Audio Engineering Society

Convention Paper
Presented at the 143​rd​ Convention
2017 October 18–21, New York, NY, USA

This Convention paper was selected based on a submitted abstract and 750-word precis that have been peer reviewed by at
least two qualified anonymous reviewers. The complete manuscript was not peer reviewed. This convention paper has been
reproduced from the author's advance manuscript without editing, corrections, or consideration by the Review Board. The
AES takes no responsibility for the contents. This paper is available in the AES E-Library, http://www.aes.org/e-lib. All rights
reserved. Reproduction of this paper, or any portion thereof, is not permitted without direct permission from the ​Journal of
the Audio Engineering Society​.

A Low-Cost, High-Quality MEMS Ambisonic Microphone

Gabriel Zalles, Yigal Kamel, Ian Anderson, MingYang Lee, Chris Neil, Monique Henry, Spencer Cappiello,
Charlie Mydlarz, Melody Baglione & Agnieszka Roginska
​
New York University, 35 W 4th St, New York, NY 10012

The Cooper Union for the Advancement of Science and Art, 41 Cooper Sq, New York, NY, 10003
Correspondence should be addressed to Gabriel Zalles ([email protected])

ABSTRACT
While public interest for technologies that produce and deliver immersive VR content has been growing, the
price point for these tools has remained relatively high. This paper presents a low-cost, high-quality first-order
ambisonics (FOA) microphone based on low-noise microelectromechanical systems (MEMS). Namely, this
paper details the design, fabrication, and testing of a MEMS FOA microphone including its frequency and
directivity response. To facilitate high resolution directivity response measurements, a low-cost, automatic
rotating microphone mount using an Arduino was designed. The automatic control of this platform was
integrated into an in-house acoustic measurement library built in MATLAB, allowing the user to generate polar
plots at resolutions down to 1.8​°. Subjective assessments compared the FOA mic prototype to commercially
available FOA solutions at higher price points.

incorporating MEMS technology into a FOA

1 Introduction recording and reproduction system. In particular, a
With a currently expanding segment of the FOA microphone was designed and built using
population becoming interested in Virtual Reality MEMS capsules and a 3D-printed housing. A
(VR), technology and media companies have begun custom automatic rotating microphone mount
investing in pairing visual experiences with truly (ARM​2​) was designed and built to quantitatively test
immersive auditory content. While immersive audio the directivity of the microphone at high resolutions.
used to be dominated by surround sound, interest in In addition, preliminary subjective testing was
alternative immersive audio methods, such as conducted to determine subjective preference
Ambisonics, are expanding rapidly. between our prototype microphone and a
commercially available solution from Sennheiser.
This paper presents a first-order ambisonics (FOA)
microelectromechanical systems (MEMS)-based Many commercial FOA microphones, similar to the
microphone. The project explores the effect of one proposed, have remained inaccessible to those
 Zalles et al. A Low-Cost MEMS Microphone

outside exclusive University settings or Additionally, it does not rely on a specific speaker
professional-level studios. The goal is to develop a configuration. Rather, it decodes the localization
method for Universities and engineers to produce data obtained in the recording process during
FOA mics independently and encourage people in playback to achieve a full 360-degree immersive
general, through the process of building them, to representation of a soundfield.
become better acquainted with immersive audio
technologies. 1.2 MEMS Technology
In recent years, interest in MEMS microphones has
1.1 History of Ambisonics expanded due to their versatile design, greater
Ambisonic technology was first explored in the immunity to radio frequency interference (RFI) and
1970’s by Michael Gerzon and Peter Fellgett ​[1]​. electromagnetic interference (EMI), as well as low
Gerzon’s work is based on the principle of spherical cost and environmental resiliency ​[4,5]​. Current
harmonics. By using four highly coincident capsules MEMS models are generally 10 times smaller than
in a tetrahedral configuration, A-format signals can their more traditional electret counterparts. This
be encoded to a B-format matrix, which consists of miniaturization has allowed for additional circuitry,
three figure-eight pressure gradients and an such as a preamp stage and an analog to digital
omnidirectional pressure gradient, all coincidentally converter (ADC), to output digitized audio, in some
located. As noted by David Malham, the directional models, to be included within the MEMS enclosure.
encoding of an ambisonic system is based on the The production process used to manufacture these
ability of the spherical harmonics to approximate the devices also provides an extremely high level of
surface of a sphere ​[2]​. part-to-part consistency, making them more
amenable to multi-capsule and multi-sensor arrays.
The FOA recording approach can also be considered
an extension of the Mid-Side (M/S) technique 1.3 Capture and Reproduction
created by the pioneer of stereophonic sound, Alan The most basic soundfield microphone, a FOA
Blumlein, in the 30s ​[3]​. The concept of decoding microphone, consists of four cardioid capsules
audio signals via a set of sums and differences is mounted in a tetrahedral shape which captures a
augmented in the FOA model which takes four soundfield from a single point in space over four
signals and converts them into a zero-order channels resulting in A-format signals, in their raw,
information monophonic sound pressure component unprocessed state. More complex systems which
(W) and three first-order pressure gradients achieve higher-order ambisonics are possible by
corresponding to the X, Y and Z axes, as shown in incorporating a greater number of capsules ​[2]​.
Figure 1.
FOA relies on capsules with a cardioid response ​[1]​.
This aims to provide “acoustically transparent”
sound capture; the signals captured from one
microphone do not interfere with the signals from
another capsule allowing for accurate and realistic
reproduction of sound source location.

As mentioned, the A-format signals captured must

be encoded to obtain one zero-order pressure
gradient and three first-order spherical harmonics,
each representing a different axis in
three-dimensional space. T​he derivation of the
B-format signals from the captured A-format is
given:

Figure 1: FOA encoded pressure gradients W = FLU + FRD + BLD + BRU

X = FLU + FRD - BLD - BRU
Unlike other surround sound techniques, Ambisonics Y = FLU - FRD + BLD - BRU
is isotropic, and as such, not speaker-centric ​[1]​. Z = FLU - FRD - BLD + BRU
 Zalles et al. A Low-Cost MEMS Microphone

fluctuations that may result in parasitic noise in the

where FLU is Front Left Up, FRD is Front Right audio signal chain.
Down, BLD is Back Left Down and BRU is Back
Right Up. Theoretically, it is possible to further reduce the size
of these PCBs, further increasing the coincidence of
During decoding, these B-format vectors are the four transducers required for FOA recording, this
projected onto either real or virtual speakers. In the will be further discussed in Section 5.
case of virtual speakers, a head tracking system can
also be incorporated to pan audio according to 2.2 Housing Design
different listener head positions simulating the The housing for the MEMS-based FOA microphone
experience of sound radiating inwards from the prototype was 3D printed with ​Acrylonitrile
surface of a sphere. Butadiene Styrene based filaments (​ABS) using a
high-end Stratasys Mojo 3D Printer2, as shown in
2 Design Figure 3. The housing serves not only to protect the
The main considerations in the hardware design of capsules, but also to mechanically induce a cardioid
this MEMS-based soundfield microphone were low response, as described in Section 3.2. The housing
cost, high audio quality, and the ability to capture was designed according to the following
faithful immersive sound fields. This section details specifications:
key aspects of the design and construction of the
prototype microphone including the implementation ● The outer radius of the shaft of the housing
of a custom, automated rotating microphone mount was chosen to be 12.5mm so that the
for high resolution directivity measurements. microphone could be mounted with a
standard microphone clip.
2.1 Capsule ● The inner radius of 8.5mm was chosen to
The microphone technology chosen was the MEMS allow sufficient space for the wiring while
type, specifically the TDK InvenSense ICS-407201. preserving the structural integrity of the
This specific capsule boasts a signal-to-noise ratio shaft under pressure caused by mounting
(SNR) of 70 dBA, acoustic overload point of 124 dB the microphone with a standard microphone
SPL, an unfiltered frequency response of 50Hz to clip.
16kHz (±6 dB at response edges), and a low-noise ● The head of the microphone was shaped to
differential output for reduced noise pickup over allow for each MEMS capsule to be
long cable runs. These microphones exhibit positioned at the centroid of each face of a
omni-directionality when operated without any regular tetrahedron to allow for
coupled hardware such as a Printed Circuit Board symmetrical soundfield acquisition.
(PCB) or housing. ● The reference tetrahedron used to position
the capsules was chosen to have an edge
length of 36mm, allowing sufficient space
for wiring while keeping the overall design
small enough to avoid significant spatial
aliasing and associated distortion ​[1]​.

This spacing is consistent with similar FOA

microphones on the market, where absolute
coincidence is sacrificed in favor of practical
considerations such as ease of fabrication and
Figure 2: MEMS microphone board front side on right durability.
(12.5mm diameter)

The 12.5mm diameter PCB board is shown in Figure

2. A 0.1µF decoupling capacitor was placed between
V​IN and GND to smooth out any power supply

1 2
invensense.com/products/analog/ics-40720 stratasys.com/3d-printers/mojo
 Zalles et al. A Low-Cost MEMS Microphone

rotational resolution. The motor’s high torque

ensures the precision of each step under the load of
the mount and microphone. The remaining
specifications of the mount were accomplished
through the use of a small microphone stand boom, a
microphone clip, and a custom made stand
attachment.

The attachment was used to secure the boom arm to

the motor and was made by modifying an existing
microphone stand. The boom arm allowed for
telescoping and rotational freedom along a single
axis while the microphone clip provided a second
axis of rotational freedom. This mechanism enables
Figure 3: Custom microphone housing drawing the user to position the microphone at any angle
while keeping the capsule centered directly above
2.3 Automatic Rotating Microphone Mount the motor’s axis of rotation. The complete ARM​2
(ARM​2​) construction is shown in Figure 4.
An automatic rotating microphone mount was
designed in order to obtain the necessary polar Finally, the in-house (NYU) developed Matlab
response plots for the microphone. Manually application for directivity measurements, ScanIR ​[6]​,
measuring microphone directivity consumes was extended to allow control of the stepper motor
considerable amount of time due to the inherent need through an Arduino Uno Rev 3 and Adafruit Motor
to rotate the microphone some number of degrees Shield V2. In conjunction, the ARM​2 and ScanIR
repeatedly until at least 180° is reached for a single generate polar plots of the microphone with high
plot. Due to this necessity, automated rotating accuracy and efficiency at a low cost.
mounts are used to accurately and efficiently acquire
the required data.

A rotating mount of this type was inaccessible due to

high cost, therefore it was necessary to design a
more cost-accessible system. Through the use of
inexpensive parts, an automatic rotating mount
capable of supporting both the MEMS microphone,
and the Ambeo VR microphone, was designed,
allowing comparisons between the two microphones
to be made.

The ARM​2 was designed with the following

requirements in mind:

● The mount was required to rotate along

discrete steps with high accuracy and
resolution in order to obtain accurate polar
plots.
● The MEMS capsule was required to remain
along the axis of rotation throughout the
entire measurement process (see Figure 4).
Figure 4: Automatic Rotating Microphone Mount (ARM​2​)
with prototype microphone mounted in anechoic chamber
To create the rotating mount according to the stated at Cooper Union (microphone capsule marked with arrow
specifications, a NEMA23 3A stepper motor with at 0° incidence angle)
“D-shaped” shaft was selected. The motor provides
200 steps per 360° rotation, resulting in a 1.8°
 Zalles et al. A Low-Cost MEMS Microphone

labor and manufacturing costs. Furthermore,

2.4 Cost Analysis although not part of the microphone itself, the
This paper focuses on a low-cost solution to FOA biggest financial burden avoided by design was that
recording. During the design of the microphone, of the rotating platform for directivity tests.
careful consideration was taken to minimize the cost Equivalent systems3 are inaccessible to those outside
of production. professional settings due to their high costs,
sometimes in excess of thousands of USD. On the
Table 1: Approximate total microphone parts cost other hand, ARM​2 is far more accessible, with a total
(excluding labor) cost of under $100 USD.
Component Approx. cost (USD)
3 Objective and Subjective Evaluation
MEMS mics. $8 (4 units) This section details the testing procedure to profile
the FOA microphone’s acoustic characteristics, as
MEMS PCBs $5 (4 units)
well as subjective analysis methods. All objective
3D Printed housing $2 measurements were carried out under anechoic
conditions with ambient background levels of ~20
Interconnects $10 dBA.

Breakout board $2 3.1 Frequency Response

Total $27
As previously discussed, the MATLAB toolbox,
Scan IR ​[6]​, was used to generate the IRs of the
microphones. The device under test (DUT), in this
The parts used to manufacture this microphone and case the MEMS microphone, was compared to the
the ARM​2 rotating mount are all generally accessible professional grade Ambeo VR mic. Both of these
to students and audio hobbyists. One of the main microphones’ frequency responses and polar plots
limitations of this solution would be the required were created using the swept sine method. The test
skills to solder the microphone to its PCB and the signals were reproduced through a studio quality
accessibility of a 3D printer for the fabrication of the Mackie HR824 active speaker. A reference B&K
housing. Table 1 lists the approximate part costs for 4189 microphone (assumed to be flat in frequency
the prototype microphone excluding labor costs. response from 20Hz-20kHz) was used to subtract the
These could be reduced with larger build runs. speaker's frequency response from the DUT’s.
Reference and DUT microphones were placed at 1m
Table 2: Approximate total cost for ARM​2​ (excluding from the center point of the speaker on-axis, 1.3m
labor)
from the anechoic chamber’s floor.

Component Approx. cost

Arduino Uno $25

Motor Shield $20

Microphone Boom $20

Stepper Motor $20

12V Power Adapter $2

Total $87
Figure 5: Single capsule frequency response of Ambeo VR
The unit cost of $27 USD comes in well below the & MEMS microphones
retail price of the Sennheiser Ambeo VR at $1650
USD as of July 2017, even when considering the
3
markups involved on retail products including R&D nti-audio.com/Portals/0/data/en/NTi-Audio-Turntab
le-Product-Data.pdf
 Zalles et al. A Low-Cost MEMS Microphone

As can be seen in the Figure 5, both the MEMS discussed in Section 4.

microphone and the Ambeo VR microphone
frequency responses are relatively flat between
100-12,000 Hz. Yet, whereas the peaks and troughs
in sensitivity for the Ambeo VR mic, between 2-20
kHz, could be partially explained by possible passive
filtering built into the audio signal’s path, the MEMS
microphone does not implement this circuitry. The
rise in MEMS response after 10 kHz, is a result of
the Helmholtz resonance created by the
microphone’s inner chamber ​[4]​. The differences in
subjective response to these characteristics will be
discussed in Section 5.

3.2 Directionality
Using the ARM​2 rotating platform, the directivity of Figure 7: Mounted MEMS capsule directivity plot at
a single capsule from our MEMS prototype was varying frequencies (rho values in dB)
measured. A single capsule of the Sennheiser
Ambeo VR was also measured for comparison. ​Both
3.3 Subjective Evaluation
microphones in question were measured with their
respective capsules facing the speaker at a fixed A preliminary subjective assessment was carried out
distance of 1m. The ARM​2 was used to ensure that using an online survey in order to determine the
the capsule-speaker distance remains constant relative preference between the two recording
throughout the measurement cycle. solutions. Thirty-two participants were recruited
from various university’s music technology
programs, audio-related mailing lists and small
groups of non-audio experienced subjects.

The decoding of the B-format signals for

reproduction was accomplished via the JavaScript
Library, ForgeJS4. This library makes use of the
binaural FOA decoder Omnitone written by Google
using the Web Audio Application Programming
Interface (API). This decoder passes subsets of the
B-format signals (W, X, Y, Z) to eight virtual
speakers arranged in a spherical configuration. By
simulating the rotation and tilt of a listener’s head,
controlled via the subject’s mouse or keyboard, or
Figure 6: Mounted Ambeo VR capsule directivity at their phone’s accelerometers and gyroscopes,
varying frequencies (rho values in dB) subjects can rotate in virtual space. The decoder then
provides scaling factors which dynamically modify
As can be seen from Figure 6, the Sennheiser the output of each speaker; this creates the sensation
Ambeo VR microphone shows a clear cardioid polar of being placed in the presence of the original
pattern across all frequency ranges. This is likely due soundfield. A set of Head Related Transfer
to the closed back construction of each capsule. Functions (HRTFs) are used in the final stage of the
signal flow to binaurally encode the audio for
As shown in Figure 7, the MEMS capsule directivity accurate headphone reproduction.
exhibits a cardioid-like response at frequencies
above 4kHz due to the effects of the housing and Participants were instructed to use headphones as the
microphone PCB mount. The differences in ambisonic decoder would allow them to fully
perception between these two microphone experience the immersive soundfield only if
recordings, when utilizing all four capsules and these
have undergone B-format encoding, will be 4
forgejs.org
 Zalles et al. A Low-Cost MEMS Microphone

experienced via headphones, since these do not

corrupt the interaural-level and interaural-time
difference information introduced by convolving the
HRTFs with the virtual speaker’s output during the
decoding.

The thirty-two subjects were presented with two

audiovisual experiences. The same visual content
was used for both experienced. Each experience
contained audio recorded with a different
microphone; one was recorded using the MEMS Figure 8. Breakdown of participants’ reported level of
microphone and the other using the Sennheiser music tech. experience during the subjective test
Ambeo. Participants were not told which one was
which. Subsequently, participants were asked to rate Subsequently, subjects were instructed to rate the
a number of metrics regarding the auditory two recordings, again on a scale from one to five,
experience in order to evaluate whether a noticeable with five remaining the highest score, on the:
degree of difference could be experienced between naturalness, clearness, and accuracy of the
recordings. reproduction, in that order. These questions were
designed to uncover the microphones ability to
The recordings were made in an acoustically treated capture: a realistic spatial environment (naturalness),
audio research lab fitted with a set of Genelec 8030A a clear and detailed sound stage (clearness) and a
speakers. The same audio was played back once for timbrally accurate recording of the instruments
each of the two recordings, at the same level, over (accuracy). Specifically, the questions were as
four loudspeakers; two of which were located in a follows:
stereo configuration, while a third was added in the
center and a fourth was placed behind the “Does the performance appear to take place in an
microphones, which recorded the audio, one at a appropriate spatial environment?”
time. This configuration was chosen to present the ● 5 = Natural
audio at all sides of the microphones on a single ● 1 = Unnatural
plane to create a surround effect. Audio was
recorded using a ZOOM F8 portable recording “Please rate from 1 to 5 how clearly the details of
interface. Audio was then lined up, normalized, the performance can be perceived”
trimmed and faded in and out. The audio tracks were ● 5 = Very clear
also normalized after the encoding process in ● 1 = Not clear at all
MATLAB prior to exporting, in order to avoid
clipping, particularly on the W channel. “Rate the accuracy of the timbral reproduction for
both recordings”
Subjects were asked to give an estimate of their ● 5 = Very accurate
perceived level of experience with “music ● 1 = Not accurate at all
technology”. This was done in order to determine a
subjects’ experience with microphone technologies Mean and standard deviation (Std) for the three
and possible critical listening scenarios. An “expert” questions are provided in Table 3. The results will be
in music technology should be well versed in discussed in section 4.
identifying different microphone types at varying
Table 3: Mean scores and standard deviations (Std) for
price points and would therefore be more attentive in
subjective ratings of the MEMS ambisonics microphone
their evaluation of the differences between the two vs the Sennheiser Ambeo
microphones. Subjects reported their levels of Ambeo MEMS
experience on a scale from one to five, with five
being the highest score. The reported levels of Mean Std Mean Std
experience are shown in Figure 8. Over 50% of Naturalness 3.38 1.16 2.94 1.16
participants self-reported a score of 4 or above. Clearness 3.81 0.78 3.50 0.84
Accuracy 3.78 0.83 3.00 1.11
 Zalles et al. A Low-Cost MEMS Microphone

Participants were asked to select the recording they As shown in Figure 9, of the total valid number of
prefered overall, if any. Participants were also asked subjects whose data was analyzed, 18.8% said they
to optionally provide, in written form, a short prefered the MEMS recording to the Ambeo VR
comment on their opinions regarding the two mic. Of those, 50% reported a score of 3 or above in
recordings in open text response format. All data in terms of their experience with music technology.
the following analysis was submitted by subjects 3.1% of the total population reported that the two
who were wearing headphones during the survey recordings sounded the same. Overall, a preference
period. towards the Ambeo mic can be seen as per the mean
values shown in Table 3 for the three subjective
4 Results and Discussion criteria and the overall preference question. While
Preliminary findings showed that subjects perceived these results were expected, results are promising
a significant low-frequency reduction within the considering the large price difference between our
MEMS microphone recording, even though the prototype solution and the Sennheiser Ambeo VR
measured low-frequency response showed little microphone.
difference between the MEMS capsules and the
Ambeo VR electret capsules. It is possible that the
MEMS’s omnidirectional polar response contributed
to the subtraction of highly correlated low-frequency
content during the encoding stage.

Subjects also noted that the MEMS recording

contained overall more high frequency content than
the Ambeo recording. While some noted a
preference for this, others described it as overly
bright. This observation is supported by the
frequency response obtained for the MEMS capsules
which show significantly greater dB levels than the Figure 9. Breakdown of participants’ responses to the
Ambeo VR for frequencies above 2 kHz, especially question of which recording do they prefer
above 10 kHz.
5 Future Work
Furthermore, it was shown that the polar response of A number of advancements to this prototype
the MEMS microphone, whilst modified slightly by microphone could improve aspects of its physical
the microphone housing, had an overall negative design and overall functionality. Further
impact on the subject’s ability to perceive any experimentation on the effects of capsule directivity
panning compared to the Ambeo mic’s recording. on subjective perception of FOA reproduction could
Subjects noted that this effect was particularly result in the addition of backing materials applied
exacerbated when navigating the soundfield. The behind the MEMS microphone capsules to
authors theorize that the superposition of signals, mechanically induce a more cardioid response at
created by the low degree of directivity featured in varying frequencies. Uni-directional MEMS
each capsule, and its predominantly omnidirectional capsules could also be employed to enhance this
response across multiple frequency bands, was the effect. In addition, an investigation and evaluation
main factor contributing to this phenomena. into the effects of greater coincidence via smaller
diameter PCBs may serve to enhance the preferred
Finally, it was found, from short comment subjective response due to reduced spatial aliasing
responses, that just 12.5% of participants reported a effects at high frequencies.
higher noise floor in the MEMS recording,
something which is often attributed to microphones The structural integrity of the housing could be
containing very small capsules ​[4]​. It should be improved through a thicker connection between
noted, again, that over 50% of subjects in this study microphone shaft and head, or via fabrication using a
either considered themselves as semi-expert or different material. With the build and test procedure
expert with respect to music technology. in place, the design, implementation, and testing of
 Zalles et al. A Low-Cost MEMS Microphone

second and third order ambisonic MEMS based

systems are also possible. The in-house designed ARM​2 system significantly
reduced the time needed to carry out high resolution
Finally, there is the necessity for a more elegant and directivity measurements efficiently and accurately
dedicated powering system, likely through the use of for the microphones under test. Despite subjective
a voltage regulator capable of bringing down assessments indicating the strong preference for the
Phantom Power (48V) to reasonable levels for Ambeo system, the MEMS FOA mic performed
MEMS operation. The prototype FOA MEMS remarkably for a budget microphone using readily
microphone had been operating on a 3.5 V external available hardware and software.
battery, connected to a custom breakout board,
located outside the housing of the mic. For this 7 Acknowledgements
solution to appeal to consumers and audio purists, The authors would like to thank all those involved
the circuitry within would have to conform to with this project, particularly the test subjects who
general studio conditions where phantom power is helped gauge the subjective quality of the
the preferred means of providing the microphone microphone, Sinisa Janjusevic from The Cooper
bias supply. Union for helping manufacture part of the ARM​2​,
Taylor Shield from NYU for helping prepare the
In addition, a comparative study with a comparable CAD model for printing, and Paul Geluso for
cost DIY ambisonic microphone solution such as the consulting on the mechanical induction of
*SpHEAR Project5 microphone may provide an omnidirectional capsules and their effectiveness in
additional benchmark for success. an ambisonic context.

6 Conclusions 8 References
The prototype MEMS-based ambisonics microphone
shows promise in its ability to capture high quality 1. Gerzon MA. The Design of Precisely
3D audio at a fraction of the cost of commercially Coincident Microphone Arrays for Stereo and
available devices. Although the MEMS capsules Surround Sound. Audio Engineering Society
operate remarkably well for their price and size, Convention 50. 1975.
more research is necessary on the implementation of
MEMS capsules and their use in immersive audio 2. Malham D. Higher Order Ambisonic Systems
applications. for the Spatialisation of Sound. International
Computer Music Conference. International
While the MEMS capsules directivity deviated from Computer Music Association; 1999. pp.
the desired cardioid response, its frequency and 484–487.
noise floor characteristics were generally well
3. Malham DG, Myatt A. 3-D Sound Spatialization
received. Results showed that subjects tended to
using Ambisonic Techniques. Computer Music
perceive the MEMS recording as “thinner” and
Journal. 1995. pp. 19-58.
lacking bottom-end in general; however, most also
noted that the MEMS capsules did not exhibit 4. Van Renterghem T, Thomas P, Dominguez F,
unfavorable signal-to-noise ratios. Dauwe S, Touhafi A, Dhoedt B, et al. On the
ability of consumer electronics microphones for
The results showed the importance of using an environmental noise monitoring. J Environ
ambisonic decoder, in our case Omnitone, during Monit. 2011. pp. 544–552.
subjective assessment, for the audio quality
evaluation. The ability for users to experience the 5. Mydlarz C, Salamon J, Bello JP. The
movement of audio revealed that our mostly implementation of low-cost urban acoustic
omnidirectional capsules failed to meet the criteria monitoring devices. Applied Acoustics. 2017.
required for true FOA ​[1]​. Without this 3D, online pp. 207–218.
presentation medium, gauging the true differences in
quality between the two mics would have been 6. Boren B, Roginska A. Multichannel Impulse
challenging. Response Measurement in Matlab. Audio
Engineering Society Convention 131.
5
cm-gitlab.stanford.edu/ambisonics/SpHEAR