DEFINITELY the presence and the overall HUGE DIFFERENCE in soundstage and 3D imaging HANDS DOWN the winner of the 2 sources IMO, and an EASY A++ recording I would CREAM MY FUCKING PANTS if I had that particular mic and pulled consistent recordings liek this all of the time I just LOVE the 3D IMAGING/SOUNDSTAGE and the overall HUGE PRESENCE in your MS recording over the "darker" and "muddier" Schoeps recording IMO.

LOVE IT JTL. Keep those samples/recordings COMING MY MAN I am TRULY FUCKING IMPRESSED w/ your recording brotha! But probably for the EXACT SAME REASONS that I LOVE my MBHO setup, because it IS a little bit "brighter" overall, but because of that, the presence and 3D Imaging/Soundstage is IN YOUR FACE, and just has a character of PRESENCE and DETAIL that the Schoeps just DOES NOT HAVE IMO. And yours maintains a KILLER PRESENCE/SOUNDTSGAE/3D IMAGERY, but while also MAINTAINING A PERFECT LOWEND RESPONSE AS WELL. The detail and presence didnt take away from the lwoend AT ALL IMO

What do all of you think

I think BOTH TAPERS DID AN AMAZING JOB, but my vote DEFINITELY and BY FAR goes to the SF source

[live2496]

Thanks for posting the files...

Here is a comparison of the recordings. The lighter green trace is the soundfield with the schoeps being the darker one.
The soundfield has a bit of a boost above 3k. Also a bit more in the 1k-3k region.

What is a surprise is the near identical response in the lower frequencies, but the schoeps recording is lacking clarity in the low end. The soundfield has much clearer bass. I guess this can be attributed to the difference in arrival time in the separated capsules vs the coincident caps in the soundfield I hope that I am reaching the right conclusion.

[page]

I generally concur with Bean's dissertation.

I've heard Dunn's setup before (his Pumpkin's tape from this fall mini-tour being a great example). Aside from balance, one thing I notice is that the schoeps seems much flatter (or less airy) in a spacial perspective. I haven't really comp'ed schoeps vs something else from the same show, so this is a first critical listen for me. Thats the biggest thing I noticed.

I'll bite, why is the balance off?

[live2496]

Different capsules. The soundfield is just brighter sounding. I would prefer the flatter sound, but the clarity of the soundfield in the low end tips the balance for me.

[kbergend]

This mic just sounds OH so very intriguing!  I've always liked the MBHO sound and I really like that Black Crowes sample.  And Cowboy Junkies' Trinity Session album (recorded with a CalRec Soundfield system) has one of the most realistic stereo images I've ever heard.  A couple of questions for those who understand the technology better than I do:

1.  Is crowd noise a serious issue for this system in the environments most of us often tape in?  I would think with four subcards pointing in different directions you'd pick up a lot of chatter (as opposed to a pair of hypers pointed more or less toward the music).  Or can you synthesize the raw mic signals during processing such that noise from the unwanted directions is minimized?

2. Anyone know if the VST processing plug-in will work with Adobe Audition 3.0?  If not, does running Pro-Tools HD for Windows require any special hardware (other than a beefy PC), or can you just read the four raw .wav tracks from a card reader straight into the program?

thanx in advance...

[J.T.L]

1. Sorry I have not used enough in chatty circumstances.

2. Contact them about it, the vst seems very fickle due to iLOK being used with it I assume.

[live2496]

There are free tools available too...

If you can get the audio into b-format for windows there is David McGriffy's VVMic application which is a standalone app and also is available as a VST plugin.
http://mcgriffy.com/audio/ambisonic/vvmic/

If would think that you could minimize the effect of crowd chatter by altering the virtual mic placement.

There is info on decoders at ambisonia.com. Currently I cannot connect to it, but here is the link...
http://www.ambisonia.com/wiki/index.php/Playback_Software

[page]

If would think that you could minimize the effect of crowd chatter by altering the virtual mic placement.

Good thinking; since you have Z data, then in post, try incorporating more of it to "aim upwards" till you find a happy balance.

[hugh]

1.  Is crowd noise a serious issue for this system in the environments most of us often tape in?  I would think with four subcards pointing in different directions you'd pick up a lot of chatter (as opposed to a pair of hypers pointed more or less toward the music).  Or can you synthesize the raw mic signals during processing such that noise from the unwanted directions is minimized?

Crowd noise is just exactly as much an issue as any other standard (first-order) mic setup.  (I'm excluding higher-order directional mics, e.g. shotgun).  But the advantage is that you can change the mic orientation any way you like after the recording is done.  So in post, you play with different angled pairs of various degrees of cardioid and find one that gives best balance against the crowd.  Of course you can't get rid of the crowd altogether, and directionality is limited to first order (i.e. anywhere along the sub/cardioid/super/hyper/figure8 pattern family).

2. Anyone know if the VST processing plug-in will work with Adobe Audition 3.0?  If not, does running Pro-Tools HD for Windows require any special hardware (other than a beefy PC), or can you just read the four raw .wav tracks from a card reader straight into the program?

I like Bruce Wiggins' "WigWare" VST decoders, and use them for my 5.1 mixes:  http://sparg.derby.ac.uk/SPARG/Staff_BW.asp
Haven't tried them in Audition, only AudioMulch.

[hugh]

Some examples of different post mixdowns: http://halfbricking.com/Samples/Mixdown/

[Len Moskowitz (Core Sound)]

you can basically do whatever the fu&* you want to

Within reason.  Keep in mind that the mic basically captures the soundfield at (roughly) a point in space - it's a coincident technique.  So the stereo output one selects is also effectively coincident.  In other words, one can't produce a stereo mix that is NOS, ORTF, etc.

You can do it using two or more ambisonic mics, just like you'd do with standard fixed-pattern mics.